Mr Chairman, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

I would like to thank Mr Speaker, Mr Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to put this motion of censure to the House. It has, I may mention, taken me the entire session to obtain this permission from him. I am not sure whether the credit is due to my persistence or to Mr Speaker’s determined and dogged defence of the independence of the court.

Anyway, this is, I believe, the first time that such a motion will have been debated in the House of Assembly since 1910.

Mr Chairman, I want to say at once that every hon member in this House, including myself, supports the principle that the judiciary in South Africa should be independent and that Parliament itself should be restrained from interfering with the courts and from passing motions of censure on judges…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The motion before the House is not admissible for debate in this House.

A motion censuring a judge can only be put when the objective, with all due respect, is to relieve the judge of his position on the grounds of incompetence or of misconduct.

Mr Chairman, a motion of censure on a judge amounts to a decision by this House to relieve the judge of his position. In any event, such a resolution can only be adopted in terms of section 10(7) of the Supreme Court Act, Act 59 of 1959, if this is done by all three Houses of Parliament during the same session.

Furthermore, a similar motion with the same objectives as the present one, was brought before the House earlier this session and Mr Speaker ruled on it. I refer to the minutes of the House of Assembly of Wednesday, 8 March, and Tuesday, 14 March. I refer to Mr Speaker’s ruling on such a matter which appears on page 33 of the Minutes of 14 March. I quote Mr Speaker’s quotation from Kilpin’s Parliamentary Procedure as follows:

I therefore submit that Mr Speaker has already ruled on this kind of motion. It can be valid only when its objective is the dismissal of the judge. This is reflected in Mr Speaker’s ruling.

I want to refer to page 34 on which he quoted Speaker Jansen’s ruling. A ruling was made on the grounds of the same facts and on the same matter, and I can say between virtually the same parties, and Mr Speaker’s ruling in this regard cannot be reviewed unless it is done by way of a substantive motion.

Mr Chairman, on this point of order: I believe the hon member for Bethal’s interpretation of this matter is correct, with the exception of one aspect, namely that according to the guidelines and the recognised practice, Mr Speaker may rule whether it is a prima facie case or not. The hon member did not refer to this aspect.

In my opinion the fact that this matter is being put to debate today does not mean that Mr Speaker found this to be a prima facie case. I want to submit that Mr Speaker felt that in the light of the prevailing circumstances and the public debate on the matter, the House had to lay down guidelines for the future in this case. That is why this debate was allowed today.

Mr Chairman, on this point of order I would like to respond to both submissions made. Firstly, the ruling which was given by Mr Speaker was given in respect of a particular draft resolution and not this one.

Secondly, even if that were wrong, Mr Speaker has the inherent jurisdiction to decide whether a motion is proper or not and to review his own decision.

Thirdly, there is a long history, not in South Africa but elsewhere, of motions in order to censure a judge. There are numerous precedents of that in the United Kingdom for example. So there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this motion.

One finds it startling, therefore, that the submission should be made by a lawyer that there is no precedent when there is ample precedent for it, when there is ample precedent in the Mother of Parliaments for such a motion and when we have repeatedly had it said that the way in which to deal with a judge is to deal with it by way of substantive motion. If one cannot deal with it by way of substantive motion, one cannot deal with it at all. What is now sought to be done for a reason which must be transparent to anybody whether inside or outside this House, is to stop a discussion of a matter which is of fundamental public importance to South Africa. To my mind this is an endeavour to stultify the proceedings of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, may I just add to what the hon member for Yeoville has said? Speaker Jansen stated the following on 13 March 1935 in this House, and I quote from Hansard, Vol 24, col 2944:

I certainly have not lightly embarked upon this—

I hope to show this in my argument. Speaker Jansen continued:

I propose to do just that.

As recently as February last year the Report of the Select Committee on A Question of Privilege (House of Assembly) which enquired into the statement made by Mr Dalling, the hon member for Sandton, about Judge Munnik stated:

Which my motion is—

I would say that the argument by the hon member for Bethal really applies to the impeachment of a judge. I am not attempting to have Judge Strydom impeached. I am attempting to move in this House a substantive motion of censure on a particular judgment and other judgments which he has given.

Order! Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to consider in advance the point of order put by the hon member for Bethal. I was not aware of the point of order, but I am prepared to rule on it now. I am not convinced that censure is the same as impeachment. Impeachment is something else and I do not agree with the hon member for Bethal. Censure is completely different, and if censure should take place, further steps for impeachment could follow. Therefore, censure is not the same as impeachment.

In any event, the draft resolution before us is not the same as the one which Mr Speaker turned down previously. I have no reason to state that Mr Speaker was not aware of the draft resolution on the Order Paper. I believe that he was aware of it and that it appeared on this Order Paper nevertheless. In the circumstances I believe that this House may proceed with the draft resolution. The hon member for Houghton may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wonder if I can claim injury time, because the hon member for Bethal certainly wasted a lot of my time.

Of course it is well realised that actions such as I am taking today should only be taken where there is an exceptional case of gross perversion of the law. It is my contention that the case which motivated my bringing this substantive motion before the House is indeed such a case. I hope—although that does not now seem likely—that this important matter will not be considered or debated on party-political lines. It should be left to a free vote by the hon members, all of whom I have no doubt wish to maintain an independent and impartial judiciary in South Africa, but also wish to uphold the respect for the courts which has been undermined by flawed judgments.

Hon members are probably familiar with the case which has motivated this motion of censure, for it has been very fully aired in the Press. However, I think it is necessary to refresh hon members’ minds on the details of the case.

The case is that of The State vs Jacobus Vorster and Petrus Leonard, which arose out of the death of Mr Erick Sambo who died on 12 December 1987. Sambo was employed by Vorster on his farm, and some two months before he died as a result of assaults on him by Vorster and Leonard, Sambo had caused the death of one puppy and the maiming of another—both belonging to Vorster—by starting the motor of a farm tractor under which the puppies had been lying, despite the fact that he had been warned not to do so.

Shortly after this, he fled the farm and some two months later—hon members must please note that the assault took place two months later—he was found walking on the roadside by Vorster and Leonard. He was abducted by them, taken to the farm and there literally beaten to death by Vorster and Leonard and by four farm labourers who had been ordered by Vorster to beat Sambo with sticks.

The assault started one evening, and the deceased—who was not then deceased—was then handcuffed round the bole of a tree where he was left to pass the night. The following day the assault on him was resumed and thereafter he was taken in a critical state to the police where he died shortly afterwards.

According to the accused the purpose of the assault was to extract a confession of malicious injury to property from Sambo, without which—so they had been informed by the police—no action could be taken against Sambo as there is no general crime of negligent injury to property. Their purpose was therefore a wholly unlawful purpose, since the accused deliberately took the law into their own hands in order to obtain the confession.

In trying to extract this confession, they inflicted a punishment far in excess of any which would conceivably have been imposed by a court for malicious injury to property.

Alternatively they simply decided to try to punish Sambo without any recourse either to the police or to the courts; in other words, they set up their own “people’s court”, which we have been condemning in this House for at least three years.

A post mortem established the cause of death to be the result of the numerous and very severe injuries that Sambo had sustained while he was being assaulted. The summation of the district surgeon who performed the post mortem included descriptions of “massiewe besering” and “massiewe aanranding” to various parts of Sambo’s body. His head, back, buttocks and his liver were all brutally damaged.

At the outset, counsel for the accused indicated that Vorster was prepared to plead guilty to culpable homicide and Leonard to common assault. Before the second witness had completed his evidence, the prosecutor accepted the pleas of guilty.

The sentence passed by Judge Strydom on Vorster was five years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for five years on condition that the accused was not convicted of a similar offence during that period.

Secondly, he was instructed to pay the widow of the deceased and his five dependent children the sum of R130 per month for a period of 60 months. In fact, this money, it appears, will not be paid to the deceased’s wife, as by mistake it was ordered to be paid to his common law wife, the woman he was living with on the farm. Vorster was also sentenced to a fine of R3 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment, the fine to be paid in instalments of R250 per month.

The second accused, Leonard, was sentenced to a fine of R500 or three months’ imprisonment.

Mitigating factors that were taken into consideration by Judge Strydom were as follows: Vorster was only 22 years of age; he had no previous convictions; he had a drinking problem that had played a part in his behaviour; he had a good relationship with Blacks on the neighbouring farms; he employed a number of people who would suffer if he went to prison; and he and his wife had lived under tension since the incident which had happened almost a year before.

Also mentioned in the judgment was the fact that should Vorster apply for a passport, this criminal offence would have to be mentioned, and also that should he apply for a gun licence, this would be held against him.

The Johannesburg Bar Council issued a comment on these two findings, saying the following, and I quote:

The judge appeared to have ignored entirely the fact that there was no immediate provocation as far as the assault was concerned, because, as I have mentioned, the incident took place two months before the assault. The sheer brutality and cruelty of the incident appear not to have been taken into consideration at all, nor, may I add, the fact that since this was a case involving assault by White men on a Black man, who subsequently died as a result, inevitably this would have repercussions with strong racial undertones, both here and abroad.

The entire judgment, I submit, was a gross perversion of justice and the inadequacy of the sentences handed down by Judge Strydom was commented on in an unprecedented statement which was issued by the Johannesburg Bar Council on 26 January 1989. Inter alia the council stated, and I quote:

The April 1989 issue of De Rebus, the official journal of the attorneys, also contains strong criticism regarding the judgment in this case. Inter alia, the editorial comments:

The article referred also to the dangerous lack of a deterrent element and, I may say, this fear has been fully borne out by the fact that a similar case took place not long after judgement was given in the Vorster/Leonard case.

On 16 March 1988 in the district of Klerksdorp two White men brutally assaulted a Black man, Stephen Mononye, whom they suspected of stealing two cows. Mononye subsequently died. This was the case of The State vs Fouché and Venter. On a plea of guilty to assault with intent to commit grievous bodily injury, the magistrate fined the accused R600 each or four months’ imprisonment and gave them suspended prison sentences of six months each. Thus the example set in the Vorster/Leonard case extended also, I believe, to the sentence imposed in the Fouché/ Venter case. What else could have led the magistrate in that case to impose such a grossly inappropriate sentence, even given the fact of course that stock theft in South Africa is probably the most heinous crime on the Statute Book?

The Vorster/Leonard case has brought widespread condemnation at home and abroad and so, incidentally, did the subsequent case. I have, for example, cuttings from The Toronto Star, The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph in London which carried scathing comments about the judgement. Details of this case were broadcast over German radio. In the European Parliament there was a motion for a resolution on 11 November 1988 calling the sentence on Vorster “a travesty of justice which in no way would encourage the West to assist moves to a peaceful change for a just society in South Africa”.

I may mention a further unusual aspect about this case which does not, I admit, have a direct bearing on Judge Strydom, and that is the attempt by the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, Mr D B Brunette, to justify the sentences imposed by the judge, both in an interview with a journalist in Canada and in a letter to a man who corresponded with him from London, who had written to Mr Brunette expressing dismay over the Strydom judgement. I must say that I am astonished that the Attorney-General of the Transvaal should have taken it upon himself to try to justify the sentences meted out in this particular case.

I believe it is of the greatest importance to consider the effect of the Strydom judgement on race relations inside South Africa. As Advocate Maisels, South Africa’s senior silk, put it in an article in the Sunday Times of 4 December 1988:

I have to say for myself that one cannot but speculate on the sentence which Judge Strydom would have passed had the victim been a White man and the accused two Black men. One cannot help but wonder. [Interjections.]

The sort of judgment which Judge Strydom made in the Vorster/Leonard case appears to be part of a pattern in his career as a judge. One cannot dismiss this case as something exceptional, as an aberration in an otherwise exemplary career on the Bench, for while he was sitting on the Bench in South West Africa between 1974 and 1981, there were a number of cases where Judge Strydom handed down sentences which were widely criticised, for instance the Nagel judgment and the Swawec judgment, to mention only two, both of which caused a furore in Windhoek at the time. In both cases, I might say, like the Vorster/Leonard case, Judge Strydom imposed extremely lenient sentences.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member to go beyond reference to the matter under discussion?

Order! I thank the hon the Minister. I was on the point of stopping the hon member.

†The hon member is travelling too far afield.

I was on the point of leaving it at that. I simply wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this was not an exceptional case.

Order! The hon member is not to proceed along those particular lines.

Sir, in conclusion, it may well be asked whether Judge Strydom should ever indeed have been appointed to the Bench. Can it truly be said that Mr Justice J J Strydom has adhered to the terms of the oath that he was required to swear in accordance with section 10(2) of the Supreme Court Act, No 59 of 1959, as amended, when he became a judge? That is:

Mr Speaker, I move and I suggest that by voting for this motion of censure the House would do much to restore the respect for our judicial system, which has been adversely affected by the case of The State vs Jacobus Vorster and Petrus Leonard and the sentences imposed in that case by Judge J J Strydom.

Mr Speaker, so many nice things have been said to and about the hon member for Houghton in the past few weeks.

Don’t spoil it!

Yes, things have been said about her tenacity and her tremendous influence in opposition politics. Certainly so many things have been said about her that I believe two thirds of the DP leadership are becoming very concerned that she may decide to stay. For this reason alone I really think that she should reconsider her decision to leave the parliamentary scene. Opposition politics will be Worrallised without her.

If one adds to this the fact that the hon member for Houghton has for a number of years been assuming the role of Mother Superior to Prime Ministers, Ministers of Justice and of Law and Order alike, and has been issuing directives unabated and with no one on the horizon to succeed her, I really think that the hon member should reconsider her decision to depart from the scene. [Interjections.]

What is more, judges and magistrates will also miss her, because towards them she has assumed the role of law lord suprema—just to give it a feministic colour. [Interjections.] Now and again one of them mustered the strength and courage to tell the hon member to mind her own business.

It is my business!

Just the other day a judge from Natal censured the hon member for confusing the issues and facts of a particular case and consequently misdirecting herself, to use legal terminology.

Why don’t you come clean!

I do not hold a brief for any particular judge. I do not hold a brief for incompetence and the indefensible, yet I do hold a brief for the judiciary, the magistrates, the prosecution, the legal fraternity and the entire legal dispensation in this country. I have to promote a balanced view and thus, in particular neutralise any effort to drag the Bench into politics.

We as a Parliament must never lose sight of the fact that the administration of justice represents the third leg of State and must be independent of the executive, but also of the legislature. Whilst we must never shirk our duty we must at the same time have a clear understanding of our duty and our rights as far as the Bench is concerned. It will be an evil day if a judge is to fear, every time he passes a sentence, that the next morning he may read in the newspaper that the hon member for Houghton or her successor in right, title or interest proposes to censure him. That will be downright intimidation of and interference with the judiciary, if that is possible. [Interjections.]

You are now talking absolute rubbish!

Such inference will make a mockery, for instance, of our policy to develop community service as an alternative to jail sentence.

You are on very weak ground.

The other day in Cape Town a judge deviated from the normal heavy jail sentence with regard to unrest-related offences and sentenced the accused to community service. He was lauded by the Press and by myself. By all standards it was a most lenient sentence. If any hon member had ventured to censure this judge in this House, I would have opposed such an hon member and I would have opposed such a motion.

In 1987 we passed legislation to provide for alternatives to incarceration. One of these provisions provided for the payment of compensation as part of the sentence and as an alternative to a jail sentence.

In this particular case under discussion, Mr Justice Strydom ordered the accused Vorster to pay R130 per month for a period of five years and added that this payment would not detract from any claim for maintenance. [Interjections.] I am not defending the judgment.

You are!

I am merely giving another perspective. I am showing hon members the other side of the coin! Let us look at the other side of the coin. It has been pointed out elsewhere that this is the first time in history that a White man was sentenced to work for five years in order to support a Black woman—I do not fault that.

After killing her husband!

In the community where Vorster lives, people will poke fun at him for this reason.

They will probably congratulate him!

For five years he will be reminded every day of his life of what he had done.

Order! Hon members must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to deliver his speech. [Interjections.]

The hon member has a weak case if she acts like this!

Order! The hon member for Houghton has had her turn. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I am just showing hon members the other side of the coin. Vorster’s ego and self-esteem will undoubtedly suffer. I do not fault that. By comparison a jail sentence would have removed him from his community, and he would have experienced a lesser degree of humiliation. [Interjections.] He would have been out of sight for years. [Interjections.] I am mentioning the other side of the case, because this was argued when we discussed community service.

Another side of the coin is that he cannot pay the compensation unless he continues to farm, to work. If he is incarcerated he cannot afford to pay compensation. What is more, the judge said he had taken into consideration that 40 people were dependent on him.

There is also the issue of the suspended sentence—a five-year gaol sentence hanging over his head. Should he commit any act of violence that sentence will become operative. However, I will immediately grant the hon member for Houghton that one could argue that the content of the compensation awarded to the common law wife and the children is inadequate. That can be argued. One can challenge the judge on his discretion in that issue, but one cannot fault the principle of a judge awarding compensation to people who have suffered. I am not defending the sentence; I am just giving the other side of the coin. [Interjections.] For instance, if the content is inadequate, one must pose the question whether the system is capable of rectifying it or not.

If the hon member had also argued today that the system is inadequate and that a remedy should be created, such as the right of appeal of a beneficiary that the compensation is inadequate, then she would have been on firm ground. I want to tell her that I have already decided to consider the need for amending section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the section in question, so as to enable a beneficiary to appeal against the quantum of such damages if considered inadequate. We will have to look into this, because there is obviously a shortcoming.

Our system provides also for other checks and balances. Our system of reviews and appeals ensures that an aggrieved party, being dissatisfied with the judgment, may still go on appeal.

In criminal cases, if an accused person goes on appeal the Attorney-General may lodge a counter-appeal. There are many instances in which, on such a counter-appeal, whilst the accused appealed against the sentence, the Attorney-General asked for a stiffer sentence and succeeded. Many an appellant regretted the fact, as practitioners will know, that they had ever appealed.

In this case the aggrieved party is dead.

Never was the bona fides of a judge at issue. There are cases where the court of appeal had criticised the judge or magistrate very severely but then it was done within the family of courts. However, an Attorney-General does not have the power of appeal if he is not satisfied with the sentence in a criminal case. From remarks made by the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, it is clear that he would have considered an appeal but that he did not have the power. Therefore, why do we not give the Attorney-General the power to appeal against a too lenient sentence? Why do we not do that?

I challenged the hon member on this issue during my Vote but she declined to take it up. However, section 36 of the British Criminal Act of 1988 reads as follows:

I want to ask the DP whether they will support me if I come forward with such a move. Will they support me because they cannot stand the inadequate sentencing—they could use that as an argument. I am asking them here to submit the matter to the peers of judges and to let the Appeal Court take the matter in hand. The hon member knows, however, that the Appeal Court can be very harsh if dissatisfied with the sentence.

Good question.

Will they support me?

Yes.

The hon member for Yeoville says he will support me. Is he the only one? I want to ask the hon leader of the DP whether he will support me if I move to give the Attorney-General the right to appeal? One prominent newspaper as a matter of fact counselled the Attorney-General to lodge an appeal immediately, only to discover afterwards that the Attorney-General has no such power. [Interjections.] The remedy that the hon member is seeking in this House today…

Would you have appealed against this sentence if you had the power?

That is a very good question. It is only a very clever parliamentarian such as the hon member for Yeoville who approaches these matters in a very objective manner who would ask such a question. The answer is: Yes.

That means that you will support this motion!

No, the hon member wants this House to sit as an appeal court and that I do not support. We as a House have therefore no alternative but to divert the hon member for Houghton’s enthusiasm to more appropriate avenues of parliamentary conduct and in this process to provide guidelines for the Menells and Leons of tomorrow.

*I therefore think it is correct that we should argue about and look at what the guidelines ought to be. This parliamentary set-up is still being dominated by British customs when it comes to matters such as these. When we look at comparative law, reference is made to the House of Commons in various judgments. Such judgments are given because section 36 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act in particular states that the British judgment custom is indeed part of our law. We must therefore look at that.

The foundation of these rules which has bearing on the matter under discussion, is deeply rooted in our common law and has come to full fruition with the development of parliamentary systems. As a general precept we return to Latin. While the future of Latin is at stake, I want to place the following on record in Hansard: “De fide et officio iuridicis non recipitur quaestio sed de scientia sive sig error iuris sive facti”. The translation states that the honesty and integrity of a judge may not be questioned, but one may question his judicial or factual deviations. English law then began to develop with regard to the field in which it could be considered. With reference to this motto, Lord Bacon said the following:

That is the quotation from Bacon. In Parliamentary Government in England, Todd states unequivocally:

We are being dominated by these principles. Speaker Jansen said the following in 1935 on page 461 of the Minutes of Proceedings, with reference to Todd:

It is very clear that the hon member for Houghton is not sure of her facts. For example, she completely omitted to tell the House that the judge had before him a matter with regard to which the defence and the prosecution reached an agreement and, as it were, accepted a plea of culpable homicide after witnesses had contradicted one another, and other hon members will deal with that.

“If, however, the conduct of the judge which is objected to is not of such a nature…”—so Speaker Jansen says—“… that he can be dismissed on the grounds of misconduct, then I do not think that it would be in the interests of the administration of justice for the House to entertain it. In such a case it should be left to public opinion and to the tact and common sense of the judge in question.”

Sir, with all due respect, on 14 March you yourself made the following ruling in response to a substantive motion to consider the judgment of the same judge as follows:

We cannot protect on the one hand and intervene on the other. The development in South Africa corresponds with that in England.

Mr Shetreet wrote Judges on Trial as well as other works. He is a very well-known contributor to the International Bar Association for which he has assisted in the development of rules which correspond to what I have put before the House today. He is a professor at a university in Jerusalem. I quote:

†They say, however, that they are just censuring the judge now. However, the law is clear. If the hon member for Houghton is not moving for his impeachment or removal she cannot bring the motion. [Interjections.] The hon member does not understand them.

He says further that:

*The standpoint which I have explained here, has also been made clear repeatedly in the British Parliament.

The test which is therefore applicable to the motion in question, is whether, if it were to be successful, it would lead to a dismissal from office. The answer is unequivocally no. As a result it does not pass this important test, namely that such a motion is only possible if and when one is on the road towards discharging a judge from his office. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, it is very clear that such a motion would not be permissible if it only proposed to censure a judge, because if one were to censure a judge, one would be acting as a court and as an appeal body. One would therefore be a revision body. It would then be possible for the hon member to have a new motion every day to say that this sentence was too severe and that one too lenient.

Shetreet, the extremely venerable man, went on to say:

What do we say? If there is the slightest doubt, this motion should not be continued.

†Shetreet sets out the grounds for the removal of a judge as follows:

This attitude is reflected in our own legislation, namely section 10(7) of the Supreme Court Act, No 59 of 1959. The last three categories mentioned by Shetreet are not relevant in terms of the draft resolution.

In connection with misconduct involving moral turpitude, Shetreet says the following:

He is not charged as such, therefore the motion must lapse—

*I could dwell on numerous examples of such moral turpitude which would suffice to refer hon members to the judgment, unless a prima facie case could be made on one of these grounds which would suggest moral turpitude, etc. In the light of Mr Speaker’s ruling and the authority to which I referred here, this substantive motion cannot succeed.

The draft motion does not indicate any facts which could justify a conclusion of improper motives. The sentence which is under discussion was passed in the exercise of judicial discretion. One can differ from that. One could feel that it was too lenient and one could appeal against it. Whether one agrees with the exercise of the discretion or not, is not relevant. However, what is relevant, is that there is no evidence that the judge was guilty of moral turpitude. What is indeed relevant is whether or not prima facie evidence exists to that effect, and the hon member did not provide such evidence. I therefore move as an amendment:

1. (1) ignores the facts and events which preceded the sentence;
2. (2) has the effect that the House is today requested to act as a court of appeal or review; and
3. (3) does not comply with the requirements for a substantive motion to lead to the removal of a judge from office,

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon member deny that she wants that? This therefore confirms Mr Speaker’s ruling on 8 and 14 March 1989, on page 24 up to and including page 28 of the Minutes and then again on page 33 up to and including page 35 of the Minutes. It is very important that we indicate what is meant by this. Mr Speaker’s ruling states inter alia that the effect thereof is that the ruling with regard to whether or not such a substantive motion is permissible is being left to the discretion of the Speaker. I support this.

Since the motion of the hon member for Houghton therefore ignores the facts and events which preceded the judgment—she only mentioned a small part of that—and has the effect of requesting that this House act as a court of review or appeal, and that it does not satisfy the requirements that are necessary to, as a substantive motion, lead to a dismissal from office, it must therefore be rejected.

†In conclusion, I have been watching and listening to the frolics and antics of the hon member for Houghton while I have been speaking. The hon member almost reminded me of a girl by the name of Salome who, many centuries ago, danced into the heart of King Herod and then walked away with the head of another gentleman on a tray. I am sorry, but the hon member is not going to receive the judge’s head because there are much higher principles at stake, namely the independence of the judiciary, the judiciary itself and the legal dispensation in this country.

Mr Speaker, I should like this House to distinguish today between the attack on a sentence imposed by a judge and the question as to whether we all agree or disagree with a particular sentence. On behalf of my party I want to say that we stand for cases being properly tried and for proper sentences being imposed. We do not hesitate to say that we also stand for the death penalty, where applicable.

In our opinion it is not a question of whether it is a White man, a Black man, a Brown man or a man of any colour whatsoever who appears before a court. For us it is a matter of a single principal, and that is the separation between the legislative and the executive authority and the judiciary. We say, with all due respect, that if we in South Africa want to serve the ends of justice, we must state very clearly that there can be no interference or criticism whatsoever of the judicial authority by the legislative authority. The judicial authority must function independently, because if we begin to censure judges, every judge would have to look over his shoulder to see what party was in power today or tomorrow and consider what might possibly happen to him if he were to give this or that judgment. The judiciary must function independently, and we are not here to criticise cases which we did not attend ourselves and with regard to which we ourselves do not know the facts.

I think it is common knowledge that sentencing is the most difficult factor to apply and exercise on the Bench. It is easier to reach the decision as to whether a person is guilty or innocent, but any judge or any judicial officer such as a magistrate, who has to pass sentence, could tell one that it is one of the most difficult things to mete out the appropriate punishment.

It is as difficult as having to discipline one’s child. It is perhaps easy to do so at the moment the child does something wrong, but it is very difficult to discipline him when one gets home in the evening and one’s wife tells one what he has done wrong. Each one of us has that built-in compassion and sense of forgiveness and we wonder whether we should give the transgressor a chance.

It is easy to say that the accused has done this or that, but when that accused stands before one, one realises that he is a person who also has a family and a background which has to be taken into consideration when passing sentence.

The other man is dead!

As I said, the conclusion must not be drawn that we favour or are trying to defend this or any other sentence. I am not objecting to the sentence that was passed in this case, just as I do not object to sentences passed in other cases, because I hold the view that the judge had the accused before him and imposed that sentence.

It is strange that we nevertheless often hear of complaints about sentences that are imposed. In certain cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, there is a tremendous outcry. In other cases in which lighter sentences are imposed, there is also a tremendous outcry. I could also ask whether those who level this criticism are not trying to score political points.

Nonsense!

It is nevertheless strange that there are people who are agitating that those who commit brutal murders, with the use of car tyres for example, should not be hanged.

I have not heard terribly many people agitating in cases in which the situation was reversed and a White man has committed a brutal murder. We hold the view that this is punishable, that the judge has the necessary discretion and that he should exercise that discretion—we are not going to interfere.

I found it very disturbing to read the Johannesburg Bar Council’s reasons for their criticism of this judge and to think that they are legal men, but they did not even take the trouble to determine the true facts. Their statement is peppered with findings they made in their sitting-room without looking at the facts or properly consulting the records. I can give numerous examples of this, and I should like to do so in order to put that aspect into perspective.

In the first place everyone relies on a certain witness, Samuel, who started to give evidence. After he had given half of his evidence, the counsel for the prosecution adjourned the court. The fact is that the witness deviated from his statement.

One of the nice things that happens when the State is in possession of a statement, and the witness deviates totally from that statement when he is in the witness box, is that the State then conveys that to the Defence. This is the way it should be!

On the basis of the fact that the witness deviated completely from his statement, the Defence and the State got together and agreed on certain facts they could submit to the judge. But this is not mentioned!

Mention is also made of the maintenance that was to be granted. Reference was made to the R130 which was to be paid to the deceased’s one wife. It now appears that the deceased had more than one wife. I do not know whether the judge was aware of this at that stage. It is not evident from the document that was submitted to him. However, the judge expressly added that this did not stop the dependants from instituting a civil claim. This could even be for an amount of R100 000. They were not denied the right to do so; on the contrary, he provisionally saved them the expense of a civil case, because they could at least receive a maintenance payment in the interim.

We cannot sit in our living-rooms and pass sentence on any accused who has not stood before us and in respect of whom we do not know all the facts. That is what we want to do here. We want to criticise the judge for a sentence he imposed when we were not there and did not see the accused before us, but learned the facts at third hand. Now we want to act as a body of appeal, setting ourselves above the court and saying that this is wrong.

Our view is that the courts must do their work and that Parliament must not interfere, because I shudder to think that one day a judge on the Bench may start saying that the leader of one party is this and the leader of another party is that, and start making political statements.

Mr Speaker, we ask the judges to refrain from taking part in politics. We ask them to remain neutral. I am asking this Parliament to remain neutral and not to criticise judges on the sentences they impose without our having first-hand knowledge of the facts.

Mr Speaker, what has to be said at the outset, is that this was a very terrible and vicious attack which cannot be justified under any circumstances.

I also want to say that whatever I say should not be construed in any way as being said in support of the sentence.

I also want to say that I have had the highest regard for the hon member for Houghton. Over the years I have come to respect her and I hold no grudge. At the end of her parliamentary career I do not think there is any reason for us to be unfair towards her or for me to be unfair towards her.

However, I believe today the hon member for Houghton, by bringing this motion, has done a disservice to the judiciary, to Parliament and to the constitutional conventions and traditions of Parliament. I am saying this not because she is criticizing a judgement. Personally I believe the rulings of Speakers in the past have been far too limited and restrictive as far as that is concerned. I am not saying this because she is disagreeing with the sentence. It is every citizen’s right to disagree with decisions and sentences by judges, provided that it is done in moderate language and does not attack the judge. I am saying that she has done a disservice to Parliament, the judiciary and the Constitution because she has brought this motion before Parliament which is patently without foundation in law or fact in terms of the time-honoured requirements that have been laid down for such a motion either to be entertained or to be successful.

I am not going to argue the merits of the case, but I would like to refer to a number of points raised by the hon member for Houghton. Firstly, she called in the evidence of a number of overseas newspapers. Those newspapers based their outrage on inaccurate newspaper reports in this country. I am absolutely certain that the whole motion is based on the memorandum of the Johannesburg Bar Association.

[Inaudible.]

As was indicated by the hon member for Bethal, there are numerous blatant mistakes in that memorandum.

The hon member for Houghton also mentioned the strong racial overtones in the judgment. I have read that judgment over and over again and I cannot see one of them. [Interjections.] I can see the opposite. I see that a prominent Black man gave evidence in mitigation of the accused. According to the memorandum of the Johannesburg Bar Association he was a White man—another mistake! I also see that the judge gave the accused a fine of not less than R10 700. I am not saying that it is enough, but it is one of the highest compensatory fines that I have ever come across.

I also came across the judgement of a judge who is most certainly concerned about the maintenance of the deceased’s wife and children and about the other Black people who are dependent on the accused. I also came across a judge who is involved in good relations and entertained evidence about the good relations in the area, especially relations across racial boundaries.

*The fact that Mr Speaker permitted this motion requires that three matters have to be argued. In the first place one must argue the conditions under which such a motion should be dealt with. In the second place one must ask whether the charge-sheet and procedure were followed. In the third place one could ask whether a case was made out in terms of merit.

With reference to the question of circumstances, it is simply a fact that the rule that judges can be attacked only on the basis of a substantive motion has been part of the British Parliament for more than 200 years. In other words, it is also a very old rule of this Parliament. The further time-honoured rule to which the hon the Minister referred is that no such motion can be introduced unless this is done on such a firm basis as to justify the dismissal of the judge. That must also be confirmed.

The next question is whether the rulings of Mr Speaker on 8 and 14 April and the ruling of Mr Speaker Jansen in 1935 were correct. This requires specific and clear charges, that clear and reliable evidence be put forward, that there be a prima facie case, and that Mr Speaker be able to decide whether or not there is a prima facie case.

Once again we have to confirm and support these standpoints very firmly today, because if we do not, the same thing is going to happen again. We must try to prevent that, because if it is left to Parliament to decide whether or not there is a prima facie case, harm will be done in any case and one will not be able to prevent that.

Consequently I ask the House to accept the proposed amendment, because that will confirm the practices that have been followed so far.

It is very clear that the charge-sheet is defective. According to section 10(7) of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, technically there are only two reasons on the basis of which a judge can be dismissed from his office. These are misconduct and incompetence and not one of these appears in the motion. In addition no specific or clear charges were put forward and it is clear that there is no prima facie case before this House.

Apart from the charge-sheet and the procedure, no case was made out on merit. As the hon member for Bethal indicated, what is at issue here is not a conviction. If that had been the case, very little criticism could have been levelled. If the prosecutor had not accepted the plea, therefore, there was a very great possibility of the accused being released. What is at issue here is sentence, and that is a difficult matter. It resides in the discretion of the judge, and is not a matter merely of the interests of the community, but also of the interests of the accused. This differs from judge to judge, and I refuse to evaluate the judge’s sentence.

It must be said that the accusation that the judge did not take existing mitigating factors into account is simply without any basis whatsoever. In his verdict the judge referred to the detrimental consequences of previous convictions, inter alia with regard to firearm licences and passports, to indicate to the accused the consequences of having a prior conviction. [Interjections.]

Ridiculous!

The memorandum of the Johannesburg Bar Council is one of the most superficial and unfounded opinions on a relatively very simple subject. In only six pages Adv Els, who was there, indicated that there had been at least 12 blunders.

I should sincerely like to support this amendment. [Interjections.] We simply cannot permit judges to become involved in politics and in the same way we cannot permit the legislative body itself to interfere with the judicial authority.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister in his fatuous case in opposition to the motion moved by the hon member for Houghton, suggested that she should mind her own business. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who has just sat down, said that the hon member for Houghton had done a disservice to Parliament and a disservice to the judiciary in South Africa by moving the motion which is on the Order Paper.

I believe that that is far from the case. I believe that this House in indebted to the hon member for Houghton for bringing this motion before it today. I think it is fitting that, in what is her last speech in this House after a distinguished career as a campaigner for civil liberties and a persistent and doughty opponent of any form of injustice, she should have brought to our attention a matter which has aroused wide-spread public indignation at home and abroad, and which has brought our courts and the judiciary in this country into disrepute.

The sentences passed by Judge Strydom in the case of The State vs Jacobus Vorster and Petrus Leonard have been noted with horror and alarm by members of the public and the legal fraternity alike as a gross perversion of the law. There has been a widespread outcry throughout in respect of this matter.

Rare though the public outcry has been—rare as seen against a background of the normal acceptance of the judgments given and sentences imposed by our courts—not even the intensity of the expressed indignation is enough in this instance. I believe that the judge should not be allowed to escape with public indignation, albeit at an unprecedented case of his conduct of the proceedings.

I believe that Parliament itself must make its feelings known. Let me say that this is not a motion for the impeachment of a judge, but it is a motion of censure of a judge. I think it is rare indeed that the legislative arm of Government should express censure over a member of the judiciary in respect of the conduct of court proceedings. However, in this case I believe it is more than justified.

We know that we are extremely conscious of the high esteem in which our superior courts are held in South Africa. Through the years they have established a reputation for high legal competence, coupled jointly with fairness and firmness in their dispensation of justice. It is a reputation of which we are justifiably proud, and that in itself provides the most compelling reason why we should be doubly jealous of it, and more than ever determined to ensure that it is not tarnished in any way. That is a very compelling reason—the fact that our courts are held in such high esteem.

The Strydom judgment has tarnished the reputation of our courts very severely indeed. It has tarnished it at a time when perhaps more than ever before we need to show the population of South Africa and the nations of the world that all people are equal before the law in this country, and that there is equality of justice.

Tragically the case of The State vs Jacobus Vorster and Petrus Leonard involved, as we know, the death of a Black man at the hands of two White men in circumstances which were both perverted and brutal. Whether we like it or not, in the nature of our society it must inevitably be asked whether the same sentence would have been imposed if a White man had died at the hands of two Black men. That is a question which inevitably must be asked. It is a reality and a fact of life which we cannot escape that we are being questioned and tested as to whether there is equality before the law in this country as between Black and White. The Strydom judgment and the circumstances surrounding it must inevitably give credence to those who claim that there is not equal justice for Black and White in our courts.

I could be more precise than that in condemning the sentences imposed and censuring the judge responsible. I cannot believe that there can be a single lawyer in the House who would not agree with the views expressed by the Johannesburg Bar Council after it had examined the record of the Vorster case. [Interjections.] Well, they are apparently there, but then they must be very bad lawyers. [Interjections.]

The record shows, for example, that the judge had found that it was the accused’s youth, together with a small amount of liquor abuse, which landed Vorster in his problem situation. In fact, the accused was a man 22 years of age, and he farmed his own farm at the time of the crime.

No, that is not true.

Well, Sir, he was certainly a 22-year-old individual. This was no adolescent crime. The question of age was not really relevant to what had taken place. The record also shows that liquor had, at the most, a minimal effect on the two accused and their behaviour. Indeed, we are told that in explaining the case at the commencement of the trial, the counsel for both accused specifically stated that alcohol had not had an influence on their actions.

Thirdly, the judge also took into account what has already been referred to and what he referred to as “possible embarrassment” which they would suffer if they ever applied for a passport or a firearm, because of their conviction. In fact, this was never raised in evidence and these are factors which are hardly relevant if compared to the fact that the person had been the cause of the death of another human being.

So the court also found that a certain amount of blame lay at the door of the deceased, because he had been responsible for the death of a puppy belonging to the first accused some two months before. Again, the record reveals no evidence that the incident with the puppy played any part in motivating either of the accused. Neither of the accused gave evidence at the trial. I therefore believe the Bar Council was totally justified in condemning the sentence which had been imposed by the judge.

That view was supported, as we heard this morning, and concurred with by an editorial in De Rebus which drew attention to further major omissions in the judgment. No mention was made of a number of factors which might rightly have been regarded as aggravating.

Firstly, provocation cannot be regarded as having played any part in the attack on the deceased. The puppy incident occurred two months before, so there was no question of the accused having acted in the heat of the moment.

Secondly, the extreme seriousness of the assault, its deliberate continuance over a prolonged period extending to its resumption on the following day, was an aggravating factor ignored by the judge. Another factor was the sheer cruelty involved, a factor which must arouse the revulsion of any right-thinking community.

Finally, the deterrent factor was not addressed by the judge. There is a clear duty for a court to protect the community against behaviour of this type by imposing a sentence which would act as a deterrent. That was its clear duty. That was not evident. It was not addressed by the judge when he gave consideration to the sentence to be imposed. De Rebus reminds us that it was W S Gilbert who coined the phrase “let the punishment fit the crime”. This concept was elaborated on by Mr Justice Holmes in the appellate division in the case of The State vs Rabie in 1975 when the learned judge said, dealing with the question of punishment:

Dealing with the concept of mercy, the learned judge said:

All these factors are factors which ought to have been taken into consideration by the judge in a matter of this kind. They were totally ignored when one looks at the Vorster case. I believe, in the circumstances and against the background which has been outlined, that the judge thoroughly deserves the censure of this House. I believe it is the duty of Parliament to express itself on a matter of such importance to the judiciary in South Africa and to our reputation generally. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to submit today that although hon members of the DP, and in particular the hon member for Houghton, paid special tribute to our judicature today, they have truly succeeded in doing our judicature a great disservice.

I want to try to explain this as follows. Firstly, I wish to react briefly to some of the so-called facts that were mentioned by the hon member for Berea. The problem that arose here today, is precisely the problem that so often arises, whenever laymen—and I call all hon members in this Parliament laymen for this purpose—wish to pronounce upon something which in truth is the province of the judiciary, a specific judge and a specific case.

We are sitting here as jurors who have to pronounce judgment. That is precisely what those hon members are asking for here today. That is something that has not existed for years, almost since the beginning of the administration of justice. Throughout the years the jury has done but one thing, and that is to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty, but it has never pronounced judgment on the sentence. It has never said what the sentence must be; that has never been the province of the jury. That is what hon members of the DP wish to do today.

Let me just come back to those few so-called facts. Certain statements were made about liquor. I have in my possession the agreed facts with regard to liquor in that particular court case. The following statements, insofar as liquor is concerned, were made by the advocate for the defence, and accepted by the State. It was alleged that the accused had been drinking on that evening. It was never alleged that he was drunk or that he did not know what he was doing. There is no doubt that the liquor did, in fact, affect him. It was also said that he had even drunk wine and beer instead of coffee on the morning of the assaults, and that the liquor also affected him them. It was never alleged that he did not know what he was doing, or that he was drunk. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the liquor did, in fact, affect him. I refer to this merely to state certain facts in order to indicate how foolish it is when laymen presume to pronounce upon the appropriate sentence which a judge finds very difficult to apply in the normal course of events.

Everyone knows that the imposition of punishment is probably one of the most difficult tasks with which any judicial officer may be charged. For this reason he is given a discretion.

A judge must impose punishment within the framework of the guidelines that have been laid down for him. It is a discretionary power that should not be curbed. One cannot curb it, because the moment one does so, this could lead to undesirable results. In the past some of those hon members have appealed here for certain compulsory penalties, for example, to be abolished and for a particular discretion to in fact be afforded, because a compulsory penalty could, under certain circumstances, tarnish the image of the judiciary. Appeals were made for this.

Today an appeal is being made in this regard, with reference to a compulsory imposition of the death penalty, that a discretion should also be granted in those instances in which there is a question as to whether or not mitigating circumstances exist, and that no compulsory death sentence should ensue.

Let me explain to hon members what I mean by this, and how foolish it is to have this Parliament sit as a jury and pass judgment on an appropriate sentence. I maintain that the correct approach is reflected briefly by the author Du Toit in his book Straf in Suid-Afrika. He says the following on page 447:

This is a wonderful exposition of the factors which normally enjoy consideration.

Now these hon members come along and say that they find themselves, and wish to find themselves in a better situation, and that they now wish to pass judgment on the question as to whether or not a specific judge passed an appropriate sentence in a specific case.

This type of thing must never be allowed. For that reason I want to say at this very moment that we support the amendment that has been moved by the hon the Minister of Justice, because we think it would be foolish if this Parliament were to elevate itself to a court of review or an appeal court, because the necessary knowledge does not exist here.

Whenever jurists have a problem in regard to the question as to the circumstances in which it is permitted to intervene in a judgment, they allow that wide discretion. It must allowed if we wish to retain the image of the judiciary as an impartial one, because a judge must always have this discretion. In the subjective judgment of any judge or any person on the judiciary, one person will devote more attention to certain factors which he has to consider than another judge would have done under the same circumstances.

However, what does the Appeal Court say in this regard? The Appeal Court made a very well considered statement in which it said the following with regard to the question as to whether or not intervention should take place:

In other words, what is at issue, is not whether the court of appeal, given the same facts, would have imposed a different sentence. What is at issue, is the simple principle as to whether there is deviation of such a nature that intervention should take place.

We reject what the hon member for Houghton is now attempting to lay down as a principle in this Parliament. With regard to this extremely important aspect, with which jurists who possess expertise and wisdom that has been built up over the years in the administration of justice, are experiencing problems, these hon members are presuming to say that they are better able to judge and they must be better able to judge, and for this reason they are criticising the judge. We cannot allow that situation to prevail in this Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow the hon member for Ermelo. I do not have much fault to find with any of the remarks he made. In fact, I agree with all of his remarks.

I should like to ask the hon member for Houghton, who moved this motion, whether she has read through the complete court record and the evidence that was given.

I always do my homework! You know that!

Did she go through the documentary evidence that was submitted? The hon member must give us an indication as to whether she examined the documentary evidence that was submitted. I think that is the crux of the matter. The question is whether the hon member read through the agreement that was entered into by the two advocates and which was submitted as documentary evidence. The hon member did not read through it!

But did you read it?

Yes, I did read through it and therefore I can talk about it. I want to know from the hon member for Berea whether he read through the complete court record.

Surely the facts are not in dispute!

The hon members for Houghton and Berea did not examine the complete court record. [Interjections.] I shall come to that.

Are the facts in dispute?

Of course the facts are in dispute! The facts that are being advanced by the hon member’s party in this House today, do not correspond with the facts agreed upon between the two advocates, on the basis of which the court made its judgment and passed sentence. [Interjections.]

Order! I should appreciate it if the hon member would be permitted to address the Chair.

I should like to ascertain something from the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Berea. They had a great deal to say about the sentence that was imposed. Why did they not give us an indication today as to what sentence should have been imposed? Why did they not tell us today that the judge erred in imposing too light a sentence in both instances? They must tell us what they think the correct sentence should have been, motivate it, and say that the judge erred in that respect and that they are rectifying the matter in the other respect. In this way one will arrive at the correct sentence. Why do they not tell us the correct sentence that should have been imposed?

The problem the hon members have with this motion, is that they are placing too much emphasis on one matter, namely the issue of colour. The fact that a Black man was assaulted by two White men has caused them to lose their perspective entirely insofar as the legal principles relevant to the imposition of sentence are concerned. [Interjections.] That is apparently one of the matters that must be taken into account in passing sentence, but it is not the only one.

The hon member for Houghton, and particularly the hon member for Berea, would have us believe that this aspect of colour was the only important matter that should have been taken into account when passing sentence. However, I submit, and the hon member for Houghton must tell me if I am wrong, that she based her motion on facts she obtained from the Johannesburg Bar Council. Am I right or am I wrong? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

If I understand the hon member for Houghton correctly, she rejects that memorandum. She cannot say whether she rejects or accepts it, because if she accepts it, she has the problem that the facts are not correct. If she rejects it, she cannot explain to us why, on a previous occasion, when she also moved a motion, she attached the entire report of the Johannesburg Bar Council to her motion as the only supporting facts on the basis of which she had formulated the motion.

It is not true!

Of course it is correct; it is recorded in the Minutes of this House. The hon member must surely read the Minutes of the House, even though she did not read the record of the trial. [Interjections.]

The relevant facts of the case are that after the second State witness, a certain Samuel, had given evidence—he did not complete his evidence—he was not cross-examined, and the court adjourned at that stage. Thereafter the two advocates made a formulation, which both of them signed, of the facts which they both recognised as being common cause between the State and the defence. That agreement on the facts was submitted to the court as an exhibit.

The hon member for Houghton would have had a different version of the facts if she had read through that exhibit thoroughly. The factual basis upon which the hon member formulated this motion, was based exclusively on the statement that was issued by the Johannesburg Bar Council, and that statement is interspersed with inconsistencies with regard to the facts agreed upon. I want to refer to a few of them.

The statement simply asserts that certain evidence was led by the State, whereafter the pleas were accepted, without referring to the agreed written facts. For the sake of convenience, they also ignore them. As has already been indicated, these facts are the basis upon which an opinion ought to be expressed, and not the evidence, as given by the witness Samuel.

Secondly it is alleged that accused 1 was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, the whole of which was suspended for five years on certain conditions, one of which was that he pay R130 per month in the form of cash and provisions to the wife and four children of the deceased, for a period of five years. There was no indication from the judge, when he imposed sentence, that provisions were at issue. I do not know where the Bar Council got the word “provisions” (rantsoene) from. The condition concerned was simply that the accused had to pay R130 per month, for 60 months, to the wife and four children of the deceased.

Where is the word “provisions” in the statement?

It was added that this would in no way detract from such rights as she might have to claim maintenance for herself and her children from the accused.

What is more, the problem which the hon member for Houghton has, namely that the wrong woman has now been favoured, does not detract from the right which the legal wife would have, viewed from a civil law point of view, to institute a claim against the two accused. She still has that claim for loss of maintenance.

Thirdly, an allegation is made in this statement by the Bar Council that the court also imposed a penalty on the accused of R3 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment, but that leave was granted for the fine to be paid off at 250 per month. That is an untruth. The court did not deal with an application for payment in instalments, but imposed a fine of R3 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment and ordered that the R3 000 had to be paid, at R250 per month, by the accused personally to the clerk of the criminal court at Louis Trichardt.

The humiliation which the accused would therefore experience in the future would only take place, as the judge said, whenever he had to complete a document and then give account of his previous convictions, but every month would entail a humiliation for him because every month when he goes to pay off this fine, he will be seen by the staff of the magistrate’s office and other people, and they will know why he is going there. I am not saying that this is an important punishment that was imposed…

Then why mention it!

… but I am saying that it is important enough to be mentioned in the correct perspective, and not in a distorted manner as the hon members who support the motion have done.

The allegation that accused 1 farms on his own farm, was also erroneous. The hon member for Berea says that this is so. The hon member for Berea could only have obtained those facts from the statement of the General Bar Council. Then it is said by way of interjections that they did not go according to the statement of the Bar Council when they argued the motion today. That is precisely where they did, in fact, use it, because it does not appear in the court record.

The allegation is being made that the hon Mr Justice Strydom should not have taken the future embarrassment of the accused into account in passing sentence. There are no specific provisions in terms of which a judge must act in passing sentence by only taking certain facts into account. He has a wide discretion. He may take into account all those facts which he considers to be of importance, regardless of how negligible they may be.

The fact that the hon member has approached the House with this motion on a few occasions, has contributed to the fact that the foreign media have seized upon the hysteria surrounding this matter. That would not have been the case if the correct facts had been available and a reaction had been made to them.

Your speech will make it even worse. [Interjections.]

A motion such as the one under consideration must be based on specific and clear complaints, and clear and reliable evidence must be produced in support of it, evidence which is sufficient to make out a prima facie case. I am afraid that the facts upon which the hon member for Houghton has based her case, do not lay that foundation.

I want to conclude by saying that if every judge who imposed a sentence were to be subjected to discussion in this House without the court record having been read through, without consideration being given to the legal principles that prevail whenever sentence is passed, and whilst there is a political connection between the dissatisfaction and the sentence, no judge could be sure that there would be a separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

Mr Chairman, I find the approach which has been adopted by the hon member for Vryburg to be rather remarkable, because instead of our dealing with the motion in question there are now two other accused who are being attacked here. The one is the Johannesburg Bar Council and the other is the hon member for Houghton. Hon members must make no mistake about the fact that the hon member for Houghton is well able to look after herself. As far as the Bar Council is concerned I find this attack remarkable.

I want to give hon members an example. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North attacked the Bar Council and said that they had said that the man who had given evidence as being the provider of labour was a White man. I read from the statement:

“Black” is the word. “Black” means Black. It does not mean White. I do not know how he can say “White”.

Let me take another example. The hon member for Vryburg decides he has another version of this statement and says that there is again another misstatement because it is said that it is not correct that the accused asked to pay the fine in instalments but that the judge ordered it to be paid in instalments. Let me read what it says:

That is what it says, not what this hon gentleman says. Why attack the Johannesburg Bar Council instead of dealing with the merits of the case? That is what I want to know.

I think you have the wrong page.

No, I have the right document. Here is my piece of paper. It is headed “The Statement of the Johannesburg Bar Council”. Is the hon member reading from something else? [Interjections.]

Let me refer to the hon member for Houghton. This is the last speech that the hon lady will make in this House. I want to say here and now that she is not only a remarkable lady in South African politics but also in world politics. One of the things that worries me is whether there are going to be people of the same calibre, courage and perseverance in respect of the rule of law and the judiciary, after she has left here, to carry on the work that she has done. That is the test as to whether those of us who will be here will be able to carry on that tradition. To turn this whole thing now into an attack upon the hon member for Houghton is an absolutely disgraceful and despicable thing.

There is no question that the judiciary is of a high standing in South Africa. It is known for its impartiality, skills and experience. I stand here with a very heavy heart for having to say that I participate in the debate on this draft resolution and that I support this draft resolution, because I would rather that we did not have to do it. However, the fact that such a debate can take place shows that this is an exception to a very fine judicial system in South Africa.

Secondly, it shows that the judiciary is so highly regarded that when there is an exception, that exception cannot be ignored. Thirdly, I think it redounds to the credit of the institution of Parliament that we who are here as representatives of our own electorates are able to express the views which the public has in this regard.

The hon the Minister quoted from the book Judges on Trial. Perhaps I have a different book to the hon the Minister, because I very clearly read the following on p 165—if the hon the Minister has a copy he can check it—

It says “short of”.

That hon Minister must listen. It says furthermore:

That is what it says.

It says “short of”. [Interjections.]

Certainly, it is the ordinary English meaning of those words. I will read it again if he wants me to.

The hon the Minister also forgot and did not mention one of the other grounds which is given in this book, namely the test of public confidence in the administration of justice. It is of fundamental importance that there is public confidence in the administration of justice.

Let me put the facts very clearly. There are some realities in relation to this. Firstly, a man died. That is a fact and it is no use for the hon member for Vryburg to come here with his stories. There is a man who has died. Secondly, it is the actions of the accused together with certain people who acted under their direction that caused that.

This is a fact that cannot be disputed. The third is that the treatment that was meted out to the accused was barbaric. The hon member for Vryburg says I did not read the statement which was common cause in regard to the agreed facts. I want to read two statements. The one is the actual evidence of the post-mortem examination. This man did not do it to himself! Somebody did it to him. It says:

Those are facts and not the imagination!

Let me read the agreed statement. In case the hon member for Vryburg wants to check it, he will find it on page 37 of the record. It says:

*The open hand is, of course, always present and I quoted the injuries above. The statement continues—

Those are facts! Those are facts from the record. [Interjections.] We are now speaking of the record.

†The issue which I have put very simply is that it is the right of the public to criticise a judgement and a sentence. Any member of the public is entitled to do that and we are doing no more than that; we are expressing the view of the public. We are using the correct procedure which is by way of substantive motion to censure because one cannot do it in any other way in this House. We are exercising this right of the public which I have quoted from the book that the hon the Minister has there.

When we talk about the sentence I do not argue with the hon members of the CP who have quoted from authorities that an appeal court does not substitute its own judgement when a judge has exercised discretion in respect of a sentence. We do not do that either. However, there is a sense of shock in the community that this man whose sin was that he had killed a puppy and injured another some two months before—I do not approve of that and I am very unhappy about it—was found, grabbed, and taken away. They tried to extort a confession out of from him on their version of the facts and then one has the picture, as it was painted by the District Surgeon, of what was done to this man. Whether that man was White, whether he was Black and whether the accused were White or Black is irrelevant. Justice must be colour-blind. We do not tolerate that kind of behavior in our country. That is the reality of what this is about. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a fact that murder, assault and culpable homicide cases appear daily in our courts. It is a fact that we take cognisance of such incidents with intense distaste, and it is a fact that penalties are imposed daily in our courts about which some of us will differ in regard to the extent of that penalty.

It is no argument for the hon member for Yeoville to present the facts in connection with the degree of assault and then to ask whether hon members on this side of the House condone this. Surely this is irrelevant. This is not what the motion which was introduced by the hon member for Houghton deals with.

The question is whether we have here the conduct of a judge which was so serious and which was such a blunder that this body, the legislature, should intervene and express their opinion about it. As you know the normal procedure is that the law presents its own rectifications in cases where there have been possible errors.

The hon the Minister put it to hon members that we would possibly have to discuss the fact that this case or possibly other cases proved the existence of a specific deficiency. We would like to rely on the support of those hon members in the event of attempts in this connection by the hon the Minister and the Government to bring about a rectification in the case of such a possible deficiency.

However, if we once again take cognisance this morning of the fact that the hon member for Houghton and her supporters were not prepared to paint the full picture and to consider all the facts, we ask what the case is in regard to the objectivity and the perspective those hon members also wish to present in this case.

†I question the motive behind this motion. When I listen to the interjections of hon members in that party and the manner in which they reacted to the hon the Minister and other speakers on this side of the House, then even more so do I question the motive behind this motion.

What is the motive? Tell me what you think the motive is!

I have found very interesting background history which I should like to present to hon members in this connection.

What is the motive? You are a coward!

I return to a speech of the hon member for Sandton on 4 June 1985…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Yeoville allowed to call other people “cowards”? [Interjections.] He referred to the hon member for Sundays River.

Order! Did the hon member for Yeoville say that?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I said if the hon member would not state the motive, I say he is a coward. I asked him to state the motive but he would not do so. I did say he was a coward.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville did say the hon member for Sundays River is a coward and the hon member must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, one takes these things from whence they come. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to a speech made by the hon member for Sandton on 4 June 1985. It is printed in Hansard: House of Assembly, col 6940 and 6941.

†He was reflecting on our judicial system and he quoted a number of cases, inter alia, from the Financial Mail, and this is important. He referred to two matters:

He continued by saying:

*Since then a very interesting book by Prof Adrian Van Blerk entitled Judge and be judged has been published. This book is an adaptation of her doctoral thesis that she wrote under the guidance of Prof Hosten of the University of South Africa, with Prof Alison Khan of the University of the Witwatersrand as the external examiner.

What does she say in connection with these two cases quoted by the hon member for Sandton? I refer to page 59 of her book.

†Let us first deal with the question of the Black man who got three years’ imprisonment because he had ANC slogans engraved on a tea mug.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Houghton was stopped by Mr Speaker because she was referring to cases which were not the subject matter of this motion. If that ruling was correct, and I obviously accept Mr Speaker’s ruling to be correct, is this hon member entitled to refer to other cases?

Order! The hon member for Sundays River may proceed; I shall listen to what he has to say.

Mr Chairman, the fact that Prof Van Blerk brings to light is that this person had already been found not guilty on appeal before this statement was made in the Financial Mail and before the hon member spoke.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is talking about a different case. A different hon member is talking about a different case. Why can he do that and the hon member for Houghton cannot refer to another case?

Order! I am trying to ascertain what the hon member is saying. As soon as I am able more or less to follow what he is saying, I will be better able to consider a point of order. Please bear with the Chair. The hon member for Sundays River may continue.

What about the second case of the “roasting of a Black man over a fire by two soldiers who raped his wife…”

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Now the hon member is referring to another case concerning the roasting of a person over a fire. Is that permissible? [Interjections.]

Order! I have already indicated to the hon member for Yeoville that I am trying to follow the drift of the argument. I do not know how the hon member for Sundays River is going to link his speech to the motion, but I suggest he does so rather speedily so that I can understand what he is trying to say.

