Mr Chairman, I shall not be long. As far as the Supplementary Estimate is concerned, we note that there are in fact two items. Firstly there is an additional amount of R72 million for Trade and Industry. We should like to hear from the hon the Minister why that additional amount is needed to supplement the main budget.

However, the most important item is the additional appropriated amount of R375 million for the Development Bank of Southern Africa. To me it seems somewhat strange that the hon the Minister did not provide a single cent for the Development Bank on 15 March whereas it has now, within two months, become necessary to ask for an additional amount of R375 million.

We are fully aware of the important work the Development Bank of Southern Africa has to do. If we look at what happened in the past we see that in 1987-88 we voted an amount of R250 million for it and R371 million in the previous year. This year the amount is R375 million. We should like the hon the Minister to explain the need for this additional amount. To my mind it is more than a coincidence that the amount now to be voted is exactly half of the amount the hon the Minister wants from the company sector in the economy by way of compulsory loan levies. We should like answers to this.

Mr Chairman, the supplementary estimates do not, of course, make provision for the amounts to be voted by way of relief in terms of the package which was announced on Friday. It is therefore clear that the supplementary estimates at this stage will still have to be supplemented at some stage in another form. Presumably this will not be until we get the additional estimates—that is to say, those of us who will be here by the time we get around to next year!

Therefore, these supplementary estimates are inadequate to deal with the amounts involved unless we use a portion of the billion rand that was to be made available.

The second point that I want to make is that the question relating to the motor vehicle industry is one of great concern to me and I believe to many other people as well. The change in the local content programme has not been universally received as being the best way out. What worries me, however, is that the additional expenditure which we are now budgeting for—so it is contemplated—will be compensated for by increased customs and excise levies which are going to be imposed upon those people who do not comply with the new local content scheme. The concern here is that the price increases in motor cars have been tremendous over the past few years. This gives another impetus to price increases in motor cars because there is little doubt that if there is going to be an increase in customs and excise levies then that will be passed on to the purchases of the motor cars in some form or another.

The third point I want to make relates to the Development Bank. This amount is only an annual amount. The total contribution is going to be very much bigger over the five year period for which it is to be presented and what I am concerned about is that we should know exactly what this money is going to be spent for. I know that a group of architects has come to visit this Parliament in order to look at this Parliamentary Building with a view to building a new parliamentary building for one of the independent homelands. I want to know if any of this money is going to be used for that purpose.

Order! There is an undercurrent of conversation here which is too loud. It makes it very difficult for the Chair to hear what the speaker is saying. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, what I would like to know is whether this money is going to be used to build a new parliamentary building. It is South African taxpayers’ money. South Africans accept the responsibility in respect of the independent homelands but the taxpayer of South Africa wants to know that the money is being spent on absolutely essential and necessary things which are required in those homelands.

With great respect, I think we are owed an explanation as to how this money is going to be spent because there must be many people in South Africa who will say that there are more important priorities than the building of a new parliamentary building for one of the TBVC states in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in supporting the supplementary estimate as printed I want to underscore the observations of the last speaker who is an expert on finance.

I agree with him that funds should be used very carefully and, as regards the motor industry, we know that there is a waiting list for the supply of motor vehicles. If that is not good business I do not know what is. When we make concessions to that industry we should be careful not to go overboard in supporting the industry, especially since one has to wait six to nine months for a new motor vehicle.

With those comments we support the supplementary estimate.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to what hon members said about the functions delegated to me. The hon members for Barberton, Yeoville and South Natal referred to the new local content programme for motor vehicles and the item appearing in the Supplementary Estimate. The hon member for Yeoville made two remarks about this. He said that the new scheme would not meet with general approval and he also expressed concern, saying that this was going to lead to price increases. Let me say, by way of background information, that we do not expect that the structural adjustment programmes for specific industries would always meet with general approval.

We negotiated on this new scheme for the motor vehicle industry over a period of approximately 18 months. In my opinion it was received very well by the automobile manufacturers. Generally speaking the automobile component manufacturers were looking forward to it; to such an extent that in a number of interviews they put quite a lot of pressure on us to implement the scheme as soon as possible. If one speaks about component manufacturers one is speaking about a large number of people in this country. There might be individual manufacturers who might not benefit as much.

It is true that the present system, the phase 5 programme, is based on mass. The programme has, in fact, been running for too long. It was started in 1962 and has been running for approximately 27 years. Eventually it increased prices. The great weakness of the present scheme is that it is based on mass; the value content of South African vehicles are constantly decreasing while the mass requirement is 66%. For this reason vehicles in South Africa were made heavier and heavier. We therefore built enormous low-value components into vehicles in South Africa; the 66% mass requirements led to premiums of up to 400% for local components.

The new scheme, which is based on mass, has as its objective the saving of foreign exchange. The intention is that the use of foreign exchange by the industry should decrease by 50% in relation to the turnover over a period of nine years. NAACAM, the automobile component manufacturers, estimated that they would have to create 61 000 job opportunities over the next nine years. Hon members will see that the vehicle manufacturers estimated that they would also have to create quite a number of new job opportunities. It has been calculated that the manufacturers of original equipment—they are the car, light delivery van and truck manufacturers—will have to invest approximately R10 000 million during the next few years.

The new programme should not increase costs. Many people assured me that if one could take inflation out of the economy the new programme should actually lead to a decrease in prices. This is the sound part. This should help our manufacturers to compete on the export market. The aim is that the net use of exchange should decrease. We do not say that the local content as such should increase to this extent, but that the difference between the imports and exports should decrease in proportion to the local turnover.

What is important is to realise that at present our automobile and component industry uses exchange in excess of R3 500 million annually. At present rand values half of that is approximately R1 800 million annually, which will make a considerable difference to our balance of payments. Seen in its entirety this programme is extremely advantageous and I cannot agree with the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to some of the points mentioned by the three hon members who asked questions.

In the first place I can assure the hon member for Barberton that there is absolutely no connection between the R375 million necessary for the Development Bank and the R750 million we are hoping to collect by way of the 10% compulsory loan levy on company tax. This contribution is part of an undertaking the Government gave the Development Bank with regard to its capitalisation. Those contributions will be made over the next five years according to the ability of the Treasury but with the express condition that any further capital requirements must be met on a basis that half of them should be met from the capital market.

†The hon member for Yeoville is obviously correct in his statement that we cannot deal today with any other amounts which will be accruing to the Treasury following the announcement of last week’s package. The only amounts that we are allowed to deal with in the supplementary budget are those amounts which were mentioned in the Budget Speech. In the budget speech we mentioned the R72 million which has already been dealt with by my hon colleague and the R375 million about which the hon member also asked a question.

The package will obviously have an influence on State revenues. However, as the hon member correctly said, that will have to be dealt with at some later stage.

I am not in a position to respond to the hon member’s question with regard to the possibility of the Development Bank being involved in the financing of a parliamentary building. I can only undertake to supply him with the necessary details after having canvassed either the Board of Governors or the management itself for a detailed reply such as that one. The general idea, however, is that the Development Bank must be primarily involved in the increase of the production capacity of Southern Africa, and that they must only involve themselves in “bankable” projects, if I can use that description. If the hon member wants a reply from me in that regard, I will certainly obtain such a reply for him. However, I am not in a position now to respond to that level of detail because I do not believe that it is the idea that any member of the Board of Governors of the Development Bank of Southern Africa will be involved to such an extent as to be able to reply off the cuff to a question such as that one.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, we are opposed to the allocation for this Vote. Given the announcements made here that we are entering a State in which we will have one Parliament and one Cabinet and in which all population groups will take part in the election of a State President, which, as we indicated, will inevitably and finally lead to a Black majority government in this country, we are quite definitely not in favour of that and we will vote against this allocation.

Mr Chairman, opposing a Vote is an extraordinary step and it is not easily taken when it concerns the allocation of funds for an administration. The basis on which we oppose the approval of this Vote is the fact that a projection is being made of a new course that is being adopted in terms of constitutional development which, if analysed, as we followed the debate, is a new framework, a new “wrapper” for something which was put in exactly the same terms by the same hon Minister in 1986 and was also mentioned at the time by the hon the State President in his opening address.

The fundamental objection is that in the plan submitted by the hon the Minister mention is in fact again made of representation and participation on all levels; that its nature must be negotiated but that one must continue to link it to the concept of groups, which are again being institutionalised, although there is a pretence of consolidating them by choice, and that negotiation should take place within the framework of the group and that the group should be a building block.

We consider this to be something presented to the public, which contains the message that it is something new, while the contents do not reflect this at all. Expectations are being created which cannot be satisfied and when people realise that those expectations cannot be satisfied South Africa will experience far greater problems than it is at present. On that basis we oppose this Vote.

Mr Chairman, if, after the precedent-setting speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning last Friday and the debate which has taken place during the past three days, any other reason was necessary for this side of the House to support the approval of this Vote, the hon members for Randburg and Ermelo have just given it, because these two hon members have just said exactly the opposite. Both of them definitely cannot be right. As usual the truth lies somewhere in between.

This truth the hon the Minister and other hon members on this side made very clear during the past three days and one cannot discuss that in three minutes.

Therefore we have pleasure in supporting the approval of the Vote.

Order! I now put the question on Vote 3 to members of the House of Representatives. I want to point out to hon members that a declaration of vote cannot be made unless a division is demanded. This does not automatically mean that hon members have to rise immediately and demand a division. Rules do exist which provide that one must sometimes vote with the minority. I am only bringing this to hon members’ attention so that they know that they must also demand a division if they really feel that they want to make a declaration of vote. However, when they demand a division, that, too, has certain consequences.

Declaration of Vote:

Mr Chairman, we have objections and call for a division. This has certainly not been an easy decision, but I think the time has arrived, after five years of participation, again to reaffirm our statement of intent and our reason for participation.

Regarding this particular Vote it is said that the aim is to plan, promote and coordinate constitutional development. The amount allocated therefore is R8,89 billion. We have not seen, in terms of the expectations of the largest number of South Africans, the sort of constitutional development that the majority wants to see. To perpetuate, by supporting a budget, the whole question of separateness, is certainly not our intent. We have not had, as I said yesterday, any real constitutional development. At the moment it is still a perpetuation of separateness and apartheid and the whole question of homelands and the “consolidation” thereof. Nothing has been done with regard to our repeated requests, pleas and even with regard to the carrying out of the promises of the Government in terms of the review and repeal of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. The Group Areas Act, that which has hurt this particular section of the South African community most, still remains a reality. Race classification is going to be perpetuated with people going across so-called colour lines irrespective of other differences and therefore we have no other means of objecting in the most strongest terms against the perpetuation of apartheid than by rejecting this particular Vote.

Order! I put the Vote to the House of Delegates. I think the noes have it. And so they have. [Interjections.] Order! If there is any doubt at all in hon members’ minds in regard to what happened I would like to be of assistance and repeat the procedure.

We were unable to hear you, Sir!

Order! Very well. I shall again put the Question on the Vote to the House of Delegates.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Quite clearly the Vote has been put, a decision taken and announced by you from the Chair. I submit therefore that it is out of order to put the Question again because the Question has already been decided. [Interjections.]

In the circumstances I have decided to put the Question again.

Division demanded.

Declarations of Vote:

Mr Chairman, the postprandial exercise was quite useful. It is interesting to notice that the Solidarity Party has joined the NPP in supporting the NP Government of this country. [Interjections.] The reason why the DP opposes the confirmation of this budget is that, in the words of the hon the Minister himself, it is the intention of the Government to maintain separation of peoples according to race.