Mr Chairman, I should like to indicate what the motive is. We are dealing here with the case of a motion which is part of a pattern that we have observed over an extended period, namely that certain assertions have been made in regard to the administration of justice which are not in the interest of the administration of justice in South Africa, and which are false in many cases.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It seems that you are not even seeing us for points of order when we raise them.

Order! No, the hon member for Sundays River was addressing me in answer to a question. I had to let him finish his explanation. I now give the hon member the opportunity to raise his point of order.

Mr Chairman, the hon member was merely continuing his speech. The problem is that the ruling which you gave differs materially from the ruling which was given when the hon member for Houghton spoke. Could you please somehow correlate the ruling so that some fairness operates in this regard?

Order! I have not given a ruling at all!

*The hon member for Sundays River may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Mr Speaker gave a ruling when the hon member for Houghton spoke about other cases that involved this specific judge. The hon member for Sundays River is discussing completely different cases now. [Interjections.]

Is that the jurist from Langlaagte speaking?

Order! I suspect it could possibly be as the hon member for Langlaagte stated. The hon member for Sundays River may proceed.

As regards the case that was quoted, the following became clear from of Prof Van Blerk’s research:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order…

Order! I must say I find it difficult to understand to what the hon member for Sundays River is referring. I suggest he change to another subject.

If what I presented to hon members is correct, namely that certain allegations were made in the past which were not based on correct facts, is it not strange that today we are again discussing and giving reasons for a motion which has not been based on complete facts.

Which of the facts in this case are wrong?

As Prof Van Blerk indicated in her comprehensive study, the result is that South Africa was discredited overseas and it is not in the interests of South Africa that our judicial system, which is viewed with high regard and esteem throughout the world, should be discredited in this manner by people in their over-zealousness.

I should like to present to hon members what Prof Van Blerk says:

I wish to say that the motive for this motion cannot be anything else but to bring South Africa’s judicial system blindly into discredit again. [Interjections.]

†I would like to conclude by saying that this was the hon member for Houghton’s final disservice to her country.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order:… [Interjections]… in all honour and decency, surely to suggest that the hon member for Houghton has performed a disservice to her country is out of order. [Interjections.]

Order! I personally would not have used the term in the circumstances, but I do not find it unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, I will not bother with the hon member who has just sat down. He has done no service to this country, either disservice or any other type of service. Something tells me that the remaining time he has in this House will be spent in the same way.

I want to thank my colleagues, the hon member for Yeoville and the…

Order! The Chair finds it difficult to hear the hon member for Houghton. Hon members must lower their voices. The hon member may continue.

I want to thank my colleagues, the hon members for Berea and Yeoville, for participating in this debate, and for presenting arguments which I believe are totally valid and which cannot be refuted and have not been refuted by the hon members speaking after them. I would like to compliment my friend of many years standing, the hon member for Berea, who is also going to leave this House, for the integrity that he has displayed during the years that he has been in Parliament. I think he will be sorely missed.

Let me come down to the case itself that we are dealing with. The hon the Minister did not deal with the case at all in his reply. He kept going on and on about the undesirability of interfering with the independence of the judiciary. That is a principle which I agreed with at the outset in moving this motion. I stated immediately that this was a time-honoured principle in this House and it had been upheld by many authorities—Speaker Jansen, Mr Kilpin, Erskine May and others. No one has denied that. Of course it is desirable that the judiciary should be independent, and it is also desirable—this is in reply to the hon member for Bethal—that this House should not interfere with sentences passed by judges as a general rule. That is the principle and this is what we all agree with. There is no argument about that—none at all.

However, Mr Speaker has allowed a motion of censure. He has allowed that motion for the simple reason that the same authorities that point out the need for the independence of the judiciary have also pointed out that this does not in any way prevent the right of members of Parliament to criticise judges provided that it is done in the correct way, and that is by means of a substantive motion brought to the House with good cause and facts that are substantiated and then, too, only in exceptional cases. Mr Speaker has allowed that motion and it took me the whole session to persuade him to do so. I have given notice of several other motions of a similar kind which he rejected, but this last motion he saw fit to accept and therefore we are having this debate this morning.

[Inaudible.]

Well, therefore the hon the Minister is questioning Mr Speaker’s decision and the same goes for the hon member for Bethal and any other hon member who objects to our discussing this motion this morning.

[Inaudible.]

This is simply absurd because Mr Speaker has decided that we may debate this motion as it is acceptable. However, I want to point out—as I said right at the beginning, quoting those well-known authorities—that this can only be done when there is a gross perversion of justice—therefore the statement by the hon member for Bethal, and I believe the hon member for Ermelo, that we would be bringing this kind of motion over and over again if this precedent was accepted, is nonsense. It is nonsense! First of all there has to be a gross perversion of the law and secondly, we should look at the past. This procedure has never been followed since 1910, although the same right has existed for this House to question the decision of a judge. It has never been done.

[Inaudible.]

No.

There was one attempt to impeach a judge—and let me point out that this is not a motion for impeachment. The hon the Minister’s argument is based largely on the assumption that this is a motion for impeachment. It is no such thing. Censure of a judge has never been moved in this House and may I point out in all modesty—since the hon the Minister said I set myself up as a court of review and so forth—that I have been in this House for 36 years and this is the first time that I have sought to move such a motion. He is therefore talking absolute nonsense.

You have always been doing it irregularly!

Nonsense!

Yes! Attacking judges at random.

Why did the hon the Minister not take points of order then?

I have tried to put you right before.

Then the hon the Minister should obviously have taken points of order.

I did, many a time.

Never, never. Then they were bad points of order because they were never allowed. This is the first time and the hon the Minister is talking absolute nonsense!

I am not going to reply to the hon the Minister’s question about whether we will support the right of the State to appeal. We first want to see what kind of measure he is going to bring to this House because we do not trust him. That is the real truth. We have no idea what he is going to do and if we give a blanket acceptance now, then we will of course be held to it. Secondly, there are also civil cases where people do not have the means to appeal and therefore his argument does not hold water.

Where has the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North disappeared to? He makes his speech, he attacks me and then he runs off. That is very unparliamentary of him and his hon colleagues might well tell him that I said so.

He questions—and others did this as well—the inference in our arguments from this side of the House that the judgment had a racist basis. He questions that and I want to give an example of another case which took place in South Africa in 1979 when the highest court of the land had to deal with a similar case. That was the case of The State vs Du Toit in 1979.

It is very similar to this case. A Black man was killed and the accused in this case was a White fanner who had been convicted of culpable homicide and two assaults.

He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment of which two were suspended, and he made the mistake of appealing. On appeal the judge increased the sentence, and he said that mitigating circumstances were such that they prevented him from increasing the sentence even further.

Even further?

Even further. He went on to say…

Was there a counter-appeal?

Yes. [Interjections.]

In this case Chief Justice Rumpff said:

He went on to say that the trial court had misdirected itself on the race issue. [Interjections.] I see that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is back. I wish he would listen. [Interjections.]

I must tell hon members that Chief Justice Rumpff said then—I also say it in this case, as do my friends, the hon members for Berea and Yeoville:

That is what we say about Judge Strydom in his hearing of the case of The State v Jacobus Vorster and Petrus Leonard.

Finally, on this charming disservice charge which was made against me by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, I say that it is the hon members who vote against this motion of censure who will be perpetrating a disservice, not only to Parliament, but also to the courts of justice in South Africa. [Interjections.] They are thereby giving the green light to Judge Strydom to continue on his merry way in handing down racist judgements. [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

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

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES—18: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; De Beer, Z J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Schwarz, H H; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

NOES—103: Alant, T G; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Coetsee, H J; Coetzee, H J; De Beer, S J; De Jager, C D; Delport, J T; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Gerber, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hartzenberg, F; Hattingh, C P; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jacobs, S C; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Langley, T; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, F J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, M J; Meyer, A T; Mulder, C P; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, C B; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Snyman, W J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Thompson, A G; Uys, C; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Minister of Justice put.

Substitution of the words agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting).

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That the House confirms the independence of the Judiciary and is consequently, in accordance with established principles and customs, not prepared to act as a court of appeal or review. The House also confirms that the conduct of judges may not be discussed other than by way of a substantive motion which constitutes a prima facie case and which could lead to the removal of a judge from office, and consequently confirms the rulings of Mr Speaker on 8 and 14 March 1989 on pages 24 up to and including 28 and pages 33 up to and including 35 of the Minutes, which, inter alia, have the effect that the decision relating to the admissibility of such a substantive motion is left in the discretion of the Speaker. Since the motion of the honourable member for Houghton—

1. (1) ignores the facts and events which preceded the sentence;
2. (2) has the effect that the House is today requested to act as a court of appeal or review; and
3. (3) does not comply with the requirements for a substantive motion to lead to the removal of a judge from office,

the motion should accordingly be rejected.

Business suspended at 12h49 and resumed at 141115.

INTERPELLATIONS AND QUESTIONS—see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”.

Order! I have no list of speakers of the majority party in front of me; I only have a speakers’ list of hon members of the DRP.

Mr Chairman, I regret to say that there is a report that has to be submitted. We cannot say anything before this report has been submitted.

Order! That is quite correct, but then the report must be submitted. Nevertheless, I need a speakers’ list. I will, however, give the hon the Chief Whip the opportunity to move that the report be approved.

Mr Chairman, I move that the report be approved. I wish to point out that this is just a matter of allowing the committee to conduct its business in a proper and unbiased fashion. We want objectivity to be our main aim. We will not reach this if we allow members to be partly responsible for making allegations. We submit that neither can an hon member decide over his or her own evidence.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition opposes this report vehemently because, from what the hon Chief Whip of the majority party has said, it is quite clear that the central issue is to achieve objectivity. They motivate the report by saying:

1. 1. Mr J J Swartz, who was appointed as a member of the Committee on 16 May 1989, expressed himself in a speech during a joint meeting in the Chamber of Parliament on 10 April 1989 on the alleged reflections which constitute the subject… he had to withdraw at the direction of Mr Speaker; and
2. 2. the possibility is not excluded that Mr Swartz himself might have to give evidence before the Committee,

Mr Chairman, if this is true of the hon member for Daljosaphat, it is equally true of another member of this committee, namely Mr D W…

[Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon Leader of the Official Opposition the opportunity to make his speech.

Something identical happened to Mr D W N Josephs and I want to quote him from Hansard, 6 April 1989, column 4868, as follows:

Order! It may be a lie but the hon member may not say that…. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it…

Mr Chairman, what difference is there between the withdrawal of the hon member for Riversdal and that of the hon member for Daljosaphat? We have an identical situation and we feel what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members on this side of the House must please allow the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member withdrew the words, “It is a lie”. He did not withdraw his statement.

A second member of this committee, Mr D Lockey, had the following to say, and I quote Hansard of 7 April, column 4948:

Mr Chairman, I made an allegation of alleged corruption. That is an allegation. According to the hon member Mr Lockey this is a “mean and scurrilous attack”. If that is being objective, I do not know what is!

Here again an hon member of the ruling party has placed himself in a situation identical to that of the hon members for Riversdal and Daljosaphat if we are going to accept the principle of objectivity. Objectivity does not exist in this committee. It is not even a court of law. Every single hon member of the ruling party is part of the LP and therefore part of the accused against whom I have made certain allegations. Where is the objectivity?

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Therefore we reject this report.

Mr Chairman, as chairperson of this committee I feel it necessary to point out that fair-mindedness and objectivity must be the keynote of the functioning of this committee.

Let us find out what is the subject under discussion. We are not discussing the hon nominated member Mr Lockey. He is not the subject of discussion. We are not discussing the hon member for Riversdal. He is not under discussion. The subject under discussion is the membership on this committee of the hon member for Daljosaphat. Should that hon member wish to object to the inclusion of any other member on the committee, surely he should take that matter to the committee and should not rant and rave in the House of Parliament.

We did exactly that. The committee found that it would be ill conceived to have a person who is party to having made the very same statements and allegations as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the Joint Chamber. We found that it was ill conceived to have that hon member sitting in judgement of his own statements. He, in turn, did not object to the presence of any other member on that committee.

I would suggest that should that hon member wish to object to the inclusion of any other member he should come to the committee meeting and make his point there. For this reason I believe that we have a case here and I would appeal to the hon member—he is a retired lawyer and should have a sense of balance and good judgement—that he… [Interjections.]… withdraw from this committee.

Order! The hon member for Dysselsdorp must limit his interjections.

Finally, we would have preferred him to have the decency to withdraw from the committee, but since he lacks the moral fibre for that we have decided to object to his inclusion on this committee. Having said that I must say that I support this report.

Mr Chairman, I submit today that the committee, in excluding a member from that committee of enquiry, acted outside the terms of reference. They were not appointed to go into the qualifications of members sitting on that committee. They were appointed to go into the allegations that were made.

Secondly, by the same token as the hon member for Daljosaphat has been disqualified, suppose we replace him with another man like the hon member for Bishop Lavis. They will then say that he is just as prejudiced. He has spoken out against corruption. Worst of all, of course, they will never accept me. I can forget about it. I write myself off straight away because I am the most hated man amongst these hon members in their eyes. Therefore let us forget about me. They can go on to blackball the whole seven of us and we can… [Interjections.]… start appointing some of the other hon members of the Official Opposition and by the time they ever get the facts…

Order! The hon member for Haarlem must give the hon member for Matroosfontein a chance. We shall give the hon member for Haarlem an opportunity to speak if he so wishes. [Interjections.] No, it is not for him to say!

By the same token they can just about blackball anybody that we propose onto that committee and by the time it should ever come around even to sit and look at the first allegation it will already be November 1990. It will be too late for the very purposes of the whole exercise. Thirdly, it is an attempt to hamper the entire exercise of holding an enquiry into the allegations.

It is my opinion that, if this committee fails to get on with the job, we should perhaps appeal to Mr Speaker to appoint a disciplinary committee. If this fails I will go even further. I say this for the benefit of the Press, because we can only rely on the Press to really cut this thing open. [Interjections.]

I have only just received this recommendation. The last part of the recommendation states:

That does not mean that the hon member for Daljosaphat qualifies. There is mention of reconsideration. [Interjections.]

That is your interpretation, Sir.

Order! Yes. That is why they state “Report to be considered”. That means that it will again be referred to the Rules Committee. The hon member for Matroosfontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the whole matter not sub judicet?

Order! That is the implication of what I have just quoted. That is why I say I am sorry, because I have only just seen the report. I was not able to examine it beforehand.

Mr Chairman, I will abide by your ruling. We are in the difficult position that we do not accept the yardstick of the ruling party that the hon member for Daljosaphat is not competent, for the very reasons that they advance. We can advance identical reasons about two other hon members. Will that also be referred to the Rules Committee?

Order! I think this should be clarified at the meeting of the Rules Committee which is supposed to sit after this House has adjourned.

Mr Chairman, may I make a submission?

Order! The hon member is at liberty to make any submission to this committee. The hon member for Matroosfontein may proceed.

I also read a copy of the interim report.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want your ruling whether this matter is sub judice or not, because if it is, the hon member may not proceed.

Order! The hon member for Matroosfontein may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

I have also read that interim report. Unlike their leader perhaps, our leader saw to it that each one of us had a copy of it. He placed it in our hands. He came to my office and said to me I should look at it. So I had a look at the report, and I am of the opinion that the hon members of the governing party in this House do not want this enquiry to continue. I ask myself what they have to hide.

Order! We cannot discuss the merits or demerits of the report. [Interjections.] This is a report from the committee, and if this House is not satisfied with it, the committee will go back to its deliberations and anyone is entitled to make any submission to this committee. The committee will then come back to this House again.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate your explanation. I ask you to allow me to conclude, because it does seem that nobody wants me to submit anything.

Failing the appointment of a disciplinary committee by Mr Speaker, I would call for a commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of a judge or a magistrate so that the Press can report day by day as in the case of the Harms Commission and in the case of the James Commission, so that this thing can be cut open to the bone.

Order! Nobody forbade the hon member’s party to request that this matter be reconsidered. The report must once again be considered by the Rules Committee on which the hon member’s party will be represented. As the hon member’s leader said, the committee will then reconsider submissions. We are not, however, discussing the mechanics of what can and cannot be done.

Mr Chairman, I was merely suggesting…

Order! The hon member is pre-empting the issue.

Mr Chairman, in all fairness, let us look at what the hon member for Matrasfontein… [Interjections.]

Order! There is no such constituency. The hon member should not listen to the hon member for Haarlem.

The hon member for Matroosfontein. I am sorry about the association, Sir, but it is probably because the hon member has been sleeping here for the past five years. It was a Freudian slip.

Let us analyse what this hon member said. Basically he concentrated on the Press. He wants everything in the Press. What does that tell us? If he is busy with a Press campaign, is that not characteristic of people who are indulging in a smear campaign and does he not indict himself by doing so? I leave that question in the air.

Secondly, he talked about blackballing. He gave the impression that this committee was determined to blackball all their members from serving on that committee. He actually says that they do not want this committee’s work to continue. Both those points are absolutely wrong. I would say the hon member is preempting the functioning of the committee and is also pre-judging the work of the committee. I would even go so far as to say that he should be made to withdraw those remarks. He is questioning the integrity of every person serving on that committee and in a very real sense he is questioning the integrity of this House. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is slighting the whole institution of Parliament by making such allegations. He must not judge everybody by his own yardstick.

This committee is functioning in as objective a manner as possible and the whole idea is to be unbiased. By the speech that he made here the hon member for Matroosfontein has definitely excluded himself from that objective of the committee.

Perhaps the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not understand your ruling, Sir. We are not discussing the allegations here. When we talk about the mechanics let us not think about tools and motor cars. We are talking about the details of the work of the committee. Those things are not to be discussed here. This is not a closed committee. What we are to discuss here is whether or not we are going to support this interim report. Should I explain the word “interim” to him as well? [Interjections.] In Afrikaans it is “tussentydse”. We are not dealing with the “mechaninisms” as some people say.

Nothing that has been put forward by hon members of the Official Opposition has convinced me that we would be wrong in supporting the interim report which has come from this committee. I ask that we bring this matter to finality now.

Mr Chairman, since I… [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, does the hon member have the right to ask if the hon member is sober?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, since I am the subject of this whole debate, I feel that at this stage I should not give an opinion about the matter. I shall do that at a later stage. [Interjections.]

Order! I must go according to the list and the hon member’s name appears here.

Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak again.

The chairman of the committee makes great play of the character of this report and what is to be discussed. We never went into the merits of the allegations at all. We are questioning precisely what the chairman of the committee is talking about, namely the technicalities and the constitution of this committee—who sits on it and their qualifications. [Interjections. ]

The allegation that there is an attempt to delay the work of the committee is quite clearly put in this report. [Interjections.] Oh yes! The report reads as follows—

I shall repeat it—

How long are we going to sit and wait for the qualifications and the bona fides of the hon member for Daljosaphat to be established by the Rules Committee? [Interjections.]

This is a ruse, and I appeal to the sense of justice that may or may not exist in this House that this be withdrawn so that we may get on with the business of the committee.

Mr Chairman, it is precisely so that we cannot proceed with the workings of the committee until we have settled the issue as far as the other hon member is concerned. That is obvious. If there is no other hon member from the opposition parties, we cannot proceed.

I am sorry that all the discussions which took place did in fact take place. I deem it unnecessary. We merely had to discuss the acceptance or the rejection of that interim report you have in your hand, Sir. That is all we had to discuss here. I do not think that the competency of all the hon members of the opposition parties can ever be challenged. I do not think so. I therefore urge that the report be accepted.

Report adopted (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Mr Chairman, on three occasions this Bill was duly considered by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development. As is apparent from the documents, several amendments were accepted or rejected. There are also further amendments on the Order Paper. Firstly I shall refer to the clauses in the Bill, and thereafter I shall refer briefly to the amendments I myself have placed on the Order Paper.

†Clause 1 seeks to rectify a problem concerning the transfer of land and other public property to the governments of the self-governing territories. In terms of the existing proviso to section 36(1) of the principal Act, such land may only be administered for the settlement, support, benefit and material and moral welfare of the citizens of the self-governing territory concerned. This restriction is a restraint on the settlement of and investment by people such as industrialists who are not citizens of self-governing territories. It is now envisaged to amend Section 36(1) of the principal Act to delete the proviso. This will enable persons or bodies outside the self-governing territories—in other words, noncitizens—and even investors from abroad, to make meaningful investments in self-governing territories.

When land and certain rights were transferred to the self-governing territories in 1986, this proviso was included in the transfer proclamations. A restrictive proviso consequently appeared in all the relevant proclamations. With the amendment of section 36(1) it follows that the proclamations issued in terms of that section must also be amended accordingly. Clause 3, read with the schedule, amends the proclamations accordingly.

*In terms of Item 26 of Schedule 1 of the principal Act a legislative assembly of a self-governing territory is only empowered to pass legislation in connection with births, deaths and marriages of citizens. As it is, marriages have over the years been solemnised between individuals in cases in which one or even both have not been citizens of the relevant territory. This could make such marriages unlawful, with the children of such marriages therefore regarded as illegitimate. In order to rectify this problem, clause 2 of the Bill amends Item 26 of the Schedule by deleting the words “in respect of citizens”. In order to rectify the position in regard to marriages between non-citizens which have already been solemnised, it is necessary to regard the amendment as having come into operation on 31 March 1971—the date on which self-governing territories obtained these powers. Clause 5(2) of the Bill makes provision for that.

During the deliberations of the joint committee it was proposed that the principal Act’s short title be changed to the “Self-governing Territories Constitution Act”. It appears that the concept “national states” only appears in the short title of the principal Act and that in legislation and in almost all documents reference is generally made to “self-governing territories”. It is therefore sensible to have the principal Act’s short title changed. In clause 4(1) provision is consequently made for the amendment of the short title of the principal Act to read: “Self-governing Territories Constitution Act”. In order to ensure that there are no problems with references to the principal Act in other Acts, clause 4(2) is necessary. It merely provides that a reference in any Act or document to “national state” or “National States Constitution Act, 1971” shall be construed as a reference to “self-governing territory” or “Self-governing Territories Constitution Act, 1971”. It is, in other words, a consequential amendment.

I shall now refer briefly to the amendments to the Bill appearing in my name on the Order Paper. The substance of all the amendments was given due consideration by the joint committee and will, in terms of the Standing Rules, be referred back to the committee.

Thus far only a Black area could be incorporated into self-governing territories. In my speech on the Alteration of Boundaries of Self-governing Territories Bill, which was discussed yesterday, there was a comprehensive reference to the definition of “Black area”. The position is that in specific cases there are pieces of land within self-governing territories which are surrounded by areas which do not comply with the definition of a Black area. On the instructions of the KwaZulu government the Secretary for Justice of KwaZulu gave evidence about this and about the concomitant problems before the joint committee.

The KwaZulu government is experiencing administrative problems because the land on which certain magistrates’ offices and police stations are situated are not in Black territories and can therefore not be incorporated into KwaZulu.

Although the example of KwaZulu best illustrates the problem, evidence was lead to indicate that this is not the only self-governing territory which is experiencing such problems.

In the self-governing territories there are also pieces of missionary land and mission farms, for example Eerstesending at Witsieshoek in QwaQwa, which is the property of the NG Church. In KwaZulu there are also mission farms which belong, amongst other things, to the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church. There are quite a few Black communities living on the mission farms and the Church leases the land to various individual Black farmers. On islands surrounded by Lebowa, for example, there is land which belongs to companies and on which mining operations are already in progress. The mining companies have even created surface infrastructure.

These examples illustrate why it is necessary to make the clause applicable to all the self-governing territories, and not only to KwaZulu, as was proposed in the joint committee. The wording of the clause is also being adapted to bring it into line with a similar provision in the other Bill on the Order Paper.

The amended clause envisages amending Item 2 of Schedule 1 of the principal Act in such a way that self-governing territories are empowered, with the approval of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, to provide education to persons outside the relevant territories, but within the RSA.

As it is, because of an historically-determined combination of circumstances, certain self-governing territories such as KwaZulu control schools situated on South African Development Trust property and in Black territories outside their area of jurisdiction. The areas are earmarked for eventual incorporation into the relevant self-governing territory. The de facto position is being legally confirmed with retroactive effect.

The amendments which will be brought about by the Bill and by the proposed amendments are, in every case, necessary for the better administration of the self-governing territories by their respective regional governments. The governments of the self-governing territories have been consulted on the amendments, and I move that the Bill and the amendments be agreed to.

Mr Chairman, for the sake of brevity I do not think I am going to repeat all I said yesterday in respect of the Bill which was introduced yesterday by the hon the Deputy Minister. I think the arguments I presented then would apply equally to the Bill which is now before this Chamber. However, I do think it is prudent for me just to make reference to some salient points.

I said yesterday that we are on the threshold of, and we are talking about expectations of, an Indaba at which the constitutional future of South Africa would hopefully be resolved. I said that the hon the Minister, the chief leader of the NP, had given an assurance that he was going to promote the coming together of all South Africans at an Indaba to resolve our constitutional future.

Hence I want to reiterate that it is not desirable for us to go on dealing with ad hoc measures in this particular climate. I believe the issues raised in respect of this particular Bill could very well form the basis for discussion and negotiations at the Indaba itself to address the problems for which ad hoc solutions are being suggested in this particular Bill.

I am mindful of the fact that issues relating to KwaZulu/Natal were raised at the joint committee and there might be some merit in addressing them, but this Bill attempts not only to address those problems, but to encompass the entire Republic of South Africa in respect of national states.

Therefore, and in view of the statements I have made in this regard, my party cannot see its way clear to going along with the provisions of this Bill. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister not, at this late stage of this session of Parliament, to indulge in this kind of legislation. I would rather await the post-election era. Then we could deal with the issue on a macro-basis. With these comments, I once again appeal to the hon the Minister to withdraw this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I regret the fact that the hon member for Stanger did not see his way open to support this Bill, especially when one bears in mind that the contents of this Bill were actually requested by the Cabinet of KwaZulu itself.

*Mr Chairman, when a self-governing territory does not possess a single proclaimed magisterial district and does not have jurisdiction over a single magistrate’s court within its territory, there cannot, strictly speaking, be any question of a self-governing territory. Then the concept of “self-governing territory” in itself is really a contradiction. In my view, this Bill rectifies this deficiency. In other words, it also serves in practice to augment the autonomy of this self-governing territory.

Yesterday, during the discussion of the previous Bill, the hon member for Addo asked the hon the Deputy Minister a question across the floor of the House with reference to self-governing territories. He asked him: “Why do you continue with these things?”, or words to that effect. The hon the Deputy Minister gave a very good reply and I, just want to emphasise it during the debate as well. Own affairs institutions, of which self-governing territories are one, form the infrastructure of that form of power sharing that is advocated by the NP. In conjunction with the devolution of power, they form a vital infrastructure, and that is why this type of institution is important to this side of the House.

The Bill also provides that investments without risk…

Is that a good answer?

I think it is a good answer. [Interjections.] I do not think it is a poor answer. I think it is a sensible thing to do.

This Bill also provides for risk-free investments in these territories. If we were to go back a number of years to the Tomlinson Report, we would recall that that report recommended that this sort of capital should also be employed in these territories. That recommendation was ignored and this has hampered the development of these territories. One welcomes the rectification that is being made here as well.

One last word from me: I think the churches will also applaud this measure, because it means that people who for years had, technically, lived in sin, may now be legally married.

We are pleased to support the measure and the amendments.

Mr Chairman, I am certain that the hon member Dr Geldenhuys will understand that there should not be a need for me to touch on the points that he has raised. Our point of view with regard to consolidation—as I said yesterday—is clear and distinct. We oppose the consolidation of homelands because we do not believe that the homelands system is viable for this country. We have a different plan, which we believe should be looked at. As time passes this plan will become clearer and clearer to the ruling party in the House of Assembly.

I want to touch on the background of this amending Bill, and then I would like to indicate our reasons for our refusal to co-operate with regard to passing this Bill.

Evidence was led before this committee. The KwaZulu Legislative Assembly delegated the Secretary for Justice of KwaZulu to give evidence before this committee. That in itself is a tremendous recognition by the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu of the fact that there is power in Parliament and that we are not sell-outs by participating in the forum where the power lies. In his evidence the Secretary for Justice made it clear that the reason why the little pockets of land which are totally surrounded by KwaZulu territory, and which are still in White ownership and therefore part of the Republic of South Africa, needed to be included in the legislative authority of KwaZulu. The reason is that magisterial districts in KwaZulu, where these hamlet areas—as they are called—are, cannot be proclaimed because technically these areas are still part of the RSA. The Secretary for Justice said in his evidence:

Therefore, although we are totally opposed to the consolidation of self-governing territories per se, we took note of the administrative problems being suffered by the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly. For this reason we were prepared, solely in the interests of the administration of KwaZulu at present, to concede, should the amending Bill be redefined, to apply only to KwaZulu, and not to all six of the self-governing territories.

Some people say that this is selective opposition to consolidation. However, it is not. There is a difference between handing the National Government a blank cheque to incorporate land belonging to the RSA—which just happens to be surrounded by a self-governing territory—and on the other hand the case of KwaZulu. There is a massive difference between the two if one is to attach any importance to the document and the evidence that was led before this committee. If one wants to assist with regard to short-term needs by streamlining the administration of KwaZulu, then obviously one must, if one wants to make a concession, confine one’s argument to that territory. It is bad to make a case for all six self-governing territories when only one has this problem of magisterial districts not having been proclaimed. To those who say that we are applying selective opposition to consolidation, I would suggest that they read the evidence to find out what chronic problems are experienced in KwaZulu.

There are really strange things that can be said about this. I quote directly from the document brought by the Secretary for Justice of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly:

Look at how preposterous this whole policy of self-governing territories is! We want to drive towards total integration in this country. We want to make sense of the regional and geographical consolidation of areas into federal states in this country. Instead we have a system—and everybody knows the patchwork quilt of land areas which we correctly call the KwaZulu legislative assembly authority area—which was so badly planned that that particular self-governing area will never be able to be consolidated completely.

I want to indicate some further points in connection with evidence which was led. An example is given in this document, and I quote:

I do not expect everybody to know the geography of that territory, but for those hon members who do know the lay-out of that land, it will be clear. For the same reason the Vryheid magistrate would have no jurisdiction to sit in the KwaZulu district. That is the reason for it. I quote further:

Do you support the Bill?

We would have supported this Bill. In fact, we moved amendments accordingly. We moved amendments which were aimed at having the ambit of the Bill reduced and confined to apply only to the KwaZulu legislative assembly. If that had been done, we would have seen it as a concession which we would have had to make. We show an interest in the very real problems that those people suffer. We have an appreciation for the day to day problems which exist in the KwaZulu territory.

However, it does not follow that we want to give the Government carte blanche—and I wish to emphasise that—to incorporate any little tract of South African land which just happens to be surrounded by a self-governing territory within the Republic of South Africa. That is the main difference. We have said this repeatedly in the committee. People are so determined to brand us as people who are in favour of consolidation that they cannot see that there is a difference.

Had the ambit of the Bill been confined only to the KwaZulu legislative assembly territory, we would have made the concession of agreeing with the Bill for the sake of administrative expedience in that territory. However, with its present ambit, where a carte blanche is demanded of us for the inclusion of any territory within the Republic of South Africa which just happens to be totally surrounded by a self-governing territory, we cannot and do not see our way clear to support this Bill.

I think that this matter should be clear once and for all. I think the NP should understand our reasons for not being able to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, please note that I am speaking as a member of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates. In principle I have sympathy with what this Bill proposes to do. I want to follow the hon member for Wentworth by saying that the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu states that if this Bill is not enacted, the courts of KwaZulu will never be able to function as KwaZulu courts, KwaZulu will lose a lot of revenue in the form of fines and they will not be able to take over prisons because all prisoners will be prisoners of the RSA.

In view of these matters I am sympathetically inclined towards the Bill, but because of the concept of homelands which until recently were called Bantustans, it is something that my party cannot support. We have discussed this and will record our opposition to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the object of this amending Bill is the amendment of the National States Constitution Act in order to make it possible to incorporate land other than land in terms of the definition of Black areas in section 1 of the Black Authorities Act of 1951, and as contemplated in section 1 of the National States Constitution Act, into the areas of self-governing territories.

Moreover, what is at issue here, is not just any land. Clause 1 of the amending Bill provides expressly that the State President may, if he deems it expedient, and after consultation with the Minister of the Cabinet of the self-governing territory concerned, incorporate, into that self-governing territory, by way of proclamation, an area which is not a Black area but which is surrounded by the area of that self-governing territory.

In practical terms, this relates to nine small towns or hamlets which fall within the geographical area of KwaZulu and which are surrounded by KwaZulu, but which do not fall under the jurisdiction of KwaZulu. In his submission to the joint committee, the Secretary of Justice KwaZulu pointed out the problems in this regard. It will now be possible in terms of this amending Bill to incorporate the premises on which the magistrates’ offices in KwaZulu are situated, into KwaZulu. This will now make it possible in practice for KwaZulu to proclaim magisterial districts.

Furthermore, the amending Bill also envisages, inter alia, making it possible for self-governing territories to provide education to people outside the territory concerned, with the approval of the Minister of Education and Development Aid. As a result of an historically determined combination of circumstances, certain self-governing territories, like KwaZulu, control schools that are situated outside their territories. It is therefore essential to amend the principal Act.

This is probably one of the first examples of the principle of extraterritorial power, a principle which we shall probably see more of in the future. The CP is pleased to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to support this legislation. I find it very interesting that it should have become apparent from the hon member for Wentworth’s speech that our standpoints in this instance correspond to a fair degree, although they are argued from different angles. In my view, had it, in fact, been possible to find the time and the opportunity to go into the matter at greater length, it would have been possible to achieve consensus on the joint committee with regard to this matter. For that reason the House of Representatives does, in fact, support the KwaZulu aspect of the Bill.

There are many small towns in KwaZulu which are known as hamlets. The problem is that there are certain magistrate’s offices and police stations situated within certain of these small towns which fall under the jurisdiction of the South African legal system. Consequently, the magistrates here are still appointed by the Minister of Justice of the RSA. Attempts have been made, in co-operation with the South African Government, to rectify this anomaly through the proclamation and incorporation of these places so as to form part of the territory of KwaZulu.

The State law advisers have indicated, however, that this will not be possible unless an amendment is effected to the Constitution of the National States. It is as a result of this that this amending Bill is before us today.

†Looking at the background, the argument stalls the transfer of the hamlet areas to KwaZulu. The following evidence must be considered, namely that, as indicated by the hon member for Wentworth, the magisterial districts of KwaZulu have not yet been proclaimed and therefore all existing courts in KwaZulu are functioning as RSA courts.

The only real obstacle in the processing of the proclamation are the so-called hamlet areas. At present, if they were proclaimed, then the hamlets would be proclaimed as falling in the nearest RSA district, and that is a total impossibility and it would simply not be a workable situation. Regarding this matter, there is from our side an understanding of the arguments advanced by the hon member.

*When we look at this search for consensus, and if we are able to go through with it, then I wonder—this relates to the appeal by the CP—whether we could not also consider the area surrounding Morgenzon to be a so-called hamlet. I wonder whether they could give us an indication as to where they would ultimately like to have their section, which we must then proclaim. If they could just indicate to us in some way where they would ultimately like to settle, there could perhaps be an opportunity for them to do so in the future in terms of this legislation.

With these few words we are pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I will be fairly brief because there is no purpose in repeating arguments advanced by other speakers.

This Bill is a mixture. Our representatives on the committee where the Bill was discussed took the view that the Bill is in fact far too broad in its scope to enjoy the support of our party. We objected particularly to the provisions of clause 1 of the Bill.

The Bill provides for certain land other than that land defined as a “Black area” to be incorporated into self-governing territories if it is totally surrounded by or under the jurisdiction of a self-governing territory.

It was quite clear from the discussion in the committee that the main motivation was to try to accommodate the particular problems which were presented to the committee by the KwaZulu government relating to the nine hamlets to which reference has been made. The KwaZulu government put up evidence in a memorandum and they argued their case extremely well indeed. We believe that their view was entitled to support.

We accepted the initiative taken by other members of the committee that if the Bill related only to KwaZulu—in this regard to the problem of the hamlets—then certainly a case could be made out and could receive support. Apparently, however, our attempts to narrow the scope of the Bill so that it would relate only to KwaZulu were unsuccessful.

This leaves a situation where we have a Bill which gives the State President extremely wide powers in relation to the consolidation of pieces of land into self-governing states. It is quite possible, as the Bill is presently framed, for the State President to continue to add land to self-governing territories, thereby creating further White islands which he could later incorporate at will. We believe that this is power which cannot be allowed in legislation of this kind.

In so far as the provision relating to the administration of schools outside the boundaries of self-governing states are concerned—the amendment is contained in clause 3 of the Bill—if that were to apply to the particular problems in KwaZulu and if it were to relate to that particular situation, it could find support. However, we were unable to support that provision because of its general application, namely that it could apply to schools in for example Soweto or elsewhere, and that it could relate to the state of KwaNdebele or any other self-governing state.

We believe that this is also a provision which is far too wide. Despite the other clauses, relating to the registration of births and that sort of thing, which we find inoffensive and which we could support, we are compelled to reject this Bill. If the aspects in the Bill related entirely to KwaZulu, we could certainly have supported it. However, in the end, looking at the Bill in its broad terms, we were unable to give it our support and will not give it our support in this instance.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour to follow the hon member for Berea. I think hon members would have seen in the morning paper that this hon member does not intend to seek re-election. I think that is very unfortunate. Personally, I think his judgement is wrong.

Do not Worrall!

I think that he has made a big mistake. I am satisfied that we in this Parliament need his services and I am satisfied that the country in general needs his services. Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge his decision and we have to recognise the tremendous contribution he has made to this Parliament and to the country for more than two decades. [Interjections.]

I think I am one of three people who had the honour of forcing that hon member out of the United Party, to which he belonged, and into forming the PFP. One of those three people is now in England and another occupies a very illustrious place and therefore I should not bring his name into a political discussion…

Talk about the Bill.

I am talking about somebody who is far better than that hon member is.

Hear, hear!

Many years ago we used to go to his political meetings and harass and heckle him. We asked him what he was doing in the United Party and what he was doing in a racist party. If we had any influence in getting him to form the PFP, I claim that we made a contribution to the country.

Insofar as the Bill is concerned, it is unfortunate that the Government was not prepared to scrap clause 1. Clause 1 was the main bone of contention. Most of us in the joint committee understood the arguments made on behalf of the KwaZulu authority and were sympathetic to their wishes, but could not agree to giving the hon the State President un trammeled and unlimited dictatorial powers. We felt we did not want to assist in bringing about a Hitler, a Stalin or a Salazar in this country. [Interjections.] That is what would have happened if clause 1 had been approved.

We felt that the rights of Parliament which are supposed to be supreme, should not be abrogated simply because the Government waved KwaZulu before us. If the Government are really sincere in wanting to bring about an amelioration of the problems of KwaZulu, they would accept the proposals of the KwaZulu/ Natal Indaba. That will resolve all the problems at a stroke. [Interjections.] It would incidentally, from the Government’s point of view, also get rid of the problems which they think the Asians and the English of Natal create for them. [Interjections.] That is what the Government should have done, but they would not do that and they come along and want completely unacceptable constitutional proposals to be accepted by Parliament.

But KwaZulu wants it!

KwaZulu wants it in the same way that a hungry child cries for food. [Interjections.] KwaZulu is crying for food. [interjections.] The way to give them the food is not by means of a poisoned feeding bottle, but to give them pure clean milk. If one puts a little bit of dirt into a bucketful of pure clean milk, the whole of the bucketful of milk gets dirty. Clause 1 is the kind of dirt that we refuse to introduce into the bucketful of clean milk. That is why we are obliged to reject the whole Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives supports this Bill.

I want to draw attention to a remark made yesterday by the hon member for Wentworth to the effect that I at first approved the Bill when subsection (3) of clause 2 was still part of the Bill laid on the Table, and that afterwards I changed my mind. This is totally untrue. When I did comment on the Bill I said that in view of the fact that Parliament is sovereign—none of the other speakers raised this argument against that particular clause—that clause was redundant and unnecessary, and its removal would be correct. That was my position. It was not a change of a point of view, it was my clear position on the question of clause 2(3).

The argument that the Bill will be acceptable to the majority party in the House of Representatives if it applies only to KwaZulu is totally illogical. That party’s official stand is that it is opposed in principle to homelands, self-governing states and the independent states. There can be no compromise in that regard—the hon member for Wentworth repeated that point time and time again. What, then, does their attitude mean when they say they will support it if it is limited to KwaZulu only? It can only mean that they are giving favoured treatment to one state for reasons unknown.

Best known to themselves.

Surely all the other Black states must have similar if not identical problems to some extent? I will never believe that KwaZulu is unique in this particular case. The government of KwaZulu will not, I believe, be in favour of this kind of discrimination. “What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander” is a saying which, I am certain, the KwaZulu government and the KwaZulu people will agree with and endorse.

I do not want to continue with all the arguments I have raised before. What strikes me as completely strange and ironical is that when it suits the majority party in the House of Representatives, they use the name of Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, head of the KwaZulu government, as their authority for rejecting other laws, particularly to condemn the appointment of Black Cabinet Ministers. What logic do they now use to deny Dr Buthelezi’s government the relief they seek? Did they consult him, as they say they claim to have consulted him with regard to past legislation? I doubt that very much. This is another example of Coloured politicals prescribing to Blacks, which is quite intolerable.

Mr Chairman, I will be very brief. I think our case has been made, and I do not think it is necessary for me to continue to explain why we are opposing this particular piece of legislation. However, it has become necessary for me to rise again to clarify a few points.

Firstly, as far as the hon member for Stanger is concerned, he got in early and made a strong stand here, for which I respect him. He advanced reasons as to why they opposed the Bill. I only wish that in the joint committee he had been as determined about what he was saying. There it was a different matter. I find it strange that his party chose to abstain from voting, and it seemed to me that they were confused about what was going on. The same applies to the hon member for Lenasia Central. They must learn to be consistent in their arguments. I appeal to them in this regard. It does not help to abstain from the joint committee and then to come and take a strong stand here in a public gallery.

A few days ago one of the hon members—I cannot remember his name but I am willing to look it up in Hansard—alleged that the LP were puppets of the DP. I reacted to that because I got angry. I felt that it was not the right thing to say. It was an attack on us which was uncalled for.

I sat here listening very carefully to the hon member for Berea and now I can well understand why some of the NP members have this idea that there is collusion between the two parties. We certainly do consult with a variety of organisations and political groups, including the DP and including the NP. We sometimes even talk with the CP, believe it or not.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Parow seems surprised at this. We do consult with all political groupings but we are not prescribed to by any one political party. It is important to understand that. We therefore resent it when people accuse us of being the puppets of any other political organisation. By the way, the hon member who made this allegation was the hon member for Bloemfontein North.

I understand the way the hon member for Berea put the case today. I think he said that we tried to narrow the scope of the Bill. Now that is what we as the LP fought for on this committee from the beginning to the end.

The whole party made this point and we do not move around from one point to another. We stick to our principles and we gained the support of certain other parties for this. However, the initiative must not be taken away from our party. I appeal for recognition to be given to the fact that we were the ones who initiated the whole idea of the scope of the Bill being narrowed down.

I do not like to attack the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives. I have a deep respect for him as an old colleague as we were both involved in education. However, I would suggest that he should listen very carefully when people talk. I did not for one minute say that he had changed his mind—that he voted for the Bill at one stage and against it at another stage. He was consistent in that.

The difference is that he made it clear from the outset that he was in favour of the Bill being put through as is. Later, when the hon the Minister indicated a willingness to dispense with subsection (3) of clause 2, he was immediately again in favour of that as well. Therefore it shows that other interests are more important here. It is more important to be seen to be supporting the NP than it is to look at the implications of the provisions of an amending Bill as in the case of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives.

The hon member for King William’s Town is very concerned—elated, rather—about the hon member having supported it. Yes, certainly. The fact is—I say it with respect and I will say it over and over again anywhere else—that the LP members will never simply lend their support to a move made by any other political party unless it is convinced that the move is a positive one. There are times when we do support the NP. I stood up and argued for the National Council Bill in this very Chamber and so did my hon leader. There are several other Bills which we stood up and supported.

I am therefore trying to prove that we are not trying to be obstructionists. We look at the merits of a proposal and on the basis of the merits and demerits of the proposal, we argue our case. This is the appeal I would like to make to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives.

He must forget about the LP for a change and advance his own party’s cause. He must look at his party’s principles—if they have any—and he must look at the study material—the proposed amending Bill—and judge the merits and demerits of the Bill without blinding himself to those details in his mad fight, I suspect, with the hon leader of the LP.

Having made those points, I hope I have laid to rest certain misconceptions which may inadvertently have been created in this House.

Mr Chairman, listening as I did to hon members who objected to this Bill, there is one thing I cannot understand or fathom. I am referring to the fact that the Government is constantly being criticised by those who hold liberal opinions because, according to them, in terms of the land allocated to the self-governing territories the Black people possess only about 13% of the land.

Here we now have a very practical measure which, owing to practical considerations, has been introduced to incorporate additional land into the self-governing territories. Now we are being criticised for doing so and objections are being raised. Surely that does not accord with the so-called general liberal opinion which repeatedly levels criticism in this regard I should therefore like to tell hon members who object to this that I cannot understand why they are so critical of the fact that here, in a very practical way, we do in effect want to incorporate additional areas of jurisdiction into the self-governing territories.

I should like to extend my sincere thanks to hon members who spoke in support of the Bill. I thank the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, the hon member for Jeppe, the hon member for Randfontein, who gave his party’s support, and also the hon member for Southern Cape, who gave their support to the Bill.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stanger, although he was part of the committee, did not take part in its proceedings and for that reason he unfortunately did not hear what the officials from the KwaZulu government had to say about the problem they experienced and why they actually need this Bill. It is therefore a pity that he partakes in this debate without prior knowledge of what the problem really entails. Moreover, it is a pity that the officials from KwaZulu did not hear what he had to say this afternoon. I think the officials and the government of KwaZulu would be very interested in what he had to say. He, being a person from that area, I think, did not take a very wise approach this afternoon.

I would like to say that the hon member for Wentworth made some very good points in terms of his argument. I would like to say that he at least provides arguments which one can think about and argue against, unlike certain people. [Interjections.] Yes, unlike many other people.

However, I have the feeling that the hon member for Wentworth has a problem. According to his party’s policy, he is very much against the idea of the homelands. That he spelt out very clearly, and we accept that that is his party’s viewpoint. However, now he has a problem, because suddenly, when it comes to Natal, he has to admit that he wants to include this land in the area of KwaZulu. That is the Natal stand he has to take. I also said this to the hon member in the committee. This is in contradiction to his point of view that there no longer is a place for the homelands in South Africa.

*Yesterday I asked hon members a question, and I shall repeat it. I should like to hear the views of hon members of the Labour Party. Do they, in fact, want the self-governing territories to be declared invalid? Is that the standpoint they are adopting? According to their policy they are now adopting a standpoint in vehement opposition to the homeland idea. I should like to hear, however—and at some stage or other hon members must spell it out for us—what they want to do with the self-governing territories in terms of their policy? Do they want to abolish them? Do they want to abolish the boundaries? Do they want to abolish everything? If that is what they want, they must clearly say so, but then they must also say that to the governments of the self-governing territories so that we can have it stated in unequivocal terms.

I think the hon member for Wentworth has a problem. In terms of his party’s standpoint he is, in principle, opposed to the idea. He must, however, justify the position in KwaZulu and find grounds on which to justify his standpoint about KwaZulu’s position, regardless of his standpoint on homelands. He says that the basis for his justification is the untenable situation, as he sketched it, concerning the magisterial districts.

It is a mess!

The hon member says it is a mess. In other words, he is saying that matters must be put right. That is the basis on which he finds justification for his standpoint. We have now made a little progress, and I am very glad about that. I should now like to ask the hon member: What about the Church premises?

Who laughed the loudest when the secretary gave evidence? The NP! [Interjections.]

The hon member definitely laughed the loudest. I certainly noticed that in the committee. [Interjections.] Surely that is not what it is all about. We do not disagree about the fact that it is a problem. [Interjections.] We do not disagree about the fact that it is a problem. It is specifically because it is a problem that this Bill is before the House. The hon member need not make a great song and dance about it.

†I would like to ask the hon member for Wentworth a question with regard to the point that was raised by him. If he is in favour of the inclusion of the areas that are affected in terms of the magisterial districts, what about the properties that belong to the churches, which I have referred to, in those areas? They are also part of the hamlets. They are also, in terms of this Bill, included into the area of KwaZulu for administrative purposes.

*It seems to me as if the hon member has not yet divulged the full reason why he is making an exception in the case of KwaZulu. If even in the case of KwaZulu he finds an exception, in terms of his reasons, when all is said and done he must surely extend that to the other self-governing territories.

There is something I should like to point out to the hon member, something I pointed out to him on the committee too.

Mr Chairman, I would like to know whether the hon the Deputy Minister attaches any importance to the evidence that was led before the committee by the representative from KwaZulu. No other leaders of homelands sent representatives to give evidence.

As far as I know we did not request any of the other self-governing territories to present evidence.

Why not?

Evidence was presented by officials from the department—both from the Department of Development Planning as well as from the Department of Development Aid—concerning problems experienced in other areas such as QwaQwa as well, as I pointed out in my speech. Lebowa was also mentioned with regard to the mining activities taking place there. The fascinating point about this is that in the case of Lebowa, for example, there are indications that certain areas that belong to mines engaged in surface activities in the area are surrounded by Lebowa territory.

*I again find it strange that those hon members who generally adopt fairly liberal views objected to the inclusion of those mining activities in the administration of Lebowa. I would have thought that someone with reasonably liberal views would have jumped at the chance to say: Here is, in fact, an opportunity for the self-governing territory to extend its area of jurisdiction for its own benefit. From my argument it is clear that there are tangible benefits inherent in this. In that way the mines which are active there will definitely increase their investments, and in that regard there can even be foreign investments forthcoming.

The importance of the point at issue here is the fact that we are speaking about land which is, in fact, surrounded by the relevant self-governing territories. That is the relevant qualification throughout. If there were no land surrounded by other self-governing territories, it would not be possible to implement this Bill in any event. It is an enabling Bill in respect of that situation. We must not forget that for a moment.

Secondly I think that, politically speaking, it would be a slap in the face to say we were hereby only making provision for one self-governing territory and not for similar situations which have arisen, or may arise in the future, in other self-governing territories. I think it would be unfair of this Parliament to adopt a one-sided view favouring only one self-governing territory, ignoring the other five which may find themselves in similar circumstances.

†I now wish to say a few personal words to the hon member for Berea. I think all hon members will agree with me that it is a pity that the hon member is leaving Parliament at the end of this term. The hon member has been known for his strong support for the PFP. I personally would say that it has been my experience since I have come to Parliament that the hon member is a real old-style Prog. That is probably the reason why the hon member has decided to retire.

What is interesting, though, is that the hon member for Reservoir Hills spoke very respectfully in reference to the hon member for Berea. If I read the papers correctly last night, one of his party leaders, Dr Worrall, indicated that he is going to stand in Berea. He has already indicated that he is going to make himself available for nomination. The hon member for Reservoir Hills did not say anything about that. I thought he would have welcomed Dr Worrall’s decision to stand in Berea.

I do not say: The king is dead—long live the king!

The hon member for Reservoir Hills, like the hon member for Stanger, did not hear the evidence in connection with this Bill that was before the committee. Again, I would like to say that it is a pity. Now the hon member says that this whole problem could have been solved through the Indaba. The hon member said if we had proceeded with the Indaba and accepted the proposals, we would have solved the problem. The fact is that the proposals of the Indaba were not accepted. There was no progress as far as that was concerned and the problem still remains the same.

We now have a measure before Parliament to rectify the situation and to solve the problem and the hon member cannot understand this. The hon member apparently admits that there are problems as far as the KwaZulu territory is concerned. Why not give us the opportunity to rectify the situation and solve the problem through this measure?

I would like to say that the hon member adopted a very patronising attitude when he said that KwaZulu is like a child who comes to us, asking for food, and that we are denying KwaZulu certain opportunities.

*I must tell the hon member that that was a very unfortunate reference. I think the evidence before the committee was very clear. The KwaZulu government would very much like to implement this measure. From that government’s point of view it is essential for us to proceed with this. From the point of view of other self-governing territories it is also essential for us to support this measure.

In conclusion I should like to refer to a matter that came to the fore yesterday. The hon the Chairman of Committees focussed my attention on the fact that I did use the following words in regard to statements made by the hon member for Berea. I merely want to quote briefly what I said:

†It was definitely not my intention to put it in those words and I withdraw that statement. It was my intention to say that there was no upheaval and that the hon member knows it. Unfortunately it did not come across like that, and I therefore withdraw that remark.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.

Mr Chairman, I want to be very brief. This Bill is definitely much overdue. Owing to the expansion of the Police Force and the increasing demands made upon it for effective policing, the De Witt Committee has recommended the upgrading of the existing management system.

We are in full agreement that the proposed reconstruction of the Police Force will contribute to the maintenance of law and order. We are of the opinion that regional commissioners will be in a better position to judge the needs of the local population and therefore we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the previous speaker, the hon member Mr Razak, for supporting this Bill on behalf of his party.

*In fact, I want to thank all the hon members of the joint committee for their support for this measure, which is a recommendation of the De Witt Committee It provides for the division of the country into regions which will supersede the old existing divisions, and simultaneously also for the appointment of regional commissioners who will have the same decision-making powers as the Commissioner of Police. To my mind this stimulates the promotional possibilities in the Police Force and I think it will be welcomed by the men themselves. The ultimate goal is effective policing.

In conclusion I want to observe that the South African Police definitely deserve to be complimented on the good job they are already doing in South Africa. I wish to repeat a statement which I made on a previous occasion, namely that to me it is astounding how the preservation of law and order still carries on in a normal way, regardless of the fact that this country has been experiencing a revolutionary onslaught. That takes some doing. We gladly support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the point of view of the hon member who has just vacated the podium that law and order should be preserved in every country.

In principle the LP has no objection to the Police Second Amendment Bill. This appears to be mainly an internal departmental matter. During the debate on the legislation it was clear that the regional reorganisation Police Force and the appointment of regional commissioners would be to the advantage of the community as a whole.

Through this reorganisation the SAP keeps pace with the demands of modern policing and in terms of the Bill the regional commissioner will have at his disposal the same powers as the Commissioner of Police as regards the region over which he has been appointed. According to my party’s opinion these powers should have the beneficial effect that collective attention to local matters may be given on a basis of urgency. For that reason the LP supports this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we also support this legislation. The underlying thoughts meet with our approval. We agree that effective policing will be well-served because the decision-making, which up to now has rested mainly with Police head office, will now be decentralised to regional commissioners.

The annual report of the SAP says in this regard that the present structure has developed into a bureaucratic management system. The existing management style also has the further flaw that the separation between the political head and the Commissioner of Police is not always well maintained.

The hon the Minister’s office is also situated at the Police head office and I would dearly like the hon the Minister not to see what I am about to say in a bad light. What we say is said in the interests of the Force. We now find that deliberations between the hon the Minister and the senior officers have to take place daily. It is significant that, as far as I know the hon the Deputy Minister was virtually present here only during the debate on the Police Vote. We accept that at all times he is evidently at head office and elsewhere.

It is self-evident that the authoritative influence of the political heads has a drastic effect on the standpoints of senior officers, which normally are based on the realities as experienced by them in practice. Let me mention only one example. During an interpellation debate in the Assembly I asked whether the release of hunger strikers had not perhaps been a political decision. The hon the Minister replied to this question that he had not reacted to the reports from the Police, but that they acted together in consultation. This confirms what I say, namely that the Police are subject to a great deal of influence. This explains why in so many instances before this committee the hon the Minister rises to say “we” will do such and such. I presume that “we” refers to the hon the Minister and his Police.

I think it is undesirable that a clearer line of demarcation is not drawn between the political heads and the commissioners of the Police. The image has been developed of the Police and the Government being one and the same. We just want to say that the Police do not belong to the NP; the Police are a force that stand independently on their own feet. That image should not be taken too far because, as I said, that leads to detrimental conclusions.

It is already being claimed, and the hon the Minister should take cognisance of this, that the commissioners do not control the Force, but the Minister. Therefore I suggest that a restructuring with regard to the Minister and the commissioners should also take place at head office.

Mr Chairman, we support this Bill because we hold the view that, seeing that it is based on the concept of regionalisation, it seems—if one wants to be visionary—that there is some kind of federalism taking place here. I suppose the Department of Law and Order is looking ahead with regard to this matter, and therefore we want to tell the hon the Minister through the Chair that we support the measures as introduced in this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, we are also going to support the Bill. It is one of the better Bills introduced by this hon Minister. It is not contentious and it looks like a constructive Bill from this hon Minister for a change.

Clearly the Bill is designed to decentralise the administration and control of the SA Police into regions. We are told that this is in order to give the Commissioners more opportunity to give attention to policy rather than to deal with detailed administrative matters. Apparently there will be 11 regions in South Africa which will have the same powers as the Commissioner has at the present time. It is hoped that this will mean that policing will be more adaptable to regional needs. I believe it ought to have the effect of making policing more effective in South Africa, and we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Berea for his support for the Bill before the House. He said this was not his last speech, because otherwise I would have said it was his best speech of the session.

It is simply accepted that the decentralisation of power will result in the Force becoming more streamlined. This will allow for greater efficiency. Firstly, decentralisation of power will relieve the pressure on the central police headquarters and allow for faster and more efficient decision-making and action at regional level.

One of the major advantages of the relevant Bill, however, lies in the fact that the country is divided into 13 regions. Each region has its distinctive problems which call for distinctive actions and solutions. These regions correspond with the army commando areas of the SADF, and it is a fact that in times of serious riots the SAP also has to call for the support of the other components of the security forces to ensure effective control. The inherent advantage is that control over joint action will then also be centralised on an efficient and equal basis.

The regions are also divided up in such a way that they correspond with the boundaries of the RSCs, which in turn also entails certain advantages. Co-ordination can then take place through the relevant regional office where the commanding officer has the necessary power to take action.

It is a fact that my constituency will fall within the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand. In the south of my constituency there is the Mapleton area which lies directly between the Black and White residential areas. I think that a detailed study into the position of policing this area should perhaps be one of the first tasks of the new regional office and the new regional commissioner.

The new Indian area, Villa Lisa, lies within this area, and all indications are that within the next year or two thousands of people will move into the area. The police station nearest to the area is in Boksburg, in whose area of responsibility it falls. The legislation before the House makes specific provision for decentralisation. I think a case could be made out for a greater degree of decentralisation, especially within the urban complexes, for instance in this area where a police station is urgently needed. Some of the owners of smallholdings have found policemen, whom they have summoned, losing their way before they could reach the farms, with all disadvantages resulting from this.

I believe that the legislation before the House is a step towards even greater decentralisation. On behalf of this side of the House I support it whole-heartedly and with gratitude to the De Witt Committee which lead the way in this regard.

Mr Chairman, one of the criticisms which have been levelled unjustly against the SAP is that their reaction to problems has been too slow. That slow reaction has largely been due to the fact that in matters which are not covered by day-to-day activities, the personnel at the local level have had to seek guidance from Pretoria or Cape Town, as the case may be.

One of the beneficial results of creating regional authorities for the Police Force would be to make reflexive reaction quicker and therefore to enable the Police to do their job quickly and more effectively. We hope that the spate of burglaries, rapes and highway robberies, buses being held up and passengers in trains being held up, will be reduced once the new system is introduced.

I also want to point out that it is not sufficient just to régionalisé police commandership, it is also necessary to see to it that the Police are given the wherewithal. They must be given more staff, more vehicles and better facilities. The Police are there basically to protect the people of all races and all classes and they cannot do their job satisfactorily if they are not given the necessary tools.

I would just like to say that in the United Kingdom they have a system of county police authorities. In due course we shall undoubtedly reach a similar situation in this country and therefore we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the chairman as well as the members of the Joint Committee on Security Services for the exceptional speed with which they disposed of this Bill.

The introduction of regional commissioners, as hon members have indicated, is the outcome of an interim recommendation by the De Witt Committee of Inquiry into the Organisation, Administration and Structuring of the South African Police. Further details have appeared in the explanatory memorandum and hon members have already referred to this.

We live in a rapidly changing world, and in the field of police work, too, rapid changes are taking place. We have for some time been engaged in modernising the Force to keep abreast of the changes. We want to give our public only the best protection and service, in the future as well—we want to take this up to the year 2000 and beyond.

With the establishment of the system of regional commissioners we are now taking a further important step to reorganise the Force and lay solid foundations for a modern, alert and energetic Police Force to safeguard the country for the future.

I want to convey my heart-felt thanks to hon members for the contribution they have made here this afternoon to placing the Force on the road to the future in an imaginative way which will be to the benefit of all of us in South Africa.

†First of all, Mr Chairman, I want to specifically thank indirectly elected member Mr Razak for his support.

*I should also like to thank the hon indirectly elected member Dr Geldenhuys for the work done by the standing committee, of which he was chairman. I have great appreciation for it. The hon member refers to the regional commissioners as “mini-commissioners”, and that is precisely what he is going to be. We believe that by decentralising we will be able to achieve greater effectiveness on the ground—where the service has to be rendered.

I thank the hon member for Robertson for his support. He says this will be to the benefit of the public. He is quite right. We believe that if the system functions properly, it will indeed be to the benefit of our public.

I thank the hon member for Ermelo for his support. Today the hon member was really just looking for something he could pick a fight with me about. But I never imagined that he would object to my moving into the building in which the police head office is located and establishing my office there. Now, according to him, contamination is taking place! However, this is the very opportunity we are creating to get the Police and the political head on the same managerial wavelength. The issue as far as we are concerned is the better management of the Police Force, while it is at the same time kept free of party politics.

That hon member and his party are the last ones to be in a position to accuse me of dragging party politics into the SA Police. Over the past year I have been fighting a running battle with them in order to establish this very image. We specifically do not want the SA Police to be contaminated by any party politics. This must never happen. We serve all the people in this country. We serve people of all colours in this country, and we protect all the people of all political parties. There are hon members of political parties sitting here today who can attest to that. We protect and we serve people of colour, people who are White—in fact, everyone.

The hon member says it is undesirable that we are together; he contends I have an influence on the police officers. Do you know, Sir, they may also have an influence on me! It is so; they do have an influence on me. I admit it, because I listen to these people. They are people who have been doing police work for thirty to forty years. This has nothing to do with politics. They serve only one interest, namely the interest of the public, South Africa and the man in the street.

However I thank the hon member for his support. He can, after all, see that this is an excellent Bill, and he admitted as much. As regards this point that we should move away from there and be separated, in the past that was a mistake. There was too great a gap and the effective management of the Force suffered as a result. We are now closer to one another and this is in the best interests of the Force. I want to give the hon member the assurance that it works quite satisfactorily.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Rylands for his support.

*He said that we were to some extent dealing with federalism here. I have just said that we have nothing to do with party politics, so I shall leave that matter at that.

†I want to thank the hon member for Berea for his support.

*I must honestly say that he is one of the hon members in this House with whom I have argued a great deal across the floor of the House, but I have always found that I can conduct a reasoned argument with the hon member.

†I want to thank the hon member for his contribution to the tradition of Parliament over many years and I wish the hon member well on his retirement.

*He looks young to me, even though his head is a bit bald. I do not know what he is going to do now. I do not know whether the DP ousted him out; I hope that is not the case.

You must not talk politics!

Now the hon member for Claremont says I should not talk politics, but I wonder whether that hon member is not the cause of the hon member for Berea going. I must tell hon members that if that is so, the DP made a bad exchange. I want to tell them to think again carefully about that.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Germiston District for his support. I think he spoke about 13 regions—I want to point out to the hon member that we are only dividing the country into ten regions, on which this system of regional commissioners will be based.

The hon member made representations relating to a police station in his constituency. I am in favour of having more policemen and more police stations and I want to state this point of view clearly to the hon member. We—now I am again using the “we” to which the hon member for Ermelo referred—together with the Police would like to offer better service and better protection to the members of the public. That is why we say that we would also like to give the public in Germiston District better protection on the ground and supply them with a better service.

That is why I have taken cognisance of the hon member’s representations and I request the Commissioner of Police to consider his representations afresh and have them investigated to enable us to provide him with a further reply in this regard.

†I want to thank the hon member for Reservoir Hills for his support. He said that we must do more effective policing on the ground and I agree with the hon member. We intend doing more effective policing on the ground where the people are. That is important to us.

I also agree with the hon member that we should give them the instruments to fulfil their duties. I once again agree with the hon member—he however knows what the problems are. However, we are going to solve those problems and in the final instance I want to thank the hon member for his support in this regard.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, allow me to address a few words to the hon member for Berea. It has always been my experience that he has at all times been able to put forward well-founded and sound arguments supporting his point of view, and it has always been a privilege to listen to him. We wish him a happy retirement.

We agree that it is essential for the Police to obtain complete control over municipal police in Black local authorities and Black development areas. The general public has tended to regard the municipal policeman as a kind of second-rate policeman, if I may call it that. It is also true that a great deal of confusion arose in respect of what their functions and duties were, in contrast with those of the Police.

In as much as this legislation now introduces certainty and clarity with regard to the status, the functions and the powers of the municipal police, who were introduced as a special police unit within the framework of the Police Act, with corresponding powers as laid down in section 5 of the Police Act, it will be to the advantage of all concerned—including the local authorities—and we are therefore pleased to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to say that as far as policing in South Africa is concerned, this is a very important day to us. We know that in the days of the Blackjacks—we used to call the municipal police “Blackjacks” in those days, because they used to wear black uniforms—they did not have adequate working methods and they did not even have the power to be policemen, so they created their own powers. Most of their working methods were really undesirable. We are happy that at last they are being recognised, they will be made policemen, they will follow the tradition of the SAP, and they will be able to work as policemen.

I would like to say that as far as our side of the House is concerned, we do support the Police Third Amendment Bill, which provides for the establishment of municipal police units for Black local authorities under the control of the SAP. The said control will eliminate the overlapping of services between the SAP and the municipal police, the effect of which will be the maximum economic utilisation of services with resultant cost-effectiveness. The demarcation of duties and powers will contribute to the more efficient utilisation of manpower, which in turn will further contribute to cost-effectiveness and better co-ordination of methods of operation.

It appears from the Act that the intended take-over of command of the municipal police will cause the policing function to be no longer a function of the local authority concerned. This will, however, not result in the discontinuation of services rendered by the municipal police to the relevant authorities; on the contrary, these services will add to the protection of the community. The services will continue under the control of the SAP. Therefore we in the LP would like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the hon the Minister, the hon member for Ermelo and others who have expressed good wishes to me on my retirement from Parliament. I am not sure whether the nice words are because they are very pleased to see me go or whether they would like me to stay, but I do appreciate the sentiments as they have been expressed.

Make sure we will love your successor.

You want me to make sure you love my successor? Well, I have no control over who my successor will be.

The Police Third Amendment Bill will have the support of the DP. We believe that it is a good measure, because it will seek, I think, to bring under better discipline the many municipal forces which operate around the country. We are told that there are some 200 of these municipal police forces. They have never been placed under the direct control of the SAP and therefore there have sometimes been situations where there have been two police forces operating in the same area. This clearly is a most undesirable state of affairs and I believe that bringing them under the control of the SAP is the only real solution to the problem.

We are told that the object and the effect of the Act will be to transfer these police forces as they are at the moment, that is, keeping their separate units with the same salaries, the same allowances and the same service conditions which now obtain, but they will now fall under the Civil Service Act and the Police Act.

This also would seem to be a move in the right direction as far as the people who are involved in those police forces are concerned. I understand that they can be transferred to other units, but that the control will still remain under the SAP.

There are apparently some 10 000 people involved in the municipal police forces around the country and I believe there has been no opposition from the municipalities. This can be well understood, because in fact it will relieve them of a considerable financial burden.

That burden will now be taken over by the State. All in all it seems that if this can move in the direction of bringing about better discipline, better unity within the policing of the country, then this must be in the interest of the country. I am not sure—perhaps the hon the Minister can say—what the situation will be with regard to uniforms. Will they be obliged to wear SAP uniforms or continue to wear their own uniforms?

They will keep their present uniforms.

They will keep their uniforms. I think this is the sort of situation that will have to be looked at in time. However, as a main thrust, we think it will alleviate the situation where there has been a clear indication that a lack of discipline has been evidenced particularly in the municipal police forces. This, I think, is resented by the community concerned. Therefore, I believe greater uniformity is a good thing. Certainly greater control and greater discipline is something which is very much needed. We will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Berea. I, too, want to take this opportunity to say to the hon member that it is my prayer and my party’s wish that he enjoys his retirement from politics, and continues to assist wherever humanly possible.

Solidarity hereby supports the Police Third Amendment Bill aimed at obtaining full control by the SAP over the police at Black local authority level as it appears that such a step would result in policing activities being executed on a co-ordinated basis to the benefit of the councils and the community.

Solidarity is of the opinion that such a take-over will result in a demarcation of duties and will eliminate the duplication of services. It is of importance to note that with regard to the functions and powers of the members of the municipal police units, provision is made for them to perform the same duties and functions as members of the SAP, but only for the area to which they are appointed to cover.

It is also comforting to note that clause 4 of the Bill clearly stipulates:

We have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the second time around I want to thank the hon indirectly elected member for supporting this Bill on behalf of his party. I would also like to wish the hon member for Berea well in his retirement.

*At this stage the Commissioner of Police already has partial control over municipal constables. This Bill provides that he will have total control over municipal constables. This also means effective control, which is welcomed by this side of the House. It means better training of special constables on the road ahead. As the previous speaker pointed out it will also mean that there will be greater security for these constables on the road ahead. The measure is supported by both Umsa and Ucasa. This confirms the fact that this is definitely a step in the right direction. It is a fact that municipal constables and special constables do a tremendous job in maintaining law and order. It is also a good thing that this measure does a better job of regulating the functions of the municipal constables.

I also referred to special constables. I feel a great need to express a personal word of appreciation to this part of the Force for the exceptional work they perform. I am referring to the excellent work these people did during the recent events at my home. I want to express my sincere thanks for this. Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support this measure.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow on the hon member Dr Geldenhuys who is also the chairman of the committee. I also want to take this opportunity of expressing our deep appreciation to the hon member for Berea for the services which he has rendered as a parliamentarian. I would like to wish him well as he leaves Parliament. Our prayer is that he will get that inner strength during the moments when he needs it most. We are of the opinion that the take-over by the SAP of control of the municipal police at Black River will be beneficial to the community and policing as such. As the SAP is mainly responsible for the maintenance of law and order, it has the necessary knowledge and expertise at its disposal to perform the policing function on an economically viable basis. It therefore appears that the SAP will perform any policing function more competently than a private institution.

Since it is clear from the Act that the members of the municipal police unit will not be in a less favourable position than they were before the take-over of command by the SAP, we are in support of this Bill.

Mr Chairman…

The voice of the ANC and the UDF! [Interjections.]

It seems that that hon member is very far-sighted, or else just very boring.

†Mr Chairman, I have known the hon member for Berea for many years—in fact, since 1971. It is a privilege to be here today when he is making his last speech. I can tell hon members that we have known the hon member for Berea as a very dependable hon member. At this very moment many hon members of our caucus are depending on him, because he is handling three or four different Ministers’ legislation. We have come a long way with that hon member. He was a person who consistently fought for justice and a just South Africa. He will be remembered for that.

*I very rarely have an opportunity to assume a positive standpoint with regard to the hon the Minister and his legislation. It is almost a pity that I have to do so today.

You are coming round!

I must say one thing about the hon the Minister, however. He said he did not want to be involved in party politics. That is not quite true. He will not be able to convince anyone of that. The other day the hon the Minister launched terrible attacks on the UDF and Cosatu who are ANC and SACP inspired.

Your pals!

That may not be party politics, but it cannot be anything but politics! Consequently we are not so gullible as to believe that story.

†To the extent that this Bill before us will result in greater control over the municipal police, this piece of legislation should indeed be welcomed. It should be borne in mind that the introduction of municipal police was necessitated by an acute shortage of properly trained police. In the townships this was directly caused by the fact that the SAP, instead of primarily being used to combat ordinary crime, was increasingly being used in politically related incidents. While up to 20 policemen at a time would go and harass an elderly Black cleric at his home, virtually no policemen were left to fight and combat ordinary crime.

In Cape Town various appeals had been made that, in view of the urgent shortage of policemen on the street—the so-called bobby on the beat—the local authority be allowed to appoint a civic patrol, which is another name for a municipal police force in Cape Town. While hundreds of members of the SAP had been used to harass and intimidate political opponents in the townships, our elderly and senior citizens in the southern suburbs, like Claremont for example, had to live in daily fear of being mugged, robbed, etc. Many hundreds of our policemen have for the past three or more years been running around the townships, doing the NP’s dirty work for them.

Our suburbs, our subways and lonely lanes have been left unprotected and unpatrolled at night. That has been pointed out to the police many times and when it was pointed out, immediate steps were taken to rectify that. What I am, however, saying is that we are continually having problems and that people are being attacked in areas that are left unpatrolled. In my opinion too many policemen are being used for actions that are political and not crime-preventing.

Because of that situation we in Cape Town have called for a municipal police force or a civic patrol to be established so that our elderly and our young can again leave their homes in safety. The cost in Cape Town would have been approximately R1,5 million to R2 million which is a price that this city cannot pay. Our appeal to the hon the Minister is that that kind of money would be forthcoming from the central Treasury so that we can in actual fact contribute to greater safety in the Cape Town municipal area on a regional or city basis.

*The municipal police in the Black residential areas of our country were established primarily during the period of intense unrest that was caused by the tricameral Parliament and the tension between those who were participating and those who did not want to participate.

From the very beginning the municipal police were on the side of the Black council members and other people who wanted to push the Government’s apartheid constitution down the throats of Black inhabitants. They did not even try to maintain law and order in an impartial way. [Interjections.] I am talking about the municipal police. They are not under the hon the Minister yet.

Anyone who has any knowledge of what these so-called municipal policemen got up to in the residential areas, will know that these so-called policemen were guilty on a large scale of the crudest forms of intimidation and the use of the most terrible forms of violence and torture.

I refer hon members to a booklet published earlier this year by the Black Sash. [Interjections.] It is a booklet which is supported from beginning to end by facts, sworn statements, court cases and magistrates’ findings. If hon members read that booklet, they will realise how important it is for this police force to be controlled, which is not the case at present. The result is that these so-called policemen have become the most hardened people in those communities, and that because of their reign of terror, they are called a number of derogatory names, such as “Green Flies” and “Green Beans”. This is insulting terminology that is in common use in those residential areas and which amounts to a complete lack of respect for those people. The basic reason for their unbridled action, apart from their bias, was undoubtedly the completely deficient training they received.

I can assure hon members that they would definitely not have felt safe in this Parliament today if they were dependent on those so-called policemen for their safety here. I say that quite openly. If one takes into account that groups of these policemen were under the command of at most a White sergeant with a Std 8 qualification, one has an idea of why these so-called policemen were so often described as “accidents looking for a place to happen”. We are talking about people who have really caused the name of justice to be maligned on a large scale.

†In view of what I have said about these policemen and the way in which they have contributed to polarisation and a growing lack of respect for law and order, I welcome this Bill and any measure that will result in greater control over them, because at the moment they are uncontrolled.

To the extent that this Bill will result in greater control I welcome it. My only criticism would be that it has taken them so long to take such steps if in actual fact this step is aimed at curtailing their excesses.

I want to raise only one point that relates to what the hon member asked about the uniforms.

*I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that if these people become part of the SAP, it will be in the interests of greater discipline and uniformity that they wear the same uniform as the SAP as soon as possible, otherwise they will still act in a different way and be treated differently.

†While expressing my support in principle I want to ask the hon the Minister to give us the undertaking that he will ensure that they get a longer and a proper training as policemen, because the training that they have had so far is to my mind not suitable for a full member of the SA Police. The last thing that we need, in view of the fact that the SAP has its own problems with certain unruly and undisciplined elements, is to add more undisciplined and poorly trained policemen to their ranks.

*If, however, the Bill attempts to exercise greater discipline with regard to these policemen and to provide them with better training in the process, this legislation before us today should be welcomed.

Mr Chairman, may I add my good wishes to those expressed to my namesake sitting over there, although of course he does not have a Z at the end of his name. I would like to convey my good wishes to him. If I remember correctly, his firm corresponded with mine almost 30 years ago over certain matters, but that is by the way. I hope he will enjoy a happy retirement.

*The objective of this legislation is for the Minister of Law and Order to have control over the whole concept of the police. I want to say briefly that we find that most crimes are committed in our Black and Coloured residential areas, because that is where most of our people live. There is not as much crime in the White residential areas.

Let us take a look at the position in the Black residential areas in the Cape Peninsula. According to the 1985 statistics, there are 136186 Blacks in the Peninsula. Now let us take a look at where the crimes take place. As I said, it is in our residential areas.

What about Claremont?

No, not in Claremont. [Interjections.] The report says that in 1984-85 there were 8 959 cases of murder country-wide, 39 302 cases of robbery, 16 085 cases of rape, 166 812 cases of housebreaking, and so on. It carries on in that vein. One finds that most of these crimes take place in our Black and Coloured residential areas.

According to the Bill’s memorandum, its objective is, and I quote—

If that is the objective, we can only agree with the legislation and say that is the right thing to do.

We have had complaints before that special constables do just as they please. We have also heard about members of Koevoet in South West Africa who do just as they please. They are not really under the control of the hon the Minister of Police. We should like that to be the case. With these few words I support the Bill on behalf of my party.

Mr Chairman, obviously the function of any police force, whether it is a municipal, provincial, county or the national police force, is to uphold law and order. It is because of the unfortunate situation that we have in our country that so many of our policemen and policewomen have to be deployed in the townships.

Of course we need police force members in the townships as well. If they are not in the townships the mugging, rape and assault will continue. In the townships there are also human beings who need the protection of the police force. What is undesirable is that the Police should be used for political activities. Equally undesirable are the activities of certain groups in this country who, as part of the revolutionary cause, have deliberately fomented disrespect for parental authority and a disregard for the authority of and respect for teachers in schools. They have done a great deal of harm.

The same element also spread deliberate distortion and sometimes downright lies about the activities of the Police Force. I remember in 1980 during the school boycott situation it was alleged and published in the newspapers that the Police had shot and killed a 13 year-old Indian boy. I investigated that and found that there was absolutely no truth in the allegation. I confronted the newspaper editor and he said it was a fact that the allegation was made. He had made no effort to determine whether the allegation was true or not. However, this created a great deal of animosity towards the Police Force on the part of the residents of the area and the whole Indian community. That harm was done by those political activists who spread this false story for their own purposes.

Another false story that was spread at about the same time, was that the Police had sjambokked a pregnant student at the University of Durban-Westville and the girl had miscarried. I investigated that and found that the student concerned had in fact been admitted to hospital a few days after the trouble at the university and that she had had a normal delivery.

We are in the situation that we have to watch both sides, on the one side indiscipline on the part of the Police and on the other side indiscipline on the part of people who for their own political purposes want to spread certain false stories.

During the Inanda riot my telephone was inundated with calls from people who wanted me to get the Police to help them. I indeed managed to get through to a high-ranking police officer and reported complaints that goods were being looted from the shops and that the Police did nothing to stop the looters. This high-ranking police officer gave me what I then thought was a perfectly reasonable answer. He said to me that they are there to see to it that lives are not taken. Lives cannot be replaced, but goods can be replaced. He said that in those circumstances the only action they could take against the looters was to shoot them and they preferred not to shoot. That was a reasonable explanation which I accepted.

Of course Professor Fatima Meer was one of the first to demand the protection of the Police when the mobs marched on the Mahatma Gandhi Settlement at Phoenix.

At times of distress we need the Police and that is why I am pleased that better training will be given to all segments of the Police Force so that we need not have any further situations such as the mutiny that arose out of sheer gross indiscipline on the part of certain aspects of the Police Force.

Reference was made to “Blackjacks” and I thank God that we shall never again have Blackjacks. At one stage a Blackjack actually wanted to arrest my wife because she employed a Black woman as a servant. That is the kind of nonsense we had from Blackjacks. Yet we have the “Swart-man”, a man who is supposed to be Black but who is White, who has been an illustrious hon member of the House of Assembly all these years! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by once again thanking the chairman and members of the Joint Committee for Security Services for the exceptionally rapid way in which they dealt also with this Bill. That merely proves that if one has a good Bill, a good chairman and good members of a joint committee, they dispose of a matter—even in this tricameral Parliament—very quickly.

The reasons for the measures were set out fully in the explanatory memorandum, and I am not going to elaborate on them. They were explained here this afternoon by hon members. It is clear to me that hon members made a thorough study of the Bill.

I should like to react briefly to individual hon members. I thank the hon member for Ermelo for his support; that was the best speech the hon member made this whole session!

†I want to thank the hon member for Eldorado Park for his support. The hon member also mentioned the fact that the image of the so-called “Blackjacks” is bad. I agree with him.

*We agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills—other hon members mentioned this too—that we must improve the image of the municipal policemen. We want to do that in the same way in which we have been improving the image of the SA Police for the past two years. I should like to tell hon members, however, that one cannot achieve that overnight. We must be patient; it will take time to improve the image of these municipal policemen.

I also want to place the matter in perspective, however. We must never lose sight of the fact that although some of them have caused problems, the majority do excellent work. They have protected the lives and property of thousands of people in our Black residential areas admirably over the past three to four years. We must not lose sight of that.

†I want to thank the hon member for Berea once again for his and his party’s support of the Bill. The hon member mentioned the matter of greater discipline. That is correct; we intend to introduce greater discipline in the ranks of the municipal police.

*One must remember that they are scattered throughout the country and at this stage they still fall under more than 200 local authorities with different disciplines.

†I think the hon member is quite correct when he says there should be greater unity and discipline in the ranks of these forces.

*I should like to give hon members the assurance that extensive consultation took place. We did not do this overnight. Extensive consultation took place, as the hon indirectly elected member Dr Geldenhuys mentioned. This is supported by the city councils, who are the authorities affected by this.

I have already reacted to the hon member’s question with regard to the uniforms. I think the hon member for Claremont referred to that as well. We have decided provisionally that we rather want to retain the uniforms, because the people are going to stay in those areas in which they are working at present. It is also a question of cost. The people have uniforms; the uniforms are available. If we suddenly switch to uniforms which have to be supplied by the SA Police, we shall have to take the cost aspect into account. However, we take cognisance of the comments made by the hon member for Claremont as well as the hon member for Berea in this connection. Provisionally, however, they will use the uniforms that are in use at present. †I want to thank the hon indirectly elected member Mr Razak of Solidarity for his support. I really appreciate it.

*The hon indirectly elected member Dr Geldenhuys also supports the Bill. I have already thanked him for his involvement and the contribution he made in getting this Bill, which we really need urgently, piloted through Parliament as quickly as possible. I also thank the hon member for his comments concerning the special constables. These people do excellent work under difficult conditions, although they are poorly paid. I thank the hon member for having noticed and mentioned that.

†I would like to thank the hon member for Rylands for his support of this Bill.

*The hon member for Daljosaphat gave us figures of thousands of Blacks who are living here in the Cape Peninsula. The hon member is correct that country-wide we have the situation that most crime takes place in the residential areas and areas of our non-White citizens. We must do something about that. The municipal police, who are going to form a unit of the SA Police, are going to supply better policing in those areas. We need thousands more of them, but in the meantime we are going to provide them with better training. We are going to discipline them better and we are going to use them specifically to effect this objective of better policing as requested by the hon member for Daljosaphat. I thank him for his contribution.

†I think what the hon member for Reservoir Hills said in his second speech here this afternoon constituted a well-balanced speech. I think it was one of the hon member’s best speeches ever in Parliament. [Interjections.] Yes, I am talking to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The hon member gave us some evidence of lies which have been spread against the Police. I want to thank the hon member for that balanced view.

*People tell so many lies about us and I am really very pleased that the hon member for Reservoir Hills noticed that and singled out that aspect here today.

†I really want to thank the hon member for that. It is our intention to train them better. We are going to give them a longer period of training and increase the discipline over these chaps. I think at the end of the day all of us will be glad that we have taken this step to bring the municipal police under the control of the SAP.

*In conclusion I should like to address my colleague, the hon member for Claremont. He congratulated us reluctantly on the Bill. He was rather tongue-in-cheek when he said he supported the legislation and wanted to say something nice about the Police. He started off well, but I must say that after that he said very few nice things. Let me thank the hon member for his support, however. We really appreciate it.

The hon member then accused me of dragging party politics into the SAP. Never at any stage did I say that I was not involved in party politics. I try to conduct my politics responsibly, but I was elected politically. I am here as a politician. The point I want to make, however—and we must all take cognisance of that—is that we must never drag the SAP or this unit of the Police into party politics.

That is exactly what was happening. The municipal police became involved in party-political matters, and we want to bring that to an end. We must bring it to an end. We in this House all have a responsibility to do so. We may not permit the Police, the security of the country and the security of all its inhabitants to degenerate into a party-political matter. That would be a dark day. As long as I have this responsibility, that will be the guideline we follow.

Obviously one makes mistakes. There are people who become involved in party-political activities, but the hon member and other hon members will have to agree with me that my actions with regard to this matter during the past two to three years have been irreproachable. We take action against anyone who involves himself in party-political activities, whether to the left, to the right or in the middle. We seek policemen who have only one objective, and that is to protect and serve all the people of the country irrespective of their political activities.

The hon member also said that Cape Town Municipality had requested a civic patrol, which could be something like municipal police. I had talks with the management committee and the chairman of the Cape Town City Council. It is not all that simple to establish a municipal police force somewhere, because if we establish a municipal police force for White municipalities, we must not do what we are doing here today. Then we must not say that the Black municipal police cannot stand on their own and that they must form a unit of the SAP, but that White municipalities can establish their own municipal police.

That would result in the same problems. There are many problems involved in this. In order to maintain a police force even in a place such as Cape Town, one needs infrastructure which one will have to give the council for auxiliary services. That would cost a great deal of money. The town or city councils can appoint security officers. They can do all those things, but we truly believe that we should not start fragmenting policing in respect of White municipalities as well.

We have the city police in Durban, which is a police force on its own, but that is a legacy and I want to issue a warning that we should not extend that to all the other municipalities and town councils. In that case I would not be able to stand here and justifiably say that we should not give Black town councils and Black municipalities the same right.

There are many other problems involved in that too. After all, it is a fact that town councils and municipalities are elected on a party-political basis. If a town council has a municipal police force, that town council will use that municipal police force for political purposes. That would lead to misery in the country, and consequently we cannot allow it. Police forces and the security of South Africa are above party politics.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon the Minister says it is not possible to have a civic patrol in a place such as Cape Town, and in view of the fact that the request was made because there is a lack of policemen at grass-roots level, is the hon the Minister going to consider getting more policemen at grass-roots level to patrol the streets of Cape Town?

Mr Chairman, the answer to that question is a loud and clear yes. We are already using the Coloured students of Bishop Lavis in Cape Town over week-ends. We place more than 100 of them on duty in the centre of the city every Saturday morning, for example, so that they can try to control the crime that takes place at this level.

We are also investigating the establishment of a so-called business watch here in Cape Town. We did an experiment in Johannesburg, and it worked extremely well. We are going to do so here too, but I want to say that the establishment of another police force somewhere will really be no solution. Someone will have to pay for that police force and infrastructure too. We should rather use the money for more policemen, so that we can have well-trained policemen at grass-roots level who can do their work, as the hon member requested.

The hon member said—and these were his words—that there were “hundreds of policemen running around to do the NP’s work, to implement the NP’s laws”. Does he know why hundreds and thousands of policemen have been running around in South Africa for the past two or three years? They were not running around because of the NP’s laws and work. They were running after radicals, activists and revolutionaries. These are the people who were committing arson and murder in our Black residential areas. They were not acting in the interests of the NP, but in the interests of the country. They were catching people who wanted to plunge this country into misery.

The hon member must admit that we have succeeded in getting the situation under control to such an extent that there is greater calmness and peace in the country today. The hon member must not make that kind of statement. It is unfounded. He is dragging party politics into the Police. That is unfair, because his facts are not correct.

The hon member also said the unrest had been caused by the tricameral Parliament. He began well, but once he got into his stride, he really started talking nonsense. That was really nonsense. The tricameral Parliament was an attempt to solve certain political and constitutional problems. It was not acceptable to the revolutionaries. That was where these problems came from. The hon member and I can talk about that for some time. I shall not be able to convince him across the floor of the House, but I know that what I am saying, is correct.

The hon member said there should be better control over the municipal police. He is correct. We shall place them under greater discipline. We shall intensify the discipline. The hon member also requested that we provide them with better training. We shall do so, as I have told the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Then the hon member became confused once again. He spoke contemptuously of a man who was a sergeant, but had only Std 8. Surely hon members know that there are many people in our country who have only Std 8, but who are good people who do good work! We must not look down on them. [Interjections.] The hon member was really derogatory about people who were not well qualified. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask the hon member to give the hon the Minister a chance to reply.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell the hon member that we should not look down on people. We must not stand here arrogantly with our qualifications and our degrees and then make this kind of comment about people who only have Std 8.I want to tell the hon member for Claremont that these people with their Std 8 certificates have done valuable work in this country to ensure the security of hon members, such as the hon member for Claremont, and their people. For that reason we must not look down on these people.

The hon member requested an undertaking from me that there will be a longer training period. I have already told the hon member that we shall consider the matter. We are keen to provide them with better training. Where there may be deficiencies in their training, there will now be uniform training to eliminate that. We can expect—and the hon member and other members are correct in that regard—to have better disciplined and better trained policemen. That will contribute to an intensification of the public’s security and the protection and rendering of service to the public of South Africa by means of this Bill.

In conclusion I thank hon members for their support. I sincerely appreciate their having dealt with this Bill so well and having sat through it at this stage of the session so that we can initiate this important matter this year.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 17h46.

Mr Chairman, I understand that this is the last occasion on which the hon the Minister is going to appear in this House and in which he will be dealing with a Bill. He has also just replied to a question for the last time in this House.

On behalf of the CP we want to tell him we have great appreciation for the way in which he always played the ball and not the man in politics, and that we could always argue with him on a very decent footing about matters that were in the interests of South Africa. We appreciate his decency and the fact that he was a gentleman in every sense of the word. I came to the House of Assembly at more or less the same time he did. We were always good friends and I still like to consider myself a good friend of his, although he has gone off the rails politically speaking.

On 1 November 1987 the Energy Branch of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs was privatised, and the National Energy Council came into existence, on which all interested parties were represented, including all the consumers of energy.

Certain technical adjustments are now being made to the Energy Act, 1987.I am not going to deal with all of them, but I shall refer to a few. In the first place the Minister may request the National Energy Council in writing to advise him on a matter. A second amendment which has been effected, is that the Council may accept donations or may borrow or acquire money with or without security, with the consent of the Minister of Finance.

A third adjustment is an important amendment which is contained in clause 3 and which replaces section 13(1) of the principal Act. In the past the Minister appointed the executive officer after consultation with the Council. Now the Council is being given that power to make such an appointment with the concurrence of the Minister. I have been informed that this amendment brings the Act into line with similar organisations which can be described as being semi-State organisations.

The CP has a bit of a problem with this, and for that reason we want it placed on record that whatever the wording of this clause may be, it is the Minister who must in the final analysis take the political responsibility for such an appointment; ie whether he makes the appointment himself, after consultation with the Council, or whether the Council makes the appointment with the concurrence of the Minister, the Minister remains the responsible body.

The fourth amendment I want to refer to concerns agreements with other governments. It is now being made clear that such agreements take place subject to certain provisions of the Nuclear Energy Act, which contains safeguarding requirements.

In conclusion the executive officer acquires the right to delegate powers. The CP always looks carefully at the granting of powers of delegation, but if this amendment is not inserted, the executive officer will have to carry out all the functions of the Council, which would of course be a bad thing. Let us, however, tell each other again that notwithstanding delegation the responsibility for all acts and omissions still vests in the delegator.

According to the explanatory memorandum the Bill has not been submitted for comment to organisations outside the Government, because the full energy spectrum is represented on the National Energy Council.

Lastly I want to say that there is also an amendment to section 1A of the Central Energy Fund Act, 1977, which will now provide that money from the Equalisation Fund may also be used for the acquisition, generation, manufacture, marketing or distribution of any other form of energy, and research connected therewith, and not only fuel. The CP supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the promulgation of the Energy Act, 1987, Act No 42 of 1987, constituted a milestone in the history of energy policy formulation and implementation in the Republic of South Africa. The National Energy Council which was founded in terms of the principal Act is therefore in the national interest tasked with all matters concerning energy in the economy. Since energy pervades the essence of our social existence and national economic prosperity, the National Energy Council is a private Government sector institution with the responsibility, in terms of the principal Act, to advise the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology in a pro-active, policy-orientated manner.

The objective of energy policy is to ensure, by means of an appropriate energy management plan, both the adequate and uninterrupted provision of energy and its efficient utilization in order to promote the optimum economic and social development of the Republic of South Africa in particular, and of all the countries in Southern Africa in general.

The Bill deals with seven amendments to the principal Act which became necessary since the inception of the National Energy Council to strengthen the statutory framework wherein the council functions, and these amendments are reflected in the long title.

Clause 1: The National Energy Council’s general functions are prescribed in the principal Act but work related to the administration and implementation of the energy legislation and regulation, previously undertaken by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, is now the responsibility of the staff of the National Energy Council. In the execution of this regulatory function the personnel is not accountable to the National Energy Council but directly to the director-general or the Minister, as is appropriate. Legally, certain of these issues should be in writing.

In order for the National Energy Council to fulfil its functions, it is sometimes necessary to carry out investigations, and legal provision is made in this regard.

This amendment affords the NEC the authority to enter into loans subject to ministerial approval. The NEC is a juristic person and may therefore in its own right obtain loans, and accordingly provision is made in the principal Act. Provision is also made that the NEC can accept donations.

Clause 2: The implementation of the privatisation action of the energy branch of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs necessitates that provision is made that personnel of the NEC who still perform the functions of the former energy branch can continue to receive information restricted to certain categories of persons in terms of the Mining Rights Act of 1967. Provision is therefore made that certain personnel of the NEC can be provided with appropriate information.

Clause 3: This amendment entails that:

• —the executive officer will be appointed by the council itself with the concurrence of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology; and
• —provision is made for the conditions of service for the executive officer as determined by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

This is normal practice for members of boards, executive committees and other committees and all personnel in the service of such institutions which are directly or indirectly financed by the exchequer.

In future the personnel will be appointed by the council according to the conditions of service determined by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

Clause 4: The funding of the NEC in terms of the Central Energy Fund Act, 1977 is adjusted in the principal Act in order to comply with all statutory conditions. Due to the council being afforded the authority to obtain loans, this amendment is only consequential.

Clause 5: In order to comply with the objectives to safeguard information etc the principal Act is being amended specifically to comply to with provisions of the Nuclear Energy Act of 1982.

Clause 6: The principal Act has a particular deficiency insofar as the functions are concerned which are delegated to the executive officer, because he has personnel to assist him in his duties. This deficiency is being eliminated.

Clause 7: The provisions of the Central Energy Fund Act of 1977 concerning the utilisation of funds of the Equalisation Fund are extended to include any form of energy and research connected therewith. These provisions only deal with the utilisation of funds and not with the funding of the Equalisation Fund or the Central Energy Fund.

Reference is made in this regard to section 3 of the principal Act which determines the objectives of the National Energy Council as the following, and I quote:

1. (a) to ensure that the energy resources of the Republic, and also those resources that may become available to the Republic from time to time, are exploited, developed and utilised in the best interests of the country, including research with regard to such exploitation, development and utilisation;
2. (b) to promote the sound development of energy undertakings in the Republic; and
3. (c) to advise the Minister on methods by which the objects referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) can best be achieved.

We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this amending Bill received the unanimous support of the members of the committee and I therefore support it.

In doing so I would like to highlight a few factors, namely that in this amending Bill provision is also made for the National Energy Council to hold investigations, accept donations and obtain loans. Furthermore, since the employees of the National Energy Council are not officials of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, provision is made in the Bill for certain employees also to obtain information relating to the prospecting for minerals.

Provision is also made in the Bill that the National Energy Council itself may appoint its employees subject to the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. I therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that for some years now as my party’s spokesman on mineral and energy affairs and previously deputy spokesman I have had the task of marking this hon Minister in his activities, I think it is also appropriate for me as spokesman for the DP to wish him well on his departure now. This is his final activity as Minister of Energy Affairs and Technology.

I would like to echo the sentiments expressed by the spokesman for the CP, the hon member for Brakpan, that this hon Minister has been one who has played the ball and not the man. To use the American expression he has, in the time I have known him in this House, been a cool customer. He has not entered the debates in a hot ideological way, but has at all times had the respect of the House, certainly from our side, as one of the most competent Ministers in his particular field.

I think it is appropriate that his last business in this House is to handle the Energy Amendment Bill—a subject which has been close to him and which is one of the monuments of his term of office. I suspect that during his retirement he will remain actively involved in the affairs in which he was involved as a Minister, but only time will tell if this is so.

We do not have any quarrel with this Bill. It is a measure which fine-tunes the activities and the parameters of the National Energy Council. There were only a few points which we in the joint committee felt were worthy of exploring. I would like to raise one of these points in this debate, which is the question of obtaining prospecting information.

Clause 2, which inserts a new section 12A into the main Act, states that the executive officer and persons designated by him shall be entitled to have access to and make use of any notice or information relating to the prospecting for any mineral, provided it is connected with the work of the council.

I interpret that as an enabling measure entitling the officers of the National Energy Council to receive information, but not necessarily conferring the right to demand the information. I would like the hon the Minister to clarify that point. I presume that the onus remains with the department to decide what they wish to release and that a right is not conferred on the National Energy Council to demand access to information they themselves believe to be relevant. Perhaps the hon the Minister can also clarify that in his reply.

As far as the rest of the Bill is concerned the rechannelling of funds directly to the National Energy Council facilitates the work of the council and it does not impose a new tax on top of the existing fuel levy. On that basis and on the basis that this is a tidying up measure we are happy to support it.

Mr Chairman, the privatisation campaign has been welcomed by the private sector.

In clause 1 of the Bill section 12 of the Energy Act is extended by providing that the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology may request the National Energy Council in writing to advise him on any matter. Provision is made that the National Energy Council itself may appoint its employees, subject to the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. Provision is also made that certain employees of the National Energy Council may obtain information relating to prospecting for minerals.

The Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology may also regulate the appointment and remuneration of the personnel of the National Energy Council, and further provision is made in regard to the funds of the Council.

The Bill has not been distributed for comment to organisations outside the Government, as the full energy spectrum is represented on the National Energy Council. My party supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers who expressed their thanks to the hon the Minister for the way in which he handled his portfolio. I also want to take this opportunity to wish him a very pleasant rest.

I am glad that the hon member for Heideveld also supports this Bill, namely the Energy Amendment Bill. On behalf of the hon members on this side of the House I also support the Energy Amendment Bill because it eliminates the few shortcomings which have been identified in the principal Act.

In terms of this amending Bill the hon the Minister may request the National Energy Council in writing to advise him on a matter. The National Energy Council may now also accept donations and make loans.

Because the employees of the National Energy Council are not officials of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, it is provided in this amending Bill that certain employees of the National Energy Council may also obtain information relating to prospecting for minerals. The National Energy Council may appoint its employees itself, but subject to the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

Section 16 of the principal Act is being amended to make agreements with other governments in connection with energy subject to the provisions of the Nuclear Energy Act. The prohibition on the further delegation by the executive officer of powers which have been delegated to him by the National Energy Council is being repealed. The Central Energy Fund Act is being amended to make further provision in regard to the application of money from the Equalisation Fund. I therefore take pleasure in also supporting the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, there is an old adage to the effect that if one boils cabbage over and over it loses its flavour. I am the last speaker and everything I wanted to say has already been said.

Legislation on energy is something that we have long needed in this country, and this Bill is the precursor to privatisation in the energy field in this country.

As there is more good than bad in this legislation, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members of the various parties very sincerely for their support for this legislation.

†I also want to thank hon members for their kind words. They are greatly appreciated. They are words that I will probably carry with me for the rest of my life.

*I want to thank the hon member for Brakpan for his kind words. I want to tell the hon member that if we want to talk about going off the rails, I am still on the same rails, but that hon member is on a side-track and he must be careful, because along that track there is a big stop sign which he is going to come up against.

Thank you very much for the kind words conveyed to the National Energy Council. I think the National Energy Council has not yet even begun to perform the real function for which it was brought into existence. Recently I had a look at the projects on which the National Energy Council is engaged. These are projects dealing with research, development and co-ordination of electricity, liquid fuel and coal. They are also engaged in intensive investigations into the use of solar energy. Furthermore they are engaged in ethanol and methanol projects. I want to make so bold as to say that we are greatly indebted to the private sector for the co-operation they are displaying on the Board of the National Energy Council in making a start with this project and, so I hope, bringing it to a successful conclusion.

I want so make so bold as to say that if it had not been for the National Energy Council these co-ordinated, rationalised efforts on which the National Energy Council is now engaged in the field of energy would never have gotten under way. They would always have been performed in a fragmented and haphazard way. I think they have now been rationalised and co-ordinated, and on the part of this House we must convey our sincere thanks to the National Energy Council and its personnel for the great dedication with which they are performing this task.

I want to come to the hon member for Brakpan. I think that whatever the wording in respect of the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer may be, the responsibility always remains primarily with the Minister. I do not think the Minister—regardless of the wording—has any chance of getting rid of the responsibility in this connection.

The hon member for Brakpan also referred to clause 7, which deals with the Equalisation Fund. Clause 7 now makes provision to ensure that certain matters are cleared up in regard to the purposes for which moneys in the Equalisation Fund can legally be utilised in future. There is a concept, and a concept did exist, that the moneys in the Equalisation Fund are only intended for price equalisation. I want to say that this is not true.

I just want to mention quickly that the money in the Equalisation Fund is at present being utilised basically for the crude oil differential. These are the price differences between crude oil purchases and the synthetic element—the synthetic protection. This is the Sasol protection—the over- and under-recovery account. It is used for price equalisation, and for fire prevention in regard to the large storage areas in our harbours as well as the depots in our inland areas. The amendment therefore does not deal with financing which, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, can be devolved from the Equalisation Fund to the National Energy Board, but also provides legal certainty in regard to a practice which has been applied for years now.

†The hon member for Elsies River also referred to the Equalisation Fund, and I believe I have already replied to that part of his query. I also thank the hon member for Bayview for his support of the Bill. The hon member for Constantia referred to clause 2 of the Bill, which relates to the obtaining of information in respect of prospecting, probably also from people in the private sector, and of course from official Government representatives.

I believe the hon member is quite right. The information to which we are referring here is information in relation to prospecting with regard to oil, gas, coal and perhaps also uranium. In other words we are talking here about energy-related information.

*I think the best thing to do would definitely be to quote to the hon member what is stated in the explanatory memorandum, for then we are at least talking the same language. I quote as follows:

These are basically in fact the same people who dealt with this matter previously in the department itself—

I therefore think it is correct to regard this measure as an enabling piece of legislation. The transfer of information will therefore be controlled by both the department as well as the National Energy Council.

Once again I want to thank the hon member for Heideveld very sincerely for his support for this legislation. I also want to thank the hon member for Maraisburg.

I think I must also convey my very sincere thanks to the members of the joint committee that dealt with this legislation. I do not see the chairman of this committee in the House at the moment. Nevertheless I accept that hon members will convey my thanks to him. I have great appreciation for the fact that they disposed of this legislation with so much dedication.

†Furthermore I should like to thank the hon member for Camperdown for his support of this measure.

*Mr Chairman, I think there is one more aspect to which I must refer. This is the amendment in regard to clause 3, which deals with the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer. The point that was overlooked in the previous legislation, I think, is the fact that in the existing legislation—this is the legislation that is now being amended—provision was not made for the conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer. For us it was really a problem to negotiate conditions of service for this Chief Executive Officer, who was a delegated officer. The legislation under discussion now makes provision for that. Consequently it will be easier to solve the problem.

The major problem which is also being solved by this clause is the following. Because the principal Act provided that the Minister could only delegate a seconded official to the National Energy Council, it meant that if the National Energy Council, of its own accord, appointed a Chief Executive Officer, the Minister, according to the existing legislation did not have the right to delegate functions and responsibilities to him. The Minister would have had to perform those functions himself.

I think this now makes the legislation fairer. The Chief Executive Officer may also be appointed now, without the Minister being able to delegate authority to him. In terms of the new legislation he will be able to deal with this matter of his own accord.

Since this is quite probably the last occasion on which I shall be participating in this House, I want to ask hon members to allow me now, in the first place, to thank all the staff members of Parliament, whether inside or outside this House, from the lowest to the highest, very much indeed for the very great measure of helpfulness and friendliness that I received from them over the years. In fact it was a pleasure for one to be here because one knew that whenever a function had to be performed, it would be done with the greatest competence by these people, and was in fact done. I say thank you very much to them.

I also want to say thank you very much to all my hon colleagues in all three Houses for all the kindness I experienced, as well as for the very good disposition. It is true that we did occasionally have our differences. In earlier years the hon member for Claremont and I—he will remember this—and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and I frequently attacked one another across the floor of this House about the Salem case. However this was always done in a good spirit and it was pleasant. I am still waiting for the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central to come to me one day so that I can give him the background to that situation. I have frequently invited him to do so, but he has never accepted my invitation. Now that I am retiring, he may as well do so. [Interjections.]

I also want to thank the hon members for their cameraderie and for the many pleasant years we were able to spend together. I think it is probably one of the milestones in a person’s fife, to which one will always be able to think back as having been a very pleasant period.

As far as chairmen are concerned, I want to say the following. To you, Mr Chairman, I just want to say that we began here together in 1975, and we are leaving together. I want to say thank you very much for your friendship and the fact that we were able to be friends in this very fine institution. I almost want to say that it is probably the finest club that exists, in which extremely good work is done in the interests of South Africa and all its people.

I also want to thank your hon colleagues, as well as Mr Speaker, for the personal relationship that existed between us. I have great appreciation for that.

I also want to place on record that I express my great appreciation and thanks to the hon the State President for the opportunity he afforded me to manage first the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs—I shall not refer now to the Department of Education and Training—and subsequently the Department of Economic Affairs and Technology. For me it was an exceptionally pleasant period and I am very grateful for the opportunity he gave me to be able to serve my country and my people, of whom we are all very fond.

Order! I want to thank the hon the Minister for his kind words to me. I am not going to have another opportunity and I therefore want to wish him everything of the best for the road ahead. Hon members must permit me to say something in a lighter vein. The hon the Minister referred to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who did not want to listen to him and who did not want to obtain certain information from him either. In legal parlance there is a very apt expression. They talk about diligence in ignorance. [Interjections.] That is a very apt saying!

Debate concluded.

The Committee (Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs) rose at 16h03.

The Committee (Transport and Communications) met at 16h04.

Mr Chairman, prior to 1986 owners of motor vehicles paid an annual premium on each vehicle in order to make provision for third-party claims. That did not work efficiently, this shortcoming leading to falsification and evasion of the obligation to take out third-party insurance. In turn this gave rise to great dissatisfaction amongst the victims of accidents involving such vehicles. Nor could the Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund withstand the increasing pressure of inadequate funds any longer. Consequently, after an in-depth investigation and debate, the payment of premiums was abolished and replaced by a fuel levy. The 1986 legislation made provision for this.

There is every indication that this system is much more effective and facilitates the administration of third-party insurance. A consortium of agents deals with the claims, thus expediting the finalising of claims and highlighting the advantages of the new system. It is obvious that sooner or later the new system must also apply to the TBVC countries. Regions that are as mutually dependent on one another as we are, and which have so many common interests, have had to confront the situation. The implementation of various pieces of legislation involving third-party insurance could not provide satisfaction. This Bill therefore results from the multilateral agreement concluded on 14 February 1989 by the governments of the Republic of South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. The intention is to give the provisions of the agreement the force of law.

†The obvious reason for entering into the agreement is that the third party insurance legislation applicable in these states results in detrimental administrative and financial implications for the states, as well as for the third parties. Following discussions between the governments of the TBVC states and ourselves, it was decided to enter into an agreement which would provide for the establishment of a Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund—the MMF—for the purpose of compensating third parties for loss or damage suffered as a result of bodily injury or death caused by the negligent or unlawful driving of motor vehicles in the territories of the parties to the agreement.

Funds are to be obtained from a levy on fuel sold in the territories of the parties to the agreement. The agreement, which is set out in the schedule to this Bill, provides in the introductory clause for the establishment of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund. This fund will be a juristic person.

The agreement provides for a controlling body for the MMF and also prescribes the powers and duties of the MMF.

*The conditions for the payment of compensation to third parties and the MMF’s liability, as well as the procedure and the requirements in connection with claims, are comprehensively set out in the agreement. The relevant provisions—this is important—are chiefly based on the provisions of the present Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, 1986. At present the handling of claims is entering a new phase of co-operation which extends across the borders of various states. This provides those travelling in motor vehicles with the benefit of protection in the case of an accident, regardless of where such an accident may take place. What is more, claims are dealt with by one central fund, with all the concomitant advantages of such a method.

For decades now the Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund has made use of a consortium of agents who deal with claims on behalf of the fund. This system works well, and agents have consistently provided a high-quality service. As I have mentioned, the new dispensation for the fund places the system of a closed circle of agents under increasing pressure. In future attention will therefore necessarily have to be given to a system facilitating free competition within the market.

It deserves to be noted that notwithstanding the envisaged co-operation on the regional level, no other changes in the system are envisaged. The status quo is therefore being maintained in regard to aspects such as the choice of a lawyer to deal with the claim. Every vehicle on the road will also be covered in terms of the provisions. Displaying third-party tokens will no longer be compulsory. Agents will be allocated in accordance with a schedule, based on the date on which the accident takes place.

The Bill also suspends the implementation of the present Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, Act 84 of 1986, from the date of commencement of the legislation now being proposed, for as long as the agreement is in operation. It is provided, however, that the suspension does not affect the provisions of the former legislation, which applied prior to the commencement of the latter legislation.

Lastly, this agreement we are dealing with here today has not been forced upon the TBVC countries. They were very willing to co-operate with us. I had an opportunity to attend the first meeting. The Bill reflects the fact that South Africa’s future lies in co-operation and negotiation.

Southern Africa has transport and traffic problems. Passing this legislation would open the door to greater co-operation, co-ordination and understanding, in the field of transport and traffic too.

With this legislation great impetus is being given to the search for uniformity at the transport level so as to eliminate sources of irritation. Every day there is proof of how indispensable the Southern African states have become to one another. One’s own interests need not necessarily clash with those of other states. I think that the desire to promote mutual interests is steadily growing. It gives me great pleasure to move this second reading.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Deputy Minister pointed out, an agreement was entered into which preceded this specific Bill. What is happening here is that today a Bill of two pages, with an appendix of 26 pages which contains the agreement, is being passed or not passed. I just wanted to say that by way of introduction.

If we look at these two sections of the Bill—if I may call them that—we want to refer first of all to clause 2(2) of the Bill itself. It provides as follows:

For us in the CP it is unacceptable that the State President may here, in the place of Parliament, be invested with the power to ratify amendments to the Agreement. Regulations in regard to voting power, the way in which contributions to the fund are calculated, and so on, which imply drastic consequences for the RSA, are determined in the Agreement, and cannot in our opinion be left solely to the Government.

The Government is generally known for its inability to protect the rights of its people. We prefer the Government, and more specifically the State President, not to receive such powers. Parliamentary control over the Government’s conduct has never been as necessary as it is at precisely this present juncture.

I should like to refer to an envisaged amendment in respect of clause 8, of which we took cognisance this morning. In terms of this amendment the commencement of the Bill, should it be passed, will no longer be on a date determined by the State President by way of proclamation, but after the resolution of the joint committee, which was convened this morning, the commencement will be with retrospective effect as from 1 May 1989, if the amendment is accepted.

In this connection we merely want to know why this Bill, with the proposed amendment, was not submitted to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communication on 16 May—a week ago. This is typical of the haste with which the Government deals with legislation, which in reality consists only of two pages, while the Agreement in regard to which the Bill was drafted, had already been signed on 14 February of this year by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the representatives of the other states.

I want to refer once again to the text. As regards the financing of the fund, we see if we look at the Schedule, which is the Agreement, that Article 8, paragraph (d) reads as follows:

We ask merely whether it is in the interests of the RSA that particulars of its fuel sales be made known to neighbouring states while it happens that no particulars are given to members of Parliament such as myself and the other hon member of the CP on the joint committee, even though we asked for it. A week ago I asked for the latest particulars of the proceeds from the sale of fuel in the five participating states. On the joint committee I was promised that I would receive this information, but to this day I have not yet received anything, in spite of further telephonic inquiries by the vice chairman of the study group of the CP, the hon member for Middelburg. If these particulars are so secret that the Official Opposition may not know them, how on earth can it be in the interests of the RSA that other states are freely able to obtain this information through the operation of this system?

As far as Article 12 of the Schedule is concerned, paragraph (b) reads as follows:

We should like to know why the Johannesburg City Council, in spite of the fact that this fund has now acquired an inter-state character, is receiving the unique right to withdraw from the system by arranging its own third party insurance.

As far as voting procedure is concerned, if we look at Articles 18(k) and 19(j) of the Schedule, we see that the procedure is precisely the same in both the Council and the Committee that is being established in terms of the Agreement, namely that decisions, whenever practicable, shall be taken on the basis of consensus. If consensus cannot be reached in terms of these provisions and except as otherwise specifically provided, all matters before the Committee or the Council shall be decided by at least three of the Members and a majority of the votes cast. Here the Government had a golden opportunity to demonstrate what mechanism could be used to make the use of numbers in joint decision-making by inherently different entities superfluous.

We are constantly hearing about how the Government’s formula for joint decision-making by various communities is one in which numbers play no role and in which one community cannot be dominated by others. The NP says that such a formula must be negotiated by the communities. In this Bill the foolishness of this approach is illustrated.

There was negotiation prior to the Agreement, and the product of that is contained in Articles 18 and 19. If all the members, in terms of these provisions, do not reach unanimity, the will of three members, that is to say a numerical criterion, coupled with the majority of the votes cast—therefore also a financial criterion—shall decide the outcome. The minority is once again being dominated by the majority—in this case a numerical and financial majority.

Particulars of the voting rights in the MMF, which we regard in a very serious light, are to be found in Article 21 of the Schedule. This is also unacceptable to us, because in terms of Article 21(a) the voting rights of a member are calculated with reference to—

This specific Article relates to the situation when the system comes into operation. Subsequently there are provisions—more specifically Article 21(d)—which state how the voting rights shall then be revised.

Reference is also made to the voting power, and I just want to dwell on this for a moment, because it is one of the obscurities we find here. In Article 21(a) mention is made of voting rights, and then further on in other paragraphs of Article 21 the term voting power is suddenly used. It is not immediately apparent, if one applies the rules of interpretation, what is meant here. Our inference is that what is apparently meant is that voting rights and voting power are to be interpreted as being synonymous. In any event, we should like to ascertain from the hon the Deputy Minister whether this is the interpretation the RSA also attaches to this.

Be that as it may, Article 21(d) provides that the voting power shall be adjusted—

This implies that the more accidents, from which valid claims for damages owing to injury arose, which occur in a member’s territory as a result of illegal cause, the greater the voting power of that member. The criterion is therefore not how much that member contributes to the fund, but how much he takes out of it.

If the drivers and traffic control of a member state are poor, and more injuries therefore occur than in the territories of other member states, its voting power increases relative to that of the other member states. To tell the truth, we find this system rather ludicrous. We should like to hear from the hon the Deputy Minister or other speakers why this system was decided upon.

What is interesting—and this is no light matter—is the far-reaching powers of the Council and the Committee. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Bill seeks to make provision for an agreement between the RSA and the TBVC countries.

Before I go any further, I would like to say something to the hon member who spoke before me, and who referred to the fact that the Johannesburg City Council had now been excluded. It is precisely because that city council has its own motor insurance fund that it will not be participating in this fund.

The reason for the drawing up of this legislation is that the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, 1986, provides mainly for the following: The obtaining of funds by means of fuel which is used by motor vehicles; and the payment of compensation for loss or damage unlawfully caused by the driving of such motor vehicles.

I would like to refer to a few important points which have bearing on the Bill.

Clause 2(1) gives the force of law to the multilateral agreement, which is set out in the Schedule of the Bill and states that it will be applicable in the Republic and South West Africa.

Clause 2(2) authorises the State President to ratify or cause to be ratified on behalf of the Republic any amendments of or additions to the agreement which may be made from time to time. He may also amend the Schedule by means of a proclamation in the Gazette.

Clause 2(3) provides that the Minister shall table in Parliament any proclamation issued in terms of clause 2(2).