It is intended to perpetuate apartheid under a different guise and we believe that separation of people enhances prejudice and that this continues prejudice. Prejudice vis-à-vis different racial groups inculcates hostility. Hostility leads to hatred, and that is harmful to the country as a whole.

The activities of the department which wants this large sum of money are inimical to the long-term interests of all the people of South Africa. Unfortunately, Solidarity allied themselves with those who want to maintain apartheid under a different guise. We believe that apartheid is abominable under any guise and that is why we oppose the confirmation of this budget.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed regrettable that at this time of the session the hon member for Reservoir Hills has got his eye on the forthcoming elections. However, I can assure the hon member for Reservoir Hills that possibly this will be the last session that he will be at Parliament, because he will have a very strong contestant in Reservoir Hills, and he will bring down the DP with him.

We do not play with words. We are men of conviction. We believe that what is being done this afternoon against the Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is just folly on the part of those in the House of Delegates who oppose it merely for the sake of opposing it.

I have criticized my hon colleague repeatedly in this House and outside this House. I am critical of his planning and constitutional development programmes. However, I am constructive and not destructive. I believe that what is being done for us is for the future. [Interjections.] Would hon members have been here this afternoon had it not been for the initial planning of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? [Interjections.] I believe that we are taking these opportunities. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are going to vote on certain Votes and if they wish to vote, they will have to remain in the Chamber. I will not have this shouting again, and if they wish to remain in the Chamber they must be quiet. If not, I will ask them to leave the Chamber. They must consider their positions and how that would reflect on them in the coming elections. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, we in the House of Delegates who constitute Solidarity, the majority party, are going to vote in favour of the hon the Minister’s Vote. I want to say that only three hon members of the NPP, who are sitting on the other side, opposed the Vote. The balance are therefore with us. The majority party in the House of Delegates supports the Vote.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—101: Alant T G; Aucamp J M; Badenhorst C J W; Badenhorst P J; Bartlett G S; Bekker H J; Blanche J P I; Bloomberg S G; Botha C J v R; Botha J C G; Botma M C; Brazelle J A; Breytenbach W N; Camerer S M; Chait E J; Christophers D; Clase P J; Coetzer P W; Cunningham J H; De Beer S J; De Klerk F W; De Villiers D J; Delport J T; Du Plessis B J; Durr K D S; Edwards B V; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Golden S G A; Grobler A C A C; Hardingham R W; Hattingh C P; Heine W J; Heunis J C; Heyns J H; Hunter J E L; Jager R; King T J; Kotzé G J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Lemmer J J; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malan M A de M; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Marais P G; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meiring J W H; Mentz J H W; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nel P J C; Niemann J J; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Olivier P J S; Oosthuizen G C; Pretorius J F; Pretorius P H; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Smit F P; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Steenkamp P J; Steyn D W; Steyn P T; Streicher D M; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel KD; Swanepoel P J; Terblanche A J W P S; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van der Walt A T; Van Gend D P de K; Van Heerden F J; Van Niekerk A I; Van Niekerk W A; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Wyk J A; Van Zyl J G; Venter A A; Viljoen G v N; Vilonel J J; Vlok A J; Wentzel J J G.

NOES—28: Andrew K M; Barnard M S; Coetzee H J; Cronjé P C; Dalling D J; De Beer Z J; De Jager C D; Gerber A; Hartzenberg F; Hulley R R; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Malan W C; Malcomess D J N; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Pienaar D S; Schoeman C B; Schwarz H H; Snyman W J; Soal P G; Swart R A F; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H; Van der Merwe S S; Walsh J J.

Vote No 3 agreed to.

The House of Representatives divided:

The Chairman intimated that the name of Mr W J Dietrich, who had demanded the division, would in terms of Rule 118 be recorded with those who were in the minority.

AYES—8: Dietrich W J; Ebrahim C H; Isaacs N M; Johannes A F; Johnson J D; Sass V; Swartz J J; Swartz M H.

NOES—51: Abrahams L C; Abrahams T; Andrews B J; April C J; Carelse G M E; Christians J W; Curry DMG; Da Gama P R E; De La Cruz D T; Douw J; Essop A; Essop I; Grobbler B; Harmse P S; Harris P C; Hendrickse H J; Hendrickse P A C; Herwels F G; Josephs D W N; Kleinsmidt P J; Lategan K H; Leeuw G L; Lockey D; Loonat M; Macalagh G J; Mateman D H; Mckenzie P C; Meyer P; Meyer W J; Mopp P A S; Nasson C I; O’Reilly R; Padiachy N J; Peters F E; Pilcher J; Poole A E; Redcliffe C R; Reeves A E; Richards I; Rooskrans G; Roper A J; Sanders P T; Stanley A; Swigelaar J D; Van der Heever J G; Verveen S H; Wessels G R; Whyte W L; Williams A; Williams R D; Wyngaard C A.

Vote No 3 rejected.

The House of Delegates divided:

AYES—21: Abramjee E; Bandulalla M; Bhana R; Dookie B; Govender M; Jumuna N; Kathrada I; Khan N E; Moodley K; Moolla Y; Nadasen P C; Naicker S V; Pachai S; Palan T; Pillay A K; Pillay C; Ramduth K; Rampersadh H; Razak A S; Seedat Y I; Thaver M.

NOES—7: Cader D; Hurbans A G; lyman J V; Khan F M; Poovalingam P T; Rajab M; Shah M S.

Decision of Vote No 4—“Foreign Affairs”:

Vote No 4 put to House of Assembly.

Division demanded.

Declarations of Vote:

Mr Chairman, because of the complete uncertainty and confusion surrounding the question of South West Africa mainly because of the Government’s injudicious and clumsy conduct of the implementation of Resolution 435 and its generally fatal point of view on the future of South West Africa which is leading inevitably to a Black majority government, the CP opposes the approval of the Vote of the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, the absolute viciousness and hatred of the hon member for Soutpansberg for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is basically his motivation for having taken his party in tow. Secondly, the CP should tell us clearly whether Resolution 435 should be suspended.

Yes, it should!

They should tell us whether Untag should be chased out and whether the Defence Force should return to South West Africa. [Interjections.] They made that declaration of war on television but they did not have the courage of their convictions to repeat that standpoint in debates in this Parliament. The only hon member who is brave enough to say that now is the hon member for Overvaal. They must tell us, because if that is the point of view of the CP and if this should happen, South Africa will become embroiled in a conventional war against the whole world in comparison to the reasonable standpoint that is now being adopted. That is the standpoint with which we are trying to lead South West Africa, with the sanction of the world and that of the UN, to independence in an orderly manner. We reject the point of view of that side of the House and we support this Vote with pleasure and acclamation.

Mr Chairman, despite our criticism during the debate on this Vote of the situation arising from the Paris Blowpipe incident, or the Storm affair, where we believe the department blundered badly, wittingly or unwittingly, we will support this Vote.

We do so because we have regarded with approval the department’s initiatives in Africa over the past year, culminating in the Angola/ Namibia settlement and the beginning of the implementation of Resolution 435 in Namibia. We believe that the department and its officials have acted responsibly and in the best interests of South Africa. Therefore, despite our reservations on the one issue, we will support this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I would like to make it clear at the beginning that I shall support this Vote as stringently as I possibly can. I think that anybody who at this stage passes a vote of no confidence in the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the department concerned, should not hold his head high. In fact, I would say that if ever there was a backhander, this is it. Those who are opposed to the passing of this Vote need to review their attitude and their patriotism to this country because that is what is at stake. [Interjections.] Our credibility is high, so let us keep it that way and let us not play party politics with so serious an issue.

Vote No 4 put to House of Representatives.

Vote No 4 agreed to.

Vote No 4 put to House of Delegates.

Vote No 4 agreed to.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—113: Alant T G; Andrew K M; Aucamp J M; Badenhorst C J W; Badenhorst P J; Barnard M S; Bartlett G S; Bekker H J; Blanché J P I; Bloomberg S G; Botha C J v R; Botha J C G; Botma M C; Brazelle J A; Breytenbach W N; Camerer S M; Chait E J; Christophers D; Clase P J; Coetzer P W; Cunningham J H; Dalling D J; De Beer S J; De Beer Z J; De Klerk F W; De Villiers D J; Delport J T; Du Plessis B J; Durr K D S; Edwards B V; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Golden S G A; Grobler A C A C; Hardingham R W; Hattingh C P; Heine W J; Heunis J C; Heyns J H; Hulley R R; Hunter J E L; Jager R; King T J; Kotzé G J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Lemmer J J; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malan M A de M; Malan W C; Malcomess D J N; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Marais P G; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meiring J W H; Mentz J H W; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nel P J C; Niemann J J; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Olivier P J S; Oosthuizen G C; Pretorius J F; Pretorius P H; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Schwarz H H; Smit F P; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Soal P G; Steenkamp P J; Steyn D W; Steyn P T; Streicher D M; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Swart R A F; Terblanche A J W P S; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van der Merwe S S; Van der Walt A T; Van Gend D P de K; Van Heerden F J; Van Niekerk A I; Van Niekerk W A; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Wyk J A; Van Zyl J G; Venter A A; Viljoen G v N; Vilonel J J; Vlok A J; Walsh J J; Wentzel J J G.

NOES—15: Coetzee H J; De Jager C D; Gerber A; Hartzenberg F; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Pienaar D S; Schoeman C B; Snyman W J; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H.

Vote No 4 accordingly agreed to.

Votes Nos 5 to 7 agreed to.

Decision on Vote No 8—“Education and Training”:

Vote No 8 put to House of Assembly.

Division demanded.

Declarations of Vote:

Mr Chairman, if the old rules of Parliament were still valid, we would have suggested that the hon the Minister’s salary be decreased to R1 annually, but we cannot do so now, and for that reason we shall vote against the Vote.

Parliament simply cannot allow this very important department to remain under the control of this hon Minister any longer. Instead of ensuring that this department is entrusted to an able and consistent Minister—if such a person can still be found in the NP—it has been left in the hands of an incapable and inconsistent Minister. This is like pouring oil on the flames as far as the ANC and its hangers-on are concerned who are seeking the downfall of the department. Instead of eradicating all the anomalies, the hon the Minister is allowing more and more to breed out under his nose. Instead of acting firmly, he keeps on shifting the responsibility to a host of institutions that have to struggle with numerous fragmented inquiries. He is becoming a Minister of Inquiries. We are talking about at least 15 inquiries here.

The hon the Minister said that most of these were routine inquiries. That is not true. Every one of those inquiries were ordered after irregularities had been exposed. Surely the hon the Minister is now admitting by implication that irregularities have become a routine occurrence in his department. The mere fact that the hon the Minister regards them as routine proves his utter incapability to realise the seriousness of the problem. He has become part of the problem and can no longer be part of the solution.

Instead of heeding the request of his fellow NP LPs on the Joint Committee on Public Accounts for a parliamentary inquiry, he hummed and hawed until a judicial commission became inevitable. Two weeks ago during the debate on his Vote he refused to answer questions on critical findings in the first report of the Van den Heever Commission. He refused to say when he first became aware of the Ivis irregularities. He even refused to give evidence before the commission, as if he had something to hide. He also refused to refer other allegations about irregularities to the commission. He himself wants to be both censor and judge.

We have news for the hon the Minister. We conveyed a formal request to Adv Niehaus of the commission yesterday. Firstly we requested that the commission should request the hon the Minister to give evidence before it; secondly that the so-called Top Downs courses and the purchase of books for class libraries should be investigated, something the hon the Minister refused to refer to the commission; and thirdly to provide us with copies of certain evidence.

If the commission is not competent to grant my request, we shall put the same requests to the hon the State President who appointed the commission. This hon Minister will not be left in peace until the whole truth has been exposed. The hon the Minister quite simply put greater pressure on the department simply by his action or lack of action. No official can do his work with devotion and total involvement in circumstances such as these.

Mr Chairman, the concept of the Department of Education and Training is contrary to the DP’s philosophy on education. We also believe it is contrary to building a new nation in South Africa. It is an apartheid system of education, rejected by the people it is supposed to serve. It is wasteful of scarce resources in our country and it repeatedly puts apartheid ahead of education. During this session we have called on the hon the Minister to resign, and we have given our reasons for that. I do not plan to repeat them now.

It is also a system in a state of crisis, illustrated by ongoing disturbances in schools and appalling matric results. I remind hon members that in the whole of South Africa only one child out of all of the 42 000 Department of Education and Training matriculants who wrote examinations at the end of 1988 got an A. [Interjections.]

Only nine out of every 1 000 students achieved a C or above-average symbol in those examinations, compared with 265 out of every 1 000 White children writing matric examinations. In fact, as of now a White child has 100% times better chance of getting a C symbol matric pass than a Black child in this country.

Black education needs a new policy. It needs a new government, but it also needs more money than has been voted in the past and more money than has been allocated in this Vote. We will be supporting the Vote, because that money is definitely needed.

Mr Chairman, I was very glad to hear that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and the DP were going to support this Vote. For a moment I thought it was going to be the other way.

I am committing myself to vote in favour of this Vote. It also gives me pleasure to record that in my opinion the efforts of the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister are deserving of the highest praise for what they have done in the past four years for Black education.

Hear, hear!

It is all very well for people who are not closely involved with Black education to stand up and criticise and condemn what has taken place. However, I have to deal with many aspects of Black education in my constituency. In fact, I have been required to go beyond the borders of my constituency.

I can honestly say that the hon the Minister and his deputy have provided a stability in Black education, particularly in the rural areas, which did not exist before and I want to congratulate them on a difficult job well done. We know that there have been departmental irregularities and that the hon the Minister has a complicated portfolio. However, I can safely, and with a clear conscience move from this podium with a sincere expression of appreciation to him and his deputy for what they have done—I am not expressing this on behalf of myself alone but I know I am doing so on behalf of many young Black scholars.

Mr Chairman, when the extended public committee discussed the Vote Education and Training the hon member for Grassy Park said that it was as a result of the success of the Department of Education and Training that South Africans could hold their heads high and look the world in the eyes. His statement is typical of the almost unanimous expression of appreciation of members of Parliaments conveyed by all three Houses to the hon the Minister and his department.

It became clear from the debate that the enormous achievements of the Department of Education and Training were so impressive that the few unfortunate irregularities which made the headlines during the past year were totally dwarfed by them. It was pointed out during the debate that only a very few irregularities occurred in a massive personnel of 67 000 and that only three out of 33 directorates were affected by it.

The only real discord during the debate came from the CP. The hon the Minister himself typified it when he pointed out that the education of Black children was “’n klip in die maag” for the CP. Subsequently one can expect very little positive comment from their side. In any event, a great part of the so-called malpractices to which CP speakers referred during the debate were about enquiries which are part of good management practices that take place continually in the department to evaluate and improve existing systems.

The DP, in its turn, wants to impose an education system on us in this country which is not in the interests of education in our multinational situation.

Most speakers who participated in the debate praised the department for progress made with aspects such as the bridging course for school readiness, adult education, educational auxiliary services and career-oriented education. The Department of Education and Training is in many respects a leader in the field of education in South Africa and perhaps in the world. The hon the Minister and his department perform remarkably well under very difficult circumstances and my side of the House will definitely express its appreciation for this by approving this Vote.

Vote No 8 put to House of Representatives.

Vote No 8 agreed to.

Vote No 8 put to House of Delegates.

Vote No 8 agreed to.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—115: Alant T G; Andrew K M; Aucamp J M; Badenhorst C J W; Badenhorst P J; Barnard M S; Bartlett G S; Bekker H J; Blanché J P I; Bloomberg S G; Botha C J v R; Botha J C G; Botma M C; Brazelle J A; Breytenbach W N; Camerer S M; Chait E J; Christophers D; Clase P J; Coetsee H J; Coetzer P W; Cronjé P C; Cunningham J H; Dalling D J; De Beer S J; De Beer Z J; De Klerk F W; De Villiers D J; Delport J T; Du Plessis B J; Durr K D S; Edwards B V; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Golden S G A; Grobler A C A C; Hattingh C P; Heine W J; Heunis J C; Heyns J H; Hulley R R; Hunter J E L; Jager R; King T J; Kotzé G J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Lemmer J J; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malan M A de M; Malan W C; Malcomess D J N; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Marais P G; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meiring J W H; Mentz J H W; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nel P J C; Niemann J J; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Olivier P J S; Oosthuizen G C; Pretorius J F; Pretorius P H; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Schwarz H H; Smit F P; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Soal P G; Steenkamp P J; Steyn D W; Steyn PT; Streicher D M; Suzman H; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Swart R A F; Terblanche A J W P S; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van der Merwe S S; Vander Walt A T; Van Gend D P de K; Van Gend J B de R; Van Heerden F J; Van Niekerk A I; Van Niekerk W A; Van Wyk J A; Van Zyl J G; Venter A A; Viljoen G v N; Vilonel J J; Vlok A J; Walsh J J; Wentzel J J G.

NOES—15: Coetzee H J; De Jager C D; Gerber A; Hartzenberg F; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Pienaar D S; Schoeman C B; Snyman W J; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H.

Vote No 8 accordingly agreed to.

Votes Nos 9 to 28 agreed to.

Decision on Vote No 29—“Bureau for Information”:

Vote No 29 put to House of Assembly.

Division demanded.

Declarations of Vote:

Mr Chairman, on several occasions in the past we in the CP have indicated that we believe that the modern State should, on a professional basis, be capable of both inward and outward communication. In approving the existence of such a state information service, however, we immediately qualify it by saying that the relevant Minister must lay down a strict policy about how this service is to be implemented on the domestic front.

This policy must indicate what party propaganda is and what is regarded as Government information. The hon the Minister himself drew the distinction when he recently said that Government policy differed from party policy because it was the policy ratified by Parliament. Policy which has therefore not yet been ratified by Parliament cannot be disseminated abroad, according to the Bureau’s guidelines. The CP cannot pass this Vote because, in the implementation of his policy, the hon the Minister has not kept to the guideline he himself has laid down.

With an election now in the offing, it is dangerous to allow this hon Minister to produce publications and advertisements with taxpayers’ money—ultimately money belonging to people from all the political parties—without our having obtained clarity about what he regards as party information or party propaganda and what he regards as Government information.

Let me give hon members just one example. In the throes of the municipal election last year the Bureau for Information placed a series of advertisements on the Group Areas Act in the Sunday newspapers on Sunday, 3 July 1988—and it did so in the full knowledge that the Act was specifically one of the main issues between the political parties in the election.

This advertisement announced to the voters that the Group Areas Act was going to be given some muscle in order to ensure own residential areas, without this having been ratified by Parliament—in accordance with the hon the Minister’s own definition—by way of a statutory amendment.

I am saying that this was party propaganda and not Government information. To this day the Group Areas Act has still not been given any muscle, but thousands of rands of taxpayers’ money was spent to make an NP election promise to the voters. What is even worse is that on the following Monday there were full-page NP advertisements about the same subject in various newspapers. At that stage it became a coordinated election propaganda campaign between the NP and the Bureau. When we asked the hon the Minister about that, he said it was merely a coincidence, but can it be coincidental that the Bureau and the NP placed advertisements about the same election issue on Sunday and Monday respectively, when even now the matter has not yet been ratified by Parliament?

The CP will be voting against this Vote because this hon Minister has thus used the Bureau’s money to benefit the NP.

Mr Chairman, we will oppose this appropriation because we are not convinced that the NP will not use this account to promote their own interests. Our experience in the past has been that all the activities of the Bureau are designed to ensure that the NP point of view is given maximum publicity and that their point of view prevails. All the booklets, campaigns, advertisements and surveys have one objective in mind and that is to ensure that the NP policies are promoted and put before the people of South Africa.

This is done to the disadvantage of other parties, and we believe this to be a corrupt practice. Therefore we cannot support this Appropriation.

In addition, I am in possession of a letter signed by the MPs for East London North, King William’s Town and Albany. They wrote to the Catholic Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, saying that there was no money to provide housing, schools, a clinic or an assembly hall for the Potsdam people, and that they should send the three MPs 10 million US dollars as they have no money. Sir, we have no money for housing. We have no money to subsidise the bread price, the staple diet of the poor. But the Nats will squander our money—millions—on NP propaganda. The price of petrol increases almost weekly. GST has increased by 1% and the NP persists in lavishing millions on their own propaganda. There is no money to pursue the 10-year programme of equalising education for all our children. There is no money to increase old-age pensions but the Bureau will pursue their extravagant campaign to promote the NP at the taxpayers’ expense. We will have nothing to do with it and will vote against the appropriation.

Mr Chairman, it is very clear that hon members of the CP still do not understand the difference between party and Government. If the Government of the day’s policy is embodied in legislation which affects the lives of people and their decisions about how they are going to live their lives, it is of course the Bureau’s duty to convey this to the population as a whole. That is why this does not present any problems to those of us on this side of the House. In fact, we want to encourage the hon the Minister to continue to do what he has chosen to do, because this information set-up we have at the moment is at least not operating clandestinely; it is completely open to scrutiny. We therefore approve the Vote.

Vote No 29 put to House of Representatives.

Vote No 29 agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 29 put to House of Delegates.

Division demanded.

Declarations of Vote:

Mr Chairman, I must first of all say that the hon the Minister responsible is held in high regard by me and most of my colleagues, at a personal level, because he is a man of erudition and a man who understands the problems facing South Africa. He is a man who, I believe, knows what the solutions are, but he is prevented, because of the policies of his own party, from advocating openly the solutions which he knows he ought to advocate as Minister of Information in South Africa.

The Bureau for Information must give information to the public of South Africa. Among the items of information which that Bureau should give, is the fact that the Solidarity Party in the House of Delegates today proclaimed solidarity with a department which administers the Group Areas Act, and an hon Minister who refuses to repeal the Group Areas Act. That is the role of the Solidarity Party in the House of Delegates. Solidarity implicitly supports the retention of the Group Areas Act. We oppose the Group Areas Act. We want it repealed. The hon the Minister refuses to repeal it and Solidarity upholds that hon Minister.

Order! I do not think that the Group Areas Act has very much to do with the Bureau for Information. The hon member must come back to the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, there is a difference between information and propaganda. Goebbels was the master of propaganda. Our hon Minister could not hope for the next 100 years to try to imitate Goebbels and I believe he would not want to do so. Propaganda created on behalf of a Government is not information. Information is the dissemination of facts to the populous at large.