Clause 3 suspends the application of Act 84 of 1986 from the date of the implementation of this envisaged Act, for as long as the agreement applies in terms of section 2. As hon members heard from the previous speaker, we also introduced an amendment and this clause will now be amended at a meeting of the joint committee which will be held tomorrow, so that as soon as this Bill has been accepted by Parliament, it will be made retrospective to 1 May 1989.

Furthermore, clause 3(b) provides that the Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund which was established by section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, 1986, shall be closed from the date of commencement of this envisaged Act and that all amounts credited to that fund immediately before such commencement, shall vest in the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, and that all liabilities and rights, existing as well as accruing, of the said Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund shall devolve upon the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund.

Clause 4 provides that the Minister shall lay upon the Table in Parliament a copy of every annual report of the Council within a specified period after he has received it. Clause 5 provides that moneys for the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund be paid into this fund on a quarterly basis.

Clause 6 provides that the Minister may make regulations to give effect to the provisions of the agreement as applicable in the Republic and that any such regulations may make provision for a fine not exceeding R500 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.

Clause 7 amends the National Road Safety Act, 1972, and provides that the money concerned be paid to the National Road Safety Council on a quarterly basis.

The LP therefore has no objection to this legislation, and we support it.

Mr Chairman, the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Bill as introduced actually replaces the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act of 1986, the only difference being that the MMF includes the independent states of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei with the further proviso that any independent state can become a member. The hon the Minister has to be complimented on his efforts to get the co-operation of the independent states; not only on getting their co-operation but achieving success also. The co-operation of the independent states is necessary for maintaining standards and quality systems.

Whilst the accident fund provides for accident victims, I do not think that we should concentrate only on the accumulation of funds and the administration thereof. We would also like to address causes of accidents. We may have to liaise with other departments to find possible ways to reduce accidents.

I wish to state some of the statistics I have been going through. Motor accidents average about 300 000 per year resulting on 3 000 to 4 000 deaths on average per year. Most of the persons killed are in the age group 25 to 34. I am not too sure but I think many factors influence the accident rate in this particular group. It could be speed and the fact that youngsters have just come into the possession of drivers’ licences. Many other factors may influence this group.

If one looks at the casualty figures, one is looking at figures of about 100 000 per annum, and about 10 000 deaths per annum for all accidents. This is alarming. I do not know how we rate in the rest of the world as far as accidents are concerned.

We need to look at road safety and education in road safety. There should be a greater concentration of our efforts in time to educate the general public, as well as schoolchildren in the need for road safety. I do not say that it is not being done now, but I think that it should be emphasised more.

We should furthermore concentrate on quality control, driver evaluation as regards drivers’ competence and the issuing of drivers’ licences. The other aspect which should be looked at is the roadworthiness of vehicles, traffic control and law enforcement. These are some of the aspects we can look at in order to reduce the number of accidents rather than to try to pay the third party claims.

Everybody pays a fuel levy to the fund, irrespective of their colour. If, therefore, accidents are caused, we must respect human life. Discrimination in respect of funds or the administration thereof, or even in the treatment of accident victims must be avoided at all costs.

I would like to read an article from The Star of 18 April 1989 concerning a Mrs Irene Mzizi of Orlando, Soweto, who died after an accident. The article reads, and I quote:

This is very sad indeed. [Interjections.]

She probably died yesterday.

I quoted the date of 18 April 1989 in case the hon member did not hear.

Subsequently, on 27 April 1989 this matter was debated at a Transvaal Provincial Administration meeting where reference was made to the result of apartheid health clinics. With the hospitals and health services being divided by the own affairs and general affairs policy, I hope there will be no repetition of ugly scenes such as this.

As a matter of fact, we are living in a sick society if one thinks that life is valued in terms of colour. To save a White life one gets a heart from a Black donor…

Order! The hon member is slowly drifting away from the substance of the Bill. He should return to the substance of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am talking about accidents, how the funds are administered, the welfare of the people and third party claims. I mentioned here that we must be circumspect and treat all human beings alike without any discrimination. I want to exhort the hon the Minister to liaise with the other departments in order to eradicate this sick problem of colour discrimination.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react to what the hon member for Merebank said. It sounded as if he supported the Bill, for which we are grateful.

I would like to make a few remarks about the contribution of the hon member for Roodepoort, who, in the discussion of this Bill, was obviously trying to score a few political points. I would like to react briefly to that. The hon member referred to clause 2(2) and said that his party objected to the Bill because the Government did not have the ability to protect the rights of people. That is a very general statement to make; in fact, to my knowledge the Government succeeds reasonably well, if not very well, in addressing the rights of all the people in this country. That is contrary to the statements of the hon member’s party on human rights.

With regard to the ratification by the hon the State President, regarding regulations which may be made in terms of the Bill by means of an amendment to the agreement, surely this is general procedure. Surely numerous multilateral agreements have been entered into between South Africa, neighbouring states and other countries in which the hon the State President has made amendments to the agreements on behalf of the State, without asking every citizen of the country whether he may do so. It is normal practice and it shows that the statement which is being made, namely that the Government, the State or the hon the State President are not in a position to protect the interests of the people, has only one motive, namely a very strong political motive.

Furthermore, the hon member not only discussed the Bill; he also discussed the agreement. The agreement is a Schedule to the Bill, but it is an agreement which has already been signed by the representatives of the states concerned, namely South Africa and the TBVC countries. The agreement has already been entered into, and it is an agreement which has already been reached. The Bill which we are discussing here will ratify the agreement, which was signed on 14 February and will come into operation on 1 May. The terms of the agreement were arrived at by means of consensus, and we in this country and those of us on this side of the House make it our task to try to deal with our problems by means of consensus. However, there are the hon members of the CP who, at this stage, quite probably have no idea of what consensus is. The question which emanates from that is interesting, namely when they have isolated themselves on their island with their policy of partition—wherever that may be—how will they ever be able to live together with their neighbours without entering into agreements, and without making certain arrangements with their neighbouring states.

Did you achieve consensus yesterday?

The search for consensus does not mean that one has to achieve consensus on the same day, and that is apparently the impression which the hon member has. The hon member would attempt to enforce consensus by means of a paternalistic attitude, but that no longer works.

But you have been trying to do that for a decade!

It will do hon members no good to cry. I think they should answer the following question for the voters. How will they arrive at consensus with their neighbours, because neighbours they must have? They cannot live alone in the world.

We shall see what De Aar has to say.

Oh, the CP are going to get a big surprise there!

Order! We shall see what De Aar has to say, but we are not going to listen to loud interjections from the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis for much longer.

I would like to return to the Bill briefly. There is one aspect of the Bill which I find very important, and that is that in terms of this Bill and the agreement which has been entered into, the base of revenue is being broadened regardless of the country of origin of the driver of a vehicle or the motorist. In other words, we have here a situation in which we are going to obtain more contributions at a lower rate, which will enable the fund to meet its obligations with ease. As a result of the multilateral nature of the agreement everyone in our region who uses roads, regardless of race or creed, must pay for them. The present Act, Act 84 of 1986, did not quite provide for the equal protection of everyone who used roads in all the member countries, because provision for this was made on a different basis. The agreement in terms of the Bill which is now being discussed, namely the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, will enable the Fund to meet third-party claims on a sound basis. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Bill before us this afternoon is the result of two years of negotiations between the Republic of South Africa and the Republics of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.

The agreement was concluded on 14 February 1989 to establish an interstate Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund. Funds generated in all four states, including the 3,6 cents per litre on fuel by the Central Energy Fund will be paid to the MMF. The MMF will have as its task the payment of compensation for certain losses or damage caused by the unlawful driving of certain motor vehicles within the jurisdiction of its member states. Once this Bill is enacted there will be no need to display third party tokens. Therefore we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to enter into the discussion between the NP and the CP save to say that consensus appears to be in the tricameral parliamentary system a means by which one has to agree with the NP. All it means is that if one does not agree with the NP—everybody else in the whole of Parliament can agree that the NP is wrong—then of course there is no consensus. I really do think that that term is overused and abused.

The Bill in front of us is a very simple one and we in the DP support it. I would say that it is yet further evidence that the Verwoerdian dream of grand apartheid is in the process of failing. If was after all the Verwoerdian dream that we should have all these independent homelands and now we have to come to agreement after agreement with these so-called independent homelands—which of course have as yet not been recognised by any single country in the world—whereby we have to get together on any number of agreements such as the one in front of us today. We have no objection, however, to the actual agreement and therefore the DP support it.

Mr Chairman, the reply of the hon member who spoke directly after me to my question on the unique position of the Johannesburg City Council was, with all due respect, no real answer. It was merely a repetition of what is already stated in the Bill. I have not yet heard any real motivation as to why the Johannesburg City Council is in this unique position that it can operate a fund of its own.

As regards the observations made by the hon member for De Aar, he said it was normal procedure to cause amendments to international agreements to be ratified by the hon the State President. Our argument is in fact that we do not want to leave the amendment of this specific agreement to the Government because it could have consequences that are too drastic.

He also said that the Agreement had been obtained through consensus, and he then added that the NP did not necessarily want to obtain consensus in one day. In all fairness our question is then: How long is the NP going to allow for consensus decisions—5 or 7 days, 12 months, 5 or 10 years? How long? I think it is a fair question.

As regards the Bill itself, a very interesting provision appears in Article 16 of the Schedule, under the heading “Political activity prohibited”:

We have no objection to that. However, the provision continues—

We should now like to put the following questions. How is this provision of the Agreement going to be enforced in the first place? What is the remedy for contravention of this provision? That is, of course, if one can talk about a contravention. This brings me now to the crucial question. How does one separate politics from economics?

Yes, you people definitely do not know how to do that!

This is really an interesting provision in Article 16, and we should very much like to hear an elaboration from the Government side of their standpoint that politics can be separated from economics. I think economists in general would also like to hear what the Government standpoint in this regard is. What is their interpretation of this standpoint?

In Article 26(a)(i) and (ii) provisions on the withdrawal of members appear. The essence of these provisions, to which I want to refer, is that if a member wishes to withdraw, he is still committed to his notice of withdrawal for a year. However, if one reads this in conjunction with the provision on the distribution of assets in Article 29, one sees there—in Article 29—that it is a requirement for the distribution of assets that the Council must first decide that it is in fact possible to make a distribution.

We say the situation can now arise that the other four members—or however many members there may be at that stage when the RSA, for argument’s sake, wishes to withdraw from this scheme—could at that juncture have a total voting capacity that was strong enough to take a decision against the distribution of assets, in spite of the wishes of the RSA.

We then find ourselves in the situation in which the RSA’s contribution to the fund, which are the assets of the MMF, are frozen, while the RSA has to withdraw from the scheme without the assets that it contributed. To us that is unacceptable.

In regard to the admission of new members, Article 7 reads as follows:

The question which arises here is the following: Does this mean that the decision must be unanimous? If that is the intention, why is it not expressly stated in this way in the article. It allows the presumption to arise that the intention is that a decision need not be unanimous to be a decision of the Council that a new member may be admitted. In that case serious problems arise. When one takes cognisance of the possible unacceptability of certain states in Africa for inclusion as members in such a scheme, it is true that if such a decision need not be taken by the members unanimously—it could be a case in which, for argument’s sake, the RSA is opposed to the inclusion of some African state or other—it can happen that a member is included, against our wishes and desires, by the other members and that the RSA is then compelled to withdraw from the scheme, with the consequence to which I have just referred—that we can then possibly be deprived of our contributions to the assets of this scheme. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am clearly surprised by the attitude of the CP. I followed the hon member for Roodepoort very keenly in his argument, and what I heard him say really upset me. I want to know from the CP how they can separate economics from politics. It is often said that an unstable political situation creates an unstable economic situation. One cannot separate the two.

I should like to ask hon members of the CP a further question. With their Boerestaat policy, how do they intend to live side by side with the neighbouring Black states?

Ask them! Ask them!

How are they going to live? How are they going to make laws in their Boerestaat or Afrikaner state? Will they have laws forbidding a Black man to drive his car along their roads? How are they then going to prevent people of colour…

Ask them about Boksburg!

Are they going to do all their work themselves? How are they going to exist all on their own? If ever I have heard proof of people not being able to face reality it has been in the speech just delivered here by the hon member for Roodepoort. The reality is that South Africa has not been built and developed by any exclusive colour group in this country. [Interjections.] South Africa has been built and developed by…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask to which clause in the legislation the hon member is referring now? [Interjections.]

I am referring to the principle of criticising the Bill before the House which is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the people.

Order! The hon members on my left are conversing too loudly.

†The hon member for Camperdown is referring to an argument advanced by the hon member for Roodepoort. He is completing his argument and may do so. However, I suggest that he comes to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I will come to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member is basing his argument on an incorrect statement which he attributes to the hon member for Roodepoort. The hon member for Roodepoort said nothing about separating politics from economics. He actually said it could not be done.

Order! That is not a point of order. I cannot assist if somebody misinterprets another hon member’s words. The hon member must put it right at a later stage. The hon member for Camperdown may continue.

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence and I demand injury time in this debate. [Interjections.]

The hon members of the CP say that the Government is erring in mixing economics with politics. I did not start the debate! [Interjections.] My problem is—the hon member must excuse me—that I am not an Afrikaner and I am not an Englishman, so the English and Afrikaans languages are both foreign tongues to me. My mother tongue is a lot different. However, I understood the hon member, who has just left the podium, very clearly. He blamed the Government for mixing politics with economics. I am taking the point further. [Interjections.]

I am not opposing the Bill before the House. It is absolutely necessary. We know that up to 1964 the short-term insurance companies were taking the people for a ride. Every motorist was compelled to take out insurance and when claims arose, people were cheated! The Government then, in its right senses, introduced the MVA legislation which is now being extended to the TBVC states. However, I do not accept the argument that economics and politics are separable. I do not accept that argument. No person in his right mind and with the interests of the country at heart will advance that argument.

I would like to point out a problem concerning the TBVC states. If we do not enter into an agreement, are we going to prevent a TBVC motorcar being brought into South Africa and knocking somebody down ? Who is going to pay the compensation? [Interjections.] If I drive to Natal, I have to pass through Transkei. If I knock somebody down there, I will be locked up and be charged with murder. They could claim millions of rand from me.

The Bill before this House proves that it is very essential to cultivate a friendly atmosphere within all the states. [Interjections.] That is the basis for peaceful co-existence. We are not handing out money to them, neither are we robbing them. [Interjections.]

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

No injury time?

Order! There was a bit of injury time. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am standing before the House to give my support to this Bill. The Bill has already been dealt with thoroughly.

I just want to address the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and say that if they had taken up the time of the joint committee for the purpose for which they took up the time of this committee this afternoon, they would not have had to speak here at all.

However, I can understand why the hon members were not with us when the joint committee sat, because I can tell hon members what happened there. The hon member for Roodepoort…

Order! If this is related to the Bill, the hon member may go ahead, but if it is not related to the clauses, he should rather not do so. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it deals with the fact that the hon member for Roodepoort could have raised the specific sections and clauses which he dealt with here today, and with regard to which he is dissatisfied, during the meeting of the joint committee.

However, the hon member preferred not to do so. I do not think it had anything to do with whether or not he preferred to raise the matter at that meeting, because that was the specific Monday on which the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly had problems during the visit of Blood Bath Boshoff and the Boot Boy. I must tell hon members that there was a flutter in the committee at a stage when we were considering the Bill clause by clause.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it correct for an hon member to refer to people outside Parliament in the terms in which the hon member for East London North has done? He referred to “Blood Bath” Boshoff and the second remark which unfortunately I did not hear. Is that correct?

Order! Unfortunately I did not hear the second remark either, but it is not relevant here. One does not necessarily agree with the use of these terms, but it is not unparliamentary to use them with regard to people outside Parliament. The hon member for East London North may proceed.

Finally I just want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister on this agreement which has been entered into with the TBVC countries in the interests of the public of our country and the public of the independent states in our region. I think the public will be grateful for the fact that we have piloted this legislation through. I would like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with the hon member who has just spoken. I want to thank him for the kind words and the congratulations. I think the hon member is on the correct wavelength when he says that this legislation is in the interest of South Africa and all its people.

It surprised me somewhat that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was able to create the impression that consensus merely meant that someone had to agree with the NP.

[Inaudible.]

That is not the point! The truth is that we want consensus with regard to what is in the interests of South Africa, all its people and its neighbouring states. In this case this is the approach of the Government and we require consensus in that regard.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Umzinto.

†The hon member for Umzinto spoke in support of the legislation and I wish to thank him for that.

*The hon member for De Aar also referred to the general approach of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly with regard to their policy when it came to the formation of states. I am just as surprised as the hon member that they are unable to support this legislation.

†The hon member for Merebank referred to the issue of road accidents. I would like to thank him for highlighting again the issue of road safety. Of course, one feels that if we could reduce accidents in South Africa we should do it. The main purpose of this legislation is to reduce the effects of road accidents as far as possible.

*I would also like to thank the hon member for Vredendal for his support.

†The hon member for Camperdown referred to the political issue but I must say that I found his argument a bit strange. As far as we are concerned, the member states should deal with the economic issues. If they are parties to this particular agreement, they should refrain from dealing with political issues. They should rather pay attention to the economic issues involved.

*The hon member for † asked how we were going to enforce Article 16 of the agreement and how we were going to exclude politics. The Council of the fund cannot deal with that. The legislation of the member countries must deal with that in such a way that politics is not brought into this matter, but that it deals purely with economic issues.

The hon member for Roodepoort spoke a few times. He referred to clause 2(2), which deals with the powers of the State President. The hon member must also look at Article 66 of the agreement. There the procedure is set out whereby amendments can be made. The amendments come from the member countries themselves. As someone who is versed in the law, the hon member must surely know that the State President has powers in terms of the Constitution to enter into all kinds of agreements, but certainly, if this House proposes changes to the agreement, they will be referred to the State President in the final instance. This will happen if there are amendments. In the case of South Africa these will be referred to the State President, and in the case of the member countries, they will be dealt with by their state presidents or heads of state.

The hon member asked a question with regard to clause 8. He asked why they were only notified at that stage, and not earlier. I apologise for the fact that notice of this was not given before the time, but I want to refer the hon member to Section 72(b) of the agreement, which states that the operations of the MMF will commence on a date to be decided by the Council of the MMF. During the first meeting of the Council on 15 February it was decided that the operations would commence on 1 May this year. The hon member should also know that the financial year of the MMF begins on 1 May and ends on 30 April of the following year. The reason for this decision is that clause 8, to which I referred just now, will state that the financial year begins on that date. The financial year of the MMF coincides with the financial year of the previous funds of South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Ciskei. In order to ease the transfer of assets and liabilities from the previous four funds to the MMF, it was decided that the financial year and the commencement of operations should be synchronised.

The hon member asked all these questions now. [Interjections.] Why did he not ask the questions on the joint committee? Apparently he did not state his standpoint there. [Interjections.] I find that strange. According to Hansard the hon member for Brakpan supported the previous legislation on behalf of the CP in 1986. The agreement is largely the legislation of 1986. However, hon members now have all kinds of objections. Clause 8 was prepared before the Council of the MMF had taken a decision with regard to the commencement of the operations of the MMF. In the meantime the Transkei, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana had already adapted their legislation in order to make provision for the commencement of operations on 1 May. That is why we had to do it this way.

The hon member also asked questions about revenue. The revenue is not yet available in an audited form, but I can tell the hon member what the projection is. For the present financial year approximately R404 million will be collected, of which the RS A will receive 94%, and the rest 6%.

The hon member also asked whether voting rights and voting power were the same. Those are definitely synonymous. The division of votes is traditionally the same, and the increase and decrease will depend on the position as stated in the agreement. There the hon member can already see what our real position is. The hon member also asked a question about Johannesburg. In the case of the Johannesburg municipality, they were given the right to bear their own risk in terms of the legislation in 1976 and 1986 with regard to third-party insurance. This right is now simply being protected further.

The hon member also raised the point of withdrawal. The Republic will always have the overwhelming majority and the distribution of funds will only take place after all obligations have been met; only then will one receive one’s money.

Enforcement is also not possible, seeing that votes are cast according to prescriptions which do not allow one member to dominate or make decisions without the Republic.

Hon members are therefore conjuring up spectres with regard to the provisions of this legislation. I want to conclude with the following idea. What I find strange is that this hon member is in favour of the creation of separate states. Let us assume that disaster befalls us and these people come to power. According to them there are six states which must still become independent, which they would like to see obtain independence. In other words that amounts to a total of 10 states. [Interjections.] Furthermore, there are still all the Coloured people, the Indians and the Whites. I now want to ask hon members whether it would be possible for them to close those borders to such an extent that no one would be able to cross them and that an accident or two would be avoided. Today there is a customs agreement between us and those states. I now want to ask hon members whether they would do away with that as well. That is also a multilateral agreement. I want to ask hon members to really think about that.

They are also the people who are actually in favour of commuters. Surely one does not commute only by bus or train, but also by motor car from, for example, Bophuthatswana. Those people will have accidents on our roads, just as we will have accidents on their roads. I now want to ask the hon member whether it would not be in the interests of Southern Africa as a whole if we were to work together at this level. It has nothing to do with integration.

Are hon members aware of what that hon member and his party want to do? They want to tell people that this is an example of how we are going to carry the Black states on our backs and how they are going to destroy us; we are going to do these things for them because they are not in a position to do them themselves. That is why those hon members are adopting that attitude. They once again want to elicit anti-Black prejudice and anti-Black sentiments from that. That is what they want to use this legislation for. They want to exploit it outside this Chamber.

I want to appeal to hon members not to play with the future of South Africa at such a level. Here we can make a breakthrough so that the rest of Southern Africa, not only these TBVC countries, but eventually the other countries around us as well, will be able to enter into this kind of agreement and work with us to everyone’s advantage. Hon members may have visions of separate Black states if that is what they want, but they must not scuttle co-operation between those states, because that is unfortunately their attitude.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 17h09.

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the chairman and members of the joint committee for the thorough job they have done with regard to this Bill. I know they sat for long hours during which there were sometimes rather heated debates in an honest effort to produce a well-balanced, fair and well-planned piece of legislation.

Hon members are probably aware of the fact that this Bill has already come a long way. The product as we have it here today, was created from a multitude of contributions from every conceivable quarter. The original concept has been re-written almost 25 times and has been published for comment several times so that it could eventually assume a form which both the conservationists and developers would find acceptable. In other words, the public was given the opportunity to make contributions. I think it is a long time since there has been an Act before Parliament which has given the public so much say in its making as this one did.

†Conservation and utilisation are two most significant aspects of our approach to our environment. On the face of it it could appear as if these two aspects were directly opposed to one another. This is, however, not true. My conviction is that if we do not promote the sustainable utilisation of our resources in order to stimulate development, we will gradually not be able to protect our environment. It serves no purpose to protect anything for the sole purpose of conservation, and to me conservation in fact means the use of the resources at our disposal in such a way that the survival, or even increase, of the various resources remains guaranteed.

To a large extent this is exactly the purpose of this Act, namely to reconcile the two apparent opposite poles of conservation and utilisation. I do not wish to discuss in detail the various clauses of the Bill. As I have stated, the joint committee has competently executed its duties. I do, however, wish to state a few principles which I trust will be promoted by the application of this Act.

Firstly, every inhabitant of the Republic of South Africa is entitled to live, work and relax in a safe, productive, healthy and generally acceptable environment. Secondly, every human generation has a moral responsibility to act as a trustee of its natural and man-made environment in the interests of succeeding generations.

*Thirdly, every individual or institution has an obligation to give careful consideration to actions which may have an effect on the environment and to take all reasonable steps to ensure the protection, maintenance and improvement of both the natural and man-made environment. Fourthly, the preservation of natural systems and processes is essential for all life on earth to continue to exist in a meaningful way. Fifthly, living natural resources are renewable and with planning they could be used for ever, while non-living natural resources are limited and their utilisation could only be prolonged by discriminate use and maximum re-use.

Furthermore, co-ordinated and purposeful research is necessary to gather and apply knowledge on all aspects of the environment as well as the interaction between man and the environment in order to reconcile the satisfaction of the reasonable needs of man with the effective protection of the environment. Lastly, extensive and continued education and interpretation and distribution of information are essential for the establishment of an informed population in order to promote the rational utilisation of the environment.

These are the principles on the basis of which this draft legislation has been compiled. We all know that the conservation of the environment is a dynamic process and that this Act would probably have to be amended many a time in future to adjust to the circumstances. However, the enabling provisions of the legislation are a firm foundation on which we can build.

When one looks at what is happening in other countries of the world, it becomes clear that mankind is becoming more and more aware of the environment. It is true to such an extent that we recently had the case where a government, namely the Dutch Government, was overthrown because of an environmental matter. This indicates and proves the seriousness with which environmental matters are regarded these days.

I trust we will gain interesting views in the discussion of this Bill. This is all I have to say.

Mr Chairman, in the first instance I should like to say that we agree completely with the reasons given by the hon the Minister for the promotion and utilisation of the environment for the sake of all the inhabitants of the RS A.

During the Vote on Environmental Affairs last year on 2 May, I referred to environmental conservation and made a statement which, in my opinion, is still relevant. I should like to quote from Hansard of 2 May, 1988, column 8291:

As an example I mentioned two initiatives, namely the National Grazing Strategy and the Soil Conservation Act of 1946. In spite of legislation and other measures to combat soil erosion, the effect was minimal, and an estimate indicated that up to 1963 nearly 25% of the original fertility of the land had been lost as a result of soil erosion.

I also referred to the threat to our ecosystems and the Karoo, which has experienced more damage to its ground cover than any other veld-type in the Republic of South Africa. I came to the conclusion that there was a lack of co-ordination among the various bodies responsible for the conservation of our soil.

This brings me to this Bill which is primarily enabling legislation and not mandatory legislation. In the guidelines which were stipulated, the Minister is given certain powers to determine general policy and to indicate how the various State bodies can deal with the compliance with policy without promulgating coercive legal measures.

The most serious criticism against this Bill will probably be that it does not contain enough enforceable measures and that as a result of the present constitutional structure, one body is not feasible. The question will still be asked whether centralisation and the acceptance of one national body is not the solution.

On our side of the Committee we realise the complexity of this structure with the various bodies which are responsible for the control of environmental conservation. Therefore we express our gratitude and appreciation for this measure and support and welcome this Bill as such. It is a step in the right direction, especially due to the fact that the Bill has accomplished greater co-ordination between the various organisations which care for environment conservation. Our side of the Committee supports this Bill for the very reason that the essence of co-ordination is addressed in this Bill.

I also wish to express our gratitude to all the organisations and members of the public who gave evidence before the joint committee. It was extremely encouraging to see that there was such wide interest in promoting the environment. I also observed that everyone was prepared to make a success of this Bill.

It is not necessary for me to discuss this Bill clause by clause or to refer to it. There was complete agreement in the joint committee, and I thank one and all, especially the department which was very involved with it, for the fact that we were able to formulate this Bill for the promotion of the environment, which will result in the generations after us also being able to experience and enjoy the results of our conservation and utilisation of our natural resources.

Mr Chairman, I also want to join the hon member for Nigel in expressing my appreciation to all those people who made this Bill possible and the people who worked hard to formulate this Bill as well as all those who made representations and gave evidence. I also want to express my appreciation to our departmental officials who gave of their labour unstintedly and I thank them for their contribution towards the formulation of this Bill.

It is quite appropriate that we discuss this Bill with World Environment Day, which will be on 5 June, so near. The importance of this Bill cannot be overemphasised and in my opinion we all have reason to be proud of the legislation we are passing today. One has to admit that the Bill might not be perfect in all ways, but it is a formidable start in the race to maintain what is still left of our precious environment.

During the construction of this Bill the people who will be most affected, namely the developers and heavy industry on the one hand and the conservationists on the other hand, made most valuable contributions. Deliberations have taken place in a spirit of give and take. We can regard ourselves extremely lucky that we are still able to formulate legislation with the help and understanding of the very people for whom we legislate.

I would like to say a few words in general concerning environmental ethics, which I feel is the foundation upon which this legislation rests. This generation should look at the world in a new mature light, no longer clouded by fear and dominance, but fired with the understanding that those areas of wilderness which still remain are part of a heritage, and that if the earth’s resources are used wisely they will continue to provide for both the material and the spiritual needs of all humankind.

The “pioneer ethic” that blatantly advertises the earth as real estate, open to ownership and exploration, is morally wrong. The ever diminishing natural areas are looked upon as mere wilderness, there only to be turned, exploited, settled, made political and productive.

This horrific outlook has indeed became the major code of this so-called civilisation, namely the right of people to destroy the self-sustaining diversity of nature, the right of the strong to annex the territories of the weak, and the right to sell all products of the evolutionary process to the wall of extinction. This is the result and fruits we can claim in the name of progress.

In the last decade we have luckily seen an ever increasing body of evidence, proving that the aforementioned things are wrong, that these despicable activities are systematically destroying the life-support systems of the earth. Our key resources are not finite, things to be grabbed while there are still some left, things to be owned and fought over. They are part of the living whole, and if we use them wisely they are renewable and thus infinite. This is what I call the “new principles”, and I am pleased to state here today that fortunately there is a growing body of informed opinion which supports these new principles.

This Environment Conservation Bill before us is the embodiment of the new principles. One of the essential aspects of environmental conservation in South Africa today is the acknowledgement of the Government that environmental conservation is not the responsibility of a single department of State, but involves the State administration and all South Africans as a cohesive unit.

In conclusion I would like to express my hope that part IV of this Bill will assist local authorities to control the serious litter problems we are faced with. I am particularly concerned about some areas such as the Seekoeivlei lagoon and the Isipingo lagoon and I would like to see that the provisions of the new Bill are enforced with determination.

I just want to refer to the hon the Minister’s speech in which he said that he underscored a few principles. I want to commend the second principle to all hon members in this House. How important is this principle? I would like to repeat the principle. It says that every human generation has a moral responsibility to act as the trustee of its natural and man-made environment in the interests of succeeding generations. That is how important it is. We are the custodians for future generations.

Mr Chairman, I also wish to thank and congratulate the hon member for Caledon and the chairman of the committee on his handling of the committee and his hard work. We succeeded in developing a culture in this committee which is consensus deliberation at its best. This is probably due to the fact that the subject we are dealing with is very important to all of us.

I should like to pause at the question of penalties as amended by the committee. The committee gave a clear message to the judicial officers that offences were to be regarded in a very serious light. I also consulted the Transvaal Provincial Administration and machinery was put into operation to review historical penalties in that sphere as well in order to make it very clear to the judicial officers how seriously we are going to regard infringements of this legislation.

The courts must have the authority to enforce the provisions, but I nevertheless want to point out that the environment is community owned, and that for that reason every citizen must help to conserve the environment and nature. As the hon the Deputy Minister rightly said, it is World Environment Day on 5 June. I feel that each one of us should set aside a few minutes on 5 June to reflect seriously on what our contribution can be towards improving the environment. It is tragic that, from generation to generation, we hear people telling younger generations how much better the environment was when they had the privilege of being children.

A human being cannot create; he can only conserve and manage what creation offers him. That duty must not only be left to the Department of Environmental Conservation, the National Parks Board, the Provincial authorities, botanical gardens and so on. It is a duty which rests on one and all. I cannot help getting the impression that too few people realise that environmental conservation is far more than the expansion of natural areas, the conservation of threatened species or the preservation of botanical gardens and so on. In legislation it is defined as: “The sum of surrounding objects, conditions and influences which influence the life and habits of the human being or any other organism or collection of organisms.” It is therefore very comprehensive.

I also wish to refer to another important aspect of the legislation. Environmental conservation is not only the task of a single department, but of the entire Government administration which is involved, as well as the private sector. I believe that the legislation will, to a large extent, succeed in obtaining co-ordinated activity from everyone to conserve our environment.

I should also like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the department and thank them for the four very brave and highly esteemed steps which have been taken to give recognition to the environment also having to be utilised. The environment is not only there to be conserved, but can also be utilised.

Firstly, I refer to clause 32, which provides that there has to be prior publication of any regulation, directive or promulgation that identifies any areas, or that determines policy. In this way the media will be able to do its duty by commenting and there will be public involvement in those regulations. I believe that this will have the good result of ensuring greater involvement by everyone.

Clause 34 provides that compensation must be paid for limitations imposed on land, either by means of an agreement between the parties, or in terms of the Expropriation Act. We often find that the one person who is affected asks why he alone should pay the price for conservation which is in the interests of the entire community. Therefore I think that it is a move in the right direction and that it will also ensure better co-operation.

Clause 35 makes provision for the lodging of an appeal against the decision of officials with delegated powers.

Clause 36 stipulates that any person whose interests are affected may appeal to our courts.

I say that these are very brave concessions because the State could have saved itself certain trouble and expense in this regard, but these concessions will result in better co-operation by the public in general. It will not impair the objective of the legislation, but will rather promote it.

I wish to mention a final idea with the aim of ensuring the active participation of as large and wide a group as possible. We are often requested by children to sponsor a road run or a knitting competition, always for a good purpose. However, the main aim remains the collecting of funds. I wish to make an appeal to our schools to think about sponsoring the tidying up of litter in this way. It will not only have the practical advantage that such an area will be cleaned up, but will also place the child on the side of the conservator in his formative years, which is a very important period in his life.

Mr Chairman, we as members of the House of Representatives who are members of the joint committee, support this Bill. We also associate ourselves with the ideas previous speakers expressed about this legislation.

Our general impression of this Bill is that it is a progressive piece of legislation, and credit should be given to the hon the Minister and the Director-General of Environment Affairs and his staff. The Government of South Africa is proving its solemn obligation and its responsibility in the provision of a high quality environment for all its people, even for the generations to come, as well as the continued existence of other forms of life within its boundaries, including the systems which support these forms of life.

By means of this Bill the Government has consolidated environment legislation, thereby instituting stricter new protection measures, especially for combating pollution. The control of littering remains a problem. The work of the Keep South Africa Clean association, which endeavours to influence public attitudes and behaviour, is highly regarded and strongly supported.

We welcome the control and punitive measures which will become a reality as a result of this Bill. The Bill makes provision for harsher penalties which include a maximum fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for not more than three months that may be imposed for littering. Even a person who starts a tipping-site without being issued with a permit, may have a maximum fine of R1 000 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years imposed on him. We trust that these punitive measures will have the desired effect on all the inhabitants of South Africa, within and outside its borders. A healthy, productive and natural environment is the most precious possession of all the inhabitants of South Africa. We hereby support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just sat down spoke about littering and the penalties that now apply to that. I am in agreement with him. I thought the hon member for Nelspruit made a very thoughtful and good speech. I will deal with one aspect concerning penalties a little later in my speech.

This Bill could probably be described as a good start along the road to better environmental management in South Africa. I think the world is beginning to realise that protection and conservation of the environment in a developing world is of absolutely vital importance. For some time the world has been rushing headlong towards disaster. Although there are encouraging signs that the international community is shouldering a greater degree of responsibility, in many areas throughout the world degradation of the environment continues unacceptably. One only has to look at the wanton destruction of the Amazon forests in South America, for example, and the creeping deserts in many parts of Africa, to realise that the world still has a long way to go before it really tackles the protection of our environment adequately. So serious is the situation that future generations are at risk. I know that this sometimes sounds over-dramatic, but I believe this to be true. A growing world population is placing intolerable strain upon the environment and the damage that has been done in many cases is irreparable. Over billions of years an ecological balance developed which created circumstances where human beings were able to live. Yet these human beings themselves have created circumstances where the ecological balance is in jeopardy and human existence on earth is threatened. There are many who would not agree that the world has reached a stage where real danger exists for mankind, but the warning voices of a few have become the warning voices of the many as realisation grows of the consequence of uncontrolled destruction of natural resources. One only has to think about the international outcry about the dangers of the depletion of the ozone level or the world’s outcry at the oil spill in Alaska to realise that the world is beginning to take this seriously.

In South Africa we have been somewhat slow to realise that integrated environmental management has to be introduced.

There are still many in our country who are totally unaware of the vital necessity not only for vigilance, but for comprehensive management of our natural heritage. Environmental conservation and protection have to do with our quality of life. Technological advances have in many instances improved our quality of life, but sometimes that quality of life has been impaired. Certainly it has to be realised that a technology which damages our environment is a technology which is really not worth having at all.

This Bill has come about because of the growing awareness that environmental conservation and protection is vitally necessary for our very survival. At the outset I said that it should be regarded as a good start and perhaps as a major step forward, but it is in no way perfect. As we know, the Bill has over a couple of years been made available for public comment and it has been through a succession of drafts—the hon the Minister told us about this—before it came to Parliament for approval, and I think it has been generally welcomed.

For the first time the Department of Environment Affairs has been given some real power although that power is still somewhat circumscribed. A lot is going to depend on how this limited power is going to be used by both this hon Minister and his department. A little aggression, if not a lot of aggression, is going to be needed.

However, hon members should realise just how strong the conservation lobby is flexing its muscles, and I hope this is meaningful. I think the hon the Minister should realise just how strong the conservation lobby has become in South Africa. There is no doubt that public opinion has not only become aware, but has in fact become progressively militant on environmental issues. The same thing can be said of much of the developed world. It is interesting to note that the Dutch government recently actually fell on an environmental issue. This should perhaps be noted by our Government, because strong feelings on conservation matters cross the lines of party affiliation…

You have a long way to go!

Well, we are making up that headway very, very fast indeed. The hon member himself had better watch out for the DP. I think he realises that he is perhaps at risk.

I have been very heartened by public reaction whenever I have been concerned with any environmental issue. Support has always poured in. It has come from people right across the political spectrum. I now believe any government which does not pay adequate attention to environmental matters is going to run into considerable trouble, because the environmental lobby is becoming more and more powerful every day.

Generally this Bill is a good Bill but, as I said earlier, it has certain inadequacies. As I see it, the major flaw has to do with public participation. The department and the hon the Minister are given certain powers but, apart from individuals whose interests are affected, others who may feel very strongly on a matter do not have locus standi. This particular problem was argued comprehensively and at length during the deliberations of the joint committee.

At this stage I should perhaps say a word of thanks to the chairman of the committee, the hon member for Caledon, who I see is going to be the next speaker. He is a very good chairman indeed, always attempting to get consensus and always allowing any problem area to be thoroughly discussed. He tried to meet objections where possible. I believe the results were outstanding.

However, the question of locus standi was not satisfactorily resolved. Throughout South Africa there are conservation bodies which are in no way Government controlled, but which have considerable expertise in aspects of environmental protection and control. In terms of the Bill before us these bodies do not have locus standi unless it can be proved that their interests are affected.

I must say that I am very grateful to the joint committee for coming some of the way towards my viewpoint and accepting my compromise amendment to leave out the word “materially” before the word “affected”. I felt very strongly that “materially” had to do with financial interest only and leaving it out has widened the scope where action can be taken by a protection agency in that it might be able to prove that it is affected.

At this stage I must say that virtually every conservation body in South Africa feels very strongly on this issue. I refer to the major bodies like the Wildlife Society, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Tree Society, the Ornithological Society, the Botanical Society and many, many other societies, both large and small, with their own particular area of expertise. They feel very strongly because they believe that the various Government authorities have not done a reasonable job of protection. They feel that the Government has often erred on the side of the big financial interests—developers for example—and they feel that there has been inadequate consultation with bodies which have expert knowledge before decisions are made which could be detrimental to our natural heritage.

All of these bodies believe that they should be allowed locus standi to argue the case, if necessary before a court of law, if they feel that authorities are not doing a proper job. Obviously this can change, because I am sure this hon Minister is going to demonstrate that he is going to do a proper job. He is going to show his teeth and take strong action.

This Bill gives greater power to authority to handle a situation but still, more or less, excludes bodies outside Government who may well have particular knowledge and expertise. I believe that it is actually necessary to encourage public participation through bodies such as these in decision-making which have an effect on the environment and their lives. Conservation bodies like the ones I have mentioned have the best interests of our country at heart and I believe they should be encouraged to state their point of view and, if necessary, given the opportunity under the law to ensure that the correctness of that viewpoint prevails should it be valid.

There is considerable disappointment amongst the public at large that an amendment giving a greater degree of locus standi was not afforded by the joint committee and I think the hon the Minister should understand this. I had a decision to make in that committee as to whether or not to oppose the Bill in toto because of this particular shortcoming because it is an important one but, as I have said before, I was not prepared to do so as the Bill is a positive step forward.

If one looks at clause 2 which deals with the determination of policy, I asked for an amendment in the joint committee not to make it necessary for the Minister of Environment Affairs to obtain the concurrence of individual Ministers when it came to determining policy which could affect his particular department. I believe the hon the Minister should have the power to determine policy after consultation—not concurrence—with other Ministers, but this was turned down; but I still hold strongly to that viewpoint. If a disagreement should arise between Ministries the place for the resolution of any dispute would be the Cabinet. Environment Affairs has tended to take a back seat and to be regarded as a less important Ministry than most others and I have a fear that larger Ministries’ viewpoints will prevail and policy will be watered down.

If this Bill is to mean anything at all the hon the Minister will have to determine policy. Clause 2 of the Bill says the Minister “may” determine general policy. I would have liked the word “may” to be replaced by the word “shall”, because I definitely want the hon the Minister to determine policy. However, if he has to do this in concurrence with other Ministers I am afraid the result would be so watered down when he lays down policy that it would be virtually meaning less. I hope we are giving him a certain amount of scope here.

The establishment of the Council for the Environment as an advisory body to the Minister is a positive step, but I would have wished the Council to have a greater degree of independence from the Minister. I am afraid it could be regarded as just another Government mouthpiece as presently constituted. The hon the Minister must go out of his way to ensure that the people on that committee have expertise, knowledge, skill and balance so that there is hope for them to establish some credentials of independence.

A very positive amendment to go through the joint committee changed the penalties for offences and this was discussed by the hon member for Nelspruit. They were changed to the point where they become a real deterrent. For example there is very big money to be made in the whole field of smuggling items from endangered species such as rhino horn or ivory. The new penalties are set at the sort of level that will make transgressors think twice. A fine not exceeding R100 000 or up to 10 years imprisonment is realistic and a real deterrent. Added to this the additional fine which could be imposed not exceeding three times the commercial value of anything in respect of which the offence was committed.

A recent case in Botswana where a smuggler was apprehended with a shipment of ivory and rhino horn, could help to illustrate what could happen in South Africa in the future. The value of that shipment was estimated at R6 million. This is really big money. If the hon the Minister made regulations in terms of this Bill the transgressor could be fined up to R18 million for this crime. This sounds like a telephone number, but believe me, Sir, this sort of deterrent is needed in this underworld of big money smuggling.

I regret to say that the four provinces have dragged their heels in introducing tougher penalties. At the present time rhino horn or ivory poachers or smugglers face ridiculously low sentences if they are convicted. I would suggest to the hon the Minister that, if necessary, he uses this provision in clause 28 of the Bill as an emergency measure until such time as the provinces amend their respective ordinances. The hon member for Nelspruit said action had already been taken in the Transvaal and they have undertaken to put it through very fast indeed. I hope similar action has been taken in the other provinces. The huge amounts of money involved and the low risk in terms of penalties mean that this pernicious traffic will continue and something has to be done to stop it as a matter of urgency.

Boards of investigation to investigate any matter or appeal shall be appointed by the hon the Minister from time to time to assist him in evaluating any matter. An excellent amendment to clause 15 dealing with boards of investigation provides that not only the decisions of a board but the reasons therefor shall be reduced to writing and a session of the board shall be held in public. This is very praiseworthy and if it is properly used by the hon the Minister, this board could be a useful link enabling public participation in the decision-making process.

Returning for a moment to the locus standi question, I want to make a point to the hon the Minister when it comes to dealing with areas of the country which have national significance. I believe that all members of the public have a definite interest. Let us take Table Mountain as an example. Any move to develop Table Mountain concerns not only the people who live in the area and have a direct interest, but also everybody else in South Africa. The same thing applies to other beauty spots that are part of our national heritage. I can mention Robberg at Plettenberg Bay as another case in point. I will be interested to see how the courts rule in the future on the question of locus standi in the light of this new legislation. I believe that all individuals have a common-law right to take action if they believe any development is against national interests, and therefore against their interests.

When this Bill becomes law, the hon the Minister is going to have a lot of work on his hands. It is urgent that in terms of clause 21 he identify a number of activities which may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment. A recent trip with the hon the Minister to inspect the activities of Richards Bay Minerals in their dune-mining operation is a case in point. I think the hon the Minister would agree with me. Their future plans for operations should be identified in terms of the Act and they should then be subjected to the sort of environmental impact assessment and the careful scrutiny that any project of this nature should undergo.

One of the most difficult aspects of environmental management in a developing country such as ours is to obtain a balance between necessary development on the one hand and damage to the environment on the other. The 1980 White Paper on a national policy regarding environmental conservation quite rightly stated that “broadly the Government’s policy is that a golden mean between dynamic development and the vital demands of environmental conservation should be constantly sought”. The hon the Minister has underlined this today. It is a very praiseworthy sentiment which is as relevant today—if not more so—as it was then.

There are many other aspects of the Bill which are very praiseworthy, not least of which is the provision in clause 26 of ministerial power to make regulations with regard to environmental impact reports.

Which must be published.

Which must be published, yes. It is vitally important because once again one gets public participation and public knowledge. If one is seen to be doing things behind the scene, the public gets very suspicious. I believe that any major development should be preceded by an impact assessment before it is allowed to go ahead. A very important aspect of this is that the results of the assessment should be made known to the public.

After a speech I made this year in the Extended Public Committee dealing with the Transvaal Provincial Administration in Pretoria, the Executive Director of Roads in the Transvaal was kind enough to detail the steps his department take before they build a new road. This involved the compilation of a planning report after consultation with the nature conservation branch, several other Government departments, the affected local authority and also directly affected property owners.

Sometimes detailed environmental studies are also undertaken and he mentioned quite a few in the Transvaal. This is very encouraging and I was very pleased to have that letter and information. However, it lacked one vital ingredient and that again was public participation.

More and more the public is demanding the right to express its opinions and have them considered seriously before projects go ahead. They know that local developments have national significance and they want to be allowed input and to be part of the decision-making process. All in all this Bill is an encouraging step towards the sort of legislation which is ultimately going to be necessary before we are able to practise integrated environmental management.

I stress that tougher legislation is going to be required, but as a milestone on the road toward this the Bill before us deserves support and praise and the DP will give it its support.

Mr Chairman, I would like to express a word of thanks to the hon member for Bryanston for his thanks and congratulations on the activities of the committee. The hon member for Nelspruit also referred to that.

*It is true that this committee enjoys a pleasant working relationship and that a sense of joint responsibility prevails among all the various parties represented on this committee, and particularly with regard to this legislation, there was a general acceptance of responsibility for the interests of the environment with which we were dealing.

†I just want to refer briefly to the hon member for Bryanston’s reference to the importance of environmental matters, his reference to the Dutch government who came to a fall and his little word with the hon member for Durban Point.

*I must tell the hon member that it is true that environmental affairs are extremely important in South Africa, just as in the rest of the world, but that I do not think we have come anywhere near the point at which environmental affairs would place the hon member’s party in a position to pose any danger whatsoever to the stability of a government in South Africa.

†I would like to assure the hon member that this Bill that we are talking about today is a manifestation of the sensitivity of a government of the day toward the environment of our land. I think we can say to one another that this measure is perhaps the most dynamic which we have ever seen in this country whereby environmental conservation and development can be managed.

The hon member referred to the question of integrated environmental management which is so utterly important. Earlier this year when we discussed the private motion, this question of integrated environmental management was mentioned quite often and I referred to the document which was issued and published by the Council for the Environment, especially on the integrated system of environmental management which is a fundamental tool which can be used in terms of this Bill in order to achieve the best results coming out of a system of environmental management.

*I just want to refer briefly to clause 3 of the Bill, which, on the face of it, does not appear to be a very significant clause if one simply reads it in isolation. What is interesting about this clause is that in truth it affords the individual who feels that he has been prejudiced in regard to certain actions relating to the environment, considerably more power in respect of litigation, because in the absence of this clause the individual who wished to go to court could have relied only on prejudice. Now that this clause has been incorporated, it provides a further aid, a further power to a litigant in that he may now also rely on the provisions of this clause, in other words to determine whether or not such an action is in accordance with policy.

A great deal of discussion has also taken place with regard to the constitution of the council, as contained in clause 6. Quite a number of appeals were made that the council should comprise a larger number of representative bodies. The interesting point is that the Council for the Environment has never, even in the past, since 1982, or in terms of this Act, been planned or viewed as a representative council, but as a council of experts which can advise the hon the Minister with regard to policy in the interests of the environment. It is true that there are experts serving on the present council who in any event come from the private sector, the construction industry and other disciplines, who can convey the interests of those disciplines to the Council for the Environment.

Another important clause is clause 21, in terms of which the Minister is afforded the power to identify certain activities as activities which could have a substantially detrimental effect on the environment, and which provides how the Minister may, pursuant to the identification of those activities, restrict certain actions, or how the Minister may permit certain activities to continue in accordance with his policy.

†The hon member for Bryanston referred to the visit to the Richards Bay Mineral Company. I must say I was most impressed with the responsibility and the absolute care that was displayed by that group in the protection and the rehabilitation of the environment. I think this is a very fine example of where the system of integrated environmental management should be applied. On the one hand there is an impact on a very sensitive and very unique world-renown environmental system. To recklessly clear the company and mine would not only be irresponsible in terms of the environment, but it would also be politically irresponsible. I would like to concede that point to the hon member for Bryanston. It would be politically unwise, not only internally, but also externally.

*On the other hand, there are certain economic aspects which likewise have very important internal political implications which one cannot sweep aside. For this reason I am very grateful for the powers that the Minister is to receive in terms of clause 21 to enable him to identify such activities.

A further important point is the issue of noise pollution, which is addressed in clause 25.I want to make the statement that control over noise pollution and the management of noise pollution in South Africa leaves much to be desired. I think the regulations contained in clause 25 represent an important step forwards in the protection of the interests of those people who live in residential areas and other areas and who presently enjoy little protection against the degradation of noise pollution.

†Unfortunately we have the sins of the past and the sins of the present and the potential sins of the future, and all that this Bill can do is to try to protect the communities against the sins of the future.

*The hon member for Bryanston also referred to clause 26 and the vital need to conduct environmental evaluations, and to the powers of the Minister to enforce them.

†I think a substantial power is hereby vested in the Minister, who will work together with the Council for the Environment’s plan for integrated environmental management. I think that is an excellent arrangement.

In conclusion I would like to say that the only solutions to the problems of the total environment, when it comes to the population, resources and the total environment, are complex and I think all members will agree that they are long-term. These problems are inextricably linked to some of the most persistent problems of the developing world, and especially of a developing Africa, poverty and social conflict. What we need is new and imaginative ideas and the willingness to act upon them. At the end of the day, perhaps in a few years’ time, or maybe even in a year’s time, we may say to each other that there were many unfulfilled opportunities.

*There is still ample opportunity for change and there are still many inadequacies in the legislation, but circumstances are developing. I nevertheless want to express my gratitude to the department, the hon the Minister and hon members of the joint committee, who have supported and debated this important and most dynamic piece of environmental legislation in the history of South Africa in this manner.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Caledon. I should also like to place on record that one of the successes of the Joint Committee on Environment Conservation is due to the chairman of that committee. One can expect successful legislation when the chairman does not want to force a vote, but tries his best to achieve consensus, and this measure is a result of that. [Interjections.]

I also wish to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, the newly designated Administrator of the Cape, on his new appointment. In that post he will have a great deal to do with environmental conservation, especially because a very strong department will fall under him, namely the Cape Department of Nature Conservation, whose work we have seen. I hope that he will utilise the further knowledge which he will gain to discuss nature conservation with those countries in Africa with whom he has made contact, because we are not an island on our own. Nature conservation is a golden thread which runs through the continent. I hope that he will be able to make an important contribution.

It would also be inappropriate if I did not pay tribute to a father of nature conservation in this country who died recently, the late Dr T C Robertson. I think that he would have been very pleased to see the kind of legislation we have today. I should like to quote what this old gentleman said:

The Chair must not rule me out of order; it is what the old-timer said. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, we still have people of the calibre of the late Oom TC in our communities and these people dedicate themselves to the conservation of our soil and other natural heritages.

With regard to this Bill, we support it. The hon member for Nigel mentioned an important point, namely that there are not enough enforceable measures in this legislation.

I should like to say that whatever kind of legislation we are trying to establish here, conservation awareness must be cultivated among all the inhabitants of the country. While we have communities which, in their poverty, will not have much appreciation for environmental awareness, I feel that it is our task to cultivate an awareness of the environment in our communities even from school level onwards. Without that we can make all the laws we want to, but we shall not be able to implement them successfully. That is why one cannot enforce laws, even in other spheres, because there are other circumstances which militate against the enforcement of such measures. Therefore I believe that a greater awareness of conservation should be cultivated.

In a developing country such as ours, it is important that one try to preserve the delicate balance between conservation and development. Unfortunately there are organisations and financial institutions which pursue the profit motive and for whom conservation probably plays a less important role, but I think that the awareness which is presently developing in the country—especially with regard to environment affairs—is even beginning to take root among such developers, and in the long run it should have a positive effect on the entire conservation set-up.

It is often asked whether conservation should be an end in itself, or a means to an end. I believe that conservation should actually be a means to an end. One can of course, enjoy our natural heritages and make use of them, and at the same time preserve them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member Mr Abram.

Before I come to the subject of noise pollution, I would like to pay tribute here this afternoon on behalf of the chairman and members of the joint committee to Mr Piet le Roux, who was, one may say, the founder of the legislation and who started drafting it. It did not take hours or days of his time, but months, and I am certainly very grateful for a job very well done.

The days are gone when people could make a noise whenever and wherever they wished. The Government believes that each citizen has a right to his privacy and to silence, and anyone who denies a citizen that right will be prosecuted under this new legislation.

Clause 25 is designed to place the full responsibility for this in the hands of the provincial administrations and local authorities. Aggrieved persons will have the right to lay a complaint with these authorities who will in turn prosecute the offenders, if there is a case.

The success of implementing this clause will rest entirely with the provincial administrations and local authorities. If I may I should like to examine but a few of the main causes of excessive noise.

We all know what motor bikes and beach buggies do. They are fitted with fancy types of exhaust systems which create an enormous amount of noise in our urban areas in particular. My warning goes out this afternoon to manufacturers and suppliers of motor bikes, beach buggies and other vehicles that from now on the law is going to be tough on the users of these vehicles.

Let us take another example, namely that of pneumatic drills. I could use the Durban Corporation as an example. There have been occasions where on Sundays they would start to drill holes in the streets with their pneumatic drills. That, too, should end. Then we have people mowing their lawns in normal urban areas at unreasonable hours during the day. We know that some people do this late in the evening and these are things which in future will have to stop. Particularly in my area of Durban Point we have the question of entertainment areas, discos and night-clubs. I want to assure their owners that the law will clamp down very heavily on these people if they do not abide by the rules and cut down on the noise.

Then we have another area concerning air traffic routes and again I use Durban Point as an example. By the time an aircraft has prepared to land at Louis Botha Airport, its altitude will be a few hundred metres above the buildings and the noise is so excessive that people in their houses, flats and offices have to stop their conversation, wait until the aircraft has disappeared over the roofs and then continue with their conversation. That is how bad it is. [Interjections.] I believe some thought must be given in this direction concerning the aircraft approaching the airports near our cities. [Interjections.]

Another very important area concerns heavy vehicles. An organisation called Noise Action Committee, chaired by a Mrs Williamson of Pietermaritzburg, gave evidence to the committee earlier this year. I would like to commend her for the efforts made by herself and her committee. They certainly made a very good impression on our committee. Through their efforts they have persuaded the Natal Provincial Administration’s roads department to approach the South African Bureau of Standards to carry out an acoustics measurement survey on heavy vehicles on the Town Hill freeway. Whenever these trucks travel at excessive speeds they use brake retarders to slow the vehicle down, finally grinding it to a halt. These retarders make such an unbelievable noise that it is quite impossible for people to hold a normal conversation or even to sleep during the night. Again I say to the manufacturers that they must beware because the law will clamp down on them. This kind of noise has caused outrage among residents bordering on Town Hill freeway as well as in other places around the country. Again I use my constituency as an example, where the Esplanade is a feeder road from the outside, the South Coast and inland, to the harbour. We have all these enormous big trucks hauling goods to and from the harbour using, as I said earlier, brake retarders.

Finally I would like to appeal to the public immediately to relay their complaints to the provincial authorities or to the local authorities. We now have this fantastic Bill which provides legislation and let us now use it.

The other issue which I would like to raise if time permits, concerns my belief that we should seriously consider bringing in legislation to control or reduce the use of chloro-fluoro-carbons which, as everybody knows, affect the ozone layer. We have either just signed or are about to sign the Montreal Protocol. However, this is not going to help and there is a new protocol which was signed in Helsinki—the Helsinki Agreement—where they stipulate what is to be done within a certain time limit. I believe that we should go a step further. Let us take a step and show the world that we can actually bring forward legislation. We should show the manufacturers and the industry that we are determined to get rid of chloro-fluoro-carbons here in South Africa. If we can play our part here, I believe we can point the way for the rest of the world to enact such legislation. Let us forward it to the industries and let them give their comments. We will take it up with the standing committee and I am sure something fruitful will evolve. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am going to shock the hon the Minister a little now by asking him whether this piece of legislation is really necessary. Is it necessary in South Africa when every foreign visitor speaks about our scenic beauty? Nevertheless this piece of legislation is put before us this afternoon. Why? I want to make so bold as to say that South Africans have become so intent upon profit-taking over the past 50 years that they have ripped the scenic beauty about them to shreds.

That is why we are giving the hon the Minister the muscle again this afternoon to put an end to this and to conserve our country for our descendants who will praise present legislators. I am so pleased that there was a speck of humour in the form of some politics in this piece of legislation. I heard the hon the Minister say that he was getting muscle now. I want to tell him not to make too much of this, because hon members of the joint committee were specifically of the opinion that his hon colleagues in the Cabinet responsible for Transport Affairs, Water Affairs and Agriculture would sometimes tell him to stop, he was treading on their corns, if he carried out this policy. If he handles this matter correctly with the hon Ministers concerned, however, they will be able to produce co-ordinated teamwork to bring this conservation matter home to South Africans.

There must be better planning in South Africa. We have recently established too many good cities, bad cities and all kinds of cities and in so doing cut up the country with roads which look like a pair of braces from the air, just crisscross. The hon the Minister must bring up the question of planning in order to conserve our exceptional scenic beauty. That is why my hon fellow party members and I regard it as essential that we give the hon the Minister this power this afternoon.