The hon the Minister also controls the SABC. The SABC is unfortunately not a proper exemplar of proper journalism but is a lackey of the Government in power. The hon the Minister should see to it, because he has overall responsibility, that the principles of true journalism are observed by the SABC. We do not want the kind of situation in which a very illustrious South African such as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives is castigated, reviled and derided on SABC television without the opportunity of answering spontaneously and instantaneously at that time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have been listening to what the hon member had to say about opposing these Votes and I find it inconceivable how the hon member can display such inconsistencies. I believe that if the hon member wants to object to Votes there should be consistency and he should object to all the Votes because, if one takes education in this Chamber, it is separate. Every other Vote in this Chamber is also separate. Why then come and select just one or two Votes? It is only for the purpose of electioneering. At no stage did Solidarity or any member thereof say that they were in support of the Group Areas Act.

It is absurd and preposterous for the hon member to even make that kind of suggestion. I would like to ask the hon member why it was that when the hon State President challenged a House in this Parliament to vote against his Budget Vote, they refused to do so. It was because that House would have collapsed.

Now that the elections are around the comer they are just playing games here. [Interjections.] It is not because we were insincere in our opposition. I believe we are here to participate and to bring about change by negotiations, and Solidarity believes in just that. That is exactly what we are going to be doing. We are here to participate and negotiate and to bring about change by negotiation. We are not here to play up to any whims and fancies of individuals. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—98: Alant T G; Aucamp J M; Badenhorst C J W; Badenhorst P J; Bartlett G S; Bekker H J; Blanche J P I; Bloomberg S G; Botha C J V R; Botha J C G; Botma M C; Brazelle J A; Breytenbach W N; Camerer S M; Chait E J; Christophers D; Clase P J; Coetsee H J; Coetzer P W; Cunningham J H; De Beer S J; De Klerk F W; De Villiers D J; Delport J T; Du Plessis B J; Durr K D S; Edwards B V; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Golden S G A; Grobler A C A C; Hardingham R W; Hattingh C P; Heine W J; Heunis J C; Heyns J H; Hunter J E L; Jager R; King T J; Kotzé G J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Lemmer J J; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malan M A de M; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Marais P G; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meiring J W H; Mentz J H W; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nel P J C; Niemann J J; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Oosthuizen G C; Pretorius J F; Pretorius P H; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Smit F P; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Steenkamp P J; Steyn D W; Steyn P T; Streicher D M; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Terblanche A J W P S; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van Gend D P de K; Van Heerden F J; Van Niekerk W A; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Wyk J A; Van Zyl J G; Venter A A; Vilonel J J; Vlok A J; Wentzel J J G.

NOES—30: Andrew K M; Coetzee H J; Cronjé P C; Dalling D J; De Beer Z J; De Jager C D; Ellis M J; Gerber A; Hartzenberg F; Hulley R R; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Malan W C; Malcomess D J N; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Pienaar D S; Schoeman C B; Schwarz H H; Snyman W J; Soal P G; Suzman H; Swart R A F; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H; Van der Merwe S S; Van Gend J B de R; Walsh J J.

The House of Delegates divided:

AYES—19: Abramjee E; Bandulalla M; Bhana R; Dookie B; Govender M; Jumuna N; Kathrada I; Khan N E; Moodley K; Moolla Y; Naicker S V; Naranjee M; Pachai S; Pillay A K; Pillay C; Ramduth K; Rampersadh H; Razak A S; Seedat Y I.

NOES—5: lyman J V; Lambat A E; Poovalingam P T; Rajab M; Shah M S.

Vote No 29 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 1 put to House of Assembly.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, put to House of Representatives.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 put to House of Delegates.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 5 agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the CP voted for the amendment because it makes provision for a basic problem we initially had with this Bill. In other words, as it now stands, permitting no genetic manipulation of gametes or zygotes outside the human body, we say that this is an improvement to the legislation.

There is nevertheless a very serious problem still embodied in the legislation, and that is that provision is still being made for surrogate motherhood. In this regard male and female gametes can be united outside the body and also outside marriage in order to make surrogate motherhood possible. Our original objection—we are opposed to any gamete generated outside the marital context being introduced into the marital context—still applies and is based on moral, ethical and religious considerations. For that reason we shall be voting against this Bill.

Mr Chairman, there is an expression that says: “If it’s not one thing, it’s another.” The more time that passes, and the closer one comes to the election, the more tangled up and incomprehensible are the CP’s decisions and actions.

From the outset all of us here, in principle been in complete agreement about this Bill. There was no problem in regard to any principle embodied in this Bill.

That is not true!

The CP did object to the fact that we intended to deal with the manipulation of gametes by way of regulation. They did not want to allow it to be done by way of regulation; they wanted it embodied in the legislation.

There is a very good reason for having it done by way of regulation, and that is that scientific development is so rapid that one has to introduce amendments every so often, and it would be easier to amend a regulation than an Act. There was not, however, any disagreement in principle, and the hon the Minister complied with those hon members’ wishes and we introduced the amendment.

All hon members of all three Houses reached consensus about the need to tackle the question of surrogate motherhood. The hon the Minister did so and drew up an amendment, making use of medical terms, but the legal draftsmen are of the opinion that it is a very complex matter and that they need more time to amend and correct the text. Surely the hon member knows that, because we discussed this in the joint committee. We agreed to leave the matter in abeyance until next year owing to the time factor. So there was no problem in that regard either.

The other problem the hon member mentioned here, ie the question of gametes outside the marital context, is not mentioned in the legislation at all. He is therefore voting against this Bill because of something that is completely irrelevant. That is an element contained in the principal Act.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must contain himself. The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

I can understand full well that the CP thinks that a Chinese with a pure strain of gametes and with a Chinese restaurant must have a permit to give his own Chinese children his own Chinese food in his own Chinese restaurant. I can understand that, because that is in line with the idiocy of CP policy. That is merely another logical step forward along their illogical road.

Order! The hon member must discuss the subject of human tissue more specifically.

I cannot understand why that party can come along and vote against legislation about which all hon members of all the parties in all the Houses have, in principle, reached complete unanimity. That illogicality is really too much, even for the CP.

We very gladly support this legislation.

Question put to House of Representatives: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—97: Alant T G; Andrew K M; Aucamp J M; Badenhorst C J W; Barnard M S; Bartlett G S; Bekker H J; Blanché J P I; Bloomberg S G; Botha C J v R; Botha J C G; Botma M C; Brazelle J A; Breytenbach W N; Chait E J; Christophers D; Clase P J; Coetzer P W; Cunningham J H; Dalling D J; De Beer S J; De Beer Z J; De Klerk F W; De Villiers D J; Delport J T; Edwards B V; Ellis M J; Farrell P J; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Golden S G A; Grobler A C A C; Hardingham R W; Hattingh C P; Heine W J; Hulley R R; Hunter J E L; Jager R; King T J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Lemmer J J; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malan M A de M; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Marais P G; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meiring J W H; Mentz J H W; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nel P J C; Niemann J J; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Oosthuizen G C; Pretorius J F; Pretorius P H; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Smit F P; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Soal P G; Steenkamp P J; Steyn D W; Steyn P T; Streicher D M; Suzman H; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Terblanche A J WPS; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van der Walt A T; Van Gend D P de K; Van Heerden F J; Van Niekerk W A; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Zyl J G; Venter A A; Vilonel J J; Vlok A J; Walsh J J.

NOES—15: Coetzee H J; De Jager C D; Gerber A; Hartzenberg F; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Pienaar D S; Schoeman C B; Snyman W J; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Mr Chairman, arising out of the debate in the Extended Public Committee on 9 May 1989 on the Conversion of Iscor, Limited, Bill, I should like to point out, for the sake of clarity, that the individual overseas shareholding will be limited to a maximum of 10% and not 15%, as I mistakenly indicated.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Liquor Products Bill. The advisory committee on the implementation of the system of certification of wines of origin, on which all interested parties in the liquor industry are represented, acted as the forum, and all the interested parties had a say in drawing up this Bill. Consequently the Bill actually has the support of the industry as a whole. What is more, it is largely an enabling Bill, a sensible measure to adopt, in this face of the technological development in this industry, so that in future it will not be necessary to have recourse to Parliament each time an amendment to the relevant acts is necessary. By way of an enabling Act one can keep pace with such technological development.

Provision is also made for the fact that seven liquor products will be covered by the implementation of this legislation. Provision is also being made for the establishment of a Wine and Spirit Board which will consist of 13 members and on which the private sector will also have an equal say. We think this is a good arrangement.

There is only one provision in this Bill which we think could actually have been omitted and that is the measure contained in clause 2(5) (b) which reads:

We think that measure could have been omitted, because if the hon the Minister did not like someone’s political views, he could have him removed from the Board for that reason. We do not feel it is necessary to run such risks. Here provision is being made for the respective interested parties in the industry to nominate their representatives to the Board, and they have the right to tell the Minister—provision is made for this in the legislation—that they no longer want a specific representative there. We think that is sufficient. There are other provisions with which such a member of the Board must comply, and we think that is sufficient. We do not believe it is necessary for the Minister also to have the right, of his own volition, to remove someone from the Board who has been nominated by another body. If the interest group, which that specific board-member represents, feels that he is no longer acceptable to them, they will tell the Minister to remove him from office. We think that that is sufficient and that it is unnecessary to have this additional provision.

For the rest, we think that this is a good Bill that will prove of great value to the liquor industry. We hope and trust that in future the liquor industry will benefit and that it will develop further and mean a great deal to South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow up on what the hon member for Lichtenburg said. As in the case of his party, we are going to support the legislation, particularly the enabling powers granted in terms of this legislation.

The Bill under discussion is undoubtedly the last piece of agricultural legislation that will come before the House this session, and I think it is a suitable opportunity to express a special word of thanks to the House Committee of the House of Representatives on the one hand for the enormous contributions they have made towards obtaining assistance for so-called Coloured agriculturists and, on the other, for the promotion of agriculture in general. [Interjections.] I know that it is the sustained pressure exerted by my hon colleagues that led to the fact that soon farm labourers will be enjoying the benefits of unemployment insurance, and for that we salute them. [Interjections.]

Also a special word of thanks to the hon member for Dysselsdorp for the extremely knowledgeable and selfless guidance he has given to his colleagues.

The Bill deals with liquor products, and to a large extent wine. I do not drink wine at all, but I attach great value to the comparison Pope John XXIII drew, on occasion, between human beings and wine. He said: “Human beings are like wine—some turn to vinegar, but the best improve with age.” There is great truth in that.

The Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act of 1957 was basically a consolidation of legislation which was on the Statute Book as far back as 1913. As a consolidation Act it retained many of the old ways of formulating concepts. In recent years this Act has been amended on several occasions, and as a result the intention underlying certain provisions was not always quite clear. It is being substituted by the Liquor Products Bill which is much more comprehensible and logical, and an attempt is also being made to meet modern needs. South Africa’s economic progress must be shared with everyone who has a share in the development and growth of this wonderful country of ours. The LP stands for peaceful change which will lead to progress for every individual and for society as a whole.

The Liquor Products Bill also gives effect to the Government’s policy of privatisation by the creation of the Wine and Spirit Board which, as a juristic person and from its own funds, will carry out certain tasks undertaken by the State at present. The most important of these are the certification of claims of distinctiveness in respect of certain liquor products. The private sector has representation on the Wine and Spirit Board, something which will facilitate closer co-operation between the authorities and the private sector with a view to the promotion of optimal economic growth in South Africa.

The main principles of the Bill involve, inter alia, requirements with which liquor products must comply before they may be sold, exported or imported; the authorisation for the establishment of schemes under which claims of distinctiveness can be certified and the concomitant provisions aimed at protecting designations certified under a scheme against unfair competition, and other provisions chiefly making provision for the practical implementation of the above-mentioned aspects.

In lighter vein I want to mention that the Roman Plinius also said, on a certain occasion, that in wine lay the truth. That is absolutely true. No lesser person than a great supporter of the NP told me personally, after having drunk two glasses too many, that he agreed with the LP’s political solution for this country. That is why I believe in the absolute truth of that saying.

Who was that?

I shall tell the hon member for Overvaal in private.

Notwithstanding the fact that the provision of alcoholic beverages to the public is primarily regulated by the Liquor Act, the Liquor Products Bill prohibits the sale of an alcoholic product if it does not comply with the requirements of a liquor product. The quality of liquor products is thereby improved, and it also prevents harmful substances from making their appearance in or being added to liquor products.

This Bill is also consumer-orientated since it grants authorisation for someone to be compelled to display certain particulars on his liquor products, for example the alcohol content, and whether it is a dry or sweet wine can also be included. With this Bill the consumer is informed, and certain provisions are specifically aimed at keeping him informed and ensuring that he is not misled.

Clauses 5 to 9 set out the requirements which must be met in the case of various liquor products. I also want to mention, however, that there is a German adage that says: Beer after wine and on sorrow you’ll dine, but wine after beer means good cheer. This Bill does not allow anyone to indicate, on a liquor product, that it is wine if, in fact, it is not wine. That is why clause 12 prohibits false or misleading descriptions for liquor products. We support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Douw knows what he is talking about. He knows his Bible too. I thank him for his support for this Bill. I can assure him that even though he does not drink wine, as long as one drinks with moderation, it is a very pleasant experience indeed.

Many of our Bills are drafted in such a way that one can hardly understand them, until one gets into trouble, and then one has to pay someone to explain the law to one. Because liquor, and wine in particular, is such an easily obtainable, simple and good commodity, this Bill has been drafted in very simple, comprehensible language. I think we can all understand it.

This Bill is not inflexible either, containing as it does certain enabling provisions that can deal with any amendment under any circumstances.

This Bill is being substituted for the old Act with all its regulations and pitfalls, and as the one member Mr Douw said, the creation of a Wine and Spirit Board is fully in keeping with the Government’s policy of deregulation and privatisation. I think that will take the last bit of pugnacity out of wine, and all that will be left will be good. I wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr K MOODLEY Mr Speaker, the Liquor Products Bill is before us this afternoon. The Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, Act No 25, was a consolidation of legislation which had its origin as long ago as 1913. This Bill marks the first occasion on which substitution of the old Act is proposed. The Bill is in keeping with the changing times and technology in which we live and experience our challenges.

The Bill also makes provision for a Wine and Spirit Board to be established. The board, as a juristic person, and with its own funds, will carry out the functions which are presently carried out by the State. This is in line with the Government’s policy of privatisation and deregulation. We support the Bill.

Mr Speaker…

Order! I do not have the hon member’s name on my list, and I call upon the hon member whose name is next on the list to speak.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The name of the hon member was handed in at the Table and it should be on your list. If it is not, it is an error not of this party’s making.

Order! I do not have the hon member’s name on the list. If his name is to be added to the list later, before the end of this debate, that is a matter for the Whips to attend to. At present his name is not on the list on the table in front of me and I am therefore unable to call upon him to speak. Will the hon member, as a Whip, please attend to the matter on behalf of his colleague?

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, if you will consult with your officials, you will find that the hon member’s name is there.

Order! It is not for me to consult with my officials. It is a matter for the Whips to consult beforehand with the officials for the convenience of the Chair. I have given that ruling and I have also asked the Chairmen in the various Houses to convey that ruling to members.

Mr Speaker, I regret to advise you that everything you have said should be done, has been done. You do not have the list due to an error on your part.

I am sorry but I cannot hear the hon member.

Mr Speaker, the error lies at your door, not at mine. I handed the name…

Order! Will the hon member take his seat, please?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! Since there is no further debate on this Bill, I request the Secretary to read the next Order of the Day.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. You said that if I approached the Table, I could have the hon member placed on the list. However, you did not give me the opportunity to do so before closing the debate.

Order! The hon member made no effort whatsoever to reach the Table…

Sir, I thought there…

Order! I am not prepared to argue with the hon member. Does the hon member wish to add the name of his colleague to the list on the Table? If so, he should make some effort to do so.

That should be obvious, Sir.

Then do the obvious, please.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Lichtenburg and his party, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, for their support of the Bill.

The hon member is quite correct in stating that all interested groups were indeed consulted and that the new Wine and Spirit Board, we believe, can render a very good service.

The hon member asked why clause 2(5)(b) could not rather be omitted. It is true that the nomination right rests with the various interest groups. However, it is the Minister who appoints that particular person. If it appears eventually that an interest group is not satisfied with the person serving, they will probably advise the Minister to remove that person and the Minister will do so. Hon members will also realise that if the person commits a crime or becomes of unsound mind or whatever, the Minister should have the right to relieve him of his office. I believe that it is a good measure and the hon member will agree with me.

I also want to thank the hon member Mr Douw. He became very poetic and philosophical. I do no want to comment on that, except to say that it is good to hear someone referring to wine in such poetic terms. He is quite right in saying that these measures contribute to greater privatisation and that the entire Bill is actually more consumer orientated. This is what the entire industry would like, so that the consumer can eventually benefit by this.

†The hon member for Southern Natal was also quite correct, and our thanks to him for his support of this Bill. He stated the main thought behind this Bill, viz to streamline the whole industry. I thank him and his party for their support.

*The wine industry has actually made history this year in that they have piloted two of their most important pieces of legislation through Parliament, because this legislation has been amended so many times through the years that we in fact been wasting time by coming forward every year with amendments for this rapidly developing industry, thus wasting the time and money not only of Parliament, but also of the taxpayer.

We will have amended these two pieces of legislation this year. One of them, the Liquor Act, is administered by the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and his department, and this Liquor Products Bill, once enacted, will be administered by the hon the Minister of Agriculture.

Furthermore we have made history in that we shall, to a far greater extent, be able to effect amendments by way of regulation. The hon member for Lichtenburg also referred to that. It is true that with the rapid development that is taking place it will save a great deal of time if one can rather make amendments by way of regulation, quickly and without wasting time. The hon member for Lichtenburg will agree that one will not merely make amendments by way of regulation, but will also do so upon the insistence of and after consultation with the entire industry and all its sectors.

We believe that this Liquor Products Bill will be to the ultimate benefit not only of the producers and the trade, but—this is a significant and very important objective—also to the benefit of the consumer.

I do not want to discuss any examples to prove this, except to say that this Bill provides for quality improvement and ultimately also the protection of the consumer. In the process certification is being upgraded. We believe that in the end this will all be to the benefit of the entire industry, but in particular to the benefit of the consumer.

It is my privilege to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the DP will support this Bill. I am rather pleased that I have the opportunity to do so.

As a number of previous speakers have said, the Liquor Products Bill is essentially an updating and rephrasing of the somewhat jumbled and confused provisions in the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, 1957, due to no less than 11 amending Acts superimposed on the old Act.

We believe that all legislation should be phrased in such a way that the man in the street can understand its provisions without having to seek professional advice on what the law does or does not permit, what rights are required and what obligations are imposed. Very many laws on our Statute Book do not meet this test. This is often due to confused or convoluted thinking on the part of the legislator but confusion and clumsiness are also introduced by a plethora of amending legislation, such as in the present case, being superimposed on the founding Act.

The existing legislation has, rather like a bottle of bad red wine, been shaken around too often in the process of fermentation. The updating and rephrasing of the law to remove the clumsiness and the vagueness is therefore to be welcomed.

In order to prevent an unnecessary repetition of this process of confusion, the Bill concentrates on principles and empowering provisions and leaves the technical adjustments and regulation to subordinate legislation. This is also to be welcomed.

However, we particularly commend the measure of consultation and negotiation with all the sections of the industry who may have an interest in, and who will be affected by this piece of legislation prior to formulating this piece of legislation.

Ministers in other departments of Government, and particularly the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, should take note of the merits of this process. Before laws—including constitutions—are devised, we should consult and negotiate with all persons who may be affected by these laws.

Mr Chairman, our sincere thanks for the support we are receiving for the amendment to this legislation. The preparation went hand in hand with many stalwart efforts which deserve to be mentioned.

Firstly I have in mind the department and the KWV which devoted a great deal of time to rewriting this legislation. It required the services of legal experts who worked for more than a year to make this complex technical legislation readable—as hon members put it.

I also want to take the opportunity, however, of thanking the ACWO—the Advisory Committee on the Application of the System of Certification of Wines of Origin. As hon members know, the ACWO is made up of various sectors of the liquor industry. Theirs was a very special initiative aimed at making this legislation possible, and we want to thank the ACWO for the work it has done over a very long period of time. As hon members know, this advisory committee will lapse, and its functions will be taken over by the Wine and Spirit Board.

I want to react to the hon member for Lichtenburg’s reference to the clause that provides that the Minister shall be granted certain powers to dismiss people. I think that clause is based on a standard procedure in terms of which a Minister establishes an advisory committee on the strength of nominations he receives. It is only logical that if he has the right to appoint people, he should also have the right to dismiss them, for valid reasons, of course. I think the clause spells that out very clearly. The Minister can only dismiss someone on valid grounds. These valid grounds can be a member’s failure to perform his advisory function.

As hon members said, the Bill is very technical in nature. Somebody said that the previous Act had almost become a kind of recipe book containing descriptions of how the various products were made. In future this kind of thing will be dealt with by regulation. To indicate that due cognisance has been taken of these technicalities involved in this Bill, an appeal body is also being appointed. This appeal body will be able to hear certain objections brought against producers and products. In other words, if the consumer is misled in some or other way, and objections are lodged, the matter can be taken on appeal. This appeal body is an ad hoc body, which will be appointed from time to time to hear these appeals. It is the specific intention not to burden our courts with the technicalities involved here. The Minister is committed to accepting the ruling of that appeal body.

A further point I want to make—one which is very important—is that this Bill facilitates the further development of liquor products in the agricultural sector. The Bill also makes provision for seven different categories and the legislation is prescriptive when it comes to the requirements with which the various products must comply. Without introducing statutory amendments, the further development of new liquor products, within specific guidelines, if at all possible, is being facilitated. I think this is definitely a very big step forward.

Mr Speaker, I again thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, this amending Bill aims at correcting an oversight in the previous legislation. I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister and his officials for their patience in explaining this amendment to members of the joint committee. The CP supports all acts that protect our country and its people against any form of sanctions, and the CP will therefore support this amending Bill too. We are glad to see legislation such as this that protects people locally against unjust practices such as boycotts.

Speaking about boycotts, yesterday the hon member for Benoni made a great song and dance about matters relating to Boksburg. I just want to quote one or two points. The GST figures for a few towns on the East Rand, for the period November 1987 to March 1988, increased as follows during the same period in 1988-89. The GST collected in a place called Boksburg was 26% more than in the previous year. In Krugersdorp it was 32% more than during the same period the previous year, and in Springs it was 35% more. This ought to give all hon members an indication that nowhere in the world have boycotts been successful, not in Boksburg either. Nor will they work anywhere else.

If the hon member for Benoni were here, I would have liked to quote him a passage, because after all the NP does not have apartheid in its towns. Benoni library stays… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, in this report it is stated, and I quote:

I hope the hon member for Benoni has now recovered from all his distressing attacks.