Mention has already been made of waste and its disposal. I want to emphasise that it has become an everyday matter that any unused article simply be thrown away. I am sorry to say that I was driving behind a parliamentarian this morning who flung his cigarette box out at the window of his car.

That is a disgrace!

A parliamentarian! I agree with hon members. It is a disgrace! Such a person should really be fined. Our awareness should increase to such an extent that we can turn a nonentity into a majority issue—as the English say—and bring such a person to book.

The disposal of waste is often neglected in my community by local governing bodies. Children grow up in these conditions. That is why I am pleased that the administrator designate is sitting here. He has the power to change the situation in his province by means of ordinances.

The previous speaker referred to the element of noise which has become uncontrollable. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to support the hon member for Esselen Park. He has a rather novel way of expressing his support to the hon the Minister, but we in the DP certainly agree with what he had to say.

I want to speak in support of my colleague the hon member for Bryanston and, therefore, in support of this Bill. I also want to identify myself with the many speakers who talked about the importance of the environment for South Africa. Obviously there is a very real need for us to protect our natural heritage above all else.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the hon member for Bryanston, for what I believe to be the outstanding role he has played in exposing the rhino horn scandal and so saving the lives of many rhinos. He must be congratulated on his role in this regard. He is also to be congratulated on exposing the cycad scandal.

The Minister of Environment Affairs has a portfolio of great importance. We acknowledge that. His functions touch all other Government departments and the planning of all other Government departments. Consequently I want to support what the hon member for Bryanston had to say with regard to Part II of the Bill and the establishment of a Council for the Environment. I also want to support what he had to say about the real powers of the Minister of Environment Affairs in respect of this Bill with regard to his association with his cabinet colleagues.

I want to take the real power of the hon the Minister a little further and I look forward to what the hon the Minister will reply to what the hon member for Bryanston and I have had to say. I want to refer in particular to clause 21 of the Bill which allows for activities identified by the Minster which in his opinion may have a substantial effect on the environment to be gazetted. This is a very important move and a very positive one as well. However, I believe its effects may also be severely limited. The memorandum to the Bill emphasises:

It goes on to talk about the need for co-ordinated action in environmental conservation and the fact that this should include the public as well as the private sector. Other speakers have also referred to that aspect this afternoon.

Therefore I want express concern at the fact that while the Bill does give the hon the Minister the right to gazette those activities he has identified as having a detrimental effect on the environment, it is a great pity that so many restrictions are placed on him in this regard. I refer in particular to the fact that before he can act in this manner, he has to consult and gain the concurrence of the Minister of the department of State responsible. He also has to gain the concurrence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. I believe this is unfortunate because it can severely limit the functioning of the Minister and he needs to be more independent.

I think, for example, of the use of pesticides. There is no doubt in my mind and those of many conservationists that the control and use of pesticides should fall directly under the Minister of Environment Affairs and not the Minister of Agriculture. There is a very real concern about the fact that pesticides are often severely abused by farmers. I am not convinced that the Minister of Agriculture is able to control pesticides adequately, because at the same time he has a duty to support farmers for whom he is responsible. I believe the Minister of Environment Affairs is in a far better position to ensure that pesticides are not abused. He has cause to do so. He is not representing a group who may be affected by any controlling legislation. It would therefore be a sad day if the Minister of Environment Affairs was to find his hands severely tied by virtue of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture or any other Minister with whom he needs to seek co-operation was not willing to give him the support or approval that he needs to act in the interests of the environment.

As far as clause 21 of the Bill is concerned, certain very important activities have been listed as those that the hon the Minister must watch carefully. Those are, for example, resource removal, including natural living resources, agricultural processes, industrial processes, waste and sewage disposal, land use and transformation. All those items have the potential to devastate our environment.

If one takes land use and transformation into account, one is immediately aware of the rapid development of housing settlements and the devastating effects these can have on the environment, especially around the big city areas. It is absolutely essential that the hon the Minister plays a major role in the planning and the development of these settlements. However, I fear that he has been and will in future be hampered in his attempts to do so because of the way in which this Bill is structured. I want to stress the point: It is a pity that the hon the Minister’s authority has been restricted by the fact that he is too dependent on the support of his colleagues in the Cabinet to achieve what is needed.

In a different vein I want to support the hon member for Bryanston in his appeal that nature conservation bodies outside Parliament should be given greater representation in environmental matters. He has listed a number of organisations that could be and should be involved. They involve a large number of highly professional conservationists who have an incredibly important input to make. This Bill should have made provision for them to play a greater role in environmental management and in policy-making. This is a major shortcoming in the Bill and it will have to be addressed in the very near future.

Generally speaking we accept that this is an important Bill. It makes important provisions for the future. There are important developments in environmental conservation. Consequently, while we do regret that it does not go further in certain respects, we have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has an exceptionally difficult task. I think that most people in South Africa are interested in environmental conservation and they all want a say in it. One of the hon the Minister’s problems is that he already has a council consisting of 22 members—this is a particularly large council—and that various other people with the best of intentions also want a say somewhere. I hope this will not be a statutory say and that the hon the Minister will have to keep his door open permanently. If we want to give all these people a say in bodies which deal with environment conservation, I fear that so much time will be spent on meetings that the poor Minister will never get to his work.

I want to ask all these organisations and hon members who are interested in environmental conservation to contribute at their own level and to make submissions to the hon the Minister so that a total strategy and policy may be devised. Nevertheless we should guard against creating even clumsier bodies toward the top which eventually cannot function at all. In this legislation alone provision is made for the Council for the Environment, the Committee for Environmental Management and the Board of Investigation. In addition there are the administrators with all their powers and local governing bodies which all play some role or other. The problem is specifically that the hon the Minister has to determine the priorities and what is in the public interest. To what extent does environmental conservation play a part in comparison with inroads which agriculture can make into it? To what extent should environmental conservation receive priority above mining and energy affairs? To what extent should environmental conservation receive priority above roads and railways? All these matters make it easy for us to move from one place to another but spoil the environmental entirely.

The hon member for Durban Point mentioned the noise factor. He even proposed that aircraft should not fly over residential areas or that there should be some form of control or other over them. We all feel sympathetic regarding those matters, but this is the very problem facing the hon the Minister in determining which is to receive priority—the aircraft, the safety of the people in it or the noise to the people below.

When we get on to noise control, I see that the hon the Minister has an entire chapter devoted to his powers to promulgate regulations on various aspects. He will perhaps also have to promulgate regulations for noise control here in Parliament. One of the problems which has already been touched upon by hon members is who is responsible for environment control if we have the problem that part of it falls under many other departments.

The question of soil erosion, for example, falls under the Department of Agriculture. Then there is also desert encroachment and wind erosion. To what degree can we co-ordinate all these matters to place them definitely under environment control? If we can succeed in designing a national strategy, we shall be able to progress in the sphere of environment control.

I have said before that some of our fellow population groups do not do military service for instance. Is it not possible for them to think of doing two years’ land service and in this way combating erosion and littering and occupying themselves with this full time, as other population groups occupy themselves in the defence of the country for two years. I think that this is a service which could be carried out and to which all people could contribute. It should be considered whether other population groups would like to work on a voluntary basis to play their part for a period of two years in the land service of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, if I understood the hon member for Bethal he was making the point that, because the council that is envisaged in this Bill would consist of 22 members, he felt that the work of the council would be such that those 22 members would take up all the time talking. My reaction to that, of course, is that everybody has to be given an opportunity and that council has to be representative. Therefore I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon member for Bethal.

The DP unjustifiably has been accused of many things. I think that all of us can agree this afternoon that nobody can accuse the DP of being soft on environmental affairs, particularly due to the efforts of our spokesman on environmental affairs, the hon member for Bryanston, and his exposé of the rhino horn and cycads issues.

The DP has expressed its reservations concerning this particular Bill. However, we have indicated that we will support the Bill because we believe that a Bill such as this one is very long overdue and that it is a very positive start to the proper management of our environment. For us, that is important.

Clause 21 makes provision for the Minister to identify certain activities which in his opinion may have a detrimental effect on the environment and then to formulate policy in regard thereto by making mention of that in the Gazette. My colleague, the hon member for Durban North made mention of that clause as well.

In that regard I would like to raise two particular issues which, I believe, need some investigation and in regard to which a definite policy has to be taken.

The first is the issue of acid rain. I do not have to tell the hon the Minister that this has caused us in South Africa considerable concern, not only in the Transvaal where it originates because of the mining activities on the Highveld, but particularly in Natal where both the hon member for Durban North and I hail from. Acid rain has been recorded in 16 out of 26 Natal reserves, including Hluhluwe, Umfolozi and Giant’s Castle. Of course, there has been some confusion as to the acidity levels which, in fact, gives rise to acid rain, but that is beside the point. However, we are aware that acid rain is really caused by air pollution and we know that acid rain has devastated forests in Europe and North America and has acidified lakes and dams in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to the death of millions of fish and damage to other forms of water life. We also know that in Germany, for instance, acid rain has affected three out of four trees in the Black Forest. We are concerned that such a situation should develop in South Africa, particularly in Natal.

I have mentioned that there has been controversy about the levels at which the acidity is harmful. What is important, is that an investigation undertaken by the Natal Parks Board has confirmed that this kind of air pollution is causing problems, which gives rise to concern. I am also aware that the CSIR has begun an investigation in this regard, but I believe more research needs to be done in this field. It is high time that we investigated fully the problem of acid rain. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the spirit of the election one cannot really keep of politics entirely. That is why I want to say to the hon members of the DP who participated here today, that is the hon members for Bryanston and Durban North, that all the amendments which were moved in the committee did not come from their side alone. I think they made rather a fuss this afternoon for the sake of scoring political points.

I am a very strong advocate of conservation education, but up to a point only. That is why I am exceptionally grateful that this committee under the excellent chairmanship of the hon member for Caledon ultimately agreed to the amendments of the initial motion in the draft legislation regarding the penalty clause, that is to increase the fine from a maximum of R12 000 or three years’ imprisonment to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine to a maximum of R100 000 plus three times the commercial value of the articles involved plus the confiscation of the implements used in the illegal action. As the hon member for Durban North pointed out, this is just a step removed from the death penalty. If people do not want to listen, however, they should feel it. What was the effect in the past? People who carried out illegal actions simply regarded fines which could be imposed as part of their current running costs. It is as simple as that, especially if we look at the amounts involved here.

Without elaborating on it, I want to express my thanks in the House this afternoon to the Endangered Wildlife Trust for the great contribution which they have made over the years. In this connection I may refer to reports such as those about Qwaqwa, which has made excellent contributions in this regard over the years.

I specifically want to put forward a few ideas on the illegal trade in rhinoceros horn and ivory which has resulted in the decimation of elephants. It is alleged that 80% of the ivory trade comes from illegal sources. If we look at the elephant population in Africa, we see that it has decreased from 1,5 million to approximately 700 000 over the past 10 years. As the hon the Deputy Minister with his knowledge of Africa is here today too, I should like to see that agreements are concluded in future in Africa and that politicians be involved in curbing the annihilation of elephants in Africa. According to computer projections, there will be only 100 000 elephants left in Africa by the year 2050.

If we look at the destruction of the Black rhinoceros in South West Africa, it appears that 17 such rhinos have been destroyed illegally since December of last year. The great reason for this is the market which exists in the East in particular at the moment and the fact that the price of rhino horn is higher than that of fine gold at present. It has developed an enormous commercial value. They tell me that at the moment rhino horn is bought purely from an investment point of view in China. If we look at the increase in its price, we find that it has doubled and rose from R4 085 per kilogram to R4 903 from April to July last year.

For the sake of interest, what is rhino horn used for in particular? Firstly, for the handles of ceremonial daggers, but it also has a medicinal use.

Don’t take that too far.

It is also, specifically for the information of the hon member of Losberg, a very good aphrodisiac. [Interjections.] That is where its value lies in the black market at present. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Losberg now, however, that the irony of the case is that they tell me that rhino horn in fact is only compressed hair so he need not use it; it is actually only a farce.

Have you had any experience of it?

There is only one solution to prevent the extinction of this species, aside from environment education, and that is to punish the illegal hunter and butcher so that he can feel it—even if he also, as the hon member for Bryanston said, is ultimately fined R18 million, which is three times the commercial value. I thank the hon the Minister for a positive piece of legislation.

Mr Chairman, as a member who had to speak for my party on environmental matters for a number years prior to the 1987 general election and somebody who has taken an interest in these matters, I would like to welcome the legislation we have before us today as a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, at the same time I must say with some regret that I do not believe it goes far enough.

[Inaudible.]

I will come to that. I am in a sense pleased that we now have official recognition in terms of the memorandum which was presented with this Bill that the powers granted under the Environment Conservation Act of 1982 were insufficient. The memorandum also says that environment is a subject which affects a wide range of different departments of State and it is an important deficiency that until now there has been no effective way in which co-ordinated action regarding environmental conservation of all bodies concerned could be directed. That is the sort of appeal that I was making years ago and I am glad that we have got so far as to recognise this. However, I do not believe the mechanisms that are being put in place today will be adequate to deal with the problem, although at least it is now being recognised. At least we have passed the first step of defining the problem, but we still need to solve it.

Take for instance the issue regarding the use of dieldrin and BHC. If there had been co-ordination between the Department of Environment Affairs, the Department of Agriculture and various other departments, we would not have had the situation again of a banned poison being used to combat a farming problem in conflict with environmental prohibitions to the detriment of the environment.

A number of departments—the Department of Trade and Industry is one of them, and the Department of Foreign Affairs another—would have a direct say as to whether this country becomes a toxic waste disposal area in the end. We have to co-ordinate our response and handle it correctly from an environmental point of view.

The body which in terms of this legislation has now been established, the Committee for Environmental Management, will certainly be a forum where consultation between departments may take place. It will certainly be the place where the possibility of co-ordinated action may be discussed, but it will not be a place where action may be determined and carried out and which will be able to oblige other departments to comply. In that sense, this only empowers the channelling of goodwill. It says in the memorandum that the Bill provides for the channelling “… of goodwill in the interest of the environment without necessarily compulsive statutory measures”. That is its great weakness. That is precisely its point of weakness, and I predict that many environmental issues are once again going to be bogged down in this committee where conflicting interests will clash and we will end up with no action arising, because of these conflicting interests.

Therefore I would like to repeat the appeal I have made before, namely that South Africa should create an environmental protection agency along the lines of the Environmental Protection Agency which has been long established in the United States.

The position we in South Africa find ourselves in today is the position the United States of America found themselves in more than 20 years ago. They too had a situation where environmental consciousness had developed to a degree, but legislative action had not kept pace with public opinion in that regard. In the 1960s the US Federal Government formed the Council for Environmental Quality, which is similar to our advisory body, the Council for the Environment.

In the USA the problem of uncoordinated environmental action led in 1970—almost 20 years ago—to President Richard Nixon establishing the Environmental Protection Agency to co-ordinate and control 15 different federal legislative programmes which up to that stage had been uncoordinated. That is what we need: Specific powers to co-ordinate to be granted to a semi-independent statutory body.

These programmes in America include the control of clean air, of noise and of clean water. They include the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Uranium Milltailings Radiation Control Act, plus a variety of other bits and pieces, clauses from other legislation which were assigned to this body to monitor.

By comparison we have a department with a very narrow brief. Although the Council for the Environment can make recommendations, it has no powers, and this new body, the Committee for Environmental Management, equally will have no specific powers.

The question of the size of the Council for the Environment is another part of the Bill. I would ask the hon the Minister why the number of members of the council is being reduced from 25 to 22 members. Does it also mean that the council will have less power to act than it had before?

I would also like to query once again whether there are any persons who are not White on the Council for the Environment. The council was enlarged before in order inter alia to provide for the appointment of persons who are not White. I would like to know what has happened. There may be a need to expand the council rather than reduce it.

Another issue is the question of environmental impact studies. I am delighted that there is now the possibility of an independent semi-judicial investigation body which will be able to conduct environmental impact studies. Up to now the onus has fallen on developers to provide an impact study, funded by themselves, to the satisfaction of the department. That is in a sense like asking the fox to guard the hen-house. To the extent that this Bill provides for the appointment of an independent body that can draw all evidence together without any vested interest in the outcome, it is a very positive step forward.

The question of locus standi, however, is of the utmost importance and in that sense I support what the hon member for Bryanston has said. Without locus standi being granted to environmental bodies a great many projects can slip through the net without ever being identified as a potential environmental threat and thereby requiring an impact study to be conducted. I would hope that the locus standi will be addressed in the near future.

Another issue that is addressed in this Bill is the question of nature areas being converted to protect the natural environment. I am concerned about that change. For example, the Table Mountain and Peninsula mountain chain has been declared a nature area which includes parts of Tokai Forest which falls under my constituency, and it would be a matter of great concern if the protection that is presently provided were to be in any way diluted. I am concerned that the legislation governing nature areas was supposed to be extended to cover areas such as Betty’s Bay, Pringle Bay, Kleinmond etc yet it never came into being. I ask why and whether there were vested interests resisting the implementation of a nature area in those areas. Has this resistance now led to this amendment? If this change is a dilution of the protection with which nature areas are provided, it will be a retrogressive step which I would greatly regret. Certainly here in the Cape we will be most upset if this is so. Therefore I would like to ask what the practical management problems were as referred to in the memorandum which caused this change to come about.

While time remains I would like to address the question of special nature reserves. If there is to be a new category of reserve which will keep certain places like the Prince Edward Islands in their absolute pristine state, we will welcome and support that. However, the danger would be that if this measure were to be used to exclude people from other areas where they need not be excluded, that would be a serious mistake. There is a body of environmentalists who take the view that one must fence off segments of the country and not let a single soul in there except themselves, of course. That simply alienates the public. One must create a happy compromise between people and the natural environment. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in my view this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have seen in this session of Parliament. South Africa for far too long has been the spoilt child of the Third World countries and we have not taken things very seriously as regards our environment. This legislation started with the White Paper on a National Policy regarding Environmental Conservation, published in 1980, in which a clear picture was drawn of the scope and man’s responsibility in respect of environmental conservation. This led to the Environment Conservation Act, No 100 of 1982, which unsuccessfully endeavoured to protect the environment. After much attention had been paid to many aspects of the environment, the conclusion was reached that the powers granted by this Environment Conservation Act, No 100 of 1982, were insufficient.

One of the essential aspects of environmental conservation already acknowledged in the White Paper is the fact that environmental conservation is not the responsibility of a single department of State but, as many hon members here have indicated, indeed involves the State administration as a whole. It is an important deficiency that until now there has been no effective way in which co-ordinated action regarding environmental conservation of all bodies concerned could be directed. This includes the public as well as the private sector. This deficiency, as well as the fact that the environment has gradually deteriorated since the passing of the first legislation in 1982, led to the present Bill.

The findings of the Planning Committee of the President’s Council, who investigated the state of nature conservation in the Republic of South Africa, were also considered in drafting the Bill. This well-drafted piece of enabling legislation was published on two occasions in the Gazette for comment.

This Bill provides for the institution of certain bodies to assist the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs in the exercising of his power. We hope he is going to exercise his power to ensure that our environment is free of pollution. Owing to the wide range of environmental matters it is not possible for the department to have adequate expertise permanently employed, and the continuation of a Council for the Environment will therefore be valuable, especially in respect of the formulation of policy regarding broad aspects of environmental conservation.

Mr Chairman, the importance of the Council for the Environment, which advises the hon the Minister on the co-ordination of all actions directed at or liable to have an influence on any matter affecting the conservation and utilisation of the environment, is clear to all concerned.

Following representations, Professor R Soni, the rector of the M L Sultan Technikon in Durban and former Professor of Law and head of the Department of Public Law of the University of Durban-Westville, was appointed to the council. Prof Soni is also chairman of the Committee for Environment Education and on the Executive Committee of the Council for the Environment. Though it may be a little late, hon members of this House would like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for enabling the Indian community to participate in environmental conservation.

The council’s Committee for Environmental Law, whose objective is to advise the council and its committees on legal aspects concerning the environment, contributed a great deal of time to the finalisation of the council’s input to this Bill. Prof M A Rabie, who is the chairman of the Committee for Environmental Law, gave valued elucidation to members of the Joint Committee on Environment Affairs. I am sure hon members of this House would like to thank Prof Rabie for his work. His committee will remain involved in the process of enacting this Bill and where necessary advise the council on an ongoing basis on the appropriate action.

This Environment Conservation Bill is the culmination of years of hard work and it would only be fair to congratulate and thank the hon the Minister and his officials of the Department of Environment Affairs for this legislation which also recognises the progressive demand for participation by private persons and organisations. Let us bear in mind that the quality of the environment ultimately depends on the attitudes and involvement of individuals and that the responsibility for the quality of life for future generations lies with us.

Mr Chairman, although I agree that this is the best piece of legislation which I have seen this session of Parliament, I must also agree with some people who have said that the new legislation does not go far enough to call for heavy fines. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon Whip requested me please to keep my answer short; apparently there is some more legislation to be dealt with, and it seems as if the time for adjournment is fast approaching. I shall attend to answer quickly and not waste time unnecessarily.

†It is nice to follow the hon the Minister for Local Government, who made one very important statement as far as I am concerned. He said this was the most important piece of legislation which has been passed in Parliament during this session. I could not get a better compliment than that. I do not think the Department of Environment Affairs could get a better compliment than that, and I thank him for his words.

*It is also quite clear that this piece of legislation has the general support of all the parties in this committee. As I said right at the beginning, so much has been consulted about this legislation and there has been so much participation that we could not but reach a reasonable amount of consensus between these parties.

Of course some people will still think the legislation does not go far enough.

†Some will say that the Bill does not go far enough, as some hon members have, in fact, done this afternoon.

It was not said here this afternoon, but I know people from certain sectors say this is a draconian measure which grants the Minister unlimited power. It has been said in my presence.

It was also stated in the documents.

The hon the chairman of the joint committee says it was also said in the documents.

Yesterday I spoke to a very influential conservationist from the USA who is also a judge. He told me that in spite of years of experience with legislation they still experience setbacks.

†It is still an issue. Every time they pass legislation on the environment some will say it does not go far enough and others that it is a Draconian measure.

*The hon member for Nigel said they support the legislation. He is still concerned about the many administrative bodies and that there perhaps is not sufficient co-ordination between the departments. After him quite a few members referred to clause 21 which is a very important clause. According to this the Minister can take the initiative to identify certain activities which would then indicate the policy. It is a fact that he has to get the approval of the other Ministers whose departments are affected.

†Any person who has been in Government for any length of time will know that it is not possible to give one Minister absolute power over other Ministers. One will not be able to govern that way. Therefore, the Bill as it stands now gives the Minister powers, but also says that the Minister is not limited to the functions mentioned here.

*Various hon members referred to agriculture. The Land Conservation Act falls under the hon the Minister of Agriculture, but will also be tested from the viewpoint of environmental conservation and the hon the Minister of Environmental Affairs will have to consult with the hon the Minister of Agriculture in regard to certain agricultural affairs. Clause 21(e) refers specifically to agricultural processes. Reference is also made to industrial processes and to the transport services where the hon the Minister will have to meet with his colleagues and discuss the problems which are actually their concern. If the matter is of great importance and the Ministers cannot agree on it, the Cabinet would have to decide about it and consensus would, as usual, have to be reached between the departments.

†The hon member for Durban North referred to clause 21 and the identification of activities, joint responsibility and pesticides etc. He can take as an example his own party. If any one of his three leaders had power over the others, the party would not move ahead at all. [Interjections.] They have to work on a consensus basis.

*This also applies to the Government where one Minister cannot receive absolute power over another. I do not think this will ever work.

†The hon Deputy Minister referred to the importance of this Bill. He referred to the Government’s responsibility and said that environmental control was not only the responsibility of a single department.

*The hon member for Nelspruit requested stricter legislation. He touched upon an important matter by asking if we could not use schools. I agree, we should use the schools. The White Paper on environmental education which was tabled is in our possession. We can make all the laws possible. We can apply this very good Act to the best of our ability, but if we cannot correct someone’s thoughts from childhood, we will get nowhere. It could happen that even members of the House of Assembly or members of the House of Representatives or members of the House of Delegates could throw empty cigarette boxes out of their windows. One has to view things from the correct perspective, otherwise legislation will not help at all.

The hon member for Suurbraak supported the legislation. He said this was a progressive Act which places a grave obligation upon the government. He referred to the “Keep South Africa clean” campaign. He also said education was definitely important.

The hon member for Bryanston held a very long speech. I think it was the longest speech made today. He made a very responsible speech. I know he feels strongly about certain environmental matters and I accept that he is not trying to be difficult.

†I know the hon member is really interested in environmental affairs. I want to thank him for his very positive contribution today and also for his positive contributions on the standing committee. The hon member said that this was not a perfect Bill but that it was generally a good Bill. I want to thank him for that remark.

The hon member is concerned about the locus standi of certain bodies. He referred to clause 35. I think the value of clause 35 lies in the fact that provision is made for review by court. If a person is not satisfied as far as his own interests go, he can get a review by court of certain actions taken by a department.

The hon member spoke about public participation. This I will always welcome. However, in the final analysis decision-making lies with Government.

*One cannot get away from that and I wish to invite the public to assist us by making an input. However, the final decision should be made by the Government.

†The hon member is also worried about the concurrence that a Minister of Environment Affairs must get from other Ministers. I have explained that already. I want to tell the hon member that the size of a department does not have any bearing on the amount of clout exercised by such a department.

*The hon member fears that a small department would be overpowered by a large department. However, it does not work that way. When a person reaches Cabinet level, each one has an equal say.

†The hon member referred to the fact that regulations must be published. I personally feel that this is a great step forward which should be welcomed by all these bodies who can then comment on regulations when they are published.

*The hon member for Caledon did a gigantic job as chairman of this committee. There is no doubt about that. I wish to thank him for that. There was a stage when I feared that we would not be able to get this legislation ready in time. That would have been a big disappointment for many people.

†The lobby who is represented by the hon member for Bryanston would have been disappointed if this Bill was not passed. I think he will admit that.

*It is a fact that this Council for the Environment is a council of experts. The hon member for Caledon referred to that specifically and various hon members spoke about that. This council consists of 22 members.

†Just in case I run out of time, there is—by the way—more than one person of colour on the Council for the Environment.

*This is a council of experts and I appoint people to that council because of their knowledge, and not because of the body they represent. If I had to give bodies representation on the Council for the Environment, this council would consist of more than a 100, perhaps 200 members. There are so many bodies who would like to be represented. Hon members can for example take into consideration that the Habitat Council represents approximately 80 different bodies and they are all important conservation bodies. If I were to give each one of them one representative, I would already have a council of 80 members. No, sir, I would have a congress rather than a council.

That would not work. What is important about this Council for the Environment is that it divided itself into committees. Hon members who received the report of the Council for the Environment will see that these committees also consist of experts and that these committees have the right to co-opt people into those committees. We have, for example, a committee dealing with poisonous waste products. This committee will be extended in the near future to include more representatives from other departments of the CSIR and so on.

The hon indirectly elected member Mr Abram apologised for not being here when I gave my answer. He supports the legislation and says conservational awareness should be encouraged.

†The hon member for Durban Point says that it is the right of the citizen to live in silence. I fully agree with him. However, to achieve that is the main problem. One cannot put silencers on aircraft. As far as I know that is not possible.

*However, this legislation makes provision for dealing with noise pollution.

†With regard to the question of CFCs, I want to submit that we have signed the Montreal Protocol. I cannot promise hon members that we will be able to legislate against the use of CFCs within the next few months. I cannot even say that we will do so within the next few years. A lot of research still has to be done. It is accepted internationally that we will eventually have to do away with all these CFCs, but not right now.

*We will watch the situation carefully. The hon member for Esselen Park gave a fine speech. He is concerned about whether this Minister of Environment Affairs will be able to convince the other Ministers easily. I should like to tell the hon member that there is one Minister who plays an important role in environmental affairs, namely the Minister of Water Affairs, and he will be overpowered easily by the Minister of Environmental Affairs.

The hon member also referred to the question of the handling of refuse and said that all communities should get involved and should receive the necessary educational guidance.

†The hon member for Durban North referred to the identification of activities as a joint responsibility. I can assure him that we will maintain a proper balance between the various departments.

*The hon member for Bethal also referred to the Council for the Environment and the system of committees we are using. He asked who was actually in charge of environmental control. The answer is this department. He must look at clause 21 again and then he will see that we can handle the situation in terms of this clause.

The hon member for Springfield supported the legislation.

†He is worried about acid rain. I can assure him that the situation is monitored by the Departments of Forestry and Water Affairs on a regular basis. Acid rain has indeed been recorded, but what level or degree of acidity there has been I cannot say at this stage. However, an investigation will be undertaken if necessary.

*I wish to thank the hon member for George for his contribution. In the committee in particular he played an important role in getting the fines raised. I thank him for that.

The hon member for Constantia said the legislation did not go far enough.

†He is concerned about toxic waste. Naturally, as I have said time and again, we are not prepared to accept toxic waste unless we need it to get our own toxic waste disposal industry off the ground.

*We have now come to the end of a very pleasant debate. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who made contributions and who supported the legislation.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to move the Second Reading of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Bill. After the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1927, the need was very soon felt to make statutory arrangements with regard to diplomatic representatives in South Africa. This gave rise to Act No 9 of 1932 which was the forerunner of statutory arrangements in South Africa in respect of diplomatic representatives.

Circumstances changed, and this led to the Act of 1951. It is interesting that that Act was introduced by Dr D F Malan, who was the Prime Minister at the time but was simultaneously the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This eventually gave rise to further amendments. In order to gain greater legal certainty at this stage and to insert certain comprehensive measures, it has now become necessary to submit this new legislation to Parliament.

In the main this Bill was necessitated by two factors, namely in the first place South Africa’s envisaged membership of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.I want to say at once that I think it is a very important milestone that we have got around to joining these two Conventions. The second factor is to rectify the shortcomings which have been identified in the existing Act in recent years.

I want to discuss these two main points of the Bill very briefly. Firstly, the membership of the Vienna Conventions. Although we attended the relevant Conventions of 1961 and 1963 at that stage, we have never become a member of those Conventions. In recent years the Department of Foreign Affairs has become increasingly aware of the advantages of membership of these Conventions to South Africa.

The following are the four main advantages. Firstly, the rules laid down in the Conventions enjoy wide and general acceptance in the international community. Virtually every country in the world is a member of these Conventions. The reason for this is inter alia the fact that the rules of these Conventions contain detail and a great degree of clarity. At present South Africa has to rely on the rules of international customary law in its diplomatic and consular relations. Bearing in mind the nature of customary law it is frequently difficult to determine what the rules of customary law really prescribe.

Secondly, South Africa’s membership of the Conventions will mean that our diplomatic and consular relations can be conducted with a greater degree of reciprocity. Because virtually all states in the world are members of these Conventions we find that while South Africa is applying customary law in respect of others, some states are applying the rules of the Conventions in respect of South Africa.

The third matter we should like to rectify concerns the fact that an extensive state practice has developed around the rules of the Conventions in recent years. This state practice facilitates the conducting of diplomatic and consular relations. On the other hand, because only a few states still rely on customary law, a state practice, giving clarity and content to the rules of customary law has not developed to the same extent.

The fourth reason for feeling that we must join this, is because the international community is in the process of extending the rules in connection with diplomatic and consular relations further by negotiating on new Conventions. These efforts do not necessarily envisage amending the existing rules, but rather gaining greater clarity on many practical matters, such as the diplomatic bag and the diplomatic courier. If we do not join the Conventions, as far as customary law is concerned we will be lagging behind a little in respect of the rules laid down in this connection.

Hon members will deduce from this that South Africa’s envisaged membership will result in the position of diplomatic and consular representatives in South Africa being regulated with a greater degree of legal certainty, and that there will be greater certainty in regard to the position of our people abroad.

One of the objectives of this Bill is that certain provisions of the Vienna Convention, as set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to the legislation, will form part of the South African legislation, in order to ensure that South Africa will be able to carry into effect what we will undertake when South Africa becomes a party to the Convention. Our membership of the Conventions is being reserved in anticipation of this legislation. When this Bill becomes law, the necessary membership instruments will be deposited with the Secretary-General of the UN without delay, and in accordance with the provisions of the Conventions, South Africa will become a party to the Conventions on the thirtieth day after the membership instruments have been deposited with the Secretary-General. This goes without saying.

I want to make one aspect clear, namely that hon members will notice that not all the provisions of the Vienna Conventions are included in Schedules 1 and 2. Hon members will see that they simply read from 1 to 20, etc. The provisions which are included fall mainly into three categories. Firstly, provisions which will place legal obligations on South Africa, secondly provisions which will place legal obligations on foreign representatives in South Africa, and thirdly provisions which are in the main of an administrative nature.

The provisions—and this may be important to hon members—of the Conventions which are not included in Schedules 1 and 2, are provisions which from a legal or administrative point of view need not become part of South African law in this way. They are therefore neither important to us nor to our membership of the Conventions. This is all I have to say about our joining the Vienna Conventions.

I told hon members at the outset that there were a number of shortcomings in the present legislation which we would like to rectify at this stage. I should like to indicate the two most important shortcomings to hon members.

†Firstly, the Department of Foreign Affairs requires diplomatic missions, consular posts and organisations and institutions to obtain the approval of the department foot the purchase of fixed property. This approval is required to enable the department to ensure that such an office or residence is located in an area where, firstly, the foreign representatives are likely to be safe and secure, and where, should it be required or necessary, protection could be provided in accordance with our international obligations; and secondly, South Africa’s national security is not, in the event of any abuses on the part of foreign representatives, likely to be compromised.

The Bill envisages giving legal effect to this requirement in that no deed of transfer of land will be registered in accordance with the provision of the Deeds Registries Act in the name of any sending state, foreign nation, etc, unless the Director-General of Foreign Affairs has informed the Registrar of Deeds in writing that he approves of such registration. In this respect the provisions of the Bill coincide largely with provisions in force of the legislation of the United States, Italy and Finland.

Secondly, one of the problems we have experienced during the past couple of years is that the current legislation provides inadequate protection for South Africans who may be involved in motor vehicle accidents with foreign representatives who enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of our courts. Some foreign representatives, albeit a minority, fail to insure themselves adequately against claims which may result from the operation of a motor vehicle. Since no legal process may be initiated against certain foreign representatives, South Africans may not have any legal remedy to satisfy a claim against a certain foreign representative.

Clause 15 of the Bill instructs the Minister of Foreign Affairs to prescribe by regulation liability insurance requirements to be met by foreign representatives. This provision will greatly enhance the position of South Africans whose claims against foreign representatives could be satisfied through the intercession of an insurance company.

There are a few other technical points which will be ratified by this legislation. I am not going to waste any time on those.

*In conclusion I should like to say that when this Bill becomes part of our legislation, the following important benefits will result.

Firstly, legal certainty will be promoted in connection with the position of foreign representatives in South Africa, as well as in connection with the position of our representatives in other states. Secondly, if the legislation is passed, South African citizens will enjoy better protection in the exceptional cases when foreign representatives misuse their immunities. Thirdly, the Department of Foreign Affairs will be in a better position to ensure that mutual relations with other states are regulated in the most orderly fashion and according to the most generally accepted rules. Lastly, South Africa’s membership of the Conventions and the legislation we will have as a result of this, will ensure that South Africa will form part of the mainstream of the international community as regards the regulating of our foreign relations.

Mr Chairman, let me say at the outset that my party supports this Bill. However, I want to dwell for a moment on the hon the Deputy Minister who is going to fill the post of Administrator of the Cape in the near future. I want to congratulate him on his appointment to the post, but I also want to assure him that my party, although we sincerely congratulate him, are inclined to press hard for the things we believe in. We are also inclined to swim against the current from time to time, but we do this because we believe in these things.

†The hon the Deputy Minister has in a sense set a record, remembering that there have been three incumbents in the same post in recent times.

We can remember how the present hon Minister of Foreign Affairs occupied that post for 16 months and was followed by Mr Louis Nel for 22 months. Thereafter came Mr Ron Miller for 20 months and now we have the present hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs who, when he leaves office, will have occupied this post for 31 months. It appears to be one of those posts which, although it is a fantastic training ground, is also one in which the incumbents do not remain for too long. [Interjections.]

*I have said that we agree with this Bill, which we welcome. As the hon the Deputy Minister has said, we agree on the necessity for legal certainty in this matter. We believe that we are on the right track if we join the two Vienna Conventions. The fact is that the rules which the Conventions lay down enjoy wide and general acceptance in the international community. The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to the shortcomings in the existing legislation and the provisions of the Bill which are aimed at resolving those shortcomings.

†Like the hon the Deputy Minister I wish to refer to the implications of clause 14, which deals with the acquisition of property by foreign governments in South Africa. Let me state emphatically that my party first of all believes that the road to the future of South Africa lies through contact with Africa in its broadest context. Therefore it follows that as our diplomatic position improves and as we hope conditions locally eventually will improve to such an extent that Africa begins to accept us, more and more emissaries from Africa will have to be accommodated in South Africa. In the past it has been custom for the existing embassies to purchase property in the so-called White sections of South Africa. I think everybody in this House will well recall the consternation that forever seemed to set in every time one of these countries—and this includes the TBVC states—dared to purchase a house or whatever in a so-called White part of South Africa.

However, today I also wish to remind this House of the row which set in merely two years ago when the residents of Monument Park heard that a Black country had purchased a home in that suburb. The residents of Piet-my-vrou Street in Extension 3, as hon members will remember, went out of their way to draw up petitions and the like. This had all been triggered by what a child told a neighbour’s child. This is a quotation which will always remain with me. This certain Mr Grace, who was a neighbour to where the house was to be, said that the neighbours’ grandchild had said: “Blacks are moving into the house next door.” Later he said: “I want to move out the minute Black people move in next door.” What a sorry state of affairs we have in South Africa. This to an extent is my problem with clause 14 and I know that this type of legislation is also to be found in the United States, Italy and Finland where the government concerned, through its director-general or whoever is in charge of foreign affairs, has the right to approve of such a sale. However, I see problems along the way if such a director-general is to be subjected to political pressure from Whites in a particular area not to approve of such a sale. I foresee problems when a government, because of short-term political gain, would accede to the request or the petitions of Whites in a particular area not to allow such an embassy to be set up in their area. I want to request that we guard against this, because it will do South Africa no credit.

*Mr Chairman, I also want to refer to a report in last weekend’s Sunday Star in connection with a match between two schools on the Rand which was cancelled because the son of a Black diplomat was playing in one of the teams. His headmaster neglected to inform the other headmaster that he had included a Black child in his team. This child just happened to be the son of a Black diplomat.

Did the boy have diplomatic immunity?

That is not the point. What is important is that if that child is considered good enough to be in a certain school in a certain area, he should also enjoy those privileges. Such incidents leave scars along the way, scars for which we will eventually all have to pay in South Africa. It is of no avail for the hon member to be obstinate about this.

†Mr Chairman, with those words I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we also want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister from our side on his appointment as the Administrator of the Cape Province and we wish him success and a good period of office.

Mr Chairman, we shall support the Bill. This is an important Bill, especially because it gives substance to the two Vienna Conventions—that of 1961 and of 1963.

It is a reasonably technical piece of legislation which does not draw much public interest under normal conditions. The Bill is, as already indicated, far more comprehensive than the Acts of 1932 and 1951. Apart from the Conventions which are included, there is not actually much that is new in the Bill itself. I want to say that the memorandum exaggerates somewhat in indicating that existing legislation has been renewed. If one takes a look, one will see that existing legislation has been defined in new language. Alterations have been effected here and there, but not much has actually been inserted. There has been an effort to cover all possible eventualities. Whether this will actually be the case, only the future will show.

I want to refer to certain aspects, that I shall call editorial, which worry me. I do not want to split hairs but I believe that, in drafting laws, there are at least basic standards, minimum standards, which are striven for. The person drafting this legislation provides, for instance, in clause 1(i) for the term “the Conventions”, which certainly brackets the two Conventions. The term “Conventions” is used so that the two Conventions need not be mentioned separately. I shall not give hon members all the examples, but clauses 3, 5, etc are riddled with this. He mentions the Conventions separately each time. I do not consider this to be good legal drafting.

In clause 2(1) he says in the Afrikaans text that the Conventions have “regskrag en -werking” in South Africa. In clause 5 there is reference to an agreement as contemplated in section 4 which, after publication of the State President’s proclamation of it, shall have “krag van wet” in the Republic of South Africa. Are two different concepts in question here? Is “regskrag en -werking” one concept and “krag van wet” another? If so, how do these two concepts differ? If not, from the point of view of legislation alone, two different expressions should not be used for the same concept in the same piece of legislation. I want to suggest that the Bill be examined again from this angle.

Clause 5(b) provides that the State President’s proclamation shall prevail above any law or rule of customary international law. Does this also mean the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa? Why is this Bill excluded while all other laws of the RSA are included? I think we should look at this especially with a view to conflict with the Constitution. We should see whether such a law could not be ultra vires as regards the Constitution. What would happen in such a case?

In clause 3 and clause 5(b) of the Afrikaans text, the term “reëls van internasionale gewoontereg” is used. What is this? Is it what we know as “volkereg”? I think that, if we have a term which is well known in our legal terminology, we should continue to use it. As far as I am concerned, “volkereg” is apparently intended here by the term “internasionale gewoontereg”. If it is something else, however, I should like to know what it is.

Why is there mention of “the rules of customary international law”? Why not just “customary international law” as one speaks in Afrikaans of “volkereg”? I do not want to dot the i’s and cross the t’s but these matters should be examined from the point of view of legal drafting.

I note, and I have made enquiries about this at the department, that certain articles have been omitted from both Conventions. The department said they were irrelevant provisions. I do not believe that savings in cost justified omitting the complete Convention as a Schedule to the Bill, where it certainly belongs. What worries me is whether such an incomplete Convention is acceptable. I accept that, if one signs such a Convention, one accepts the whole unless one says by agreement that one does not accept certain parts of it. One then has to decide to which part one will give the force of law. Otherwise I think the entire Convention should be contained in the Schedule.

Clause 2(2) provides that the State President may amend or substitute the Conventions by proclamation. I think the hon the Minister should clarify this for us. Can the State President unilaterally amend or substitute a Convention signed in Vienna? If the Convention is capable of amendment or substitution in South Africa, what force of law does it have in the world? These are questions which we should consider from a legal viewpoint. What is the value of such an amended Convention? Who does one impress with such an amended Convention of the international community?

The Bill gives the Conventions the force of law yet 90% of the Bill deals with the same matters which are dealt with in the Conventions so there is a great deal of duplication. What is provided for in the Conventions is provided for again elsewhere. Would one not have been better advised to introduce the two Conventions, declare them to be law in a single paragraph and, as far as there was no adequate provision in the Conventions for one’s own cases, should one not simply have added them as supplementary to the Conventions? These are very simple questions which I want to ask.

I want to leave the aspect regarding legislation at that and refer to article 55(2) which refers to consulates. The provision reads “the consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with the exercise of consular functions”. Does this also mean that consulates may not be used for political asylum? I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister what is to happen to people who sometimes seek asylum in consulates. If it is the case that consulates may not be used for asylum, and if that is the interpretation of article 55, I want to accept that, if the Convention had existed two or three years ago, the British Consulate in Durban could not have been used for that asylum débâcle. If that is the case, I want to accept that no consulate may be exploited in such a way in future.

I now reach the next two articles, that is article 41 of the first Convention, which deals with diplomatic relations, and article 55 of the second Convention, which relates to non-interference in the internal affairs of the State. It reads:

I think this is something which we should discuss a little this evening. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister could tell us where South Africa stands regarding the implementation of these two provisions. The USA apparently has a congressional committee which questions their ambassadors before they are finally approved for appointment to a specific state. As far as that committee is concerned, the test for an aspiring ambassador to SA is the degree of ferocity of his criticism against South Africa’s internal policy and what he intends doing in South Africa. As far as I am concerned, the departing ambassador was guilty of giving undertakings to that committee on what he intended doing in South Africa. I have also been informed by members of the other two Houses that that ambassador actually concerned himself very little with the parliamentary political part of South Africa and conducted more dialogue with the extra-parliamentary section of the political community of South Africa.

One of these days an ambassador will have to give evidence before such a congressional committee in America again. I want to request the hon the Deputy Minister most strongly—he is on the way out now—that he, the department and the its Minister personally indicate very clearly to us what their standpoint will be regarding ambassadors who simply undertake in advance to do this or that to change matters in South Africa when they arrive here.

As far as my party and I are concerned, if an ambassador gives such previews of how he will act in South Africa, which would come down to blatant interference in the internal affairs of our State, that post should remain vacant in South Africa for some time. That is my view of this, because there is one aspect of importance, which is the self-respect, integrity and sovereignty of South Africa. We cannot permit any country in the world to interfere in our internal affairs.

The other day I asked people from that country whether America would permit Russian personnel to state in advance how they would behave themselves in America. Would the British permit this regarding Northern Ireland? Would the Dutch permit this as regards the Amboinese or anyone else? Would Germany or any other state in the world permit this? I expect the South African Government to adopt exactly the same standpoint in this connection. I want to tell the Government that we adopt a very strong standpoint regarding this matter and we can assure it that, if it were to adopt such a standpoint on an aspiring ambassador to South Africa, it could depend on our support.

This goes hand in hand with the activities of certain information services of other states. I do not know whether they are accredited or fall under the consulates or embassies or whatever they may be. I should like to hear from the hon the Minister, however, whether his department is aware of the activities of such information services, the literature which they disseminate, the presentations which they hold in their offices, etc. I want to know what the Government’s standpoint is in this regard as these are all aspects about which we can adopt a very strong standpoint—now that we have signed the Vienna Conventions and accorded them the force of law.

For the sake of South Africa’s self-respect and honour, I want to appeal to the department and the hon the Ministers and insist that they guard jealously against the matter of non-interference at all times.

The hon member for Diamant was aggrieved about the question of diplomatic residences. This is a sensitive matter. He knows that his own community is also sensitive about this matter. I do not want to embarrass him; this is not the time to discuss it. This is a sensitive matter which, if one handles it correctly, can be defused. This happened initially when some of the new neighbouring states opened consulates at places which were not used to them. That sensitivity should be recognised and dealt with. It has even been considered whether some of the neighbouring states—I want to call them the new neighbouring states—should not be encouraged to choose and purchase their premises in specific areas.

I have referred to this repeatedly but I want to allude to Waterkloof Heights again, which has unfortunately not been fully developed by the department. I think it was a very good solution to this thorny problem at the time.

I am sorry that the hon the Minister is not here now because he once said, after I had spoken about it, that no other state in the world had a diplomatic residential area. I could not reply to this at the time but I want to take the opportunity now to tell him that Brasilia, the capital of Brazil, certainly has a diplomatic residential area which, I think, has long since burst its seams. I do not know whether the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is always aware of these matters. Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, one could almost say, is also a diplomatic residential area. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Soutpansberg. He raised questions surrounding foreign diplomats. Unfortunately, and I think he will agree, we disagree with him on his standpoints. I would like the hon the Minister to reply to the submissions made by that hon member.

The Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Bill represents an important development in the conduct of South Africa’s diplomatic and consular relations. The provisions of the Bill will bring South Africa into step with legislative provisions which are in force in almost all countries where South Africa is represented. Furthermore, South Africa will soon become a party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The provisions of these conventions are widely accepted in the international community.

The provisions of the Bill require foreign representatives, in accordance with international law, to respect the laws and regulations of South Africa. Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and article 55 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations oblige diplomats and consuls to accept South Africa’s laws and regulations. Furthermore, the provisions of clause 3(6) of the Bill place a similar obligation on foreign representatives who are not diplomats or consuls and who are, for example, trade or labour representatives.

Clause 10 addresses the question of equal or reciprocal immunities and privileges accorded to a mission of the Republic in the territory of any state or to any persons connected with any such mission. In the event of the exemptions granted to the Republic being less than those granted to that state, the hon the Minister may withdraw the immunities, privileges and exemptions accorded or granted as appears proper to him. I believe this measure is justified to ensure that the Republic is not short-changed. I am told that Canada, too, has similar provisions.

Clause 13 is more than necessary in today’s changing South Africa. One never knows which party is going to control which municipality tomorrow. As I said, the measures are necessary to avoid embarrassment and to ensure that foreign diplomats are committed to living in areas chosen or decided upon by the governments. Unfortunately, in the Republic’s case this measure holds different meanings in relation to governments elsewhere who are also signatories of the Vienna Conventions. In this country the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act are what make this different.

The hon member for Diamant referred to clause 14 and expressed his concern at the possibility of missions in the future being effectively blocked from purchasing property in areas of their choice. In his speech the hon the Deputy Minister referred to this particular clause and, if I heard him correctly, the requirement to refer to the Director-General first is to ensure the security and safety of not only the personnel from abroad but also that of South Africans, and to ensure that residential areas are not used for office purposes and vice versa.

I believe that we in South Africa are going to enter into a new era and the provisions of this Bill and South Africa’s impending membership of the Vienna Convention demonstrate that South Africa is determined to strengthen its role in the international community. The provisions of the Bill will enable South Africa to conduct its diplomatic and consular relations in an orderly manner and according to those rules which are most widely accepted.

The Solidarity Party supports the Bill, but before I conclude I would like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed earlier. The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs has joined the group of those MPs who will not return to Parliament by choice. We in the Solidarity Party congratulate him on his appointment as Administrator of the Cape and wish him well in his new position. Before my time runs out I would also like to say that we look forward to the day in the not too distant future when the South Africa of today with all its racial problems will be just a bad dream.

Mr Chairman, please also give me the opportunity to convey the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment. This is probably the first and the last opportunity we shall have to congratulate him. We on this side of the House are convinced that his appointment to that specific post was an excellent choice. As chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid and our Foreign Affairs Caucus Study Group, I want to tell the hon the Minister that it was a very great pleasure to work so closely with him. His calm way of doing things, his friendliness and thoughtfulness are characteristics which will remain with us here in Parliament for a long time to come. It is truly a loss for the Department of Foreign Affairs, but a gain for the Cape. We wish him and his wife, Bettie, everything of the best with their important task as the couple heading the Cape Administration.

The hon the Minister has dealt comprehensively with the most important new provisions of the measure before us. What is more, the explanatory memorandum is equally clear, and a exhaustive explanation was given in the joint committee by an exceptionally talented official and law adviser, Advocate Henning Pieterse. If the hon member for Soutpansberg had attended the proceedings of the joint committee, he might have asked fewer questions today.

[Inaudible.]

Consensus was reached and the desirability of this measure was unanimously accepted by the joint committee as a whole. I want to focus on only a few aspects to which the hon member for Diamant and the hon member Mr Seedat referred. The residence of and relationship with foreign representatives is of the utmost importance to all countries, including South Africa. It is interesting that there are 1 941 such representatives from throughout the world in South Africa. We therefore welcome the incorporation of both Vienna Conventions in our South African legislation. South Africa participated in the compilation of these Conventions and I therefore believe it is only right that we overcome what problems there were and can now participate. The Conventions have been compiled in terms that to are broad enough to allow individual interpretation by the participating countries, and participating countries have been allowed sufficient discretion for their implementation. We also welcome the provision in clause 18 for changes to be made by regulation, so that it is not necessary for us to refer the legislation to Parliament for any amendments.

The hon member for Soutpansberg expressed his concern about sections that have been omitted. I think the hon the Minister, in his introductory speech, stated that the reason for this was that the most important aspects of the conventions had in fact been included—firstly, the legal obligations of South Africa, the legal obligations of foreign representatives and then, of course, certain administrative aspects.

By regulation the State President may not change the Vienna Convention. He can only change the sections which have been incorporated or have not been incorporated in the legislation. The State President may therefore not tamper with the Vienna Convention as such. [Interjections.]

The other two important aspects that we on this side of the House welcome are both internationally accepted principles. Firstly there is the question of consultation with and advice given to the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of the purchase, hire and renovation of property. It is interesting that the hon member for Soutpansberg says that there is nothing new in this Act. This is one of the most important aspects dealt with in the Act and it is totally new. The second one which the hon member apparently did not see either is the question of liability insurance.

This is specifically in respect of motor vehicles, for example. I want to say that this will protect South African citizens against diplomatic immunity and ensure the right of access to insurance companies for any relevant claims which might arise.

Finally I merely want to say something to the hon member for Diamant. I want to support the hon member.

†I do not believe that any distinction should be made between representatives of foreign countries—be they from Europe, the Americas, the BLS or the TBVC countries.

*In conclusion, the measure largely retains the main principles in their original form and improves the legislation as a whole. It includes the conventions and, I think, deals with these two aspects which are internationally accepted principles—the question of the acquisition of property with the advice and authorisation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the liability with regard to insurance—on an absolutely fair basis. I think that this measure is right on target when compared with international measures, methods of interpretation and guidelines. The measure is also in the interests of both foreign representatives in South Africa and our representatives abroad. We support the measure most sincerely, and I should like to thank all hon members who took the trouble to participate in the standing committee, who participated in this debate and who understood what this legislation was all about.

Mr Chairman, to my mind the most important objective of this Bill is to protect the rights of South African citizens. In terms of clause l(iv) the definition of the term “member of a family” is included and the explanation refers to article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. I also want to refer to the explanation in clause 3 of the Bill. This is a very important definition with regard to the protection of the rights of South African citizens. It will ensure that unauthorised persons will not be able to use immunities and privileges illegally or unlawfully.

†Clause 6(1) makes provision for persons referred to in section 3 that will not enjoy immunity in the case of action relating to private immovable property, action relating to succession or action arising from an accident in the Republic. This, of course, does not apply to the diplomats. It applies to other representatives in South Africa. I believe this is a very important clause. Clause 6(2) makes provision for foreign representatives to enjoy exemptions from taxation, except in the case of indirect taxation and taxation of immovable property as well as private income in the Republic. This makes it very clear. For the better protection of the South African citizen, clause 15 makes provision for the Minister to be able to prescribe liability for insurance requirements. This relates to foreign representatives. When accidents take place in South Africa, the South Africans of course do not have the right in terms of immunity to have this claim instituted. However, this makes provision for adequate insurance to be provided so that the South African citizens can be protected.

I believe that some of the aspects here are very important and from our side we approve of this Bill. However, before I sit down, I also want to join my colleagues in wishing the hon the Deputy Minister well when he leaves us to become the Administrator of the Cape Province. Perhaps we will see him in a better post there, but I wish him and his family all the best and I hope he will enjoy his future undertakings.

Mr Chairman, this evening it is not necessary for me to take up the time of this Committee to any great extent in dealing with the details of the conventions which we are discussing. We know that the Bill relates to the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 in connection with diplomatic and consular relations respectively. We know that the Conventions relate to the management and conduct of consulates and embassies. It is interesting that while we attended those Conventions way back in 1961 and 1963, as a country we are still not party to them. I understand that we are one of very few nations who are not. The department has decided, I believe in its wisdom, that this situation cannot continue, which is why we have this legislation before us this afternoon. It is clearly in the interests of South Africa that we should regulate this situation.

I believe that in the process of looking at the implementation of our formally joining the Conventions the department has managed to identify certain shortcomings in existing laws affecting the interests of South African citizens relating to the immunities enjoyed by foreign representatives in this country. It is true that two clauses in this legislation are of specific importance; namely clauses 14 and 15. The one relates to the need to regulate the purchase of fixed property in the Republic by foreign representatives. It requires the approval of the Department of Foreign Affairs for such acquisition. The other relates to the establishment of liability insurance to be met by foreign representatives, relating to risks arising from the use of vehicles in South Africa. Both of these matters have precedents in America, Canada and other countries and it would appear that this is an improvement in this situation as far as the South African law in respect of these matters is concerned.

Most interesting about this legislation is the fact that it has been so long delayed in coming. We attended the 1961 Convention and we signed it, but apparently we did not ratify the convention. Apparently the signing did not imply that we would become party to it but merely that the reduce of the Convention had been discussed. We attended the 1963 Convention but we did not sign it. I believe that we would now have to accede to it via the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is interesting that so much time has elapsed. I believe there are 162 members of the one Convention and 123 of the other—that relating to consular affairs—but we have for years remained in the wings. Apparently it was in the sixties, after we had attended the Conventions, that the Department of Police and Justice had problems relating to consular access to citizens of foreign states in our prisons and they objected to our accepting the Conventions in their entirety. They believed that this might impose burdens on the Department of Prisons Service.

Another objection which is interesting as a part of the history of South Africa when one looks at the Vorster era in the sixties and seventies, was the then Department of Black Affairs or Plural Affairs, which also objected to these Conventions being adopted, because they were concerned about the effect of freedom of movement that foreign diplomats would have in respect of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. This might have made it difficult for them to comply. It is an interesting history therefore, that these Conventions were indicated as having been accepted by us from the point of view of our Department of Foreign Affairs way back in 1961 and 1962. Because of other considerations the matter has been left there and we have now reached a situation where at last the good sense of the hon the Deputy Minister’s department has prevailed. I believe we are going to regulate the matter when this Bill is passed, as we will be able to submit our membership to the United Nations. We will submit instruments of membership and I believe the procedure will be that we become a full member of the Conventions 30 days after the deposit of these instruments with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is therefore a Bill which ought to have the support of this House and we of the DP give it that support.

Mr Chairman, I have already had the opportunity to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his new appointment and will therefore not repeat it.

†Mr Chairman, my party supports this Bill. I want to be extremely brief because I do not want to take up much more time of the Committee this afternoon. As the motivating memorandum states it has become necessary for the Republic of South Africa to comply with the obligations flowing from membership of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963.

It is clear to me that pretty soon government to government relations between our country and the outside world are going to increase by leaps and bounds. It is therefore extremely important that the Republic of South Africa be a party to the rules and regulations governing and ordering diplomatic and consular relations on a proper basis to protect its own interests as well. This is a welcome development which we support and we look forward to the normalisation of relations between our country and the rest of the world.

Mr Chairman, I certainly consider it a privilege, as the hon member for Soutpansberg announced, to say that we support this piece of legislation. This does not mean, however, that we associate ourselves with quite a number of facets contained in the Bill, to which I should like to refer.

This Bill, as has repeatedly been said, incorporates the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. Through this incorporation, these Conventions now become part of this Bill subject to its provisions, and that is the important difference, which has not been underlined so far, in intrastate South African law.

To understand the legal effect of this properly, it is essential to pause for a moment at the legal position in South Africa as regards agreements. At international level, treaties between states have legal effect between the states which are parties to that agreement the moment they are concluded. This does not mean, however, that such an agreement obtains intrastate legal effect under South African law. This is obtained only when the agreements, as in the provision regarding these Conventions in clause 2, are transformed into South African law by parliamentary legislation.