Mr Speaker, regarding the Copyright Amendment Bill, certain sections of the Copyright Act, Act No 98 of 1978, grants the owner of copyright exclusive rights to import, sell, hire or distribute recordings of films or sound recordings. It is felt that these provisions are too drastic, not desirable in the public interest and not in keeping with the general mood of the country insofar as deregulation, which is sweeping through the country, is concerned. In order that the situation be rectified, a suitable amendment is proposed in the Bill.

Section 40(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1978, makes provision for the Minister to appoint an advisory committee to advise the Minister on copyright law with regard to amendments. It is proposed in this Bill that the committee also advises the Minister on legislation dealing with trade marks, patents and designs.

The Bill is an improvement on the present Act and is therefore supported by us.

Mr Chairman, the Copyright Act is a complex measure, and for the uninformed it is difficult to understand. That is why, in his contribution, the hon member for Middelburg decided not to speak about the legislation at all. I must admit that I am also one of the uninitiated. In fact, I have been informed that fewer than 60 people throughout South Africa really understand this legislation.

The joint committee had the benefit of two of those experts appearing before it. One was the Registrar of Copyright and the other Prof Du Plessis, a learned women who is a professor of commercial law at UNISA. She is also a member of the Statutory Advisory Committee on Copyright. It is on the basis of the contributions they made that I see my way clear to participating in a debate such as this, and even then I hesitate to do so.

Copyright deals with the intellectual right the creator of the work of art or science have to that creation. That right is his property. These rights are termed “intellectual property rights”. They must be protected, and that is precisely what the Copyright Act does. For example, section 8 of the Act has, consistently section, provided that a film-maker has the exclusive right, inter alia, to reproduce a cinematograph film, have it shown in public, having it transmitted in a diffusion service or making an adaptation of it. No one else may exercise that right except with the authorisation of the holder of that right.

Likewise section 9 of the Act describes copyright in regard to sound recordings. The age of technology has presented a completely new threat to the holders of copyright. Every second home now has reproduction facilities, and reproductions of sound recordings, in particular, are made with the utmost ease. Home reproduction is the order of the day. In a submission the Association of South African Music Industry made to the Registrar it is alleged that in 1987 alone the record industry lost approximately R100 million in South Africa.

In an attempt to tackle that situation, a new subsection (g) was added to section 8 of the Act in 1984, and subsection (9)(b) was substituted. The substitution has not yet come into operation. In terms of those statutory amendments the owner of a copyright is also being granted the sole right to import, sell, let or offer or expose for sale or hire by way of trade, or to distribute, a cinematograph reproduction of a film or a sound recording.

The effect of those amendments however, was to grant the owners of copyright wider powers than the legislation intended. This led Prof John Willemse, Director of Library Services at the University of South Africa, to write a letter to the Registrar on 23 September 1988 to bring to his attention, as he put it, a matter which gave cause to concern. He pointed that the relevant changes not only granted the owner of copyright the right to prohibit the manufacture of and trade in unauthorised reproductions, video films and sound recordings, but also to control and/or to prohibit lawful dealings in regard to lawful reproductions.

Section 23 of the principle Act deals with the infringement of copyright. Section 23(2) prohibits, for example, the distribution of an infringing copy. Sections 8(g) and 9(b) now also prohibit distribution of lawful copies, i e copies obtained from the copyright owner himself, or his licensee. Such a restriction, says Prof Willemse, would make the normal educational function of universities completely impossible, because items in the audio-visual libraries of universities are specifically intended for distribution to students in the course of the tuition they receive.

Prof Willemse’s representations are supported by the universities of Cape Town, Natal and Pretoria. Those representations, and also those of the Association of South African Music Industry and the National Organisation for Reproduction Rights in Music in Southern Africa, Ltd, which emphasize other standpoints, were referred to the advisory committee. That committee of hand-picked experts duly considered the representations, particularly on the basis of legislation in other countries. They came to the conclusion that the importation, sale and distribution of cinematograph films and sound recordings ought not to be controlled by the owner of the copyright. However, the large-scale reproduction of and illicit trade in cinematograph films, in particular, still necessitate control over the hiring out of such films. These amendments are now aimed at accommodating those recommendations by the committee. This brings our legislation into line with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act passed in Britain last year, and also with the legislation of other member countries subscribing to the Berne Convention, South Africa being one such member country. All these aspects give me sufficient reason to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I should like to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill. As a result of apartheid certain authors and their agents have adopted certain punitive measures against South Africa and their works have been withheld from this country. Not only is that greatly to the NP Government’s disadvantage, but also to the disadvantage of the South African population as a whole. To overcome these obstacles we have been forced to introduce and support this amendment.

If we failed to agree to this amendment, it would not only affect the South African people, but also students from other countries in Africa studying through Unisa. If we did not agree to this amendment, it would mean that we advocated sanctions.

It is not the right of the creator of a work to determine who should benefit from that work. If someone has lawfully obtained a piece of work created by someone, the creator of that work should have no further right when it comes to how that work is dealt with. It is the envisaged objective of this amendment to grant to anyone, who has lawfully obtained the work of any author of creator of that work, the right to use it as he sees fit.

In clause 4 the amending Bill makes provision for the appointment of an advisory committee to advise the hon the Minister, from time to time, about whether this measure is still necessary.

If we had not supported this piece of legislation, it would have meant that any author or creator or a work would, as far as this country was concerned, have been able to allow his work…

No, this country is not specifically the issue. It is actually as a result of our country’s policy of apartheid that this problem has cropped up. If there were no apartheid in our country, we would not have been faced with this problem, and people would have made their work freely available to us.

After having struggled for two hours with gentlemen who were trying to explain to us what the reason for this legislation was, let me say that we support it. When they could not assist us, a woman came down from Pretoria and explained the legislation to us. After ten minutes we understood it. That is why we support this piece of legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, copyright is of course a troublesome field of the law. However, all the problems of copyright are not going to be solved by this amending legislation.

The problems which arise from the question of the use of films, videos, records and tapes are, in fact, very many. Despite the fact that this Bill is designed to solve a particular problem—and we support it for this reason—there is to my mind a minefield which exists in respect of copyright. The problem which exists here is that if one is entitled to own a lawfully produced reproduction, the question of the limitation of use of that lawfully obtained reproduction is one which can result in tremendous problems.

An owner cannot limit distribution in terms of the Bill as amended but he is still entirely entitled to control the letting of that particular article.

There is, for example, a complete conflict between what can be done in terms of the copyright legislation and what the position is in respect of trade marks and patents. There is no consistency in this regard. Let me give hon members an example. In terms of the law it is illegal to import a genuine article legally from a legitimate owner thereof where it infringes a trade mark, yet when it comes to the question of copyright we are going to have quite a different situation.

The question of criminalisation is also completely different in regard to the different aspects of what are called intellectual property. To my mind the whole issue is therefore by no means at an end and I believe that the whole of the copyright legislation needs to be looked at again very carefully.

Some of the major lobbyists are people who claim that they allegedly lose about R100 million annually as a result of pirating by means of private recordings of films and, in particular, of records and videos. Whether that figure is correct or not I am not able to say and I certainly do not think that they can prove it.

The reality, however, is that there is more home taping of radio and television today because of the extremely high cost of films, videos, records, compact discs and tapes. One of the things which have happened is that as a result of the pressure on South Africa the cost of these articles has risen abnormally in our society. I think that today there are very few people who can really afford to purchase what they want in these fields.

If the price increases continue in our country, one is in fact encouraging people to break the law because of these high costs.

To some extent the responsibility for the breaking of the law in respect of copyright rests upon the very people who are complaining because of the very high profit margins that exist in that field. Whereas they complain about being deprived of profits, one only needs to look at the published accounts of companies who are in this business to see that tremendous profits are being made. Not only entertainment values apply as far as these aspects are concerned; there are also cultural values which apply in respect of music and other matters. I want to make the appeal today that we should look at the whole price structure which exists in respect of these matters far more carefully.

Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to reply. I just want to say briefly that Britain is the mother of legislation on copyright and patents. The first copyright legislation appeared on the British Statute Book in 1709. This involved literary works and books.

If one looks at our Act, which came into effect on 1 January 1979, one sees that eight categories of copyright works are singled out, and we are still polishing up the legislation. The hon member for Yeoville referred to the necessity for extending the law. As far as copyright works are concerned, at present we are examining technological copyright works. Computer software also still has to be dealt with in terms of this Act. The amendment basically deals with sound recordings, including cassettes and laser disks, and also films, which include videos. The effect of copyright on these products is basically that Parliament, and therefore society, is granting the owner of the copyright the exclusive right to reproduce these products, and is also granting him certain further rights in connection with the reproduced product.

As the hon member for Stellenbosch said, this legislation deals with lawful copies or “authorised reproductions or copies” The large-scale piracy involved in the reproduction of these works, by means of various technological aids, is a problem of our time. It is an international problem which is receiving attention in all the countries of the world.

In 1973, for example, the British Government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Whitford. They conducted an investigation over a period of ten years, and in 1983 submitted a consultative document to the British Parliament. This led to the British Parliament passing the new “Copyright and Designs Act of 1988”. Today we are using that Act as the basis for our legislation, in the sense that as far as sound recordings and cinematograph films are concerned, the copyright owner will only have the right to control the hiring out of his copyright work.

The question, however, is what this actually means. It means that after lawful copies have been made, and these have been made available to an agency which can hire them out, for example, the copyright owner may impose certain conditions. He may, for example, prohibit the sale of new video cassettes in conjunction with the hiring out of his video. This would serve to discourage reproduction of the video. He may perhaps impose, as a condition, that the video shop may in no way duplicate the video or convert it from the VHS to the Beta format.

The hon member for Yeoville also referred to high prices. By way of copyright one creates exclusive rights and an opportunity for monopolistic conditions to develop. We cannot, of course, deal with that matter in this legislation. It is the Competition Board’s task to ensure that there is fair competition in the social context.

The hon member for Middelburg took unfair advantage of this opportunity by speaking about GST in Boksburg. I have the latest information about Boksburg. The sales in furniture shops in Boksburg are still 30% to 40% down on their previous sales. The two hypermarket extensions, costing R136 million, are not being completed.

The hon member for Southern Natal supported the Bill and also referred to the advisory committee. Here we are also following the example of the Canadian model in moving away from an advisory committee, which solely gives advice on copyright legislation, to an advisory committee which covers the whole field of the law of immaterial property.

The hon member pointed out the dangers in granting too many rights to the owner of a technological copyright work, and we agree with this. I merely want to say that this amending Bill has absolutely nothing to do with apartheid.

The hon member for Yeoville asked us to examine further legal developments in this field. Since my appointment I have given quite considerable attention to the subject. I appointed a committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Harms, as a working committee entrusted with revising the legislation in the field of immaterial property law. They have almost completed the first new Bill, which we hope to introduce in Parliament next year. Thereafter we shall try to revise and modernise one or two of the laws each year and to deal with the possible shortcomings pointed out by the hon member for Yeoville.

Let me thank hon members for their support and say that it is a privilege for me to conclude with these few words.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed promising to see that this Bill with all its amendments as stipulated is finally to be implemented, as we note that, although the principal Act was passed by Parliament in 1977, it only came into operation in 1985. It is also reported in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill that many representations and suggestions for the Act’s improvement were issued to this department for possible enactment.

I therefore take it that subsequent to all this, the amending Bill that we have in front of us represents the suggestions put forward. I note that the principal Act was introduced to serve as a long-term anti-inflationary measure in the light of the cost-saving effect it would have on the basis of its uniformity.