I cannot agree, with all due respect, with what the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said, because this is simply not the legal position in South Africa. While I am talking about him, I want to take the opportunity—this has been done frequently today—to wish him and his wife everything of the best on his appointment to the administratorship of the Cape Province. I cannot agree with the following standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this case he says that, as soon as this becomes legislation, South Africa can accede to the Conventions and inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations accordingly. Mr Chairman, with respect, this is simply not correct. As happens in the case of numerous agreements, on the international level South Africa can simply become a member state of an agreement, whether this relates to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, and we may register that agreement in terms of article 102 of the United Nations Charter. We could therefore, if we had wished—I do not say we should have—simply have acceded to the Conventions at international level and even, as is customary in international legal practice, expressed certain provisos with regard to some provisions of the Conventions and bound ourselves by the Conventions. This was not done, however, and I want to welcome this. The legal position in South Africa is that Parliament is not consulted in practically 90% of cases in the conclusion of agreements. I think this is a great shortcoming in South African law. Should the possibility not be investigated of first presenting all agreements which are concluded by the executive power to Parliament for approval? I want to refer to clause 4 in this regard. This is a drastic provision if it is read together with clause 5. Clause 4 reads:

This means that the State President is granted the power to enter into an agreement without the intervention of Parliament to give its consent. If we read this together with clause 5, there is a very serious implication. The agreement referred to in clause 4, as far as its legal effect is concerned, is further extended in clause 5 and it is stated that such an agreement shall have the force of law by proclamation in the Gazette. I almost want to say “so far so good”. But now it will not only have the force of law through proclamation in the Gazette but, in addition, such a proclamation will prevail above any provision of another law or the rules of customary international law. This has serious implications. I want to ask whether this provision cannot receive attention in the future by means of the following proposal I want to make.

We cannot permit Parliament to be passed over in South Africa and a proclamation by the State President to have more legal force than an ordinary law. [Interjections.] I can appreciate that the hon member for Turffontein is shaking his head because he does not understand these matters. In terms of the appeal court finding in the Nduli case, the rules of customary international law form part of South African law. Now we have a proclamation by the State President prevailing above international law which, in addition, has greater legal force than an ordinary Act of Parliament. This is simply an untenable position which we cannot accept if we cling to the fact that Parliament is the place where laws are made.

I should like—if I may say so, this formed part of my discipline—to make a few comments on formulation. I want to request, as regards juristic-technical concepts, that we have a care for the Afrikaans language in the use of terminology. Nowhere in the world or in any authoritative textbook are the words “internasionale gewoontereg” used as in clause 3. There is no such concept. The correct concept in Afrikaans is “die gewoonteregtelike volkereg”. Parliament, as the highest authoritative legislative body in South Africa can certainly contribute to Afrikaans here. May I also add the concept “ooreenkoms” to this? As regards agreements between states, it is not the right concept; the right concept is “verdrag”. May I request the hon the Minister with great respect whether we cannot make a contribution in this respect too?

I should like to spend some time on clause 8 which deals with exemption from taxation. In this regard I want to refer to what the hon the Minister of Finance said on the subject in Parliament a few days ago, referring to me, the CP and the hon member for Lichtenburg in particular, with specific reference to Untag’s exemption from taxation. The hon the Minister said that I had jumped up when the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke across the floor of the House on Untag’s exemption from customs and excise duty. I say that the hon the Minister is not telling the truth; I did not jump up.

In the second place, the hon the Minister asked if I did not know that under international law exemptions were granted in terms of international conventions.

Order! I should like the hon member’s assistance in this regard. Is he still discussing the Bill?

Mr Chairman, I am discussing clause 8 of the Bill which deals with exemption from taxation. I want to refer later to exemption from taxation in the case of Untag.

The hon the Minister of Finance said that they (Untag) were exempted in accordance with international conventions and I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister in this regard in terms of which international conventions Untag was granted exemption. Were they granted exemption in terms of the Vienna Convention of 14 March 1975 as regards the representation of states in their relation to international organisations? Why was the Vienna Convention of 1975 not also made part of this particular Bill in this case? Are we a member state of that Convention? The important question is whether we have entered into an agreement with Untag in terms of this Convention. This is what the hon the Minister of Finance professes.

In connection with the exemption from taxation, the hon the Minister referred to the Gazette of 17 March 1975.I read the Gazette and I want to tell hon members that it is an ad hoc arrangement which was made here. There is no question, as the hon the Minister of Finance professes, that an agreement was entered into in terms of international conventions. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, permit me to say that we probably have the sharpest hon Minister of Finance in our political history as regards the remarks which he continually makes on a personal level and which I regard as beneath me to repeat—neither do I have the time for this.

In this connection I want to refer to the Gazette of 17 March and ask the Department of Foreign Affairs through the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs whether it is true that Untag has been granted exemption in connection with customs and excise duty on fuel purely for their official functions, or have they also been granted exemption in respect of non-official journeys which they undertake in their free time?

If I ask whether clause 8 of the current Bill which we are now discussing applies, it seems to me in view of the word formulation “for the benefit of the members of Untag” in the last phrase that they may even make use of this concession for their outings. It is not part of international law that international organisations like Untag may be granted exemptions in a capacity other than their official one. These questions have not yet been cleared up. We have reservations regarding this Bill, but it is an important one and the CP supports the Bill as a whole.

Mr Chairman, I listened with very great interest to the last hon member. He attended the same university that I attended, and took the same course. To me it really felt as though I was sitting in a class being given by an ex-professor 30 years ago, but sometimes a person’s intelligence drives one crazy. That is the impression I got here today, but I gladly follow him. I shall try to reply to some of the points.

I do want to say, though, that I was certainly not impressed by the attendance of the hon members of the CP of the meeting of the joint committee that dealt with this Bill. There may be other circumstances, which I do not want to go into, but I was impressed by the way in which other hon members attended the meeting of the joint committee, which was attended on the part of the department by the chief of protocol, Mr Crewe-Brown, and the law adviser, Advocate Pieterse, to whom the hon member for Turffontein also referred. My feedback was that that meeting lasted for 1⅛ hours, that hon members asked many questions and that those questions were really replied to in detail. In fact, I received feedback from the law adviser in which each of those points that were raised there, had really been replied to in detail. That is what these joint committees are there for.

[Inaudible.]

No, that is in fact the problem. I understand the hon member for Randfontein was there.

[Inaudible.]

I am very sorry to hear that. It is very difficult for me to reply to many of these questions at this stage. I accept that, but I just want to tell hon members that those opportunities are being created. They must please make use of them.

I want to begin by thanking hon members very sincerely for their kind words, which came from all quarters. I am truly very grateful for that. They will understand that it is with mixed feelings that one has to leave this interesting place. I hope it is not absolutely permanent.

I also thank hon members for the unanimity from all quarters, in regard to this legislation. It is very important legislation. I wonder whether hon members realise how important it is that South Africa, after 26 years, is now at last becoming a member of the Vienna Conventions. I think it is part of the reform effort in this country that we have now gone so far, and have done so with the concurrence of the CP—-I find that so marvellous—as to actually join the Vienna Conventions.

I want to thank the hon member for Diamant for his speech. As the spokesman on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives he has always made very positive contributions in debates at which I was present. He made an interesting contribution here on the questions of section 14, the purchase of land, and the arrangement that is being inserted there. I think it is a very good arrangement for practical purposes that this clause should be inserted there.

†It is nothing new. We simply inherited it or took it from the American and Finnish legislation to try to obviate the situation in South Africa.

He said we must be careful. We will certainly be careful not to allow things to go wrong in this respect. However, it is necessary to have all these provisions so as to accommodate the representatives from abroad.

*I want to react to a few things the hon member for Soutpansberg said. The Afrikaans terms “volkereg” and “internasionale reg” are really synonymous. [Interjections.] I am having problems with the hon member for Losberg. He is the Professor, the “Beste Professor”. I repeat, the Afrikaans terms “volkereg” and “internasionale reg” are synonymous. Both consist of customary law, the law of treaties and general principles. To split hairs about this is in my opinion completely unnecessary. Let us be practical and make the best of the situation. We are now joining the Vienna Conventions, we are going to enjoy the benefits pertaining thereto and we are going to make the best of it. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to say that South Africa, by becoming a party to the Conventions, ratifies all the provisions of the Conventions. The fact that we are not including all the provisions in our Schedule does not mean that we will not comply with all our obligations in respect of the Conventions. It is stated specifically in clause 2 that South Africa accepts those Conventions. That is what we are dealing with here.

The other question which the hon member for Soutpansberg also mentioned, namely that in terms of this legislation the hon the State President has the right to promulgate certain amendments, was also raised during the meeting of the joint committee. It was one of the hon members of the House of Delegates who wanted to know at that meeting how this worked, whether it was not possible to do something contrary to the legislation in this way. The object is simply to enable the hon the State President, if necessary, to include provisions of the Vienna Conventions which are not included in Schedules 1 and 2, in due course. If the Conventions are amended, the hon the State President has the right to insert such amendments by way of proclamation. Consequently it will not be necessary to submit new legislation every time.

I want to make it very clear that the object is by no means that the hon the State President may, of his own accord, amend the provisions of the Conventions. In fact, if that were the case, South Africa would be acting contrary to its international obligation.

The hon member for Soutpansberg also referred in detail to the question of asylum. Although a regional customary law rule exists among states in South America which permits asylum in embassies and consular premises, such a rule definitely does not exist in the rest of the international community. The rule is recognised that embassies and consulates are granted what is called “temporary refuge” if a person’s life is in imminent danger. However, there is definitely no rule which grants “refuge” on a permanent or even semi-permanent basis. Even if a foreign mission were to act in a manner contrary to the rules of international law, it does not mean—I think this is the important fact—that South Africa can take any steps which are contrary to the inviolability of such premises.

It must be borne in mind that if South Africa, for whatever reason, were to violate the premises of such a mission, it would mean that our representatives in our premises overseas might find themselves in material danger.

The hon member for Soutpansberg also mentioned interference in internal matters and what the American ambassador had ostensibly said about South Africa according to reports. It is an internationally recognised and accepted principle that countries and their representatives shall not interfere in one another’s affairs. I therefore want to give the hon member for Soutpansberg the assurance that the Department of Foreign Affairs guards carefully against any contravention of this rule, whether by ambassadors or by so-called information services. [Interjections.] I concede that it does in fact occur, and we become just as unhappy about it as others do, but the department does not hesitate to act where this does occur. In the nature of the case it will not always be desirable to do this in public, but I should like to give hon members the assurance that it is undoubtedly being done on an ongoing basis.

Mr Chairman, no doubt the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister has been drawn to the fact that Ambassador Perkins made a remark on television yesterday to the effect that he would propagate sanctions against South Africa, and a statement was issued to the effect that the Department of Foreign Affairs would investigate the context in which this statement had been made. I should like to know whether a decision has been taken in regard to this matter, and if it has, what is going to be done about it.

I should like to give the hon member the assurance that we are studying that specific remark, but no decision has been taken as yet. [Interjections.]

†I would like to thank the hon member Mr Seedat for a very fine speech.

*I should also like to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Turffontein. The hon member for Turffontein is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid. I should like to thank the hon member sincerely, on behalf of the department, for the excellent work he is doing there and for the way in which he dealt with this legislation, which could easily have become an awkward situation, but which was eventually accepted unanimously by all the hon members. Apart from that, I also want to thank the hon member for his chairmanship of the NP caucus group on foreign affairs, where he has also done excellent work as the main NP speaker. I want to congratulate him and wish him everything of the best for the future.

†I would also like to thank the hon member Mr Lambat for his contribution. I do not think he is here at this stage. I would also like to thank the hon member for Berea for his input. I think the hon member gave us a very neat summary of the whole piece of legislation. As I have said earlier, the fact that our Government accepted these Conventions plays a very important part in the whole process of reform.

*I come next to the hon member for Southern Cape, who raised a point which I should very much like to emphasise. The point was that during the past few years it has truly been the ideal of the Department of Foreign Affairs—and will continue to be in future—to develop our relations with Africa as quickly, as satisfactorily and as firmly as possible. We are building very interesting bridges to Africa. Already we have a formal representation on a non-official basis in several African states. We have trade representation, or representation of some kind or other there. We shall have to develop this. There are cases that have been upgraded in the meantime.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon member said and thank him for pointing out that we in South Africa, who are the powerhouse of Southern Africa, will also have to open our doors to missions from many parts of Africa so that they can establish themselves here, so that we will be able to make the acquaintance at first hand and on a personal level of the representatives of these countries in the interests of the entire Southern African region, and that we will build on what has already been done.

The hon member for Losberg made a very interesting, complicated speech which my law adviser will probably understand more of than I do myself. What I know about international law of nations dates from the days—approximately 30 years ago—when I was still at university. In regard to many of the points which that hon member raised, I shall have to say that I bow to his superior knowledge, and we will definitely ask our law advisers to take a look at certain aspects which the hon member raised in this connection.

As far as Untag and all those related matters are concerned, I want to point out that we are engaged in a process in South West Africa. We have no option but to give these people the opportunities which other people would have received under certain circumstances on an international level. It is in South Africa’s interests that that situation should be resolved, and my earnest request is that we should try, in all quarters, to make the transition as easy as possible.

Allow me finally, since this is my last participation in Parliament—I hope not for always—to thank hon members of all the Houses very sincerely for their co-operation over a period of approximately eight years. The hon member for Diamant spoke about a record. I hold another interesting record I want to tell hon members about, and that is that on 1 July I will have been in Parliament and the Provincial Council for 15 years and six days, but that during the process I fought only one election. I wonder whether there is an hon member in this committee who will be able to emulate that. [Interjections.]

I want to convey my very sincere thanks to all my colleagues, as well as the officials of Parliament, the Chairman, and my own personnel in the Department of Foreign Affairs, under the direction of Mr Neil van Heerden, who is doing excellent work in the interests of South Africa. I thank them all very sincerely.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 19h02.

Mr Chairman, this is the customary Bill which comes at the end of every session, and which in some quarters is called the “rommelkaswet”. Every conceivable thing is put into the same Bill, which therefore covers a variety of subjects. It is therefore somewhat difficult to seek to cover every possible subject that is contained therein. Let me, however, raise some specific issues arising from this Bill.

The first is the question of the transfer of the surplus from the end of the last financial year of two amounts, one of a billion rand and the other of R320 million. The R320 million goes to the Special Defence Account, and as a result defence expenditure for the current year is being increased to that extent even though this is not shown in the appropriation accounts.

However, the important one is the appropriation of a billion rand in order to deal with the deficit in the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account. Now, at the moment that deficit has reached quite tremendous proportions. When I say tremendous proportions, we are dealing with a situation where this amount is probably less than 10% of that deficit. It may even be considerably less than that. Perhaps in his reply the hon the Deputy Minister will tell us what the actual figure is as we sit here at this moment.

To my mind this represents a major error of judgement, because the reality is that the majority of this loss has come about as a result of the granting of forward exchange cover to importers in South Africa. What is happening is that the importers of South Africa are being subsidised by the taxpayer. If one wants forward exchange cover one should obtain it through commercial banks on commercial bank terms in the ordinary course of events.

To seek to impose this responsibility on the taxpayer is to my mind utterly wrong. I think this is slowly dawning upon the authorities, but in the meantime it is costing the taxpayers of South Africa billions and billions of rand which could be put to better use. I could find a dozen good uses for this R1 000 million other than this one to which it is being put at the moment.

The second issue I would like to touch on is the development boards. The Western Cape Development Board has over the years been the subject of considerable investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. It has been an unsatisfactorily managed activity. We were assured over the years that things were going to be put right and now that the end of that era has come, the price has to be paid. It is again a price for mismanagement and it is a price of R36 million which comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets.

Let me deal with a third matter, namely unauthorised expenditure. Here we have a classic case which we are dealing with at the moment—the Department of National Health and Population Development. A very detailed investigation by the Public Accounts Committee has taken place, but do hon members know what happens in this country of ours?

People who have got no factories, people who have got no shops, people who have got no stock, find themselves being given tenders to provide furniture in particular, since that is what we are talking about here. They go around, they get the tender and then they do not deliver the goods. In many cases these are people of no means and no substance. Why one deals with these people at all in these circumstances, and without tenders being called for, is of course a matter which requires considerable explanation.

I must say that not only should the Tender Board regulations apply—and that is a default on the part of an official—but what is more significant is that the departments themselves should consider who they do business with and not do business with, people who in many cases are companies of straw and of no consequence.

Let me deal with another matter, the question of the Land Bank, which as hon members know is one of my favourites. I must tell hon members that I worry myself sick considering the power which is now being given to the Land Bank—with its history—to enable it to go into this kind of speculative activity. The reality is that nobody can convince me as I stand here that the Land Bank has the skilled personnel to go into this kind of sophisticated business activity. I challenge the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me that they have got the skills.

One day maybe neither of us will be here, but somebody is going to be standing up here and saying that Harry Schwarz warned the hon the Deputy Minister about what was going to happen if they went into this kind of speculative activity without the necessary skills.

We gave exactly the same warning with regard to the banks and foreign exchange activities at the time when Senator Horwood was the Minister of Finance. He pooh-poohed it and the reality is that they are allowing people to go into business which they know nothing about. They will only find that they end up getting us all into trouble and as a result it is going to cost us a tremendous amount of money.

We get the same sort of situation in regard to what is going to happen to the railway pension funds and here we must express a word of caution. We have abolished prescribed investments even though the explanatory memorandum—and I would direct the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to it—does not seem to know that we have abolished prescribed investments. It still says that now that we are giving them freedom to invest as they like, they have to follow the prescribed investments. If the hon the Deputy Minister cares to look at it, it is on page 20 of the explanatory memorandum. Apparently they do not know what is going on when it comes to the legislation.

However, I must tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I want some answers to questions. What is the state of the railway pension funds? What is the situation with regard to the deficit? What is the availability of investment expertise in relation to these funds?

There are thousands and thousands of people—widows, children and elderly people who depend on the pension funds for their existence, and one cannot take chances. Since the State will no longer have the responsibility, because it will be in a separate company and will be administered separately, we have to be sure before we pass laws that we in fact know that we are doing the right thing in this regard.

Let me deal with a couple of other things such as the question of the public debt commissioners, the delegation of powers, the question of outside portfolio management and financial instruments.

Again, we in South Africa are all suddenly getting involved in a very sophisticated financial market. This is the same comment which I made in regard to the Land Bank, except that I think I have far greater confidence in the Public Debt Commissioners than I have in the management of the Land Bank as regards dealing with these financial instruments. However, we have to be given the assurance, since we are developing these sophisticated markets and getting involved in them, not just that we are going to make profits, but also that we will not make losses. We have to be given the assurance that the purpose is merely to cover oneself against contingencies and not simply that because there is now an exciting new type of financial market activity, we ourselves are going to be in it.

There are many other things that one can deal with in relation to this legislation. There are some things which one welcomes, for example the consolidation of securities. The State will be able to consolidate particular securities which are issued. Eskom has done it very successfully and I think it will help the financial market if we do so.

Regarding the question of the Lesotho Highland Water Scheme, we need some answers in regard to the following: What is the extent of the guarantees, which in fact are going to be the entities, what is going to be guaranteed by Lesotho and what is going to be guaranteed by us? I would imagine that despite the debt standstill, our creditworthiness in the world must obviously be very much better than that of Lesotho. Therefore some more explanation in relation to this needs to be given.

I say that whereas there are things in this Bill which are obviously advantageous and which we can support, there are also many questions that need to be asked regarding a whole variety of topics that cover many departments. I hope that before this debate is finished, we will get some answers to these questions. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to speak after the hon member for Yeoville.

Before I come to the Bill, I should like to have a word with the hon the Deputy Minister. I have the highest regard for this hon Deputy Minister, and he knows it. However, last week I sat in my office listening to the debate over the loudspeakers. I was scandalised by remarks made by this hon Deputy Minister. On various occasions I have personally tried to defend the financial measures and actions of the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister here and very often come off second best, both in private discussions and in my caucus. I was therefore grossly offended when very disparaging remarks were made about the House of Representatives. I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister, whom we hold in very high esteem, to apologise today, an apology which we really do deserve.

I said that it was a privilege to speak after the hon member for Yeoville. It was a pleasure to listen to him. I agree with him in many respects, but there are also certain aspects in regard to which I do not agree with him. I am thinking specifically of the capital grants for Khayelitsha. I believe we must make efforts in this country to uplift people. I agree with the hon member that the hon the Deputy Minister must spell out for us the question of guarantees in regard to the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

I cannot understand how the hon member for Yeoville can draw a distinction in respect of expertise in the capital market, approving it in the case of the SATS and running it down in the case of the Land Bank. All that is necessary is to obtain the expertise.

The Finance Bill is, of course, one of those omnibus bills which are usually submitted at the end of the session in order to cover outstanding financial obligations. Let me say right at the outset that we support this Bill unconditionally.

Clause 1 provides that R1 billion be paid to the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account. We realise the urgency of this transfer payment but, like the hon member for Yeoville, we ask that the hon the Deputy Minister tell us in his reply what the accumulated losses amounted to at the end of the past financial year.

Clause 2 provides that the amount of R36 million, being the total amount of interest-free loans to the Western Cape Area Development Board for the resettlement of Black people at Khayelitsha, be transformed into a capital grant to the National Housing Fund. We support this measure because it is of the utmost importance to us that people should be removed from the terrible conditions at Crossroads. However, it is also a fact that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Crossroads are unemployed and would find it difficult to meet their obligations there.

Clauses 3 and 4 deal with unauthorised expenditure in the respective provinces. There was a meeting of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts this morning at which the relevant amounts for payment were approved. Like the hon member for Yeoville, I want to express our concern over the fact that regulations are not being complied with.

Clauses 5 to 8 are a direct result of the investigation by the De Kock Commission which recommended that all Land Bank credit instruments should lose their liquid asset status. The Banks Act of 1965 was consequently amended to give effect to this recommendation. In order to effect a reduction in the rate of interest applicable to primary Land Bank debenture issues and to retain the support of investors, the Land Bank was compelled to create a secondary market for its own credit instruments at the end of 1988. The creation of this secondary market was well-received by those participating in the capital market, since the managing director of the Land Bank stated, in a submission to the joint committee, that transactions on the secondary market thus far amount to approximately R3,021 million.

The Bill also makes provision for hedging against possible losses. If one takes into consideration that as at 31 March of this year, the Land Bank had financed assets totalling R8,354 million and that the Land Bank’s total debenture issue amounted to R2,578 million on that date, the Land Bank is actually compelled to hedge against losses in respect of these market transactions.

Clauses 9 to 13 deal exclusively with the SATS. In terms of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act of 1989, the SATS will soon have the legal status of a public company. These clauses provide for the lifting of restrictions on the investment of their surplus funds.

Clause 15 provides for guarantees to foreign creditors involved in the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. Like the hon member for Yeoville, I am again requesting the hon the Deputy Minister to tell us in his reply what guarantees there are and what the respective obligations of the two countries will be. We are pleased to support these amendments since not only will the increasing pressure on our water resources be alleviated, but also because Lesotho will benefit greatly as a result.

If South Africa wants to continue its reform programme in peace, it is essential that we at least have stable neighbouring states, and cooperation in this regard can only promote sound relations between these two states.

Clauses 17 to 22 amend the Public Investment Commissioners Act. The contemplated privatisation of the SATS will mean that the organisation’s surplus funds and pension funds will no longer have to be invested in the Public Investment Commissioners. The SATS will henceforth no longer have a commissioner on the PIC. We are pleased to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I would not like to go into the entire Bill, but the hon the Minister knows very well that the Land Bank Act is my favourite subject. I refer especially to clauses 5 to 8. I would like to warn the hon the Minister about throwing the Land Bank into the deep end of the financial market. They do not possess the necessary expertise to trade on the open market.

We had a glaring example of what happened in the SATS where an amount of R3,2 billion had to be written off. Were there no experts of some kind working there? Were there not professional dealers in finance working there? Their error in judgement has cost the taxpayers of this country an amount of R3,2 billion.

My main problem is that the Land Bank does not deserve to be given this right. For what purpose are they raising these funds? The primary function of the Land Bank is to assist farmers who are lethargic when it comes to production, farmers who are incapable of raising their own funds somewhere else, farmers who farm with pointed fingers and not with their own hands and by the sweat of their brows.

There is something else that worries me. Since I came to Parliament, I think that loans close to an amount of R1 billion which were given to farmers were written off. Quite recently—a fortnight ago—an amount of some R417 million was written off. These loans were given to farmers by the Land Bank and the farmers failed to pay back these loans. Are we going to create further funds for the Land Bank to hand out to farmers indirectly and then have the farmers come back to the Minister and say that those loans should be written off?

Do you hate the farmers?

I myself am a farmer and that is on record. I did not exact a single cent from the taxpayers. I am a successful farmer. I have not had a cent given to me in the form of a Government subsidy. I never borrowed a cent from the Government. I brought up three children from the proceeds of my smallholding. My argument is based on practical experience. If a farmer is prepared to work, if a farmer is intelligent enough, then he must run his farm like any other business. No man would open a factory shop or a stockbroker’s office or a garage without weighing up the pro’s and con’s of the industry.

That is why you are successful!

That is no argument! There are farmers which have to be carried by the taxpayers. [Interjections.] This arrangement in this Bill is just to accommodate 55 000 farmers and nobody else! [Interjections.] The people of colour do not get the same assistance from the Land Bank. Their loans are not written off. Consistently, every second or third year, the Land Bank has to write off another half a billion rands worth of farmers’ loans. Why? That is the million dollar question! Why must the South African taxpayer carry the burden of those lazy farmers? [Interjections.]

You hate the farmers!

I do not hate the farmers. I hate hon members of Parliament who sit shaking their heads and do not contribute constructive arguments in this House. They are also a burden to the taxpayers. We are here to safeguard this country, to make it a safe country for future generations. We are here to protect the interests of the country and its people. If any hon member of Parliament falls within that lethargic category, I will hate him too!

The point is that the Land Bank must not be allowed to deal in the open financial market. They do not need that power. They do not need those funds, because the Land Bank primarily exists to assist 55 000 farmers. I think 78% of all farmers do not even pay tax. They do not pay income tax. Those are the farmers who use the Land Bank. They borrow heavily, and when they show losses they beg the Government to write off those loans which are given to them at the taxpayers’ expense.

Therefore the Land Bank must under no circumstances be thrown into the deep end of the stormy waters of the fiscal market. That would actually be to call for disaster. We are inviting eventual trouble and insolvency. Therefore it is my strong advice to the hon the Minister to withdraw these privileges from the Land Bank and to safeguard the fiscal system. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am not going to reply to the hon member who has just spoken. In my opinion it would be better if he came to a farmers’ day in the Northern Transvaal. We would then see what happened to him. He most probably farms in one of the most…

Is that a threat to one of our hon members?

Mr Chairman, I am not threatening him. I am telling him to come and tell it to those farmers and to see what happens then. [Interjections.] He most probably farms in one of the wettest and most prosperous parts of the country. There are many parts of this country that at this stage are nothing more than a desert. [Interjections.]

*This Bill deals with a variety of financial measures. We shall refer to only a few of them, because we were asked to assist in saving time.

Mr Chairman, does that hon member know what percentage of farmers are paying income tax and how many are not paying tax at all?

I know that some farmers do not pay income tax.

I asked the hon member what percentage of farmers are paying tax and what percentage are not.

The reason for that is that their expenditure exceeds their income. [Interjections.] I do not know what that hon member knows about income and expenditure, but apparently it is not very much. One is taxed on one’s profits and not on one’s losses.

*I want to refer to the amount of R36 702 148,08 which was granted to the Western Cape Development Board as a bridging loan during the financial year ending in March 1986. A bridging loan is supposed to be just that, and consequently there must be certainty in respect of whether it can be repaid. In the second place a bridging loan generally has to be repaid within a specific and usually relatively short period.

The Government is supposed to make sure of these facts before it grants such a loan. In the same year in which the Government granted that loan, it abolished the development bodies and transferred their obligations inter alia to the Administrator of the Cape. Three years later Parliament was informed that the five-year term of repayment was too short, and it was proposed that the loan be written off. This is therefore a good definition of a write-off. An amount of R36 million is being written off without any further ado. That is great fun. It is nothing but a hand-out!

Why has the repayment period not been doubled or trebled? The memorandum indicates that it is actually a matter of the length of the term, but 15 years would not be long for the repayment of an amount of R36 million. We shall leave it at that. Those are our comments and our criticism with regard to this matter.

It is very clear that the Land Bank wants to enter into an additional sector of the money market in order to keep up with the needs of its clients. The Land Bank has always been a careful and conservative participant in the money market, for which it deserves praise. With regard to the Land Bank, the aforegoing criticism was so unfounded that I do not think we need bother about it. It was instituted specifically to finance a certain sector of the national economy. That is why its funding of agriculture is one or two percentage points lower than that of other financial institutions. The agricultural sector has always appreciated that.

It is easy for the Land Bank to do that, because over the years it has built up considerable reserves for itself—specifically for the lean years. It is very clear that with the present fluctuation in interest rates, the Land Bank is in danger of suffering losses, which can seriously erode its reserves. I suspect that that is mainly why it is now seeking the authority to take part in the money market in this way.

We must issue a warning, however. This is an extremely speculative market, and a dangerous sphere to enter unless one has the necessary expertise to do so. I think the Land Bank’s lesson resides in what happened to the SATS when they speculated on the international money market. The SATS received a set-back which it will not recover from for many years, and in the process they lost over R3 billion. We therefore want our warning in this connection placed on record.

Clause 15 deals with the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme. What this amounts to is that South Africa is going to stand surety for certain projects with reference to the water supply in South Africa which are undertaken by a South African or an interstatal body. We find no fault with such an arrangement, but merely wonder whether this is not another way in which South Africa is ultimately going to finance the whole scheme.

With reference to clause 15 the memorandum says the State’s accountability in respect of certain projects will be made known annually, but on a general basis. If this is made known on a general basis, it means only one thing, viz that a single amount is going to be stated. It therefore creates the problem that we shall not be able to distinguish the State’s obligation in respect of specific projects.

I shall leave it at that. I am pleased the hon the Minister is here himself. In his reply to the Second Reading debate on Friday, he referred to something I had ostensibly said at an auction, namely: “You are not to sell to a Nationalist.” A few moments later he came to me saying that I should provide proof that that was not true.

You merely have to say what the truth is!

I shall tell him now. I shall come to that in a moment; he must wait.

I cannot wait.

I am not going to say that it was a deliberate untruth or a blatant lie. I want to tell the hon the Minister that it was absolute rubbish. It was such a microscopically petty comment that it does not really justify an answer. Since it was addressed to me, however, I want it on record.

In addition to what I market directly or sell privately, I sell at auctions. I sell at one auctioneer’s auctions, and those are the auctions of the Transvaal Livestock Co-operative. I do not think the manager of that co-operative in my constituency is a member of my party. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we get together at auctions, irrespective of politics and whether we are CPs, DPs or even Nats, and we buy from and sell to one another. We do not refer to one another’s politics.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the story he told here is already doing the rounds in Soutpansberg. I telephoned the manager of TLC in Soutpansberg and told him that I had sold only at his auctions. I then asked him whether there was anything in the story. He rejected it.

I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that this is an untruth, but what I actually want to say is that it simply proves how the Nats gossip. Then the hon the Minister tells such a petty snippet of gossip across the floor of this House.

I want to confine myself to telling him that this story was unworthy of this Place. It was also unworthy of the debate, and of a South African Minister of Finance. If one should ask oneself whether a Klaas Havenga, an Eben Dönges or a Nic Diederichs would ever have told such a story, one would know that they would never have done so.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that he try to live up to the status of the position he holds.

Economic boycotts deserve comment!

Mr Chairman, I am so desperately sorry that I have to speak after the hon member who has just spoken. Where, oh, where have I ever sinned, that I have to speak after that hon member who threatened and insulted the hon member for Camperdown? I hope that such a mix-up on the list of speakers does not happen again, in that the speaker who should have spoken before me withdraws and I have to shoulder the sorry burden of having to speak after that hon member. Actually, I should not even have referred to him.

The reasons for this Bill are quite clear if one looks at the memorandum on the objects of the Bill. Inter alia with regard to clause 1, the fact is that we have a debit balance on the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account and we cannot wish that fact away. It is a very unhealthy state of affairs which needs to be redressed to some extent. Clause 1 seeks to redress this problem to some extent and we of the DRP have no problem with the fact that it should be done.

Clause 2 has to do with the need for more money to be spent on housing for the Black community. There is a dire need for more money to be spent on Black housing and we have to find that money somewhere. I would, however, have been a bit happier if the interest rate of 11¼% could have been reduced in an attempt to make housing more affordable to our poorer communities.

Hon members who spoke before me dealt adequately with the remainder of the clauses. Since this is a necessary measure, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the debate on this Bill has ranged fairly widely and I think most of the clauses have been covered in lesser or greater detail. The one point that I would like to deal with very briefly was initially touched on by the hon member for Yeoville and relates to the R36 million for housing in Khayelitsha. It was subsequently also referred to by the hon member for Soutpansberg.

That matter, which is covered in clause 2 of this Bill, deals with the funding of housing in Khayelitsha and the effect is to convert a loan of nearly R37 million, made in 1985 to the then Western Cape Development Board, to a non-repayable capital grant to the National Housing Fund. It is not necessary for me to emphasise the need for funds for Black housing, particularly here in the Western Cape.

Funding of the National Housing Fund, which in turn lends to home-owners at a subsidised rate of 11¼%, plays an integral part in the financing of housing development. For that reason I welcome this decision and encourage the hon the Minister to continue in his endeavours to seek ways of satisfactorily financing this very great need in our country.

Mr Chairman, just for the information of the hon member for Soutpansberg, I am also from Natal, and I should like him to know that Natal is also a province that experiences drought and floods, and the farmers there have an equal share of problems.

Hear, hear!

As mentioned by other hon members, this is an omnibus Bill usually submitted at the end of the session in order to finalise outstanding financial obligations. The hon member for Yeoville, for whom I have the highest respect, has dealt amply with several of these clauses.

I just wish to deal with one aspect, namely that of charging the State Revenue Account with certain unauthorised expenditure, particularly that of the various provinces. My concern here is the large sums of money spent in the Department of National Health and Population Development. It was only this morning at one of the meetings that the Treasury made a recommendation that there should be no check-ups or follow-ups on the pricing and on these payments. I think this creates some doubt and some measures must be taken to ensure stricter control in order to curb these unnecessary expenses.

With these few words we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I gladly take part in this debate on behalf of the ruling party. I should like to come back to a few remarks that were made here this afternoon. Hon members must excuse me; I am only a simple farmer and I do not know much about finance. However, this afternoon I, as a farmer, felt that the hon member for Yeoville as well as the hon member for Camperdown lashed out here at the agricultural industry and especially the management of the organisation that finances agriculture in this country.

I have proof that the Land Bank has not written off a single cent in debt for a farmer over the years. The second point is that they have not yet lost a single cent in debt, because the Land Bank has always taken the stand that they only help the farmer who can service and finance his debt properly.

That’s a nice farming activity, isn’t it—the Twin Towers in Sea Point.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to refer to what the hon member for Yeoville also said. If he wants the Land Bank to borrow money on the open market at current rates, they must also be entitled to service their financing like the private section in this country.

*It surely cannot be permitted that the Land Bank is allowed, as the De Kock Commission advised in 1984, to lose its liquid assets and the advantages which it enjoyed in that regard, while not being allowed to compete with other institutions on the open market in 1988. I think we should be consistent now. I reject these ideas that were expressed here this afternoon, because over the years we have come to know the Land Bank and the management of the Land Bank as very responsible people, and I think they will develop this further in future. As a farmer I have confidence that they will serve me in that way.

If we now take a look at the background—which was spelt out here in detail this afternoon—I want to come back to the point that agriculture was advantageously financed in the past. We do not doubt this. However, if we take into consideration today that it competes on equal terms for money on the open market, it is unreasonable to expect that it will not as a result of this competition be on an equal footing with Eskom and other Government institutions. They must be able to compete and also share the same capital, financing or credit instruments as those institutions. This arrangement was made merely to correct these matters.

We gladly support this piece of legislation. I also refer to other clauses in this Bill that were referred to this afternoon with regard to housing and the permission that was given to the hon the Minister so that he has the opportunity to create a contingency reserve fund as well as other measures. We ask the Committee to support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak on clause 4, which concerns the authorisation of expenditure on various matters raised by the joint committee on provincial and other accounts. I wish to refer in particular to the two instances of overexpenditure incurred by the provinces of Natal and the Orange Free State in connection with hospital services. I understand fully that the authorisation granted here is a pro forma one, and one done at the request of the joint committee, but I wish to suggest that it does raise the entire question of expenditure and overexpenditure, particularly in terms of the Natal expenditure which was in order as indicated in the accounts of the provincial administration in 1986-87. It was an expenditure in order to gain the best benefit in terms of purchasing large-scale equipment.

This would seem to me to raise the entire question of tight budgeting as well as the requirement that this overexpenditure which is now being authorised, having to proceed through the particular pattern that it does.

The matter was raised in the Natal Committee in 1987 and the full justification of the Director of Hospital Services was received and fully understood at that time. It would seem to me to be one of the matters which, when the way in which we consider legislation and the Budget is reviewed, can be reconsidered.

The second matter concerns an expenditure incurred by the Orange Vaal Area Development Board. It is an expenditure of R14 000 for the purchase of a motor vehicle which was unauthorised and which is hereby being authorised. We are aware that the Joint Committee on Provincial Accounts has examined a number of matters in connection with the development boards, several of which still have to come before this House. We will be waiting for those.

However, it appears to be one of those matters where it is to be hoped that the entire relationship which developed between the development boards and the provincial administration—or shall I say the central Government per se—is one which can be ironed out as quickly as possible. It has given rise to considerable problems and as the hon the Minister of Finance is no doubt well aware, has also created problems with regard to persons previously employed by the development boards that are now under the central Government on a different pay scale. However, that is a different matter.

This expenditure is authorised. It is separated from the amount concerning the purchase of water tankers for Qwaqwa. In matters such as these which have appeared before the joint committee and have been supported by all the parties, we will obviously give this particular clause our support.

Mr Chairman, it is understandable that in an election year the tone of speeches changes somewhat. However, I do not think that election time makes it necessary for speakers to totally ignore explanatory memoranda and the true reasons behind specific statutory amendments and instead try to score political points in respect of the issues involved.

I wish to address the hon member for Yeoville. According to the findings of the De Kock Commission, the creation of competing financial markets in which market-related and flexible interest rates were determined by market factors was a point of departure. The question is whether he agrees with that or not. If he agrees with it I want to know why he is opposed to the Land Bank, too, being brought more into line with this objective.

One could ask questions about the confusion in the ranks of the DP about an economic approach. However, it is pointless saying that we must have a market-related system with market-related interest rates and then, when these are extended to apply to a specific institution, to advance major and serious objections.

You were not listening.

All of a sudden the norm is being applied in the case of the Land Bank that their expertise in operating at this level should be taken into account. I deny the contention of the the hon member for Yeoville that they do not possess this expertise.

However, I would like to ask the the hon member for Yeoville whether it is the case that when the Government has to organise the economy on a more market-related basis, its first aim should be to carry out an investigation into the expertise of each institution. Did the hon member concern himself with the expertise of the private sector banking institutions before they gained these opportunities? Why, then, is this applied to the Land Bank?

Surely it could have been possible—I suggest that this is already the case—that the Land Bank is able to organise itself at a managerial level so as to have the expertise to compete in this market as well. It is also important to note that the Land Bank in fact has no alternative but to have at its disposal the powers vested in it in terms of this Bill if it is to operate in this market. The forfeiture of the liquid asset status of the Land Bank’s credit instruments has meant that the margin between the rate of interest at which Land Bank debenture issues are floated and those of comparable stock of other public-sector lenders has widened, to the extent that on occasion it has been as much as 1,3%.

The general increase in interest rates, on the other hand, has meant that the Land Bank has received requests from its investors to buy back their primary value paper issues, the currency of which had not yet expired. In this way a secondary market was created. It is also important that there had to be a hedge to provide the necessary assurance available to other institutions in this secondary market. This, too, is envisaged by this Bill.

The object of the proposed amendment, as stated here, is therefore to supplement the powers of the bank relating to the raising of funds and also to provide for ancillary rights and powers, thus enabling the Land Bank to hedge against losses in the secondary market in accordance with existing hedging practices. This is the very assurance which the hon member for Yeoville called for from the hon the Deputy Minister.

As far as this is concerned, I suggest that this is an essential and necessary result of the economic policy of the Government, as applicable to banking sectors, and that the apparent hysteria, which has nothing to do with these real arguments, is totally unnecessary.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin with the request put to me by the hon member Mr Douw. I am the last person who would go against the House of Representatives. I have introduced several Bills there and I think it has always been very pleasant, personally speaking, to work with them. I have always had a very good relationship with them. I want to add that hon members will surely not take it amiss of me if I perhaps react if someone says that the Government determines the gold price and the oil price. I can assure the hon member that that is casting no reflection on the House of Representatives.

Does it have to do with the fact that we know nothing?

Mr Chairman, I have just said that I apologise to the House of Representatives if I have perhaps offended them here. However, they will agree that we really do not determine the gold price.

I should like to deal with the first point relating to the forward exchange transactions. The hon member for Yeoville mentioned this. The losses are building up. I think the non-official figure is R11 billion. I can tell the hon member that this is not being used to finance luxury articles. I think the hon member knows it. Perhaps he was just thinking about the coming election. Much of this consists of capital goods.

I want to say the following to the hon member. I know that he is a good businessman. I want to ask him: If the Reserve Bank were finally to stop giving any forward cover to importers, what does he think would be the effect on the interest rates? He knows that. Our importers would then be obliged to borrow everything locally. Of course he knows that. If one gets no forward cover, and one does not want to take that risk, then one will borrow locally. [Interjections.] The hon member for Yeoville has just evaded the point. I am putting it very clearly to him. He knows what the consequences will be. He knows that we cannot finally put a stop to the provision of forward cover by the Reserve Bank. He knows that is impossible.

Where possible, we try to adapt gradually. In addition, we have recently adjusted the longterm cover. Therefore I do not think that this is entirely justifiable criticism. We should very much like to remove from our system the losses we have noted in the course of providing this forward cover. The question, however, is who is going to win and who is going to lose.

†Several hon members, including the hon member for Yeoville, mentioned Khayelitsha. There was support for the measure. The measure was criticised in that we wrote off the amount of R36 million. The hon member for Pinelands mentioned this and I think it is very important. I visited Khayelitsha two days ago and I am honestly proud of what we are doing there at present. This goes for Blue Downs as well. I mention Blue Downs, because I visited that area as well.

*In the short period of two to three years we have been building one of our new residential cities. The hon member for Soutpansberg criticised us in this regard. I really do not think that what is being done here should be criticised.

You are confusing the issue.

No.

It is not the housing that is the issue.

Development was carried out by the Development Boards and later by the Administrator. However we have now brought everything together under the National Housing Board. I think this is a major improvement which will result in better co-ordination. Something very important which has been left out here, is that the rental which will be required under the new system will suit the pockets of those people far better. I really think that the structural change caused problems, but we are on the right path. The most important thing is the end result. What is the end result? The end result is that beautiful housing is going up in Khayelitsha, Blue Downs and these places.

The hon member for Matroosfontein spoke about the 11,25% interest rate with reference to what is stated in clause 2. This is the ruling interest rate. It is subsidised on the basis of what people can afford. Ultimately it is not always this percentage of interest that is paid by the person who borrowed the money.

Clause 3, which the hon member for Yeoville mentioned, relates to the unauthorised expenditure by the Department of National Health. I think the hon member served on that committee. An inquiry was instituted and according to my information this fruitless expenditure that was incurred is now being claimed by legal process from the person who incurred it. The hon member for Yeoville, who has known the committee for years, knows that that is how it is done. In any organisation one finds that expenditures are incurred for which in terms of our laws there is no sanction.

†With regard to a question from the hon member for Yeoville concerning the SATS pension fund, we expect that an actuarial evaluation will be completed by June this year. The major portion of the fund’s investments will be handled by the private sector. The SATS has the necessary expertise to operate in a capital market and will therefore also handle a portion of the investments. Investments will comply with the rules laid down by the Registrar of Financial Institutions. I think the hon member for Rissik mentioned that, like the Land Bank, the SATS will also be under the control—with regard to pension funds, and so forth—of the Registrar of Financial Institutions and our laws controlling financial funds.

*I am very grateful for the support of the hon members for Cradock and Rissik. I have known the hon member for Yeoville for some years now. I think I have known him from the days of the flat!

The flat is still there!

I just want to say to the hon member that we did not buy the flat. However, I think its price was considerably higher than it is at present.

It has dropped!

I agree with hon members of my party who say that the Land Bank does outstanding work. I think the criticism levelled by the hon member for Yeoville was a little rough. He was rough even in the days of the flat! The Land Bank has been developing a secondary market for some time and it can handle it. The Land Bank is accustomed to this. The Land Bank is merely going to extend this with other forward business. Therefore this is not a foreign business which is going to be entering this field.

You are speaking just like Horwood!

Surely the hon member knows that the Land Bank co-operates closely with the Reserve Bank. The Land Bank is also in close contact with us. It has created a specialist division as far as funding is concerned.

Hon members also discussed the healthy finances of the Land Bank.

They are in a sorry state!

No, the hon member on that side just wants to make matters difficult for me today. It is interesting that in clause 7 (d) the Land Bank is being given the power to designate a person or persons as its agent or agents. This means that they can get outside people to assist them. If they do not possess all the expertise, they can get it on the market.

There is another important aspect which the hon member for Yeoville should, I think, have mentioned, but he did not do so. How far are we as regards computerisation of our financial institutions? Nowadays this is central to operating on the financial market. According to my information the Land Bank has made considerable progress with the computerisation of its programmes. Therefore I am sure that it will be a great success.

I think I have now dealt with the points raised by most hon members. I thank them for their support.

Debate concluded.

Business suspended at 15h18 and resumed at 19h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, earlier in this session we supported the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill which incorporated recommendations made by the De Kock Commission and which also made certain other technical changes. The Bill before us today consolidates existing legislation relating to the South African Reserve Bank and the monetary system of the Republic. No new law is being enacted and we support it.

I would like to draw attention to clause 10(1)(a) (ii). I think it is a tongue-twister which could be used to test the sobriety of car drivers. This clause entitles the bank to: “coin coins or cause coins to be coined”!

Clause 12 deals with the inspection of the affairs of persons, partnerships, close corporations and others not registered as a banking institution. This clause is extremely important. Far too many people have lost too much money in South Africa through being misled by unscrupulous people posing behind the facade of quasi-financial institutions which are not registered.

Such people need to be protected. People keen to make an overnight fortune are gullible to the extreme and our history is full of them. In this regard I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to pay particular attention to the names of organisations. All too often these are official sounding and people are misled into believing that they are dealing with a registered institution which is subject to vigorous controls. They are often misled in this regard and fortunes have been lost in the process.

Mr Chairman, we take pleasure in supporting the Bill. I gave a clear explanation of the Bill in the previous debate and consequently I have no further objections to it.

The previous speaker has already said that this is a consolidation of different pieces of legislation and we take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Sit down!

That hon member says I must sit down. I should like to tell him that I wonder whether his seat is still safe. Mine in the Western Free State is definitely still safe and I know that I am going to come back. I wonder whether the hon member is going to come back.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, seeing that we have so much good support for this Bill, I do not think I must make myself unpopular by speaking any further.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, during the past five years it has become customary for us to amend the Usury Act every year. We do not really have any fault to find with this, but because the principal Act is improved every year—and to a great extent we believe that shortcomings are eliminated in this way—I want to request the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to revising the entire Usury Act.

The amending Bill before the House enjoys our full support. The amendment is exclusively consumer-orientated and it is also no wonder that the Consumer Council submitted such a strongly worded memorandum. Recently it has become essential for certain financial measures to be taken to promote the economy. A change in the finance charge rate, particularly upwards, was a characteristic of these measures, and the amending Bill before the House provides for the announcing of a change in this finance charge rate. Section 3 of the principal Act is consequently being repealed and clause 5 makes it clear that the borrower, credit receiver or lessee shall be informed in writing within three months—instead of seven days—of an alteration in the finance charge rate.

The hon the Minister of Finance made it clear in a press statement which he issued on 27 February of this year that the seven day notification, and I quote—

It is apparent from this that the present monetary policy requires a quick reaction from the formal banking sector to changes in the bank rate. We believe that the proposed method of notification will achieve greater certainty among members of the public, but above all will be cost-effective for the industry. We take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Chairman, I heard an interjection that certain hon members are hungry. I must tell them that they are going to be a little hungrier yet.

I believe this is the last time that we will deal with a finance measure in a joint committee or a joint sitting where representatives of all three Houses will be present during the life of this Parliament. There will be no further proceedings in respect of finance measures other than the voting on this one, and as we have agreed on both measures, there will be no declarations of vote when we come to vote on them.

I would like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to a number of people. Firstly, if I may be permitted to do so, I think the chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance has done an outstanding job during this year and during the life of this Parliament. I have appreciated serving under him and working with him. I think he is really the sort of person that is least recognised in this Parliament. I would like to pay this tribute to him, if I may.

Secondly, I pay tribute to the members of the Joint Committee on Finance, the two chairmen for the other two Houses and the chairman for the House of Assembly—I think there is a separate chairman—because I believe that committee has actually worked very well. I think if the committee system works anywhere in Parliament, it works in the case of the finance committee.

Then I would like to say something about the hon the Deputy Minister. I must tell hon members that I think he is going through a very tough time at this stage. I must tell him that he has two qualities, which I am very pleased to be able to place on record. Firstly, I regard him as a person of tremendous ability when it comes to the field of finance, as well as with regard to applying himself to his job. He actually devotes a tremendous amount of time to his job, and he has the ability to apply himself to it. Thirdly, I can add that accessibility is a very important quality. He is accessible to people. He comes to the Joint Committee on Finance, he is part of that committee and I think it is an example which many other Deputy Ministers might well follow. At a time when I believe he is going through a rough time, I would like to rather draw attention to what I think are good and outstanding qualities.

It may be—and nobody knows what our lives have in store for us—that many of us, maybe even I, may not be here for the next Parliament. Therefore I think it is appropriate that some of these things that I have said go on record, and that we do not forget the kind of cameraderie, friendship and co-operation that we have had working on financial matters. This committee has actually worked—if I may use the term—in the interests of the people of South Africa. We have had less politics in this committee than anywhere else that I know of insofar as this Parliament is concerned.

Permit me, then, to come back to the Bill. Changes of interest rates often need to be effected at short notice, and they perhaps need to be effected even faster when it comes to dealing with the economy. Part of the problem of course, is that sometimes the action is not taken fast enough. The action which the authorities take does, of course, affect the banking sector and other people. The question of notice is therefore a most important one.

One of the things that concerns me is whether in fact the members of the public are all aware of the interest which they really pay. There are all sorts of provisions in the Usury Act, designed to inform the people concerned as to what the position is. However, I can tell hon members that my honest opinion is—and I think I have much to substantiate it with—that the majority of the ordinary members of the public who pay interest in respect of hire purchase agreements and on their overdrafts do not know what they are in fact paying, and what the rate of interest is. Even in respect of credit cards some of them would be shocked to know what rate of interest they are really paying.

This morning I listened to an advertisement about somebody who wanted to buy a new refrigerator. He was encouraged to buy it on a credit card. I wonder if they know what rate of interest it will cost them to pay for that refrigerator on a credit card. I would like, in these times, which are difficult economic times, to offer—if I may, in a respectful way—the following advice to the public at large.

Firstly, when we deal with loans of money, hire purchase agreements, leases, or any other financial transaction, we must deal with a reputable institution. Do not deal with fly by nights. Do not deal with people that one does not know will be there tomorrow. Deal with reputable people.

Secondly, people must ensure that they actually need the credit before they get themselves into debt. Rather stay out of debt if possible.

Thirdly, one must check the rate of interest one is paying. One should shop around to make sure one pays the lowest rate of interest possible.

Lastly, if one feels one is being done down, and that it is a case of exploitation, one must go or write to the Registrar of Financial Institutions and make a complaint and have it investigated. The public should not lie down and let people walk all over them.

Usury is one of the ways in which, since time immemorial, people have been exploited. However, if one is an ordinary individual, one should stand up for one’s rights. There are measures which protect people. The Usury Act is not perfect, and it will be reformed. An enquiry is taking place at the moment. This has been entrusted to the Law Commission. No doubt it will result in a better piece of legislation. However, my appeal to people is not to allow themselves to be exploited. They must stand up for their rights. There are people who are able to protect the ordinary members of the public. We support this measure.

Mr Chairman, as the final speaker in the final round of debates on financial matters, I think I must support what the hon member for Yeoville said about the chairman of our joint committee. Those of us on this and all other sides of the House are proud of having been privileged to serve under him on that committee.

*I should also like to thank the hon member Mr Douw, the chairman of the committee in the House of Representatives, for his contributions in this committee. Over the years we have got to know him as a reasonable man who made a positive contribution.

†I think we must also pay tribute to our deputy chairman, the hon member for Yeoville. I think that he has made a positive contribution on this committee. The hon member is to be commended on his objectivity and his analytical mind. We have always found him to be positive and a patriot. I was told a story yesterday concerning the Usury Amendment Bill which possibly bears repeating.

*I heard about a man who was selling solar heaters in a less well-to-do suburb in Cape Town. These solar heaters cost R5 000 each. The man went to the people and told them they need not pay; within two years Eskom would pay for them. Usually the people did not have cash on them and if this was the case he said to them that they had a mortgage on their house, and they said yes; he said to them their motor car was financed by the local bank, and they said yes; and he said to them they had bought their furniture on hire purchase too and they said yes. The man then said that it was easy; they would consolidate their debts, they would have the solar heater and what is more they would be given R10 000 to spend. Where is the catch? The catch is in the small print in which the interest rate is increased by at least 5%. I think we must protect the consumer in this regard against these crooks who are guilty of this kind of behaviour. I know it is late in the day and we want to prosecute them all. It is a great privilege for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal is hungry, and so am I. [Interjections.] I should also like to start by thanking the chairman of the joint committee, as well as the deputy chairman, the members and the hon member Mr Douw. I am also virtually a member of the family—the joint committee—and during this session we really dealt with the most Bills of all the committees. It was really a pleasure to be able to co-operate with the hon members of the joint committee, and I do not think we could have had a better team spirit. Sometimes one almost forgets that we belong to different parties, because when it comes to finance this does not really matter that much. Everyone is trying to do their best for South Africa and then one must follow the best financial policy.

†I also like the message from the hon member for Yeoville. That is what I always try to tell my kids. They are actually not children anymore—I have two grown-up sons. One must always check the interest one is really paying, go to a reputable firm and stay out of debt. I wish I could hammer that into all South Africans. It might not be good marketing to tell people to stay out of debt, because marketing students are taught that one has to create a demand.

*On the other hand I grew up with the idea that debt is a sin. I suspect the hon member for Vasco, the hon member for Yeoville and all of us also grew up with that idea. One must steer clear of this. I must say I am still afraid of incurring debts. We will probably see this Usury Amendment Bill again next year, because it is such an old friend of ours. In spite of the crises we have experienced with this Usury Amendment Bill, I want to thank the hon members for co-operating so that we could finalise this Bill this evening. As the hon member Mr Douw and other hon members mentioned, I hope that next time we will have a comprehensive and thoroughly worked out Bill in front of us. Although, when I consider the evil of exploitation which one must stamp out, I wonder whether one can ever have a Bill which can really stamp out this evil.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 19h20.

Mr Chairman, we are dealing here with the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill, which is a rather important piece of legislation. This measure provides for a Rules Board. Previously the function of that board was to provide administration to the Supreme Court and the lower courts.

The board is now to extend its powers and to provide for the administration of justice in the Appellate Division. At the Minister’s discretion such a service may now also be rendered to the Appellate Division.

The Bill also deals with the constitution of the board and also with the executive committee and its functions. This is a very important piece of legislation. We have no objection to it and we will support it.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my side of the House I want to thank the hon member Mr Thaver for his party’s support of the Bill before the House.

*The Bill before the House is actually the culmination of a process by means of which the Rules Board for Courts of Law is being extended to provide for the appointment of judges of appeal to serve on this board. When the Bill under discussion is passed, this board will be authorised also to make rules for that division.

Since the authority to promulgate all rules for our courts is vested in one body, I believe the rules will not only be fair and just, but will also lead to more rapid and cheaper settlement of disputes between the relevant parties. In particular I endorse the provision of alternate members and the exceptional procedure that has been prescribed and in which the executive committee will take the lead.

This Bill is a milestone on an evolutionary course of improved administration of justice in South Africa, and consequently it is my privilege to support the Bill on behalf of my side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I shall have to speak softly today; my throat is bothering me.

†The Bill before us is aimed at assisting the Rules Board, which is doing an excellent job. One appreciates what this board is doing. Clause 1 of the Bill defines the Supreme Court. Clause 2 now also allows the Minister to appoint a retired judge to become the vice-chairman. Clause 3 makes provision for the appointment of an executive committee of the board.

The other amendments are all consequential. This Bill will ensure that our courts can have an efficient and a uniform service.

The LP in the House of Representatives has no objections to the Bill before us.

Mr Chairman, if there is one joint committee that does its work properly and thoroughly, it is the Joint Committee on Justice. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who acts as chairman, for always accommodating us CPs. It was a pleasure to work with him.

I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate Mr André Bosch, who was the Chief Director, on his appointment as Deputy Director-General. He began his training at the magistrate’s office in Amersfoort in 1957.

I also want to congratulate Adv Rudman, who is always so helpful, on his appointment as Chief Director: Legal Services of the Department of Justice. He always helps us a great deal and we want to thank him for that.

I should like to speak in support of the amending Bill. The amending Bill has the objective of extending the power of the Rules Board for Courts of Law to make rules regulating the administration of justice in provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court by including therein the power to make such rules in respect of the Appellate Division too.

The Rules Board for Courts of Law, established by section 2 of the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act, No 107 of 1985, is authorised in section 6(1) of that Act, with a view to the efficient, expeditious and uniform administration of justice in the Supreme Court of South Africa and the “lower courts”, according to the definition, to review existing rules of court and to make, amend or repeal rules for the abovementioned courts. This authority of the Rules Board does not have reference to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

Section 43(1) of the Supreme Court Act, No 59 of 1959, provides that the chief justice and the judges of appeal may, subject to the approval of the Minister of Justice, make rules for regulating the proceedings of the Appellate Division.

The powers of the Rules Board have now been extended in order to include the regulation of the proceedings of the Appellate Division. This decision is implemented by deleting subsection (1) of section 43 of the Supreme Court Act, No 59 of 1959, and by replacing the definition of “supreme court” in the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act, No 107 of 1985.

Clause 2 of the amending Bill provides for the appointment of a retired judge of the Supreme Court as a member of the board. The amending Bill also provides for the appointment of an alternate member in respect of every such member of the board who is not able to attend meetings.

The amending Bill also provides for the appointment of an executive committee of the board, which will consist of the chairman, the vice-chairman and such other members of the board as may be determined by the board.

This amending Bill also provides for the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977, by renumbering section 297A, which was inserted by the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, No 8 of 1989. This rectifies a mistake that crept in earlier.

The CP takes pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the amendments proposed in clauses 1,4 and 5 will have the effect that the Rules Board will now also be able to make rules for the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. This will enable the Rules Board to create uniformity in the different rules of the Appellate Division, the other divisions and the lower courts. It is therefore to be welcomed.

Clause 2(a) makes it possible for a retired judge to be appointed as vice-chairman of the Rules Board and clause 2(b) enables the Minister to appoint certain alternate members who may then act if the members in respect of whom they are so appointed are absent.

Clause 3 establishes an executive committee that can dispose expeditiously of all matters which fall within the sphere of competence of the board. The decisions of this committee must, however, be approved by the majority of the members of the board. This approval can be obtained in writing. It is therefore not necessary for the board to meet.

These amendments will enhance the administrative functioning of the board and therefore we support them. I want to thank the hon the Minister for bringing these amendments to Parliament. The Rules Board is functioning well and these amendments will assist the board tremendously in its task.

Mr Chairman, let me immediately put the minds of the hon members of the Committee at rest. The list of speakers has my name on it and next to it the fact that I am going to speak for 15 minutes on this Bill. I deny that this is true. [Interjections.] Yes, it is true that my name is on the list but it is not true that I am going to speak for 15 minutes!

The Bill relates primarily to the powers, composition and mode of operation of the Rules Board. It also contains a number of proposed changes to facilitate the efficient operation of the board. We view these changes as reasonable, logical and necessary. They clearly have the support of those who are intimately involved in the operation of the Rules Board.

We note the request of the Chief Justice that the powers of the board be extended to include making rules for regulating the conduct of the proceedings of the Appellate Division, which has hitherto been the function of the Chief Justice and the judges of appeal. The Bill will bring this into effect and will also, as a consequence, make it possible for judges of appeal to be appointed as chairmen and vice-chairmen of the Rules Board itself.

The Bill also makes provision for the appointment of a retired judge as a member of the board and then gives powers to an executive committee of the board to facilitate its functions.

We therefore find this Bill a useful one and support it.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to thank all the previous speakers for their support of this Bill.

I think we must make it very clear that the work done by the Rules Board for Courts of Law is of a very high quality. I should like to express sincere appreciation for the work that has been done since the Rules Board was established on 20 February 1987. During the short time in which this Rules Board has been functioning, they have made comprehensive amendments to the practice and procedure that apply in the Supreme Court. This has led to considerable improvement with regard to disposing of business as well as with regard to cost.

We read in the department’s annual report that at present the Rules Board is considering consolidating the rules for the Supreme Court and the lower courts and making them uniform. If, therefore, we see what the Rules Board has done so far, we are very grateful that its powers are being extended in order to render the same quality of service to the Appellate Division.

The other important amendments in this Bill have been discussed by previous speakers. Consequently I shall conclude by expressing my support for the Bill.

Mr Chairman, after so much has been said about this legislation, there is not much left for me to say.

†The fact is that we support this legislation entirely because it is being introduced with a view, as is stated in the memorandum, to the efficient, expeditious and uniform administration of justice in the Supreme Court of South Africa.

*I am not going to elaborate on that. I think the previous speakers have already said everything.

†The argument has always been whether the courts are there for the rules or whether the rules are there for the court. Some legislators have said because one has not complied with a specific section or rule, whatever the case might be, by lodging one’s objection within seven days, one is out of court, as it were.

My belief is that the court is not made for the rules. The rules cannot govern the court. The court is there to see to it that the rules are observed—they should be observed—but the court is not absolutely bound. If a man does not comply within a given time, that is no reason why he should be ruled out. With this I support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members who took part, but even more so the hon members of the joint committee who dealt with the Bill in their usual efficient way.

There are no special points to which I should react which have not already been dealt with by hon members and in the joint committee. The only thing I can say is that the Bill’s objective is to ensure that it is possible for an institution which has established itself over a short period of two years to function even better.

The one important facet which emerges here is the question of establishing an executive management which will enable the chairman to reach decisions more quickly between meetings. This should enable them to deal more quickly with matters such as costs, etc, which may be entrusted to them by the board. With regard to this point, one must not be left with the impression that this body has not functioned effectively.

I want to place on record that since its establishment, this body has succeeded in concluding matters that had dragged on for many years very quickly and efficiently. We are aware that the Galgut enquiry into the rules, and in particular practical procedure, moved around among the various responsible bodies for some time after the report had been submitted without the matter being finalised. We then dealt with this at departmental level, but it was very clear that we needed a body which could co-ordinate and get the co-operation of the various disciplines in the legal family as soon as possible.

To some extent the Rules Board itself was the result of the Hoexter Report. We improvised and gave the Rules Board many more and wider powers than had been envisaged. It emerged once the Rules Board had been established, that it could indeed sort out matters such as the Galgut Report and other outstanding facets very quickly.

In this connection I want to express my appreciation to Judge of Appeal Mr Justice Viviers, the present chairman, the vice-chairman, the retired Mr Justice Coetzee—he was Deputy Judge President of the Transvaal previously—and also all other members.

We are now on the point of rounding off that board’s membership to a greater extent. I also want to emphasise that we still accommodate the various disciplines that have an interest in this board. This includes the academic sphere in particular, but naturally also the practical sphere.

I expect the board to give special attention in the coming months to the question of costs, because that remains the most significant problem as far as access to our courts is concerned, but also as far as the handling of litigation is concerned. I expect that board to handle the matter with great circumspection, but definitely also with great firmness. I definitely expect that.

I also appeal to members of the professions—the advocates and the attorneys—to co-operate, because it is in their interests that the public continues to believe that the professions are there for the sake of the public, and not for their own sakes and with their only interest the very attractive tariffs that can be charged. I am convinced that the various professions will take this to heart and will co-operate.

In conclusion I merely want to say, also in connection with the Rules Board, that in the next round they will face a challenge. They have to deal with a very interesting facet of our procedure which practitioners should have taken cognisance of, viz the so-called pre-trial procedure. Hon members know what that is. It is the procedure which has to determine inter alia what the points of dispute are and on what points agreement can be reached. Ultimately this can lead to either a much quicker settlement or a much quicker handling of the case in court in that the points of dispute have been identified and consequently can be dealt with.

It is in this sphere that we have been experiencing a lack of success for many years now, but I am determined to deal with it. The Rules Board is on the verge of dealing with the situation, but manpower will continue to be a problem. In order to resolve that, we must grant our registrars a higher status, which will enable them to command authority. They must be able to make a legal judgement and justify a standpoint on legal grounds.

We can train the registrars, but actually we have a wealth of manpower if only we can upgrade the status of that post. As a result we shall dispose of so many more court cases so much more quickly that one could become enthusiastic about this. Perhaps we could even use judges for this purpose. I am not talking about judges as we know them today, but about those judges who will still be able to render a service, because in terms of the Bill that we are going to discuss shortly, that pre-trial procedure will also be a service that can be rendered by a judge.

With these few thoughts I want to express the expectation that a body which is already effective will be streamlined even further.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the introduction of this Bill brings us to the conclusion of a long process of consultation with the Chief Justice of South Africa and the Judges President of the respective divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa and heralds a new era in the administration of a matter which intimately concerns the members of the judiciary.

I have already said on several occasions that I intend to establish a meaningful structure and basis of Supreme Court administration and conditions of employment of judges. The investigation and actions directed at a new and improved dispensation, which were conducted in consultation with the judiciary, have now been completed.

The aims were the following: Firstly, to make appointments to the Bench more attractive, not only to convince top counsel to accept appointments, but also to encourage them to join the Bench at an earlier age; secondly, to accommodate, as far as possible, the increase in the volume of work of the Bench within the existing dispensation rather than enlarging the Bench—that is the number of judges—and by doing so allowing a cumbersome and ineffective body of judges to develop; thirdly, to entrench the independent status of a judge for the duration of his life; and fourthly, to embody the absolute uniqueness of the judicial office in legislation and to ensure that the esteem of the incumbents thereof remains high in the eyes of their colleagues abroad—for example to ensure, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Bar Association, that acting appointments are limited to the absolute minimum, namely only at the commencement of service on the Bench.

This investigation created the opportunity to negotiate a new service benefit package with the Bench in an effort to achieve these aims.

*The package as a whole embodies a few basic points of departure. Firstly we are now locally confirming the principle that once a person has been appointed as a judge, he always remains a judge. This is not an unfamiliar concept in the Western world, having been implemented for a long time now in countries such as the United States of America. Instead of retiring, as is the case at present, on reaching a specific age, or after completing a certain number of years’ service, a judge is merely removed from active service. He does, however, continue to occupy the post and to receive the salary attaching to the relevant post, but on the other hand he is subsequently compelled, until the age of 75 years, to be available for service for three months per year.

Lest I again be criticised for introducing levity into justice debates, let me say that it has perhaps been possible to make this progress thanks to medical science. That is a light-hearted approach I have also adopted in conversations with judges, and it has gone down well.

Not only will that, to a certain extent, relieve the pressure on the Bench which is experienced when some of the judges in active service go on long leave or are otherwise absent, but it will also relieve the pressure on the Bar which normally, during such periods, has to relinquish the services of senior and experienced advocates as acting judges on the Bench.

In any event, owing to the continual increase in the workload, today it is more often the rule than the exception to request a judge, who has reached retirement age, to continue to serve in an acting capacity. In the Transvaal alone there are, at present, 10 such retired judges who have, for several years now, been performing such service on a continuous basis, and in the rest of the country an additional five—ie 15 in all. I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to them for the valuable contribution they are furnishing. They enable us, on the one hand, to keep pace with the work-flow and, on the other, to prevent a depletion in the ranks of the Bar.

Although a judge can be expected, under the new dispensation, to perform at least three months’ service per annum after his removal from active service, there is of course nothing to prevent him from serving on a full-time basis if such a need should exist. Even if he were to serve for the minimum period, or even perform no further service, he still continues to occupy the post of judge. His independent status as a judge can therefore never be encroached upon.

Another important principle is the fact that the Bench was prepared to reduce the four-and-a-half-month period of long leave to which a judge was entitled, after every four years of service, to a period of three and a half months. The principle of long leave for judges arose because at one time—I am now speaking about the previous century and the beginning of this century—under British rule there was a need amongst local judges to visit Britain from time to time to keep abreast of the latest developments in the administration of justice, and in the process they had to travel by sea, which meant travelling periods of up to six weeks. I take it that they took a holiday at the same time.

Although those circumstances no longer exist, the principle of long leave has been retained, but on the basis that it does not take up more than one two-month term of session at a time. That is the new proposal. The balance—ie to complete the three and a half months—will therefore have to be accommodated in the contiguous recess periods. The practical effect of this is that, in effect, the long leave covering the present two terms of session is being reduced to only one. This matter will be dealt with in the regulations promulgated in terms of clause 12.

The recess periods in the provincial and local divisions are also being reduced from 16 weeks to 14 weeks per year. This means that the courts will sit for two weeks longer each year. Here I want to interrupt my train of thought for a moment by saying that if 120 judges are sitting for an additional two weeks per annum, this means that there will be additional court time of 240 weeks per year. All the practitioners present here will know the significance of that.

In addition I am also going to request the Rules Board to look at the present court rules which regard the recess periods as leave periods, and rather to change them into administrative recess periods, because it is very unfair to our judges for the overall perception to exist that they are on leave during recess periods, when in fact they use this time to do research, prepare judgments and up-date and perform many other official duties.

We must rectify this matter, because by categorising this period, in its entirety, as leave, we are doing an injustice to a very loyal and hardworking Bench. This does not mean that a judge is not, like his compatriots in other sectors, also entitled to vacational leave. Accordingly a Judge President will, at his own discretion, ensure that his judges are relieved of their official duties for a reasonable portion of the recess periods.

Provision is also being made for the fact that a judge’s gratuity which, as a point of departure, only accrues to him upon his removal from active service, can be paid out to him at an earlier stage. Thus a judge appointed to the Bench at 45 years of age can at that stage be paid, in a lump sum, the gratuity he would have built up at 60 years of age. At 65 years of age he can receive a further amount, and then take the balance, if any, when he is removed from active service, at 70 years of age. This serves as a further incentive for judges to accept appointments at an earlier stage in their lives.

In clause 10 provision is made for judges who, at 65 years of age or thereafter, and with 15 years of active service behind them, feel a need to be removed from their post as judges. The financial benefits such judges receive after they have been removed from office, however, remain static and do not increase in proportion to judges’ salaries.

As a point of departure the whole corps of judges will revert to the new dispensation as a unit. In terms of clause 15 a judge can, however, inform the Minister in writing, within a specific period after implementation, that he elects not to have this dispensation made applicable to him, in which case such a judge will then retire forthwith in terms of the old dispensation. I intend to move an amendment to the proposed legislation which will make the implementation of this section more streamlined.

As I said initially, this package is the product of protracted and in-depth negotiations with the Bench. There are firm indications that by far the overall majority of judges find the package acceptable. The package embodied and envisaged in this Bill as a unit, in conjunction with the regulations and court-rules, was laid down in close interaction with the Bench, and it is a privilege for me to pay tribute to all our judges, including the Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges President and Deputy Judges President, for the unimpeachable manner in which they have, and still do, honour the status and independence of our Bench and the administration of justice in South Africa. We as a Parliament owe a great debt of gratitude to them.

Mr Chairman, I am almost tempted to react to the announcements which the hon the Minister made under the previous Bill, in terms of which the pre-trial procedure may be placed on a workable basis. I want to congratulate him on the fact that he is addressing this because I think this is truly the area in which we can render a great service.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on this Bill pertaining to the conditions of employment of judges, because I think it does indeed represent a tremendous step forward, as well as recognition of the competent service that has been rendered to this country by the judiciary over many years. I think the hon the Minister has accomplished a great deal, and the judiciary as a whole will be very grateful to him for this, although there are a few aspects which I should like to touch on.

This legislation does indeed, as the hon the Minister has already said, introduce the new principle of once a judge, always a judge. It deals with judges who are discharged from active service at the age of 70 years, provided they have at that stage already completed ten years’ active service; or at the age of 65 years, provided they have at that stage already completed 15 years’ active service; or if they are ill; or if they wish to be discharged at their own request, which request is submitted to the hon the State President.

Clause 4 of this Bill reads as follows:

The one problem I have with this legislation is the speed with which it had to be pushed through. I realise that the hon the Minister wanted to have it placed on the Statute Book as quickly as possible in order to give effect to the benefits it contains.

However, with reference to this section, I wish to mention the example of a person who is appointed at the age of 68 years. He continues with active service until he is 75 years of age. Actually, he decides for himself during that period whether he is fit to continue up to the age of 75 years or not, because this is not, as in the other instances, dependent on the approval of the Minister and the Judge President. This is a deficiency which will not necessarily be insurmountable, but we could have defined it more adequately if we had had more time in which to consider this particular clause.

The next clause I wish to dwell on is clause 7, in which active service is defined and in which the salaries which will be applicable during that period, are mentioned. I think this is a good clause. However, we find here that in subsection 2, for example, it is said that if a judge were to render service in a different office, this would be with the approval of the judge concerned. In subsection 1 it is said that this applies on the understanding that a judge shall not be precluded from voluntarily performing more than three months’ service, and provided further that he will, with his approval, render service of another legal nature, but that these services shall be rendered after consultation with the Minister, the Chief Justice and the Judge President. In that instance he is not the judge of his own physical or mental ability, or of whether he can still at that stage really actively perform this service.

Next I want to dwell on clause 12, which deals with regulations. The State President may, after consultation by the Minister with the Chief Justice and the Judges President, make certain regulations relating to administrative recesses, leave of absence and so on. This clause unfortunately poses the problem that regulations may be made which are in conflict with the original conditions under which the judge accepted service.

For example, we already have the case here of long leave being reduced. I can fully understand this, and I think many judges understand it. The fact is, however, that these are different conditions to those under which a particular judge was appointed at a particular point in time. They may be amended without his having agreed to them. I feel this is a pity. I think there could be one or two cases of dissatisfaction which, if we had had the time, we could have accommodated more easily.

Clause 15(2) states, and I quote:

Therefore, if a judge does not accept these conditions, he retires from service. He is, as it were, dismissed. The wording is unfortunately being interpreted in this manner, and this is something we could have prevented if we had had more time to devote to this matter.

It is true, however, that regulations may be made which are in conflict with earlier conditions of employment. If he does not accept them, he must resign. No provision is made, for example, for him to retain his paid leave or semi-paid leave. I think this is something which we could, in fact, have addressed, so that we would not have lost some good legal power or brain power as a result of this.

I should like to offer for consideration an alternative to section 15(2), which reads as follows:

I also want to pay tribute to our judges on this occasion for the service they have rendered. Moreover, I cannot but pay tribute on this occasion to the hon the Minister for what he has done for the judiciary. With all due respect, I think that of all the Ministers of Justice who have occupied this portfolio during the past few years, he has achieved a great deal for the judiciary and for the legal profession in general.

Of course, the fact that I am praising the hon the Minister means that he is on the way out. The hon the Minister must therefore be very careful. [Interjections.] We take pleasure in supporting the Bill, with the reservations I have expressed in so far as clauses 12 and 15 are concerned.

Mr Chairman, the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Bill has been thoroughly discussed and its implications comprehensively understood. We examined the present dispensation against what the Bill hopes to achieve. The present dispensation for judges provides, inter alia, that a judge is obliged to retire on attaining the age of 70 years, ie with the choice of retirement after attaining the age of 65 years. On retirement a judge then ceases to hold the office of judge and he is consequently not obliged to do any further official service.

Secondly, the Bill brings the remuneration and conditions of employment of judges into line with changing circumstances, allows more flexibility therein and ensures a steady and controlled development of the judiciary.

The Bill provides amongst other things for a person appointed as a judge to remain so for life and, in the place of the present pension arrangements, to continue for the rest of his life to receive the same salary as his serving colleagues.

The Bill also provides for the removal of a judge from active service when he reaches the age of 70 years if he has then completed at least 10 years’ active service, but on the basis that a judge who at the age 70 years has not completed 15 years’ active service, may continue to do so until he has completed at least 15 years’ active service or until he reaches the age of 75 years, whichever comes first.

This Bill has been closely studied, and words, sentences and parts of sentences from clauses which were not relevant have been corrected. This is so with clauses 3, 5,7, 8,9,10, 12 and 15. From our side we have no problem in supporting this Bill. May I at the same time thank the Cape Bar for informing us of their support for this legislation. This proves to us in the LP that we are on the right track. We give the Bill our support.

Mr Chairman, to my mind our judiciary enjoys a very reputable position not only in this country but even outside our country. I think when somebody is appointed as a judge he remains a judge for the rest of his life.

Before this Bill came into existence judges were obliged to retire at the age of 70 years but they had the option of retiring at the age of 65 years. I think this Bill now makes a very good provision that once a judge is appointed, he is appointed for life. I think that is how it should be. I must really congratulate the hon the Minister for having thought of this particular aspect and I think it goes a very long way towards placing a very good and respectable aspect on our judiciary. The appointment for life is something that was really awaited and I think it is very good move.

Now with the new situation, of course, on the death of a judge he will be receiving his normal salary or a salary commensurate with that of his serving colleagues. After his death his widow will receive two thirds of his salary. The previous provision was that if he was in active judicial service—as my other colleagues have said—until he was 70 years old and had served for 10 years, he could retire, but now if he has not completed 15 years of service he can carry on until he is 75 years old or until he has served for 15 years.

A very good amendment which the committee thought of is contained in clause 3(9), namely:

The committee felt that this was not the appropriate place. It was then scrapped and clause 3(d) was inserted and I think that makes a positive difference.

As far as the Bill as a whole is concerned I think it is a very good Bill, it is not controversial and we support it fully.

Mr Chairman, the superior courts of this country have a proud reputation as forums for the adjudication of legal disputes and the dispensation of justice and as the watch-dogs over the lives of individuals.

I believe in a complex society such as in South Africa and despite the appalling laws which our superior courts have often been required to interpret, they have retained the respect of the masses and continued by and large to perform their vital function with a high degree of excellence.

It is important in these unsettled times in which we live where there is political uncertainty and uncertainty surrounding our future constitutional development—these things amongst others—that the judiciary remains steadfast and that the highest standards of justice are seen to prevail.

For this reason alone there is a powerful case to argue in favour of improved conditions of service for members of the Bench to ensure that the best available legal brains in the country are attracted to serve on the Bench. I think it is important that people with the highest degree of legal expertise are available to serve as judges, not simply because they believe it is their duty to do so—as so many have done in the past and are doing now—but also that they should be satisfied that they can have maximum security for themselves and their families appropriate to the immense responsibility which they have to society as a whole. It must be a sense of security which can underline their independence to undertake their duties with the utmost skill, objectivity and responsibility. In the sense that this Bill, while imposing certain new conditions attaching to their availability and conduct, gives them generous recognition for the services expected of them, the Bill is to be welcomed.

The Bill in many ways introduces new concepts in respect of conditions of service for judges and, in return, offers rewards which may seem to some to be excessively generous. I believe if one measures those rewards against the degree of skill and objectivity which is to be expected of judges, and if one compares those rewards with what others who occupy high positions in the private sector receive, or may I say if one compares those with what members of the executive branches of government receive, then I believe the rewards for judges will be seen in their proper perspective to be fully justified.

Judges have a unique responsibility to society—to preside over our courts, to dispense justice, to adjudicate over disputes and so on. They have to look after the interests of society, but in many ways they have to elevate themselves above it or keep themselves apart from it in order to maintain their independence and objectivity. Their duty goes beyond simply presiding over our courts. They have other duties to society as well.

In this regard I should like to take this opportunity of mentioning the question of judges visiting our prisons, in particular judges visiting those detained in terms of our drastic security laws. I want to take this opportunity too of commending our judges, particularly in recent times and in view of the manner in which they have undertaken the execution of these responsibilities. I believe these visits by judges to detainees and their services to the courts have led to better conditions, and certainly to a greater sense of security on the part of those concerned.

I believe this is a good Bill. Yesterday I had occasion to disagree violently with the hon the Minister. I want to tell him today the situation is different. I will commend him, as a previous speaker has already done, for the steps he has taken throughout his period of office to improve the standards of our judiciary and for the steps he has taken in the interests of our judiciary. I believe this is a great step forward. I congratulate him on it. We will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to say that we in the DRP support this legislation.

Who are you?

We see it as very good and uplifting legislation which can only be to the advantage of our judiciary.

†Judges have always enjoyed the highest prestige in our judicial system, and they should at all times enjoy the respect of all citizens. There should be no question of their ever being regarded as partial or biased.

If one looks at the history of the judicial system in this country that is in fact what has happened, except for one instance which I can recall, which occurred in the days before Union, when a judge was removed from office in the Transvaal as a result of his disagreeing with what the then President believed was right. That was, however, a political issue—not a judicial one. As I say, Sir, judges enjoy and should enjoy the highest respect of all in our society—of all our citizens.

When I think back, I believe the first judgment I can think of was recorded in Biblical times. That was the case in which King Solomon had to dispense justice. He was confronted by two mothers both claiming the same child to be theirs. In that instance he applied practical law by saying to them: “Well, if you both claim it is your child, let us cut it in two.” It ended with the real mother getting her child. That is not necessarily what our judges do, but in applying justice they are also practical, and that is what they have always been.

*The hon member for Bethal referred to certain shortcomings in this legislation. I think we who served in the joint committee noticed those shortcomings. Nevertheless, the hon the Minister mentioned in his introductory speech that he would see to it that certain further amendments were inserted. I therefore believe that he will consider the existing shortcomings in the legislation and see to it that they are eliminated.

†Other than that, I want to say that it is a pity that some hon members sometimes have to move in Parliament that certain judges, with whom they disagree about the way the judges carry out their functions, should be impeached; in other words, that they are not worthy of office. I feel that it is a pity. Unless one has absolute certainty that a judge has misdirected himself, not only legally, but has gone beyond what is required of him, in the wrong direction, then I feel that nobody should come before Parliament and say: I do not believe that judge is worthy of occupying the Bench.

We support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of the NP to extend our sincere congratulations to Adv Bosch, who has been appointed as Deputy Director-General, and Adv Rudman, who has been appointed as Chief Director: Legal Services.

For quite a number of years now, we in the joint committee have had the very efficient services of Adv Rudman at our disposal. We are very grateful for this and we want to wish him everything of the best in his new post. I just hope that the joint committee will not die off completely in the future.

†The hon member for Berea has announced his retirement from this House and I would also like to thank him for his contribution to the Joint Committee of Justice during the short period he has served there. I hope that the hon member has a long and enjoyable retirement and that he will see that he gets a worthy successor in his constituency.

*This Bill heralds a new dispensation for our judges. Forming part of it are great financial improvements, security and enhanced status after retirement. However, it will also entail greater responsibilities for judges. I should like to welcome all these elements, but I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Bethal in saying that in one respect this Bill is also a great monument. It is a great monument to the hon the Minister of Justice. If there is one Minister who has been responsible for a considerable improvement in the conditions and remuneration packages of our judges, it is this hon Minister. I should like to thank him for this.

Another facet of this Bill is that it is also proof of the confidence which our country has in the administration of justice in the Supreme Court, because by way of this Bill we are also, as a rule, and under certain circumstances, affording judges over the age of 70 years the right to remain in service as well.

This legislation is also vital to make the judiciary, which forms the third leg of our Constitution, as strong and as independent as possible.

Yesterday I received a memorandum from the General Council of the Bar, which is dealing with this Bill, and virtually all the matters that were mentioned in this memorandum have been thoroughly addressed by the amendments that were adopted by the joint committee, and there are answers to the others. There is, however, one matter on which I think the hon the Minister ought perhaps to inform us, and that is the issue of seniority of a retired Chief Justice or Judge President or a Deputy Judge President when he returns after the age of 70 years. I should be grateful if the hon the Minister would give us some guidance on this.

With these words I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Bill is a very important Bill insofar as the judiciary is concerned.

It lays down certain principles concerning the retirement age of judges, their conditions of service and various other matters. The principle alone is important and I think it is a step in the right direction for the judiciary.

The proposals in this Bill have been fully discussed by other hon members of this Committee. As far as we are concerned, we have no objection to the approval of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, human beings are very strange people. For generations we have said that teachers, nurses and judges belong to a noble profession and therefore we have consistently underpaid and exploited them.

What about MPs?

MPs? I had better not say anything about the MPs on this side of the House.

A few years ago I took the hon the Minister to task very severely for exploiting the judges by underpaying them. He said to me: “Wag ’n bietjie!” He told me to hold it and to be patient because he was doing something about it. He did provide for interim measures but I am pleased to be able to say that the hon the Minister has carried out his promise to do something definite about the position of our judges. We can be pleased about his response to this issue and even though I do not like saying nice thing about NP Ministers, I am compelled in this instance to give praise to the hon the Minister.

Anyone who has studied the Bill must immediately realize the amount of work that went into drafting this Bill. There must have been a great deal of discussion and negotiation before the Bill was finally drafted. It is better than before.

The compulsory retirement of judges at the age of 70 years has now been deleted. I am not quite sure whether their appointments are going to be for life. We do not want a case like that of the hanging judge, Judge Jefferies, whom they had in the assizes in England as part of our judiciary. However, the fact that compulsory retirement has now been eliminated is an excellent thing.

Some years ago Mr Justice Leo Caney had to retire at the age of 70 years. With his large stomach heaving up and down, he said to some of us: “Look, I am in the prime of my life and I have to retire!” However, he did not retire. He went back to chambers and did consultancy work for a long time. Mr Justice Neville James proved that he is still as robust in mind and body and still as agile and acute in his knowledge of the law as he ever was, notwithstanding the fact that he is over 70 years of age.

The long vacation which the judiciary and parts of the Public Service enjoyed was a relic of colonial times when judges came here from England and had to go back home by ship for the long holidays. That is why it had to be a long holiday. Nowadays, of course, if any of them wants to go to England for a holiday he can certainly do so by aeroplane, which saves the five or six extra weeks required in respect of travelling.

I think it is necessary to remind the hon the Minister that the judiciary is still all White, all Pink or all “Rooi” as the case may be—“Rooinekke” and so on! [Interjections.] We have two senior counsel in this country who are not White. One is so fair-skinned, he could pass as a White. The other is as dark of complexion as I am but he has been fêted abroad. He has been invited to address law conferences in the Philippines and he has studied as a guest student at Columbia University in America. I know that he has been invited to address the Canadian Bar Association, the legal fraternity at Oxford University and the All-India Bar Council. When we have illustrious people like that in our Bar, I think it is sad that the judiciary still remains all White. I believe the hon the Minister is giving attention to the matter. I want to say to him not to “wag ’n bietjie” but to hurry it up. Hurry it up because we need representation in our judiciary of distinguished South Africans, not just on the basis of colour. It is said that once a man is appointed as a judge, the Hayekian mantle of impartiality descends on him.

We know of several political appointments. One particular appointment was made by the former Prime Minister, Mr Vorster. I will not mention that judge’s name but he was an ardent Nationalist and an activist politician while he was at the Bar. As soon as he became a judge, he was so absolutely impartial that his first two judgments were against the Government. He was a good lawyer. There is an excellent lawyer in Durban, who is now a judge and I have had the privilege of having known him for many years. He is a member of the Broederbond and he is an absolutely impartial judge. The fact that he is a member of the Broederbond does not disqualify him one bit. On one occasion he invited me to sit on the Bench with him as an assessor. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have both been in Parliament for approximately the same length of time. For this reason you will agree with me that a Minister is used to many papers. Whenever he is involved with legal matters, he has a particularly large number of manuals and other reference material spread about all around him. Hon members will agree that this form of debate inhibits a Minister of Justice.

It inhibits us all!

Perhaps hon members will say that this results in one not having so many references, and consequently speaking for a shorter length of time. I do not know whether that is the aim, but be that as it may, one finds a solution to all these types of inhibiting factors. Before long we shall see hon Ministers and hon members standing here with notes in their hands, in front of them and behind them, and perhaps they will also pull notes out of various pockets in their jackets. The fact remains that this contributes to the dignity of debate, and I respect the arrangement in this regard.

I thank each and every one of those hon members who have disposed of this Bill without any delay. This has only been possible as a result of the fact that this joint committee, under the very able leadership of the hon member of Pietermaritzburg North, and assisted by all the other hon members, has developed a great deal of skill with the passage of time. It was for this reason that they were able to deal with this Bill, as well as other Bills, gracefully, but also skilfully.

That, to a certain extent, is also my reply to the question asked by the hon member for Bethal. Of all the hon members, he, who at one was stage an acting judge, is the last one who ought to complain that more time was not devoted to this matter, because he of all members ought to know that the judges on the Transvaal bench—he has served on it—really are expected to make very complex and efficient judgments at very great speed, particularly where they have the system of rotating rolls. That is, in fact, what they do.

That is why I did not wish to remain there!

The hon member thinks I said that he had spoken with his tongue in his cheek. One member of the Committee had to be in a position to do it. I know that he did, in fact, do so, because he picked up the few points that existed. I want to compliment him on that. With regard to the one point which he raised, namely his reference to clause 15, I am going to introduce an amendment. It will not be worded precisely as he proposed, but in fact in an adapted manner, which will result in a more equitable situation in order to enable judges to exercise a reasonable choice. We are therefore providing that after promulgation of the first regulations and up to a later date, a person will be able to decide whether or not he accepts the package as a whole. If he should be abroad during this period, either he or his authorised representative may make a written application for extension of the period within which he must decide, and I shall afford him a reasonable and a fair amount of time, which the amendment will permit me to do.

I cannot, however, concede that a choice will be possible whereby all the good points of the new package are accepted, whilst the good points of the old package are also retained. In my negotiations with Judges President and with the Chief Justice it became very clear to me that it would be administratively impossible for a Judge President to deal with two dispensations. In other words, if he were to draw up his roll, he ought not to deal with one judge who has a recess of 16 weeks, whilst all the other judges have a recess of 14 weeks. He would not be able to work with a single judge who had 4½ months’ leave, as well as with another one who has 3½ months’ leave.

We have, however, respected the entire question of vested conditions of service, if I may call them that, and that is why these negotiations took a very long time. I should not like a single judge to resign because he does not accept this package. For that reason I shall bend over backwards to conduct further negotiations with such judges. We cannot afford one member of this very able team—they are all able members—to be placed in a position in which he wishes to resign as a result of this. I have taken that aspect which the hon member raised, namely that we shall have to negotiate in that spirit, completely to heart.

Before business is suspended, I just want to dispose of one point. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North asked me—the hon member for Bethal also touched on this—what the position would be if both the Chief Justice and a judge president also had to render service. The answer is quite simply that they may not render service in a lower office without their permission. There are, in fact, Judges President who agree to rendering service as ordinary judges. This is possible, therefore, but we escape from this situation, shall I say, in that service has a wider significance. Service can include commissions or the chairmanship of a body, but it can also include any other form of service which we stipulate. The dilemma will pertain chiefly to the Chief Justice and the Judges President, but there is a wealth of variety.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.

Business suspended at 15h28 and resumed at 19h02.

Mr Chairman, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not speak at great length. I should like to speak in support of this amending Bill, in respect of which two amendments in particular are aimed at the further regulation both of the appointment of trustees, and of the interrogation of an insolvent or any other person at a meeting of creditors.

The present provisions of the Insolvency Act have the effect that a maximum of three trustees and co-trustees may be appointed in respect of each insolvent estate. This provision may well have been practical in 1936, when the Act was placed on the Statute Book, but the nature and scope of insolvent estates today is such that three trustees are not always sufficient to look after all relevant interests. Clauses 1 and 2 of this amending Bill lift this restriction, and provision is being made for more trustees to be appointed, naturally whenever the Master deems it desirable. The existing fee that is charged, will be divided among all these trustees.

In terms of the provisions of the present Act, a witness in certain proceedings and at certain interrogations may not avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination. These provisions promote the acquisition of full information on an insolvent’s affairs, but have, inter alia, two prejudicial consequences. They facilitate, due to obvious possible prejudice, applications by insolvent persons in the Supreme Court for the staying of insolvency proceedings until pending criminal cases have been concluded, and they may damage the good reputation of the persons concerned before proper legal proceedings have been conducted thereon.

The proposed amendments in clauses 3 and 4 of the amending Bill envisage, for the sake of effective sequestration proceedings, the prevention of evidence regarding incriminating answers in later criminal proceedings, excluding such proceedings on charges such as perjury and so-called statutory perjury or proceedings contemplated in section 139(1) of the said Act.

Furthermore, a prohibition is now also being placed on any publication of information with regard to incriminating answers in order to protect the person concerned. The provisions of sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are also applicable to an estate which was sequestrated either provisionally or finally before the commencement of this Act. I am pleased to support this amending Bill on behalf of the CP.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Standerton. There is nothing on which I can take him to task. He therefore agrees with us, and I should like to thank him for that. The amendment in respect of additional trustees is an interesting one, and one cannot help thinking back to the liquidations of Kubus and Tekaibos as well as the most recent one, Vermaas, which really placed a great duty upon trustees to perform a weighty task.

It is heartening, however—I think we may say this here this evening—that the fees of trustees are not to be increased, even though there will be additional trustees. The amendments that are being effected, are indeed a feather in the cap of the Ministry and the department in that they did not allow the recommendations emanating from commission reports to gather dust. In this regard I should like to refer to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Possible Irregularities, the well-known Harms Report of Mr Justice Louis Harms. One may make the inference that the amendments have, in fact, flowed from certain events that took place during the proceedings of the Commission.

I should like to mention here that at one stage Mr Albert Vermaas refused to reply to certain questions. The commission was never informed as to what his reasons were. These were, however, conveyed to the commission by the Press, in that he had said that he was taking refuge behind the fact that there were certain criminal charges against him. I agree with Mr Justice Harms, who said that juridically speaking, this was actually nonsense. I quote from his report:

I think the comment which Mr Justice Harms passed in this regard, was fair and correct.

These amendments also regulate matters in the case of insolvencies and place beyond all doubt the fact that an insolvent may not take refuge behind any pending criminal cases which may be laid against him. It is also important, however… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this Bill was discussed by the joint committee as a measure which was necessary. It was accepted and there was no opposition to it. Generally there was feeling that in view of changed circumstances the provision relating to the appointment of more than three trustees was a justifiable one. The rest of the Bill as has been pointed out is, in terms of the recommendations of the Harms Commission, a totally non-contentious measure. I do not want to waste the time of this Committee. We support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support and for the fact that they have expedited the passage of this Bill through the committee. I rise merely to move, finally, that this Bill be adopted.

Furthermore, I wish to indicate that in the interests of better administration we ought actually to separate the themes in so far as commencement is concerned, and that the power of the Master of the Supreme Court to appoint one or more curators is a power which need not and ought not to be put into operation immediately, whereas the other provision, namely the amendment to the Insolvency Act with regard to incriminating questions, is, in fact, a requirement which needs to be satisfied immediately, particularly in view of the fact that it has become necessary in these times of foreign exchange control contraventions, in other words the smuggling of good South African money, the vesting of assets and the creation of fronts abroad, to establish whether or not any assets are actually owed to creditors. For this reason that power is very urgently required. It is not aimed only at one situation, but at a variety of situations which may arise.

I am therefore indicating that I shall place an amendment on the Order Paper which will make provision for various dates to be set in terms of subsection 1 with regard to various provisions of this Bill, which will enable us to put them into operation at various times.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.

Mr Chairman, as I have been a member of the attorneys’ profession for the past 26 years, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in support of this Attorneys Amendment Bill. The attorneys’ profession is, of course, a particularly noble profession and one which renders an exceptional service to the public, particularly in the case of our rural attorneys, who are not only legal advisers, but who sometimes also serve their clients as doctors, ministers and in all kinds of ways.

The Bill emanates from proposals that were received from the law societies of the Republic of South Africa, the board of control of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund and the State Attorney. Among the most important amendments are briefly the following. The designation “articled clerk” is replaced by the term “candidate attorney”, which is a more dignified and more sophisticated designation, because up to a certain stage the clerks were called “apprentices”. I think this is consequently more acceptable to the attorneys’ profession.

Section 3 of the Attorneys Act is now being amended to provide that the Deputy State Attorney and the Assistant State Attorney with four years’ experience in the profession may engage clerks. The training of the candidate attorneys is, of course, the number one priority, and in order to afford such clerks an opportunity under articles of apprenticeship to undergo diversified and specialised training, a clerk will now be permitted to render service for a period not exceeding twelve months under the supervision of an attorney other than his principal.

Clause 11 also sets a further requirement for admission as an attorney, namely the attendance of a training course prescribed by the law society concerned. I made one or two inquiries and it is interesting to note that there are 1 359 candidate attorneys in the country at the moment, of which Transvaal has the majority, namely 400. There are 7 014 practising attorneys in the Republic at the moment and 3 092 firms of attorneys, of which 1 458 are in the Transvaal, 180 in the Free State, 556 in Natal and 898 in the Cape.

A very important amendment, and one which created problems in the past, but which is now being eliminated by this legislation, relates to a clerk who possesses the LL B degree. He was able to appear in certain lower courts from the beginning of his articles of apprenticeship, but he was not permitted to appear in the Supreme Court or a regional court established in terms of Act 32 of 1944, or a divorce court established in terms of Act 9 of 1929.

On the other hand, a clerk possessing a B Proc degree is not permitted to so appear until he has served at least one year under his articles. This distinction is now being eliminated by conferring an immediate right of appearance on B Proc graduates as well.

Provision is also being made to authorise an LL B graduate who has previously practised for at least one year as an advocate, who has completed at least one year under articles, or who has gained at least one year’s experience as a state advocate, state prosecutor or magistrate, to have an immediate right of appearance in a regional court or divorce court established in terms of Act 9 of 1929.

Another deficiency that has been rectified is the old provision to the effect that a clerk whose articles of clerkship had expired but who had not yet been admitted as an attorney, lost his right of appearance. Such right of appearance is now being extended for a period of six months after the expiry of such articles.

I am pleased to support this Bill on behalf of the CP.

Mr Chairman, the Parliamentary session is now speeding towards its conclusion, and for this reason I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on all the amending Bills which the Department of Justice has tabled. This can only serve to improve the legal system and to adapt the old legislation to modern times.

We also wish to thank the chairman of the joint committee, who performed his task in such an able manner. We also want to express our gratitude and appreciation to the members of the joint committee, who performed their duties in such an able manner and in such a fine spirit. We wish to express our congratulations to Adv Rudman in his new post as chief director. I should now like to dwell for a moment on the CP members.

With all due respect, I want to tell those hon members who served on the former Standing Committee on Justice that they made very few contributions before the election in 1987, and that they always abstained from voting. However, I can say with certainty and with complete confidence that those hon members who are now serving on the joint committee after the 1987 election, have injected new blood into the ranks of the CP and that they have lent new colour to the committee. In this regard I want to pay tribute to the hon member for Bethal for his valuable contribution to the benefit of South Africa, because that is why we are here. We thank him for that.

I now come to the Bill before the committee. This amending Bill is an improvement on the present legislation and is welcomed by attorneys. The committee did not experience any real problems with this Bill, although it did, in fact, effect a few amendments. The words “Senior Assistant State Attorney” were inserted in clause 2. In clauses 25,29 and 30 a few fines were amended in order to bring them into line with other laws.

My party is pleased to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill effects some very useful and good improvements to the present Act. I am particularly pleased about the improvement in the position of the candidate attorney. All of us who have completed our articles of apprenticeship are aware of the singular problems and frustrations, financial and otherwise, which articles of apprenticeship entail.

In a lighter vein, this makes me think of the true story of the articled clerk in Bloemfontein who walked into his principal’s office and placed his feet on the principal’s desk so that the large holes in the soles of his shoes stared the principal right in the face, upon which the principal said to him: “You are probably coming to ask for a shoe allowance”. “No,” said the clerk, “I already receive a shoe allowance. What I have come to ask is whether I may receive a salary.” [Interjections.]

With reference to clause 11, which poses a further requirement for admission as an attorney, namely the attendance of a training course prescribed by the law society concerned, I just want to make mention of the good legal training for candidate attorneys that is offered by the legal training division of the Association of Law Societies. I want to thank them for this and wish them all the best with this great task in the interests of the profession.

When one looks at the advice that was given to candidate attorneys a hundred years or so ago, one sees how the challenges of training have altered. The advice was as follows:

When we come back to the more recent past and to the present, we see that during the past few years a dynamic development has taken place in the area of the practical training of candidate attorneys. As recently as 1980 there was still no set training programme for candidate attorneys. In 1988, comprehensive and extensive programmes were offered by the division of the Association of Law Societies.

We are pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations extended by previous speakers, particularly the hon members for Standerton and North Eastern Cape, to the hon the Minister of Justice and the officials of the department.

The object of the legislation is set out right at the beginning of the memorandum, and it is supported by the Association of Law Societies. According to the memorandum, it is actually at their request that this legislation is before this House. We support the legislation. There are certain cosmetic changes, such as the change of the designation “articled clerk” to “candidate attorney”. This gives such a person a slightly higher status. He is shown in a slightly better light because he will now be known as a candidate attorney, which is good for the profession.

However, he nevertheless remains a clerk in the attorney’s office, even if he is a candidate attorney. This makes me wonder about certain candidate attorneys who serve their entire articles of apprenticeship without passing a single examination.

In this regard I am thinking specifically of a candidate attorney who was employed under articles of apprenticeship for five years, without passing a single examination during that entire period. It is a candidate I knew in the fifties and is someone who later enjoyed worldwide fame. I am referring to Mr Donald Woods, who wrote a book about Steve Biko, which was later made into a film. He served his articles of apprenticeship for five years under an attorney, a certain Mr A J Stark of Elliotdale in the Transkei. That is where Donald Woods comes from. During the entire five years he did not pass a single examination. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Justice is either very lucky or very shrewd in the timing of his legislation. This is the sort of Bill that would have encouraged every lawyer in the House to speak for as long as possible if it had come up at the beginning of the session. [Interjections.] However, at this late stage in the session one looks at legislation that was discussed in the joint committee.

We are aware of the fact that the legislation comes as a result of recommendations by the Association of Law Societies and we know that the provisions of the Bill are required by the Law Societies. They certainly are improvements, relating to the employment of articled clerks and the use to which they can be put. These are welcomed and there is also an improvement in relation to the extension of what is called a trust account to include building society accounts and savings accounts in respect of fidelity fund deposits and matters of this kind. It is a Bill which found favour on all sides before the joint committee and we support it.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege and an honour for me this evening not only to support the Bill on behalf of this side of the House, but also as a practising attorney, to say on behalf of my profession that this Bill is a step forward for the profession. It has already been mentioned that this Bill is an amendment to the Attorneys Act, 1979, in order to effect certain important amendments.

These amendments can only lead to greater protection of the interests of the public and to the enhancement of the dignity of our profession. Various speakers before me have already referred to the candidate attorney, and for this reason I am not going to elaborate on it any further, apart from saying that it is correct that the name is to be changed from “articled clerk” to “candidate attorney”. In my view he is a future professional man and it is not always dignified to refer to him as a clerk.

It is also true that attitudes change with time. I took the trouble of taking a look at the 1929 articles of apprenticeship of my late father, and I saw that the parent also had to sign the contract, regardless of whether the clerk was a minor or not. I came across the following wonderful clause in it:

That was in the days when the clerk still had a very hard time of it. We welcome the new attitude that prevails today.

I want to pay tribute today to the young candidate attorney and the prospective candidate attorney. I want to tell them that they perform an important task in every firm of attorneys. They must always strive, during this period which is granted to them, to acquire as much of the knowledge of the more experienced attorneys as possible, as well as knowledge regarding the way in which they will one day have to run their practice. The young candidate attorney of today forms the basis of the attorneys profession of tomorrow.

In conclusion I want to to refer to clause 28, which effects some very important amendments to section 78 of the principal Act with regard to trust accounts. We on this side of the House, and the profession itself, welcome this, since it brings about greater flexibility and legal certainty. On behalf of this side of the House we support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, as the hon member for Berea pointed out the legal profession is appreciative of the fact this Bill is before Parliament—as a matter of fact the president of the Association of Law Societies told me how grateful he is to the department and to the hon the Minister that this Bill has seen the light of day.

Attorneys very often have to deal with people who do section 211 take-overs and people who settle. One attorney was driving a visitor from England from the airport into town and he pointed to a particular cluster of beautiful houses on a hill and said: “That is Settlers’ Hill.” The visitor was duly impressed and asked: “Are these the original 1820 settlers?” The attorney said: “No, these are the fellows who settled at 15 cents in the rand on a section 211 takeover and 10 cents in the rand eventually and they are the fellows with these lovely houses.” So that was Settlers’ Hill!

The Bill itself has not only been welcomed throughout; it functional; it is going to be helpful.

There is also change in nomenclature. The expression “article clerk” is changed to ‘candidate attorney”. I do not think it is generally known that there was an attorney in Natal by the name of M K Gandhi who later became known as Mahatma Gandhi who wanted to enrol a person as an articled clerk, and such was the prejudice in the Natal legal profession in those days that there was an objection by the Law Society of Natal. M K Gandhi made an application to court and succeeded in enrolling that articled clerk. That articled clerk was a White woman. The prejudice was against having females in the legal profession. That is part of our history.

Also part of our history is the fact that I have personally enjoyed very much the five years during which it has been my privilege to be a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, and I think it is apposite that I should express my personal appreciation to Dr Helgard van Rensburg, who was the first chairman under whom I served, and then Mr Danie Schutte, both of whom have been excellent chairmen. They had there views as lawyers have but they never tried to impose their views on other members. They allowed free discussion and I appreciated that very much.

We have had tremendous help from Advocate Leon Rudman and Advocate Gerhard Nel from the department and, of course, the new Director-General Mr Chris de Jager has also helped very considerably, and for that I would like to express my personal appreciation.

Thank you for the appointment!

I beg your pardon. The Director-General is Mr J J Noeth. I have the name of Chris de Jager here because he, I can tell hon members in my respectful opinion, is one of the top lawyers of our country and he serves that committee with tremendous distinction. Generally that committee has good lawyers and that committee serves this Parliament and the country very well indeed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills commended the hon member for Bethal to such an extent that as from tomorrow onwards I am sure the hon member for Reservoir Hills may be certain and assured of a hearty welcome in the constituency of Bethal! [Interjections.] The hon member for Reservoir Hills should not be surprised if he is invited to address a “stryddag” in Bethal. [Interjections.]

*In case hon members think that I do not agree with anything that has been said about anyone here this evening I want to hasten…

Hear, hear, I am hungry!

… to add one or two thoughts seriatim.

To begin with, I want to tell all hon members at once that the Director-General, Mr Noeth, joined us this year at a stage when we were in very, very great need of a Director-General who knew what was what, and who could take over the reins from Mr Van der Merwe in such a way that there would not be any discontinuity. Mr Noeth has succeeded admirably in taking over the reins without any noticeable discontinuity. Mr Fanie van der Merwe would have remarked laconically that Mr Noeth had received very good training from him. I say thank you very much to the Director-General, Mr Noeth, for the very positive way in which…

†Before the hon member for Berea leaves I would like to say something to him, if he will allow me one more minute.

*Mr Rudman is going to leave us. Of course, in another sense he is now to receive greater responsibilities, but I wonder whether he could ever bear a comparable responsibility which would provide him with as much pleasure as the responsibility of assisting this committee. I have seldom seen anyone bear such a heavy burden with so much grace and—I can give hon members the assurance—assist many other departments with legislation, and still be up to date with commentary on other legislation.

†The hon member for Berea is anxious or, rather, perhaps obliged to leave. I would like to say that he has served this committee for a very short while, but of course his nature and his knowledge made him a most acceptable member in all areas of parliamentary work, but especially as far as justice is concerned, he was well equipped. We all know he is a highly respected lawyer, and he actually brought an aura of being knowledgeable to the committee. He was always a gentleman and then, they say, a little knowledge is a bonus. In his case it was plenty of knowledge and, of course, being a gentleman singled him out for much praise tonight. I trust he will not simply enjoy his retirement, but that he will also devote his retirement to the interests of the country as he has done in the past.

*Permit me also to dwell for a moment on certain other departmental officials—there are so many of them—and also to pay tribute to Mr Gerrit Nel. Then, of course, there are the ministerial personnel, who often have to bear a greater burden than others with regard to legislation. Whereas I was not able to do this during the discussion of the legislation relating to judges, I should very much like to do so now by saying that the administrative secretary—or the head of ministerial services at the Department of Justice, Mr Labuschagne—handled this legislation with great skill. He was very closely involved in all the negotiations and I should very much like to pay tribute to him, too. Of course, that brings me to the rest of our staff as well, of whom I am likewise greatly appreciative, and they will appreciate the fact that I am not able to mention everyone’s name. They are very often lightning conductors, so to speak, and otherwise efficient officials who are prepared at all times to serve the law in South Africa.

That brings me to the joint committee itself. I only have an idea as to how things go at other committees, but I make bold to say that a cohesiveness has developed at this committee which is truly praiseworthy. I am not saying that it is unique; it may perhaps exist elsewhere as well. I want to ascribe it to the leadership of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and to the fact that we have people with so much magnanimity, such as the hon member for North Eastern Cape. He spoke from his heart today when he said that it was enjoyable to work with the hon members of the CP because they made a contribution, and that they apparently also found it enjoyable to work with his people. In this way the tone is being set for the administration of justice outside this House, namely cohesiveness and unanimity, and ultimately we are serving the law which is common to us all.

I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills also deserves a bouquet. He will understand that he does not often deserve it, but he deserves it in this instance.

†He did press for salaries. I know I am transgressing the Rules by talking about the previous Bill, Sir, but he did press for salaries and he did ask for larger increases. However, he did hold his horses during the discussion of the Vote and he honoured his undertaking that he would not press too hard. Perhaps tonight he should be mentioned in despatches for keeping that topic very much alive.

*I could go on in this way to dwell on the contributions of the hon members for Standerton, Umbilo, Daljosaphat and the hon member Mr Van Gend, besides those of the other hon members who all made a very fine contribution in support of this Bill.

We conclude with a little nostalgia regarding the erstwhile clerk. The old order is disappearing and the new one is taking over. The time of the articled clerk also belongs to the old South Africa. The hon member for Overvaal is wiping away a tear. I can well understand that because I think he was a very interesting articled clerk, but I would not have liked to have been his principal. [Interjections.] We think of the articled clerk who, in terms of the legislation which we are now repealing, was entitled to a minimum of R50 per month. This actually means that a principal only had to pay him R50 per month. As the hon member Mr Van Gend has pointed out, it was also true that he had to provide for himself adequately out of that money. He had to keep his shoes shiny and furthermore, in the interests of service to his principal, he had to ensure that he was in good health and that he took out the right girl, etc. All that belongs to bygone days. I hear that large remuneration packages are available to the articled clerk as well today. In this way we are all marching ahead and we are delighted that the attorneys profession is adopting this attitude towards the articled clerks, who will henceforth be known as candidate attorneys.

In conclusion I just want to say that by way of this legislation which they have submitted to us, the Association of Law Societies has proved once again what a tremendously high premium they place on the integrity of the attorney. The image which he must convey to the public is one of credibility, and also that the public will be protected. I wish to express the confidence that we in this country will never relinquish the value of professionalism and of the code in accordance with which people are to act. In this way we shall ensure that this country of ours will continue to exist as a civilised country which continually strives to achieve excellence.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 19h40.

Mr Chairman, it is the pleasure of the CP to support this Bill. We believe that it is long overdue. We know that until now the South African law on insider trading was governed by Section 233 of the Companies Act of 1973. It has been widely recognised that that section and the law on insider trading as it now stands are totally ineffective and unlikely to intimidate potential inside operators.

I think a special word of congratulations and gratitude must go to Mr Justice Margo and his team for the thorough way in which they have prepared and finalized this piece of legislation. Unfortunately there is a sad note there too. He says that South Africa is the last country to pass this type of legislation. That creates the impression that we are closing the gate after the horse has bolted because we know what problems have been experienced in the past. Take-overs and mergers in which minority shareholders are unfairly treated and left remediless have assumed serious proportions in South Africa. In other developed countries steps have been taken long ago to protect minority shareholders from such exploitation.

We know that this legislation now provides for a panel along the lines of the City of London Panel on Take-overs and Mergers and we think this is a very good move. One of the most important attributes of this legislation is that of the self-regulation by the securities industry. We believe that they are the people who can manage this aspect most competently and we support this.

The second function of the panel will be to control insider trading. We know this is defined as the improper use of confidential, price-sensitive information to deal directly or indirectly to the advantage of the user in the shares of a company. Insider trading is regarded as a form of fraud but is virtually impossible to prove in terms of our common law definition. In South Africa, despite many complaints of insider trading reported by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, there has not been a single prosecution. This is ascribable to the inadequacy of the legislation we have on the Statute Book.

It is important to note that the securities industry will be fully represented on the panel and it will therefore be a fully self-regulatory body. Statutory recognition of the panel also has a number of advantages. It is given powers it would otherwise not have had. In this regard it is of importance that the panel will have full powers of investigation into cases of both take-overs and mergers and insider trading. These powers include the power to summon any person to appear before the panel. Of course the panel will not have any power to prosecute any person or to impose any fines.

I think it is very important at this stage to contradict a very negative report which appeared in Business Day on 12 May which creates the impression that this legislation is not going to take the bull by the horns. In fact they say in an editorial, “Call the cops”:

We know that this is not so, and I think the hon the Minister and his department must be congratulated on really showing strongly how seriously they take this whole question of insider trading and what strong measures they are prepared to take against it.

We are also aware of the fact that the Chamber of Mines objected to this. We expected objections from their side, and we are very satisfied with the explanation which Mr Justice Margo gave us recently at a joint committee meeting. We believe that he has answered all the queries and we therefore take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

I should also like to mention one area of concern contained in the memorandum on the objects of the Companies Amendment Bill where it states as follows:

I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could give me the assurance that through this, this problem “would” be obviated instead of “could” be obviated. It must be stressed very strongly that the word “could” sounds as if it is possible that there may be some way of escaping from the whole question of regulating, particularly from the point of view of the Securities Regulation Panel.

Seeing that we talk about companies and economy—this is an economic measure which is essential to restore the confidence of the small investor in the stock exchange—let me also take advantage of this opportunity to refute a report which appeared in the Afrikaans newspaper of this morning which stated under the heading “KP se syfers betwyfel” that the GST figures used by the hon member for Lichtenburg at a recent meeting at Bronkhorstpruit, were not provided by the Receiver of Revenue’s office. At this meeting the hon member for Lichtenburg revealed that according to the figures the GST receipts for Boksburg for the months November 1988 to March 1989, after the CP took over, had increased by 26% over the figures for the corresponding period for the previous year. [Interjections.] The Afrikaans newspaper report quoted an anonymous spokesman from the Receiver of Revenue’s office.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect I submit that the hon member is not dealing with the Bill at the moment.

Order! The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis should please discuss the Bill a little more specifically.

Mr Chairman, I am dealing with the Bill and was giving my reasons for this remark. It is a rectification of something which is harmful to the economic circumstances in Boksburg in particular. I think it should be rectified, especially… [Interjections.] I hear the temporary shining light of Boksburg; he is sitting opposite me. He should take note of the fact that we obtained the figures which I quoted from the office of the Receiver of Revenue, and they are comparable to a similar period last year. There has been an increase of 26% and these figures are indisputable. [Interjections.]

Order! I will not allow this debate to continue in this manner. The hon member must come back to the point under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I am trying to do that, but the constant interruptions by the hon member for Boksburg are making it impossible. [Interjections.]

†The spotlight of integrity now focuses on the Afrikaans morning newspaper concerned who could have obtained conformation of the CP’s figures by phoning the Commissioner for Inland Revenue’s office in Cape Town which moves its base to Cape Town during the Parliamentary session, and they are well aware of that fact.