Today in 1989 we are saddled with an even higher level of inflation. It would therefore appear to me that the principle of uniformity should be applied even more drastically than before to local authorities and other relevant bodies.

The point I would like to clarify, is that it may seem as though the Act is being applied differently to developers of mass housing projects than to private home-owners in particular. Developers seem to be able to deviate from regulations with regard to building standards on houses. I am referring in particular to the development within my constituency of Strandfontein/Mitchell’s Plain.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister responsible for allowing the relaxation of the bylaws that curtailed the building of granny flats on existing properties. However, bearing in mind the immense shortage of land for Coloured housing, I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to investigate a bylaw which prevents owners from building on the entire area of their plots. Suspending this bylaw would assist the Coloured families in particular to make full use of their land and to build for their children or for use in old age. At the moment the local authority allows one to cover only 50% of one’s land. However, it could allow more on receipt of a request for a waiver of the regulations. I would like to request that the regulations be waived in Coloured areas.

I would like to comment further on the fact that a large amount of land is being offered for sale to foreign concerns, resulting in a monopoly of ownership. The land is then later sold at a higher price. This should be regulated and I appeal to the hon the Minister to introduce such curtailing regulations. In some cases historical buildings are bought and torn down to make way for prestige office blocks and so forth.

We also have estate agents who open up offices all over the world to benefit from the financial rand. One day we will open our eyes and there will be nothing left of South Africa because other countries will each own a portion of it. [Interjections.] This is a very serious matter and the hon the Minister must look into it. The hon the Minister must also look into the sale of historical buildings and farms to foreign countries.

Mr Chairman, the National Buildings Regulations and Building Standards Amendment Bill, contains no far-reaching amendments, merely a few adjustments. It is therefore a pleasure for the CP to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Amendment Bill, 1989, is actually a non-controversial Bill. The principal Act was passed in 1977 but came into operation in 1985. However, many representations and suggestions to improve the Act were received from interested parties.

The object of the amending Bill is to eliminate various problems and deficiencies that have arisen through changing circumstances. We have to understand these changing circumstances because we might have to address the design of housing with some seriousness because of the escalating costs and the long waiting lists. Besides technical improvements the Bill provides for certain exemptions to State properties and grants privileges to the local authorities. I have no serious difficulty with this Bill and I support it.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation. We convey our sincere thanks to the other parties who support it. In South Africa this is going to eliminate further unnecessary complexities and unnecessary building regulations, and therefore it is a great pleasure for me to support it.

Mr Chairman, I shall be very brief. This is a technical adjustment Bill which does provide for some uniformity in cases where some municipalities may be out of line with the national regulations. This will enable uniformity to be established. Initially we were somewhat concerned that an organisation as involved in housing as the Urban Foundation had not been officially consulted in terms of the memorandum and so we took the trouble to ask them for their opinion. We were happy to learn that they were in support of the amendments proposed and viewed this as a deregulatory step. On the basis of those considerations we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, since the principal Act was passed in 1977, en particularly since its commencement in 1985, many representations and proposals for the improvement of the Act have been received from various interested parties.

In addition the practical implementation of the proposed regulations has brought to light a few obstacles and shortcomings that can only be rectified by way of amendments.

The objects of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Amendment Bill, 1989, are therefore to give effect to the representations and proposals for the improvement of the principal Act, thereby eliminating other obstacles and deficiencies that have come to light, and thus improving and facilitating that implementation of the Act.

I support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act was aimed at promoting uniformly in the legal provisions concerning the erection of buildings within the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities and also laying down building standards. As the hon member for Strandfontein said, a very important objective, in passing the legislation, was the cost-saving effect that would be brought about by uniformity.

This is actually an Act of enormous magnitude, in a sense that it had to remove the unnecessarily complex building regulations from the statute books of local authorities. As a result of a deficiency in the legislation, that object was not realised, and certain municipalities still continue to enforce certain regulations which are reconcilable with the national building regulations. This legislation also tackles this problem.

I just want to say that the second set of building regulations that I personally had the privilege of promulgating in October 1988 are of a new order. The regulations had to be drawn up in a functional form; in other words, they provide only the requirements with which construction work has to comply, without saying precisely how those construction specifications have to be met.

To a large extent this offers innovated designers, such as architects and engineers, the freedom to make use of non-conventional, modern construction methods and materials so as to enable them to keep pace with technological developments in that field and so that the most economical constructions can be erected. The SABS has also issued a code of usage setting out the minimum requirements laid down by the Act to help architects, engineers and others involved in construction work. I also just want to mention that it is our intention to revise these building regulations on a regular basis and the next proposed date for such a revision is the year 1990.

The hon member for Strandontein, if I understood him correctly, asked not to have the regulations implemented in Coloured areas. As I have previously explained these are functional regulations which allow for a great deal of freedom in the sense that they do not prescribe, for example, how high the ceilings or how thick the walls should be; they merely indicate the requirements that have to be met. They are therefore not limiting regulations in the sense of being too strict. At the moment we are only excluding the Black areas, and as those areas develop, we shall probably also make the regulations applicable to certain Black areas.

The hon member for Strandfontein also referred to matters which are the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives. I shall not express an opinion about that.

The other hon members supported the Bill, and I thank them for that.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, The CP would like to support this Bill.

At the outset let my say that I think that the Small Claims Courts Act has indeed bridged the gap and has, in fact, met existing needs. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Justice on the introduction of this Act and the small claims courts.

The required qualification for judicial officers who are now to be appointed as commissioners has been reduced from seven years of practical experience to five years. We regret the fact that it is necessary to detract from the qualification that has been laid down, but we realise that with the many small claims courts which are now being established there is a need for more people who can do this work without remuneration, and we therefore also understand that it was necessary to reduce this qualification.

On the other hand, of course, it is true that those people must still have the academic qualifications necessary to be considered for these appointments. In addition the appointment period of three years has now been amended to one that is subject to the Minister’s pleasure. This has several benefits, and that applies to the question of dismissal as well. The Minister can dismiss someone without creating the impression that his period of service of three years has been shortened, because dismissal now takes place at the discretion of the Minister.

The benefit inherent in the elimination of reappointments is, of course, that there is a considerable saving in administrative work.

The clarity with which the amendment to the Act contained in clause 2, is drafted makes it plain that small claims courts cannot try cases in which interdicts are sought.

Clause 3 aims at preventing debt collectors from monopolising the proceedings of small claims courts. Clause 4 deals with the rescission of judgments obtained owing to fraudulent activities or errors and determines the periods within which application can be made for the rectification of such judgments.

Clause 5 deals with the suspension of execution proceedings after security has been furnished. Clause 6 deals with the position in which execution proceedings and debt collections are being transferred to the magistrate’s court so that these small claims courts do not become debt—collecting courts. Clause 7 deals with the increase in fines. The old conservative rand value of R500 is now being equated with the “new Nat” rand value of R2 000 and fines are accordingly being adjusted to compensate for the depreciation. I support this Bill on behalf of the CP.

Mr Chairman, we have no problems with this Bill in front of us. One just wonders, politically speaking, if we can reach consensus on a Bill like this, why we cannot also reach consensus on our constitutional matters like the Group Areas Act and Reservation of Separate Amenities Act.

You cannot reach consensus!

The hon member for Lenasia Central must ask himself if they can defend outside what they did this afternoon. Then he will not make an interjection like this again.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member for Isipingo wants to ask me a question he must stand up and do so.

Order! The hon member for Bonteheuwel must confine himself to the Bill before him.

One must never lose sight of the fact that this is a special court and not a magistrates’ court.

Clause 1 of the Bill helps the Minister to appoint commissioners as there is a big shortage of commissioners right now.

In terms of paragraph (b) this is now to be treated in the same way as Commissioners of Oaths and Justices of the Peace. Basically this is just an administrative adjustment which once again assists the hon the Minister.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, because an interdict is a very long process, this is now going to help our small claims court to remain such. One must realise that the small claims courts are basically used at night, and therefore there is no time for interdicts and so forth.

I now turn to clause 3. Business and professional people have really abused the small claims court. This court should not be a debt-collecting court. I must emphasize that there is a growing feeling that business and professional persons should be denied access to the small claims court because it was never meant for them, but for the ordinary man in the street. However, we want to say to the businessmen and professionals that they are now not being denied access entirely. They can still apply, but only one case at a time.

The amendment in terms of clause 4 brings the small claims court into line with the magistrate’s court.

Clauses 5 and 6 relate to the transfer of execution to the magistrate’s court.

Clause 7 once again just brings the small claims court into line with the magistrate’s court.

We therefore have no problem with this Bill, and we on this side of the House support it.

Mr Chairman, the Small Claims Courts Act chiefly aims at trying small civil cases cheaply and speedily; in other words, at giving the man in the street an opportunity to have minor civil disputes settled speedily and cheaply.

Since small claims courts came into operation in 1985 the advisory committees, the commissioners and also other interested parties have identified certain problem areas in practice which do not make it possible to give full effect to the aforementioned main aims of the Act.

This amending Bill is now eliminating those problems and improving the Act to such an extent that the small claims courts are now being made even more accessible to the general public.

The position in regard to the execution of a judgment under the Act, as it stands at present, is that a judgment creditor must first exhaust all legal means at his disposal in terms of the Small Claims Courts Act and also convince the clerk of the court that there has not yet been a satisfactory judgment before he can request a transfer of the execution proceedings to the magistrate’s court.

Because these procedures give rise to problems and because procedures in the small claims courts must be kept as simple and cheap as possible, and since litigants do, of necessity, need legal representation in the case of execution proceedings, provision is now being made in this Bill for the transfer of execution proceedings to the magistrate’s court.

A further problem that has cropped up is that some individuals who are engaged in a business or a profession misuse the facilities of small claims courts by using them as cheap debt-collecting mechanisms. It was never the intention that small claims courts should be used for this purpose. As has been mentioned, the chief object of these courts was to try actual civil cases or disputes as speedily and cheaply as possible. Using these courts for debt-collecting purposes leads to the same plaintiff taking up the court’s time for days on end, thus making the courts less accessible to other plaintiffs who actually want to have disputes settled. Therefore clause 3(b) now provides that:

It has been learnt that some individuals are of the opinion that this subsection can also be interpreted in such a way as to mean that someone who is defending an action arising from a business or profession carried out or exercised by him cannot institute another action as plaintiff whilst he is still a defendant in the first action and that first action has not yet been settled.

This argument does not hold water, however, if one looks at the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, because there it is clearly stated:

It must be borne in mind that these days the memorandum on the objects of the legislation is an important source in determining the legislature’s intention, since it is now published in conjunction with the Bill.

The Bill also provides that the period of practical experience in the capacity of an attorney or advocate or in the post of magistrate which is required to qualify for an appointment as a commissioner is being reduced from seven to five years and, as has previously been indicated, that a commissioner shall hold office during the Minister’s pleasure.

It is now also clearly provided that the court has no jurisdiction in regard to cases in which an interdict is sought, since interdicts are frequently long and complicated procedures. This will clarify the uncertainty that currently exists.

The amending Bill now also prescribes the periods within which an individual must apply for the variation or rescission of certain judgments.

Small claims courts have undoubtedly been very successful. I am convinced that this amending Bill will contribute towards making them even more of a success.

In conclusion I should like to express the sincere appreciation of this side of the House to those advocates, attorneys and academics who—in the interests of the administration of justice in our country and in the interests of the public at large—are prepared to make themselves available as commissioners without any remuneration. This undoubtedly contributes to the high regard in which the legal profession is held in our country and sets a fine example for other professions to emulate.

I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to say that we welcome this legislation. We supported it in the joint committee and we support it here.

We regard this legislation as an upgrading and extension of the small claims court as it was originally instituted. This is how the small man can pursue his rights as he sees them, and that is why we support this Bill.

I am not going to deal with all the other aspects of the amending Bill as other speakers have already done so. However, I do think it is a very good idea that businessmen and professional men should not be allowed to make use of the small claims court to pursue their claims against people who owe them money.

In the memorandum it explains that the small claims court is an inexpensive and simple remedy and that is what this legislation was intended to provide. It has the support of all the organisations, for instance the Association of Law Societies, the banks and estate agents. They have all been consulted about it and they have raised no objections. Accordingly, my party supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I have previously in this session raised the issue of the high cost of litigation in the country which places the legal process beyond the reach of the vast majority of our people. It is a matter of grave concern and there is a desperate need for our legal process to be thoroughly reviewed in order to bring about adjustments and streamlining which would make it easier and cheaper for the public to have access to the courts.

Against the background of this serious situation which cries out for urgent and far-reaching review, the introduction of the small claims court five years ago was a welcome but tentative step in the right direction. When one looks at this Bill against the background of five years of the operation of the small claims court, it is pleasing to note the success which the innovation of the small claims court has had.

There is no doubt that the courts have been welcomed by the public at large as an easy and inexpensive legal forum in which to resolve their legal disputes. Equally pleasing has been the reaction of the legal profession and the willingness of practitioners to preside over these courts.

Inasmuch as the effect of the Bill is to facilitate the operation of small claims courts the Bill is welcomed and will receive the support of the DP.

We know that the Bill will broaden the base for the appointment of commissioners by reducing the period of experience needed for practitioners to qualify from seven to five years. It will relieve the courts from having to spend time on applications for interdicts. It will obviate the rolls from being crowded out by debt-collecting claims because it was never the intention when the original legislation was drafted that these courts would be used as debt-collecting courts. It will simplify procedures relating to execution proceedings. In all, therefore, the Bill is an improvement on an innovation which I believe goes some distance towards addressing the problem of the high costs of litigation.

I want to emphasise again, when we consider this small measure and we give it our support and blessings, that much more is needed if we are to tackle the real problem of the high costs of litigation in South Africa. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I agree with everything that has been said by the hon member for Berea. The small claims court emanates from the Small Claims Courts Act which was passed some years ago. It helps the poorer community in the form of litigation and fees. The hon the Minister originally asked that attorneys, advocates and magistrates with more than seven years’ experience to be appointed to these courts. This amendment requires attorneys to have five years’ experience or more to serve as commissioners of these courts. I think this is a very good idea because attorneys who have five years’ experience or more are eligible, being professionally experienced attorneys.

This particular amendment has received the blessing of large institutions like the Estate Agents Board.

There is another section where an amendment is sought in respect of certain technicalities and procedures of the small claims court.

We in Solidarity have no objection whatsoever to giving our approval to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, so much has been said about this little amending Bill. I do not know where to start off. However, I can say that all innovations have teething problems. The small claims court, which was established almost five years ago, had teething problems in that, as the principal Act stands, a practising attorney or an advocate had to practise for seven years before he could be appointed as a commissioner. Following upon that the commissioners were appointed for a fixed period of three years in terms of the principal Act. The amendments effected in clause 1 of this Bill overcome that in that they now allow the Minister to appoint as commissioners attorneys and advocates who have been practising for five years.

Clause 2 of the Bill allows the Minister to appoint commissioners at his pleasure for maybe up to 10, 15 or 20 years. The most important feature of this amending Bill is that the small claims court was particularly constituted to assist laymen who had been taken for a big ride by qualified lawyers. I know of a case where a person owed R25 to somebody. He went to an attorney and eventually the attorney won that case by issuing a summons and taking summary indictment. The poor chap with the R25 debt had to pay R175. That is the extent to which most practising attorneys fleece the laymen. To obviate that the small claims court was instituted. This was a very good idea.

However, what has happened in the interim?

Businessmen who can afford to engage attorneys, who give credit to people left, right and centre, use small claims courts to recoup their losses. This situation resulted in the courts being inundated with nothing but debt collection. This Bill now takes care of that problem.

The Bill, when it came before the joint committee, only blocked businesses, but the joint committee’s amendment also prevented professionals, like lawyers who charge over the limit and then come and claim in the small claims courts, from using these courts.

Lastly, this Bill also makes provision for the execution of orders to be done by magistrates’ courts and to be transferred from the small claims courts to the magistrates’ courts.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the small claims courts have come a long way since their establishment in 1984. The hon the Minister indicated during the debate on his Budget Vote that these courts at this moment in time serve approximately 11,5 million people and that they dispose of at least 50 000 cases per year. It also appears that 80 000 enquiries were dealt with by officials who assist the courts. It is therefore apparent that the small claims courts are becoming popular and I think the hon the Minister was right when he paid tribute to the commissioners who serve as presiding officers in these courts. I think they are doing wonderful work and they should be commended.

The Bill now before Parliament is aimed at streamlining certain provisions of the Act and will definitely alleviate problems experienced by these courts.

The provision that small claims courts shall not have jurisdiction in respect of cases in which interdicts are sought is to be welcomed.

These cases are often lengthy and complicated and will definitely make these courts less accessible to the man in the street, which will be in total conflict with the object of these courts. We therefore support the amendment.

The amendment which prevents the court from being used for debt collecting is supported for the same reason. We wish to thank the hon Minister for keeping his undertaking in this regard when in 1986 he promised to bring the amendment to Parliament if the need arose. It appears that this need has now arisen and the hon the Minister has acted appropriately.

The other amendments to the Act which are more of an administrative nature are to be welcomed because they will ensure a more efficient and streamlined procedure. At the request of one of the hon members of the committee we have added the word “profession” to paragraph 3 because a doctor does not conduct a business but is a professional man.

And lawyers too!

I do not think lawyers appear in small claim courts. Therefore the words “business” and “profession” had to be included.

Previous speakers have said—and I agree—that the reduction in the period of experience from 7 years to 5 years for the appointment of commissioners is a good step. The fixed period of 3 years, which has now been left to the discretion of the hon the Minister, is also welcomed. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to thank hon members for their support. This is a Bill that is non-controversial and yet it is a kind of Bill that one could argue about because we are arguing about the interests of John and Mary Citizen.

The hon member for Berea referred to the issue of the cost of litigation which gives me the opportunity to point out that our experience with the small claims courts has been beneficial. The procedure and experience in the small claims court have actually rendered it a kind of crucible where we could test the water for the next step.

Therefore it affords me some pleasure to make known to hon members that in the course of next week we will be tabling a Bill entitled the Mediation Courts Bill which will largely be based on our experience in the small claims court. This will provide for an alternative procedure at the behest of and as an option to litigants and allow for an alternative procedure to the magistrates’ courts. This will be a simplified procedure. It is also visualized that members of the professions will be presiding in a magistrate’s court on a basis where they are compensated for the work they render there. Nevertheless, this Bill should be on the desks of hon members in the course of the following week.

*This perhaps also gives me an opportunity to make a marginal reference to the significance of small claims courts in actual practice. It has been mentioned, for example, that they virtually operate throughout the country. The success achieved is clearly reflected in the fact that 57 courts, sitting in 89 places in 88 magisterial districts, are already functioning. These courts serve more than 11 million people, which is 70,2% of the total population of the country, excluding the self-governing territories. This steadily growing demand has resulted in negotiations with a view to the establishment of further courts, for example at Louis Trichardt, Kimberley, Uitenhage, Lichtenburg, Queenstown, Malmesbury, Piketberg, Brakpan, Bathurst, Hoëvelddrif, Standerton, Warmbaths, Parys, Verulam, Chatsworth and Hoopstad. I want to emphasise that this has nothing to do with the election.

We also envisage a statutory amendment to make it possible to extend the areas of jurisdiction of existing courts so that Delmas, for example, can be incorporated in the court in Springs and Pretoria North in the court in Pretoria, and also to make it possible to adapt the respective areas of jurisdiction of the courts in Germiston and Witbank in such a way that courts can be established for Boksburg and Middelburg respectively.

An investigation aimed at establishing the courts throughout the country is in progress at 20 venues in the Cape Province, seven in the OFS, six in Natal and seven in the Transvaal. There are numerous smaller rural areas where there are not a sufficient number of legal practitioners with which to staff a permanent small claims court. In this regard we also envisage an amendment so that even the smallest places in the country can be served. The present Act already contains a provision to make this possible.

For each court an advisory board has been appointed. Its task is to administer the courts locally and to advise me and my department. Throughout the country at present there are 63 boards, with a total membership of 327, 169 of whom have no ties with the Public Service or the legal profession. This gives me an opportunity to make the point that John Citizen is involved. Hence the success of the small claims courts. We have, as it were, brought justice into people’s living-rooms and given John Citizen joint responsibility.

At present 15 000 cases are being heard. In contrast, during 1986-87 a little more than 12 000 cases were heard in the magistrates’ courts themselves, and in 1987-88, 13 351 cases were heard. There is consequently a growing percentage of cases being heard. What does this signify? It signifies that magistrates’ courts have not suffered in any way as a result of the fact that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of cases heard in small claims courts.

The commissioners perform their duties without remuneration. Throughout the country there are 1 283 commissioners at present. There are 969 attorneys, 272 advocates, 38 lecturers in law, three ex-magistrates and a former attorney. Commissioners who are in active service are drawn from all communities at present. It makes no difference what the nature or character of the communities are. Commissioners are drawn from all communities.

I want to appeal to hon members who supported the Bill, however, to encourage people in their spheres of influence, or in their constituencies, to come forward and actively participate as commissioners. I want to link up with other speakers and convey my thanks to the advisory board members and all the commissioners in the profession, the attorneys, advocates and academics.

Of course, it is no longer all that ignominious to be a clerk in such a small claims court. I must inform hon members that in this regard I even encourage State advocates to take up positions as information clerks in these courts. They can give prior advice—and also while the trial is in progress—about case procedure. This gives State advocates, who normally deal only with criminal proceedings, an opportunity to gain experience in dealing with civil cases too.

In the light of the above-mentioned aspects, it is clear that these courts do serve their purpose. They facilitate quick and effective litigation and keep litigation costs to a minimum. In the light of this I welcome the committee’s support which has enabled us to introduce these amendments, particularly the amending clause 3 which makes it possible for us to take drastic steps to prevent abuses of small claims courts in the sense that they are used as debt-collecting bodies.

As hon members have very effectively explained, what it boils down to is that no person can take a case to a specific court before judgment has been given on his previous case. This means that the butcher or doctor, or anyone else for that matter, cannot institute further proceedings in regard to their outstanding accounts until judgment has been given on present proceedings. Ultimately this will probably tend to discourage them.

I welcome this solution provided by the committee, but in regard to the butcher’s account, the doctor’s account, the lawyer’s account or the chemist’s account, it is still possible for conflict to arise. If we had taken more drastic steps the possibility exists that people may not have had access to the courts either.

The committee made a wise decision in reacting positively to this, and we shall be keeping an eye on the situation. Since small claims courts have become so popular, I want to ask the public not to misuse them, because this could have a detrimental effect on these fine bodies.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

The Joint Meeting adjourned at 18h24.