Mr Chairman, seeing that the previous member spoke about Boksburg, I believe they have now put a stop to the sale of a certain type of wine. One may no longer sell the wine in Boksburg, the wine is Allesverloren Blanc de Blanc. [Interjections.]

I want to continue with my speech by saying that the importance of the Bill lies in the fact that it envisages the implementation of a panel on security regulation which will have two functions, namely to regulate take-overs and mergers of companies and to exercise control over the commercial malpractice of insider trading.

Take-overs and mergers of companies in which minority shareholders are unfairly treated and are left without legal means, have taken on serious proportions in South Africa. In other developed countries steps have already been taken some time ago to protect minority shareholders from such exploitation.

After the Government of the United Kingdom warned the security industries during the early 1960s to sort out their affairs with regard to take-overs and mergers, the industries in question formed the City of London Panel on Takeovers and Mergers and nominated all the relevant organisations and representatives to serve on the panel. One of its most important characteristics was that of self-regulation by the security industries.

Despite numerous complaints of insider trading which have been reported by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, there has not yet been a single prosecution in South Africa. This can be ascribed to the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of section 233 of the Companies Act of 1973 which does not have sufficient scope and can be easily circumvented.

It was also recommended that a similar panel be formed in South Africa. A number of years of debate and consultation with all interested parties followed and ultimately the proposed panel was accepted. The panel will have the power to make its own rules regarding take-overs and mergers and will also have the power to investigate any take-over or merger.

In the light of what I have just said, we support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Companies Amendment Bill was discussed thoroughly at the joint committee meetings and had much support as the two previous speakers outlined. I do not wish to repeat it because I do not have anything to add to what they said. Therefore I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the joint committee agreed to the Companies Amendment Bill unanimously without amendments after an extensive discussion, therefore we on this side of the House join the other components in their support of this amending Bill.

As the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis and other speakers have said, the committee was privileged to have present at the discussions Mr Justice Margo, the chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, as well as Prof Katz, one of the foremost experts on company law in South Africa. They provided us with the clear and comprehensive background information which gave rise to this Bill. For this reason I am somewhat surprised by the remarks of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis.

†He said perhaps this legislation is too late; perhaps the horses have bolted. However, he will recall that there was ample evidence that Australia took the wrong decision in this regard and overregulated their securities market and have now turned to this particular method. In the United States it was a different set-up, and we do not have the manpower. Consequently Mr Justice Margo made it quite clear that they went to great lengths to see that there was ample discussion and lots of sunlight cast on this whole issue before they actually came forward with this Bill.

The committee also had to deal with representations made by the Chamber of Mines of South Africa and by a member of Assocom, who did so in his private capacity. We were again fortunate to have the benefit of the opinions of both Mr Justice Margo and Prof Katz, who dealt with each of the matters raised by the Chamber of Mines and dealt with them very adequately and at great length. We were absolutely convinced and satisfied that the Bill before us was correct and consequently it was accepted without any amendments.

The Bill deals with three main issues, namely the establishment of a Securities Regulation Panel, which is the crux of the whole legislation. It also deals with certain matters pertaining to fees and there is a revision of the fines. The proposed panel will have two main functions, namely dealing with mergers and take-overs as well as the commercial crime of insider trading. Obviously both these functions are of grave importance to investors on the Stock Market, and the lack of proper measures is to the detriment of our international standing as far as securities markets are concerned. It will underscore again the sophistication of the South African stock exchange and our whole financial set-up in dealing with securities.

The Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Margo, started with their investigation in 1982. They looked extensively at matters in the United States, the United Kingdom and also Australia. Certain knowledgeable experts visited South Africa and made their inputs as far as this legislation is concerned. In respect of insider trading it is of interest to note that, prior to the publication of this Bill, an article appeared under the name of Leora Blumberg in Accountancy SA, May edition, where she describes insider trading in the following terms:

*Among other things Mr F H van Zyl said the following in this periodical:

†There is therefore no doubt about the need for this legislation. As far as insider trading is concerned, we are also now dealing with both primary and secondary insider trading. This insider trading legislation is based on the American system, on which we have chiefly relied. As far as the merger and take-over situation is concerned, we have followed the United Kingdom in respect of their Panel on Take-overs and Mergers Committee which differs from ours only in the sense that theirs is not a statutory body and ours is, and therefore a great improvement. It was, in fact, suggested by a British authority, Prof Gower.

The purpose of these measures obviously are to protect the public and especially those investors who are usually faceless, who cannot be traced, who do not even know that they have been defrauded or in some way conned. We have been given plenty of assurances that this legislation was thoroughly canvassed with all interested parties. Consequently we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is one of those occasions where the DP, the CP and the NP agree on something. It is our pleasure to support this measure. We were pleased to receive the presentation which we received from Mr Justice Margo in the joint committee, supported by Mr Katz, which persuaded us that a great deal of appropriate homework had been done before this legislation had been brought to Parliament.

It has been a matter of concern for many years that the pursuit of insider traders in South Africa is something of a joke, borne out by the fact that there has not been a single successful prosecution of an insider trader in South Africa, in spite of numerous examples having emerged and being alluded to in the financial press. Not one offender has been pursued. We welcome this measure to the extent that the Securities Regulation Panel will strengthen the hand of the authorities in pursuing insider traders and to the extent that it will also strengthen the business community’s hand in policing itself. As the last advanced economic nation of the West to adopt such a measure it puts us into the mainstream of the Western economic investment community. To that extent it is overdue, but better late than never and we are happy to support it at this time.

An interesting aspect which has been pointed out is that the combination in this panel of self-regulation on the one hand, combined with statutory authority on the other, is an interesting innovation which relies on lessons learnt both in the UK and in Australia. We hope it will be an appropriate formula here. It is certainly supported by weighty argument.

We also believe the funding of this panel, being private sector funding, is appropriate. It is consistent with self-regulation and it is appropriate in the sense that he who pays the piper calls the tune and by being funded by the private sector it places the burden on the right people.

However, I do have five points of concern to which I would like to ask the hon the Minister to respond. The first is that while the panel arrives with the hope that it will give teeth to the control of insider trading, of course it has no power to by itself pursue insider traders and act as a court of judgment on them. It can only act in support of the existing authorities, the Attorneys-General in pursuing offenders. To the extent that it assembles a body of experts to assist in this task it will be successful, but in itself it will not necessarily bring these people to book. I would be interested to know from the hon the Minister what kind of people have been lined up to take part in this panel, because it is the depth of their expertise that will govern their ability to make a contribution to the control of insider trading.

The second area of concern is the lack of clarity on what will constitute a change of control under the new panel’s rules. We have a situation in the UK where 30% is laid down as being the cut-off point. We do not have similar clarity in this legislation and this of course will lead to a great deal of difficulty when it comes to negotiations in the taking over and merging of businesses in the future. That lack of clarity will operate against both the companies wanting to take over other companies and smaller companies being prepared to be bought out in knowing where they stand. This lack of clarity could be very serious, unless the regulations that are promulgated create clarity in the distinction between the different sizes of companies and the different kind of situations that might arise.

Obviously, control in a major public company can be exercised with as little as 20%, but in a small private company which may fill a particular niche in the marketplace, control may not be reached short of 50%. To give clarity to the different situations within that range is obviously going to be an important task of the panel.

Allied to that is the problem of knowing where one stands in specific situations. When negotiations start—obviously negotiations of this kind start in great secrecy—one will need a confidential hotline to the panel to get clarity before starting serious negotiations to know where one stands and whether one should actually be embarking upon negotiation, or whether the panel is going to veto it, and whether there are going to be any problems encountered. This will mean that negotiations will not have to be aborted at a late stage having caused damage, speculation and problems within the participating companies.

The lack of clarity may on the other hand provide positive flexibility, provided it is backed up by an effective hotline. If it is not effective it will cause very serious problems in the future.

The fourth point concerns the repeal of section 321, by which another certainty in the existing Companies Act is removed, namely that if one has 90% acceptances in a take-over situation, one can require the balance of the minority shareholders to sell out to one. It takes away that certainty and it brings a flexibility which could also be positive if handled correctly. If I interpret the answer given in the joint committee correctly, I am prepared to accept that the intention is positive, but I should like to have the assurance from the hon the Minister that the Securities Regulation Panel will be prepared to insist on put options being applied in favour of minorities in situations outside of the 90%-10% split as at present.

Under the present Companies Act a new owner who has 75% control of a company can vote a special resolution, thereby changing the entire structure of a company and leaving the minority shareholders with less than 25% control completely stranded. In that situation, if a minority shareholder can appeal to the panel for a put option to be applied in his favour, it will be a very positive step and real protection for minorities if that is applied, and not just in the case of a holding of below 10%.

Quite frankly, in most situations a small minority shareholder with less than 25% is completely exposed and at risk. If this panel will be the friend of that minority shareholder, we shall be making a very important contribution towards supporting the small investor in South Africa.

The final area of concern which will need to be explored as we go along but about which I hope the hon the Minister will put something on record at this stage is the relationship which there will be between the Competition Board and the Securities Regulation Panel. There is a clear distinction in the nature of their activities, but in the mind of the general public I do not think the distinction is all that clear. I hope that we shall not have problems concerning that relationship in the time ahead.

On that basis we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Companies Amendment Bill which amends the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973, deals primarily with the establishment of a Securities Regulation Panel.

Justice Margo and Prof Katz thoroughly explained the legislation to us. For that reason I do not want to go into the legislation, because we have reached agreement. Thus my party and I support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, allow me to thank the hon member for Heideveld for his support for this legislation.

Before I say a few words about the legislation, please allow me to use what is probably the last opportunity during this session, to say a few words about the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology who is retiring one of these days.

During the period of office of this hon Minister and under his leadership, the Government has embarked upon a most enriching programme in order to not only make South Africa more self-sufficient in the industrial field, but also to enable it to enter world markets on a competitive basis.

His contribution and initiative with regard to technological development in our country, for example, was monumental. His clear view of his portfolio, his insight and his particular management abilities to initiate reform within his department as well and to carry it through, have won everyone’s respect. With his retirement he is creating a vacuum which will be difficult to fill. I salute him on a task well done and we wish him and his wife a very pleasant period of rest.

Various speakers have already spoken about the aims and contents of the Bill under discussion and I do not want to be repetitive by dwelling on that any further. As was mentioned by inter alia the hon member for Uitenhage, the measures which are envisaged in this Bill are based on pure principles in order to establish a high standard of integrity within the security industries in South Africa. As such I welcome this Bill and would like to support it.

Mr Chairman, the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry has recently dealt with several Bills of a non-controversial nature and we supported all of them. As my hon colleague did indicate earlier on, we will be supporting this Bill as well. We do so because we have been persuaded that the Joint Committee on Company Law upon which I represented very many eminent people, has given this matter a great deal of thought since 1982 and as a result of their deliberations made the recommendation to the hon the Minister. We are also persuaded to support this Bill because the contents of the Bill have been canvassed with all the interested parties concerned. With the exception of the Chamber of Mines, as we have heard, all parties are in agreement that we should have this piece of legislation on our Statute Book.

We were given a copy of an article—mention was made of this earlier in this debate—by one Leora Blumberg, which raises two interesting points and I would like the hon the Deputy Minister very briefly to reply to these. The first point she makes is that she hopes that the South African courts will in fact put aside their traditional conservatism and fully utilise any powers of interpretation that may be bestowed upon them in a similar fashion and come to similar conclusions as their American counterparts. In other words she raised the issue that the South African courts in fact will have wide powers of interpretation.

The other point raised by her was that at the present time it does not appear that we in South Africa have the necessary technology and resources to provide for the effective enforcement of this legislation. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to let us have his comments in this regard. The point that she made, for the benefit of the hon the Deputy Minister, was whether we in South Africa have the necessary technology and resources to effectively police and enforce the regulations which are provided for in this legislation before us. With these few words we actually support the Bill before us.

Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity; it is a pleasure for me to reply briefly to the speeches of the hon members.

†May I thank hon members at the outset for supporting this piece of legislation. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of hon members relating to Mr Justice Margo and his team for the sterling job which they have done.

*Mr Chairman, the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law was recently reconstituted for its next term. Their research programme for this term is formidable. They informed me that they would introduce their research programme to South African universities on 14 June at a function in Bloemfontein and would invite them to take part in projects in this connection to revise or deregulate the South African company law, since it is to a great extent a deregulation exercise that this Advisory Committee is in fact engaged in.

I should like to express a word of thanks to Mr Justice Margo and Mr Justice Goldstone—I will not mention the names of the other people here—in this forum for the time they have devoted and the formidable task they are performing there on behalf of the whole of society. I am sure I am doing this on behalf of all hon members present.

I cannot refrain from thanking hon members who served on the joint committee. The hon member for Uitenhage is the chairman. I should like to thank him for his contributions and his devotion, and for the way in which legislation is being discussed there.

I went out of my way to be present where possible at the discussion of our legislation, and also tried to ensure the necessary support from our officials. I should like to thank everybody for the wonderful spirit of co-operation which developed between the joint committee, officials and outside people.

We are dealing with very complicated legislation which does not involve matters which can easily be mastered and therefore we often use experts from the business world. Recently we have on two occasions used one or more experts to address us and to go through with us the representations we received from the private sector with regard to the legislation before the committee. In that regard too I should like to thank Mr Justice Margo and Prof Katz, who helped us in this way recently.

†The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis supported this piece of legislation. I want to thank him. He highlighted the issue of self-regulation—the regulation for the securities industry by the private sector.

*He also referred to the fact that the panel does not have the power to prosecute. We leave the power of prosecution in the hands of the law, where it belongs. In this regard too we have learned a lot from experience abroad.

Regarding insider trading, he refers—I should like to highlight this one point—to the question that the word “could” occurs in “the problem could be obviated”. I am quite sure the intention of the amending Bill is, precisely as he said, to solve that problem completely and not merely to establish the possibility of solving the problem.

A formidable amount of research has been done. Mr Justice Margo submitted to us the amount of work that preceded the amending Bill. When I was appointed to this position, this piece of legislation was virtually finished. Even after that we have been debating that piece of legislation among ourselves for almost two years. For example the whole matter of the financing of the panel, the self-financing, is something which I caused to be inserted myself. After the legislation had been widely discussed in the private sector, we to a certain extent rewrote the amending Bill a few times in order to give it the finishing touches, also from the point of view of the Department of Justice and other knowledgeable people. For this reason I am very happy with the Bill; it is indeed a fine piece of legislation.

The hon members for Nuweveld and Merebank gave their support. The hon member for Uitenhage referred to the submissions made by the Chamber of Mines and Assocom, and the competent way in which Mr Justice Margo and Prof Katz had reacted to them. He also gave a thorough explanation of certain aspects of the legislation.

†I thank the hon member for Constantia, who is a very knowledgeable person on our joint committee, for his support. I am glad he was pleased with the presentation by our panel members who were present the other day.

*The hon member for Constantia referred to our unique situation. We really tried to take only the best from the legislation that exists all over the world in this regard. We took the example of self-regulation from the city of London, in other words not the unsuccessful Australian example of a system of rigid measures. However, on the basis of the experience in other parts of the world, we have decided that there should be statutory recognition.

The hon member also singled out the question of self-financing. That goes hand in hand with self-regulation in that the Government does not have to finance it. Certain people were of the opinion that it should be financed by the Government, but in future the number of things the Government will be able to afford will dwindle. For this reason the private sector will have to finance its own regulation as far as possible.

The hon member then referred to a few problems. I do not know if I have enough time to react to all of them. He said it was necessary for the panel to have teeth so that it could conduct proper inquiries.

He also asked who was going to serve on the panel. I cannot say. In the Bill several organisations are mentioned which are to nominate members. It was also said that the organisations have enough talent and experienced people at their disposal to serve on the panel. As far as I am concerned, I will be able to nominate the chairman just after the first meeting, since all the other members are permanent members. However, on enquiry I was informed that we do indeed have able and reliable people to serve on the panel.

†The hon member for Constantia referred to the necessity for clarity as regards the guide-lines which will be laid down by the panel and I agree with him. There must be not be uncertainty. I think as time passes and different situations are dealt with the guide-lines will become more comprehensive. I think we can take advantage of the experience of other countries and right from the outset this panel will be able to look at the guide-lines set by other panels and build upon them.

*The hon member also referred to the confidentiality of enquiries. In this regard we will have to rely on the panel. The full-time executive director appointed by them, should evince the necessary confidentiality so that people could go to the panel with confidence to find out whether a take-over would be allowed or not, even before negotiations have taken place. As the hon member has rightly said, the same thing happens in the case of the Competition Board. Right from the start people phone the Competition Board or pay it a visit and ask the board for guide-lines before a matter has gone too far. The same will happen here. There should be confidentiality. The Competition Board has never been accused of disclosing confidential information. The same thing would have to happen here; in this case, though, it is only the private sector that will have to do the supervising. We shall observe the success they achieve in this regard.

The hon member also asked whether there would be legal certainty that the panel would in certain instances of take-overs—quite technical instances with regard to section 321 of the Company Act—be the friend of the minority shareholders. I shall give him a written reply since I have very little time left.

He also asked how the sphere of activity of the Competition Board would be related to that of the panel. To me it is clear and I have also discussed the matter with Mr Justice Margo. It is clear from clause 440C(2) of the proposed Amendment Bill which reads:

Therefore it is not the function of the panel to say anything with regard to competition. It has nothing to do with the panel. For that one has to approach the Competition Board. The demand that the Chairman of the Competition Board should have representation on the panel, came from Cabinet, and it should be a good thing to give him access, since from the nature of his responsibilities he is also concerned with companies.

The hon member Mr Hattingh paid tribute to the hon the Minister, Mr Steyn, and I associate myself with his words. For me as Deputy Minister it was a privilege to work with the hon the Minister. I have not yet had the opportunity of saying it in public. He made life very easy for me in that he delegated considerable responsibilities to me right from the start with final power of despatch. It was a great pleasure and it gave me the opportunity of gaining valuable experience under his guidance.

†The hon member for Springfield raised two points. He firstly referred to powers of interpretation of the SA courts. I am of the opinion that the sentiments expressed by the hon member that we could build on all the court cases and interpretations of American law are true.

*For this reason we have a considerable source of reference. I am not trained in law, but is it not true that lawyers base their law on court cases and interpretations from the past? I am quite sure that these cases are actually universal. It is of a global nature and we can build on that knowledge.

†The hon member also wanted to know whether we have the necessary resources to enforce this legislation. I have been assured by Mr Justice Margo and by the Director-General, Dr Steph Naude, that we do have the resources.

The Whip indicates to me that my time is up and I want to thank hon members once again for their contributions.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, when the Pension Laws Amendment Bill is on the Order Paper, hon members know that the parliamentary session is at an end. The amending Bill aims at increasing certain lump sum benefits payable in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act of 1973. Lump sum payments to widows of deceased pensioners among others were increased in particular by 15% with effect from 12 January 1989. These benefits are financed from the State Revenue Account.

Expenditure attached to the increase as proposed will amount to an estimated R320 768 per annum. Lump sum benefits payable to workers who carried out legal risk service and are no longer able to continue with it as a result of occupational diseases are paid from the Mines and Works Account. Funds are recovered by the Compensation Commissioner through levies imposed on the owners of controlled mines and works. In the first-grade category this varies from 12,5% to 25% and in the second-grade category from 20% to 30%. The proposed increases will cost the Mines and Works Account an estimated R6 million per annum.

I am grateful that the Joint Committee on Health and Welfare also looked at the improvement of tuberculosis sufferers’ lump sum benefits. The Joint Committee on Health and Welfare subsequently proposed an amendment, which I agreed to, that, as these benefits were last increased in 1985, provision be made in the amending Bill for the increase by percentages of 20 and 30.

This improvement in the case of tuberculosis sufferers will amount to an estimated R1,4 million. I thank the members of the joint committee for the dedicated and constructive work which they did.

Mr Chairman, this amending Bill is to allow an increase of certain one-sum benefits payable in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act of 1973. This matter was discussed in the joint committee. We found that the principal Act is highly discriminatory when it comes to payment in respect of certain races concerned, particularly the Blacks as against the Whites. There is discrimination in the principal Act. However, what this amending Bill envisages is the increase in one-sum benefits. On the basis of this my party supports it. However, the principal Act in itself needs to be addressed. We were assured by the chairman that this is in the pipeline and when that comes up we will have further deliberation on it. In the interim we have no qualms in supporting this Bill because it envisages an increase in one-sum benefits.

Mr Chairman, first permit me the opportunity to thank the chairman of the standing committee for the assistance and support which we received from him yesterday when we discussed a very thorny issue. The CP wishes to have it placed on record that we appreciate that assistance.

We are discussing a pension increase for persons suffering from occupational diseases, and for their dependants. I do not hesitate to say today that, if it had not been for the CP’s insistence on this and its request to the hon the Minister to look into this, I am very sure that we would not have received it. It was remarkable that not one of the other parties to this debate even discussed people suffering from occupational diseases or the miners; not the NP or the members of the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates. That is why I feel that the CP—and no other party—is the party which champions the worker.

I want to pause for a second and take leave of the hon member for Stilfontein. He told us that he wanted to bid me farewell because I would be on the trot. He is galloping from Stilfontein, however. The only reason I can give for his running away is that he worked only for the A AC and not for the miner during the time that he was a member of Parliament.

When this Bill was discussed, there was considerable talk about discrimination. Hon members of the NP agreed that great discrimination existed. I want to point out that discrimination still exists in this Bill at present. If one looks at sufferers in the first stage of an occupational disease, the Whites receive an increase of 12,5% as against the Coloureds’ 20% and the Blacks’ 30%. If one looks at the second-stage compensation, the percentages are 20,25 and 30. This remains discrimination. [Interjections.]

Legislation should have been introduced which would have eliminated this so-called discrimination but unfortunately the NP dragged its feet. The CP will rectify the matter when it takes over the Government in September.

I want to point out that the pensions of pensioners were increased with effect from 1 January of this year. We requested that they be increased with retrospective effect and we want to thank the hon the Minister very much for doing this. If there is somebody who needs an increase, it is senior citizens and people suffering from occupational diseases and their widows. Nevertheless we also want to tell the hon the Minister that it was too little too late. These people usually receive an increase in October and I therefore want to appeal to him today to grant them another increase then.

The hon the Minister has already pointed out, but I want to do so again, that widows and dependants of pensioners who were certified before 1973 receive an increase when the pensioner dies. This is appreciated.

The other point that I want to raise is the tuberculosis cases which we discussed yesterday. No provision is made for them in the legislation at all; they would not have received any increase whatsoever. As the hon the Minister pointed out, their last increase was in 1985 and they also needed an increase. That is why we are overjoyed that the legislation is being passed in this form and we want to tell the hon the Minister that this is appreciated too. The CP will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to have replied to the hon member for Carletonville’s speech but our time is limited.

He mentioned tuberculosis cases. It is true that he brought the matter to the attention of the committee but he is telling only half the truth, however. When he raised it in the committee, the LP, the NP and all other parties supported him on this. It was discussed at short notice after two o’clock yesterday afternoon; nevertheless the hon the Minister consented to accommodate him. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, my time is too limited. Neither do I have time to reply to stupid questions.

This brings me to the hon member for Bayview. What he said was true, which is that the principal Act should be altered, because this Act still contains discrimination, so that it may be eliminated. We know that a Niewenhuizen Committee has been appointed to inquire into this and I hope that this Act will be altered as soon as possible by the new Parliament.

We also encountered problems in that committee when we pointed out this discrimination. Nevertheless we cannot be an obstacle to people’s obtaining their pension increases and benefits. That is why the LP decided to support this Pension Laws Amendment Bill.

The price of consumer goods has risen so it is only fair that people’s pensions be increased.

Unlike the CP, we do not come to thrash out our problems here. There was an opportunity in the standing committee and the CP served on this. The CP should not come here with half-truths because we know that they also intend broadcasting these half-truths in the election. [Interjections.] I am grateful that the hon the Minister granted these increases to tuberculosis sufferers because we had been informed that they were last granted in 1985. Consequently we thank the hon the Minister sincerely for accommodating us at such short notice.

Mr Chairman, I wanted to enter into an agreement with the hon the Minister or, as the students say, make a deal with him and tell him that I would support his legislation if he would cure my influenza. They say in medical circles, however, that a general practitioner knows something about everything but, if one has specialised, one knows more and more about less and less until one knows everything about nothing. [Interjections.] Because the hon the Minister was a professor and specialised in gynaecology to boot, I decided not to make use of his treatment. [Interjections.] The NP certainly agrees to this legislation, however.

Sincere thanks to all hon members of the joint committee. We had a problem with time yesterday. It was really a great problem but we worked very well together in spite of it. The hon member for Carletonville made a very positive contribution and I want to thank him for it. One could put forward a reasonable argument on why the gratuity to tuberculosis sufferers should not be increased—this is because tuberculosis has become a totally curable disease now. There is no longer a single case of smallpox in the entire world; there are merely a few remaining smallpox germs in a laboratory. In the past people died of smallpox like flies but now this disease no longer exists. Similarly the treatment of tuberculosis is so effective now that it is being considered to remove it from the list of diseases that qualify for compensation and that is probably the reason why it was not included in the Bill.

The hon member for Carletonville nevertheless made out a very good case and said that it was still included in the legislation at present. This is still the legal position and he asked why they did not qualify for the increase. We conceded this to him and I thank him for his positive contribution but I think that only three quarters of the truth has been told. [Interjections.] The percentages of 20, 25 and 30, which are discriminatory according to him, are the percentages which he himself proposed and we agreed to. [Interjections.] That is why I think the hon member is not altogether reasonable as far as this is concerned.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely. When I spoke to him this morning and told him that the joint committee had unanimously agreed to the hon member for Carletonville’s amendment, he told me that, if all the parties in Parliament were in agreement, he would not easily turn down such a proposal. I want to thank him sincerely for his attitude which I consider very positive. The hon the Minister’s positive attitude can be reflected simply in the words: “Ons gee om, we care”. We care for people and, in this specific case, people in a mining environment are affected. We care a great deal for them and we prove this in practice. Once again thank you very much to the joint committee which I had the honour to chair. I thank all its members as well as the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, the DP supports this amending piece of legislation. We do so against the background that a new Bill is to be brought before Parliament next year to deal with occupational disease in mines and works—a Bill which will look very carefully at, among other things, benefits payable to beneficiaries, including the certain one-sum benefits which the Bill before the House today is intent on increasing. We believe that the increases in the benefits referred to in this Bill should be granted for the immediate benefit of people who are seeking relief in terms of this Bill.

However, by supporting the Bill we are not in any way supporting the very real discrimination that exists in the present Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act of 1973. We are appalled at the amounts of money made available to people of different race groups and I believe the amounts mentioned in this particular Bill are a good example of existing discrimination.

We therefore support this Bill then in the belief that it offers short-term relief to people of all races, but we believe that the new Bill dealing with this matter, which is to be brought before Parliament next year, will be in the spirit of positive reform in this country and move away from the discrimination this Bill reflects.

In conclusion I wish to say that we add our thanks to the hon the Minister and his department for the very positive reaction shown when the shortcomings of this Bill with regard to benefits payable to people suffering from tuberculosis were pointed out.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members who participated in the debate.

†I should like to thank the hon member for Bayview as well as the hon member for Durban North.

*This also applies to the hon member for Swartland who mentioned that the new legislation which we should like to submit to Parliament next year is of the utmost importance. I am in 100% agreement with that. To tell the truth, I think it has already been outstanding too long but, as hon members know, there were more than 120 different persons and institutions which reacted to the draft legislation.

†The hon member for Bayview mentioned something about disparity. There is no doubt about the fact that there is disparity, for instance in the first grade there is a disparity between Whites—23 775—and Coloureds and Indians—14 087. I should have liked to deal with this disparity this year.

*I want to point out to hon members, however, that these funds are fed by the Mines and Works Account which consists of levies on mines and works. It would have cost R160 million to eliminate this disparity.

I want to thank the hon member for Carletonville for supporting the legislation as well as for his contribution in the joint committee. I want to thank him for something else in particular. The chairman—I shall get to the chairman of the joint committee later—mentioned here this afternoon that the percentages in connection with tuberculosis were mentioned by the hon member himself, that is 20% for Whites, 25% for Coloureds and 30% for Blacks. I want to thank the hon member for Carletonville for making a positive contribution to eliminating disparity by means of this. I think this is a step in the right direction. [Interjections.] It seems to me that the CP has done an about turn and is really addressing the disparity in the country. It was a positive contribution; thank you very much for it. [Interjections.]

I also want to tell the hon member that no party has ever looked after miners better than the NP. For the past 41 years we have been doing this. The hon member has only had dealings with them for the past few years. For 41 years the NP has really treated the miner with great compassion. Nevertheless I am delighted that the hon member is addressing the question of disparity positively now.

Thank you very much to the hon member for Langlaagte for the way in which he acted as chairman of the joint committee. He saw immediately that the question of tuberculosis was important. I agree with him that it would probably be unnecessary in the principal Act because, with the new treatment of today using rifampicin and the rest we can treat tuberculosis in such a way that people work while undergoing treatment. Nevertheless I am very proud of the way in which he dealt with the matter.

Thank you very much once again to hon members who served on the joint committee. I look forward Deo volente to our being able to submit the alteration to the principal Act to Parliament next year. Thank you very much for the contributions.

Debate concluded.

The Committee adjourned at 15h25.

Order! The hon member for Vryheid informed me that he would like to make a personal explanation. I give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, after reading the transcription of my speech during the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill on 18 May, I noted that I had used the following words:

Since these words can be construed as being a reflection on the hon members of the Official Opposition, I want to withdraw the words unconditionally.

Order! Before I request the Secretary to read the first order of the day, I wish to notify members that I have been informed that an amendment to the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Bill has been placed on the Order Paper. The Bill will therefore be recommitted and the decision on the Question for the Second Reading of the Bill which appears on the Order Paper under order No 15 will accordingly not be dealt with today.

Mr Chairman, I have started running around like the poor Transvalers on Saturday between a scrum and a line-out. It is not my fault and I ask that I be excused for it! It is due to the slowness of the hon the Minister.

On our side of the House I do not have many problems with this Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. I should like to refer to a few clauses. I commence with clause 3 in which the controller is now authorised to open parcels which are imported into South Africa, in the absence of the owner provided that all attempts will be made to ensure the presence of the owner. We also see that the words “importer” or “exporter” are being substituted for the word “owner”. The opening of parcels which contain exported goods, will be seen to in the same way, because provision is being made for that as well.

It is important and we also support it because it now places a responsibility on the commissioner not to allow the goods to leave his control until he has satisfied himself that the provisions of the Act have been complied with as regards the import, export or conveying of goods through the RS A. What is emphasised here is that the position with respect to the examination of imported and exported goods is made very clear. In clause 6 we especially support the provision stipulating that when goods are classified as imported or locally manufactured goods, this may only be done in writing. This ensures proper administration.

Finally, I think that clause 15 deserves special mention. This clause provides that an officer, magistrate or member of the police force may detain any ship, vehicle, plant, material or goods at any place for the purpose of establishing whether such goods are liable to forfeiture under this Act. The existing stipulation authorises an officer, magistrate or member of the police force to detain such articles only if they are liable to forfeiture, or if he has reasonable grounds to believe that they are liable to forfeiture.

Fraud with reference to containerisation is increasing, and undeclared contraband was found in containers which were recently opened at random. In this way we have even found a woman in a container. I should like to know what duty was payable on her.

For purposes of effective law enforcement it is therefore imperative that officers are authorised to detain goods in order to ascertain whether they are liable to forfeiture. With these words we support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we gladly support the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. When this amending Bill is dealt with, it is usually a very clear indication to me that this session is nearing the end, and this is the case once again this year.

Although this legislation is largely of a technical nature, it is an important piece of legislation in terms of which the collecting of taxes and control of the movement of goods and persons over our country’s borders is regulated.

As hon members know, customs and excise, besides inland revenue, is the largest source of State revenue and it is necessary for the legislation to be adapted regularly in order to keep up with developments in the sphere of international trade and to prevent tax evasion.

After a study of the Bill, I am convinced that the envisaged amendments will lead to the smoother and more effective functioning of customs and excise matters, and I should like to emphasise a few aspects of the Bill.

Firstly, just as the hon member for Delmas did, I should like to refer to clause 3 which effects a textual change to the word “owner”. Accordingly section 16 of the Act is now being amended by clause 3.

In terms of section 16 controllers of customs and excise are authorised to open parcels, which are imported to the Republic, in the absence of the owner provided that every effort is made to ensure his presence. In the amendment for the word "owner” the words “importer” and “exporter” are substituted, and provision is made for the opening of parcels which are being exported from the Republic.

The provisions of section 16—with regard to the opening of imported or exported packages—must be read in conjunction with the provisions of section 107 (2) (a). This compels the commissioner not to allow any goods to leave his control until he has satisfied himself that the provisions of the Act, or any other legal provisions regarding the import or export or conveying of goods through the Republic, have been complied with.

In the legislation the owner and anyone who acts on behalf of the owner are included in the definition of importer and exporter.

In normal trade practice the importer or exporter is represented by his agent, who is readily identifiable and available, while that is not the case with the owner, who could also be a financial institution. The amendment is therefore only meant to clarify the situation with reference to the examination of imported and exported goods, and is essentially a textual correction to bring it into line with other provisions in the Act with regard to importers and exporters.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, it provides inter alia, that any imported goods or locally manufactured goods now have to be classified. In practice it often happens that importers make telephonic enquiries in regard to the classification of goods. This can lead to differences of opinion, since the enquirers may rely on the verbal advice, but for obvious reasons, for example the absence of a detailed submission, it cannot be regarded as a provision.

In terms of clause 6(6) the Act is being amended to make provision for tariff provisions to be made only in writing, and by means of this amendment proper administration of this technical and specialised aspect of customs functions, which is of fundamental importance to importers, is ensured.

I want to refer briefly to clauses 10 and 11. Sections 66 and 67 of the Act are being amended by clauses 10 and 11, and the result is that the place in a foreign country where goods are packed into a container for export to the Republic, can no longer be regarded as the port or place of export in the country of exportation. The result is that the full transportation costs of the goods, from the premises of an exporter to the port or place where the goods are loaded on board of a ship or vehicle of the country of export, become taxable again in order to bring it into line with conventional cargo.

The contradictory situation in which the full internal transportation costs of conventional cargo are taxable, while the containerised cargo is not taxable, existed for purposes of effectiveness. In the initial stage of containerisation importers who received containerised goods, experienced problems with the subdivision of costs into internal transportation costs and other expenses, which would enable them to include the transportation costs with reference to the internal transport of the container in the customs value of the imported goods.

For these various aforesaid reasons it was decided to include the cost of internal transportation of a container in the value of imported goods for the purposes of customs. Assocom made a submission in this regard, in which they naturally objected strongly, but since the breakdown of the cost is now readily available, and taking into consideration the complaints of importers of conventional cargo, conventional and containerised cargo are being placed on an equal footing by means of the envisaged amendments.

From the proposed amendments it is clear that in both cases only transportation costs in the country of exportation will be taxable. The fact that internal transportation costs in the case of containerised cargo are not taxable, also led to malpractices in some cases, for example where invoices are submitted which indicate the internal transportation costs as being equal to or even higher than sea or air freight. By means of this practice the customs value was decreased and tax was evaded.

Order! The conversation on my right-hand side is too loud. Hon members must please lower their voices.

I continue as if had not heard two hon Ministers speaking loudly. Since the amendment promotes uniformity and is also aimed at cancelling malpractices, we support it unconditionally.

I wish to refer briefly to the tax proposals announced on 15 March during the Budget speech, and which have now been included as a schedule to the amending Bill. In my opinion the tax increases on beer, spirits, cigars, pipe tobacco and cooldrink are moderate and in keeping with the findings of the Margo Commission. We regret the increase, but it was necessary.

In conclusion I should like to mention that the envisaged amendments will lead to the smoother and more effective functioning of matters regarding customs and excise, and therefore the amending Bill has our support.

Mr Chairman, I had no direction from my party to oppose this Bill. Therefore I support this Bill. However, I would be failing in my duty if I did not highlight certain irregularities in the entire taxation system.

At the beginning of the Schedule it is stated that if the taxable income of a married person does not exceed R12 000 per annum, he pays 14% in the rand, which, if one works it out, means that he pays R1 680 in tax. Further down the list one sees that a person whose taxable earning is double that amount does not pay merely twice R1 680 as he should. This poor soul has to pay R4 480 in tax. This is an anomaly. The question which worries me is this: Why must an industrious person who works hard and makes more money part with the money and give it to the Government? Why? The very taxation system creates an impediment for people who want to progress further. They ask themselves: “For what must I work? For the Government?” This irregularity in the taxation system is an impediment to the progress of the individual taxpayer.

You do not understand.

Sir, I understand. I am not like the hon member who says that I do not understand. He must also search his conscience. Why must one person who does not work hard, takes it easy and earns a taxable income of R12 000 per annum pay only R1 680 in tax while another one who works very hard—nobody gets anything for nothing; one has to work hard for one’s money—and earns twice that amount pay 16% more tax? How does one reconcile that? Where is the logic in that? I would like the hon member who said that I do not understand to answer that question.

I would like to challenge that hon member in an open debate in public on this point or any other point which he would like to dispute with me. He must not think that because of the pigmentation of his skin only he can think. That is insulting individual dignity. [Interjections.] It is nothing but a blatant insult to human dignity.

He thinks that because he is of the White race group only he can think logically and rationally. [Interjections.] That is a mistaken rationale under which he is suffering, and it is the cause of the problems in this country. [Interjections.] An attitude such as the one of that hon member is the cause of the problems in this country. He had no right to insult individual dignity. He is meant to be listening to my argument. I am arguing a logical point.

Why should one person work easily, take life easily, earn less money and pay a low income tax? If I were the Minister I would reverse the situation. I would start with a higher rate for those who earn less money… [Interjections.]

Order! I suggest that hon members give the hon member for Camperdown the opportunity to deliver his speech. It is impossible for him to talk normally, because hon members are really talking very loudly. I would ask hon members to assist us in making reasonable progress with this Order Paper. The only way in which we can do that is by co-operation. The hon member may continue.

The second point which is very wrong here is the fact that an ordinary businessman or a company which has to invest thousands of rands, face competition and accept the possibility of a loss in business, has to pay 50c in the rand as income tax.

On the other hand, the life insurance companies do not invest a single cent. They take the money of the policy holder, invest it and make a profit, yet they are only charged 45c in the rand. I would like the hon the Minister to address that anomaly as well. Is it reasonable? Businessmen are people who invest capital with the chance of losing it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member discussing the correct Bill?

Order! The hon member may continue. He has only ten seconds left. [Interjections.]

I am referring to section B on page 44 of the Income Tax Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill covers a large variety of topics, so I would like to deal with some of the technical aspects first.

I would like to start with clause 2. The question which I specifically would like to direct to the hon the Deputy Minister is whether in effect this provision does not give a privilege to the local contractor who operates with an importer as opposed to those who operate purely on a local basis without co-operating with importers, but with local manufacturers and producers. Reading this clause, it seems to me that we are actually giving a privilege to a local contractor who operates with an importer as against a purely local production situation. I doubt whether that was the intention. If that is the effect, then we will have to look at this particular situation again.

The second matter I want to raise is also of a technical nature. Both clauses 4 and 12 deal with prescriptive periods. I know that one cannot leave matters open for ever, but I must submit that in both cases I believe that these periods are too short.

I think the hon the Minister will be aware of the fact that in regard to clauses 10 and 11 he has received representations from the Chamber of Commerce, which I think virtually every member of Parliament has received.

There is substantial substance in the contention of Assocom that this is in fact not the correct way of dealing with this matter. However, in addition to what Assocom says—and I do not intend to repeat what Assocom says—I have a different problem with regard to this. The situation as now sought to be amended will have the effect of increasing the duties and therefore increasing costs and therefore adding to inflation. The problem with imported goods, as it is, is that they are subject to a depreciating rand, to import duties and to a surcharge, and in all these circumstances to increase costs even further seems to me to be an illogical approach to a subject. Whereas I think Assocom has a sound case on practical grounds, I believe there is an even stronger case in regard to this matter on the basis of increasing costs and adding fuel to inflation.

This brings me to clause 12. On a previous occasion I have debated with the hon the Deputy Minister all the issues relating to the imposition of certain penalties and the recovery of certain duties, and the change in local content which is now to be based on value.

However, the question that I want to raise pertinently today is: What has happened to the price of motorcars in South Africa over the past few years? We have got into a situation where a motorcar which used to cost R10 000 only a few years ago now costs three, three and a half, or four times that amount. Gradually the price of motorcars is creating a situation where even the smallest motorcar tends to become a luxury. What is happening is that people more and more find themselves in a situation where to buy motorcars, and to buy new motorcars, they have to have the assistance of their employers. Therefore most of them are in the fringe benefit category.

Only this morning the point was raised that the purchases of second hand motorcars are mostly made by private individuals who are getting no assistance and so they can no longer buy new motorcars, whereas new motorcars are largely purchased by companies or are purchased with employers’ assistance. I think that we need to take a very hard look at the whole situation which is developing in regard to the cost of motor vehicles in South Africa.

The second thing I wish to mention arises directly from this, and that is that this measure which we have here ratifies a series of actions on the part of the Government over a period when Parliament was not in session. Included in this is the increase of the fuel levy which came about in January of this year. This Bill ratifies that action.

I need to pose some questions to the hon the Deputy Minister today. Firstly, we took the fuel levy and we said that funds generated from the fuel levy would no longer be used for the construction of roads but would go into the general revenue account, but then we introduced the toll roads system and increased the fuel levy as a means of taxation. After having told the public that in fact this year was going to be a year of financial restraint and that there were going to be no increases for public servants we increased the public servants’ salaries. We then had to find the money to pay for it and we used the fuel levy as a means to pay for the public service increases. Now we find a situation where road financing is no longer from the fuel levy. We have toll roads which are not only imposing tolls on new roads but which in fact impose tolls on existing roads as well, and we have toll levies which are imposed at a high level. There is a public protest in virtually the whole of South Africa against the actions of the Government in regard to the imposition of tolls. Now, suddenly when we enter an election phase, miraculously we are able to reduce the tolls.

I would now like to ask a very simple question. If, in fact, the tolls were too high, why were they imposed at that high level in the first place? Why were they ever at that level? Why does the hon the Minister now find it convenient to reduce them? Where is the money going to come from in order to supplement what is now not going to be collected on the toll roads? I think it is going to come from the fuel levy again—either directly or indirectly. So we are now back where we started. I would like to know whether in fact this Government has a policy in respect of toll roads and the fuel levy because to my mind the toll road system has been bad from the outset. I think it is an impertinence to impose tolls upon existing roads. [Interjections.] The tolls should in any case never have been at the level at which they were.

Why is it now convenient when it was not convenient before? Why is it suddenly possible to reduce the tolls now that we are entering an election phase? If it is correct that the money was needed from the higher toll levies, then the hon the Minister has a duty to tell us where he is going to take that money from. To my mind that R1 000 million is going to have so many demands made on it by the time we get to 6 September that it is not going to be enough. I think there are some explanations that need to be given.

Allow me also to deal with another duty which I find a most remarkable thing. According to the Bill before us there is an increase in duties on, for example, mineral waters. I think it is a crazy situation in South Africa that we actually import water into South Africa to drink. I can say this from my own experience. Whether one flies by SAA, whether one goes to other institutions with which the Government is connected, or whether one goes to a private restaurant and one asks for a mineral water, the only thing one can get is an imported mineral water; one cannot get a locally manufactured one. On top of it the duty on local mineral water is now being increased. It may be perfectly correct but one can drink tap water just as easily as mineral water.

Maybe the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development who is looking at me, may have an opinion as to whether the one is better than the other. Why do we have to import drinking water into South Africa? Why do we have to increase the duty on local mineral water? Why do we create such a situation at the very time when I would imagine we could well do without the importation of bottled water for our people to drink.

I have had the same argument in respect of excise duties on other local products. If we are going to have a situation that is going to encourage local production to keep local people in jobs in order to avoid the wastage of foreign exchange, then the hon the Minister should explain to me this one single item which I have selected from a large number which I would have quoted if I had the time. If in those circumstances we do not have the sense to look after our own production, I do not know how we can logically justify this kind of action. For these reasons, particularly in relation to the raising of the duties, we will not support the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Yeoville whom I believe is a fundi on financial matters. He has basically covered the entire Bill and all the details which hon members perhaps wanted to be highlighted.

I am also concerned about the taxes and levies relating to some staple foodstuffs which are normally the poor man’s food. We too find it difficult to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say one or two things about the hon members who spoke before me. If hon members can talk about income tax and tollroads under Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, then I suppose I can also make one or two comments. [Interjections.]

I would like to strongly support the hon member for Yeoville when he says we must support things that are made in South Africa. One of the ideas that we can support strongly is to ask the South African Bureau of Standards to stamp on anything that is made in South Africa “Made in South Africa” so that when we want to support local goods we know exactly what we are supporting.

Otherwise this is, as everybody else has said, a purely technical Bill. There are some very interesting things in this purely technical Bill. It clears up some of the anomalies that have arisen with the customs and excise taxes that have been levied on goods produced here and also sold in our TBVC states. These are anomalies that had to be dealt with and if the DP does not support this Bill I wonder how they think those anomalies will disappear.

The other quite interesting thing is that it extends our shores under the sea to where the shelf drops into the sea so that in future when we have oil or gas that is piped into the country we do not literally have to import it from a country that is outside our own country.

The controller is enjoined to do all in his power to get the owner of imported packages to be present when he opens them, but if he cannot do so he has the right in terms of the Bill to open them himself even if the owner is not present. He also is entitled to call in the agent of the importer or exporter as the person responsible. This cuts out a lot of smuggling. I wonder, seeing that the DP does not support this Bill, if they thought about the smuggling. It is important.

Definitions of the class or category of goods must in future be in writing. Too many times there are phone calls and the person says, “Will you put it into this category or not?” The customs official agrees and then afterwards they cheat and say the customs official said something else.

Inland freight charges in foreign countries will again become dutiable. Those that work for us outside the country and bring their motor cars back will have a different set of customs duties from what they had. Containerised and uncontainerised goods will be excised on a different system so that it is more fair.

The interesting thing about this Bill is Clause 12, which clears up the excise on motor cars in future. The three months parallel system that we put into action at the beginning of March is now past. From the beginning of next month motor cars will carry excise duty of R3 000 each, minus the 33,3% which is allowed to them in the first place. That will come into effect at the beginning of next month so this is a very important Bill. I wonder whether the DP, when they oppose the Bill, have wondered what will happen to our motor cars next month and whether we should just go to the bad old system of excising them on the weight of the stuff that is brought in.

Local content in cars must be encouraged and therefore it is impossible to say on the one hand that we are not going to support this Bill and on the other hand that we support things which are made locally.

Section 88 is amended by clause 15 to provide that an officer, magistrate or member of the police force may detain any ship or vehicle, so that we may investigate things which may be smuggled. It is a technical amending Bill which has obviously been drawn up by experts, and it is my pleasure and pride to say we should pass it as quickly as possible.

Mr Chairman, in the past we lost a lot in tax as a result of certain malpractices relating to imports and exports. We are still losing a lot of money. However much we may tighten up on the rules, there will still be people who will try to find loopholes and so necessitate further amendments from time to time.

The practice of falsifying documents in order to dodge taxes is an act of robbery—to put it in stronger words, it is an act of piracy—against the Treasury. It is intolerable that these things should be allowed to happen without some effort being made to curb these malpractices.

To open containers belonging to other people is a rather harsh measure, but if we are to combat not only smuggling, but also the corruption that flows from it, then we must do so.

We therefore support the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member Mr Douw for a very thorough explanation of the Bill. I also want to thank other hon members who participated in this debate.

†I cannot understand why the DP is opposed to this Bill because it is a technical Bill. The fact that the hon member for Yeoville mentioned matters not related to this Bill indicated that he was actually making a kind of election speech.

He referred to clause 2. I would like to point out that the amendment applies to any person who operates in the defined area. There can therefore be no advantage to foreign companies. He also referred to problems concerning clauses 4 and 12.I would like to point out that the prescriptive period was extended from three months to six months in 1987.

I think the hon member’s biggest problem is with clause 9(11). I understand that Assocom submitted a report against clauses 10 and 11. Once again, it is very technical. I would like to point out that before containerisation we used an FOB system, but when we introduced container transport or containerisation we had difficulty in working out the cost from, for instance, the factory to the harbour. In deciding the customs duty we took into account the transport costs from the port to South Africa. That was applicable to the exportation of containerised products. However, this was not the case in regard to break-bulk products or non-containerised products.

*What happens now, is that one product which one brings to South Africa in a container, is basically taxed less than the product which is imported loosely, because in that case the transport costs are already included when the product leaves the factory. The reason why we differentiate with regard to our imports, is that Customs and Excise experience problems when calculating the cost of transport to the harbour after containerisation in the factory.

With the improvement of the administration we are now able to place the two systems on an equal footing. Therefore, the discrimination which existed between products which arrived in a container and those which did not arrive in a container, now disappears.

The hon member also asked whether this would not result in high costs. According to figures of total imports which we have at our disposal, only 2,4% has to do with transport by land. I do not want to go into all the technical aspects, but in these clauses we are also making provision for the transport of products from a country which does not have a harbour—a so-called landlocked country. I think that if one wants to calculate the cost, one must remember that these are not clauses which seek to increase the revenue. They are clauses which seek to remove discrimination.

The next problem which we experienced, was that irregularities had taken place. A certain part of the cost of transporting the product which is transported in a container by land, was weighted against the cost of transporting the same product by sea. We had to eliminate that. After all there are clever people all over the world who always try to avoid levies and tariffs. The hon member for Yeoville then began his political speech about increasing costs, and thereby linked up with his leader, the hon member Dr De Beer.

I want to ask the hon member, seeing that I know him well enough now, whether or not he has said in this House, and in other places, that we should buy South African products. Correct! The hon member said that in certain cases we should even enforce import control. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon member has said that. I now want to tell the hon member that here the Council for Trade and Industry undertook a thorough investigation to promote the motor industry in South Africa and to increase the local content. Now the hon member comes along and says for election purposes that we should not do so.

You never listen to what I say.

No, the hon member spoke about the increase in costs and referred to this clause which deals with the new content programme of the Government.

You must be careful about what you say; or you will get into trouble again! [Interjections.]

I shall proceed. The hon member then spoke about the price of petrol. He was enjoying himself and then began to ask questions. His argument was that the price of petrol was increased in order to pay for the salary increases for the public servants. I now want to ask the hon member whether or not he was opposed to the officials and teachers and nurses receiving increases.

At the beginning of the year you gave an undertaking to maintain salaries at the level at which they were this year. You gave that undertaking.

However, what did the hon member’s rich friends do? They offered people salaries. One of our top people in the Receiver’s Office accepted a salary of almost 200% more at a consulting firm in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] No, Sir, the way he talks politics, makes me think that the hon member was opposed to the increase of salaries of public servants, nurses and teachers in South Africa.

I just want to mention to the hon member that when we did increase the price of petrol, it was not specifically a question of the increase in salaries of public servants. Our young men were involved in Angola! The hon member has completely forgotten about that. He has completely forgotten that we had extra costs there. I know that he is a person who is very sympathetic towards our action in Angola. However, it cost money, and we had to finance it. Besides, the hon member was enjoying himself so much that he completely forgot about the legislation, like my friend the hon member for Camperdown, who spoke about a different Bill, and then simply switched to the question of toll rights although that did not fall under that Bill at all.

First Reading debate concluded.

Question put to House of Assembly: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting).

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

Question agreed to.

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

Question agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting).

Bill accordingly read a first time.

Second Reading taken without debate.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the annual taxation laws amendment Bill is a very necessary piece of legislation, but it is seldom very exciting. This year’s Bill is unfortunately no exception to the rule. However, there are certain interesting characteristics of the Bill which I would like to deal with briefly.

Firstly, it was found to be necessary to close certain loopholes which taxpayers had discovered in the legislation and were exploiting as actively as possible.

The amendments which are introduced by clause 1 deal with a matter of transfer duty of which estate planners made use. Clause 15 repeals the saving clause of section 98(2) of the Companies Act, 1973, which has been used as a means of avoiding stamp duty for quite a while. This amendment was recommended by the Margo Commission, but for administrative reasons it was impossible for us to react to it last year.

Similarly clauses 17 and 21 deal with an uncertainty in the Sales Tax Act, 1978, with regard to certain containers such as bottles, which certain sellers tried to use to their own advantage. These containers were probably for the water which we imported.

Finally I want to refer to clause 19, which now clarifies the treatment of samples and catalogues for sales tax purposes.

Although we are closing loopholes, we are also introducing measures which will be to the advantage of taxpayers. In marriages in community of property in which one or the other spouse was the owner of immovable property before the marriage, the policy of the Commissioner of Internal Affairs was to not charge duty on the undivided half share which was transferred on the date of the marriage, although a narrow interpretation of the Act may have demanded payment thereof. The amendment which is introduced by the envisaged new section 9(1) (k) of the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, confirms this practice.

Clause 4 grants an exemption from stamp duty to certain organisations. In this regard it will be remembered that while for many years immovable property could be transferred to an heir exempt from estate duty, a similar exemption from stamp duty with regard to the transfer of trade securities did not exist. Hon members will remember that in his budget speech the hon the Minister of Finance announced a moderate increase in the stamp duty payable on 3 items listed in schedule 1 of the Stamp Duty Act. Clauses 10, 11 and 12 give effect to this announcement. The additional amount of revenue which this increase generates, may be small, but it is only correct that these duties are adjusted from time to time.

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the Bill, however, is clause 26, which extends the period of the moratorium of the payment of transfer duty and stamp duty in the case of groups of companies which wish to rationalise themselves on the sectorial structures. We have been told that quite a number of party groups are taking the opportunity to get rid of many dormant or partially dormant companies. It has been hoped that other groups will be encouraged by the extension of the moratorium period to do the same. As usual, hon members have been provided with a comprehensive explanatory memorandum on the amending Bill, which explains the intention of every clause. As it will be seen, a large number of the amendments are of a purely textual or consequential nature.

Mr Chairman, permit me right at the outset to thank the officials for the comprehensive and very good explanation in the explanatory memorandum on the Bill which we received from them in time this year.

We support the provisions as contained in the Bill in a further attempt to restrict tax avoidance schemes.

There is one matter that worries me a bit, however. That is the envisaged new section 9(1) (e) of the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, which provides that in the case of massing of estates, where an heir or legatee inherits something from a joint estate, and therefore indirectly from the surviving spouse, the property is now subject to transfer duty. To my knowledge transfer duty has never been attached to such transactions in all the years I have been an attorney and, as far as I know, up to today. I am not sure that the Government is so short of funds at present that it was necessary to introduce this provision specifically at this time. The Treasury has managed very well without that money over the years.

If we have one main objection to the amending Bill, however, I want to refer hon members to clause 18 which increases general sales tax from 12% to 13%. That is not an increase of 1%, but an increase of 8,33% in this taxation. Seen with the prevailing rate of inflation, this entails a drastic increase for the man in the street.

We know that that specific hon Deputy Minister is reasonably out of touch with the financial position of the ordinary citizen; hence his recent statement. He implied that we had not become impoverished in the past 20 years. By implication we are actually better off. Consequently I do not think the hon the Deputy Minister would be sympathetic towards the ordinary consumer, who has to lay out a large part of his spendable income—I say it is a large part—specifically in the form of GST. I am referring in particular to the GST on medicine, which in the case of the ordinary sick man and woman has a drastic effect on the cost of medicine.

If we also see that we have made repeated appeals in the past for the abolition of GST in respect of capital goods to be reconsidered in order to stimulate the productive section of our economy, and we look at the recommendations of the Margo Commission in this connection, I think it is a pity that the Government has not seen its way clear to doing something about this matter.

The ordinary farmer pays just as much in GST on an average tractor today as he paid for the whole tractor in the past. That is the factual situation, and it is becoming untenable.

This also applies to all the manufacturing industries in our country. We see that the State’s income from GST for the 1984-85 financial year was R5,866 billion. This year’s expected income from GST is R15,150 billion. I concede that inflation has contributed to that, but the man in the street simply cannot bear that burden any more.

I want to refer briefly to a report that appeared in that reliable newspaper Beeld this morning. It refers to a speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg recently in which he made known certain figures in respect of GST which had been collected by the Government in Springs, Boksburg and also in Johannesburg. The report in Beeld says that they doubt the sources of the CP in this connection and implies that the hon member for Lichtenburg fabricated the figures. But we got those figures from a senior official in the Ministry!

Where did you get that from?

We got those figures in writing and we have proof of that. What do these figures that we received from the Receiver of Revenue’s office say? I am inclined to believe them.

If one looks at a town such as Springs, one sees that in February 1988 GST was collected in the amount of R5 894 209 million. In February of this year, R9 993 381 million was collected—an increase of 69,55%. This is one of those towns among others presented by Beeld as towns that are dying economically because CP town councils are in control.

When one looks at the figures for Boksburg, one sees that in February 1988, R9 038 255 million was collected. In February this year that figure increased to R13 375 059 million—an increase of 47,98%. This is the economically dying town of Boksburg, under CP control.

Let us look at Johannesburg, with its Hillbrow and its imminent free settlement areas. In February 1988 R302 million was collected in Johannesburg. In February of this year only R282 million was collected—a drop of 6,48%. [Interjections] To me it seems that they have no future. I do not know whether they have any present. [Interjections.]

What do these figures tell us? Surely they can mean only one thing. The collection of GST is a reliable reflection of the economic activities of a community, after all. The voters of South Africa have been told that those towns are dying. These figures reflect the opposite, however.

The hon the Deputy Minister told us that the average man in South Africa had not become any poorer. In other words, he is more prosperous than he was before. The ordinary man in the street must bring home to the hon the Deputy Minister—and he is going to on 6 September 1989—what the true situation was and is.

I am sorry, but the CP cannot vote in favour of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Barberton in his word of thanks to the officials. I refuse, however, to become involved in the internecine strife about Boksburg, Carletonville or whatever.

Right at the outset I want to say that we support this legislation wholeheartedly. I am going to say something about transfer duty, stamp duty and also the moratorium placed on this by the rationalisation of companies and the unfortunate increase in GST.

In the first place I should like to say a few words about transfer duty and stamp duty. The Acts that regulate the imposition of these taxes are normally overshadowed completely by their big brothers, viz the Income Tax Act and the Sales Tax Act, and therefore seldom receive the same degree of prominence. If one looks at the collections from these sources, however, it is interesting to note that transfer duty and stamp duty amount to approximately R1 billion per year these days. Consequently it is not surprising that the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is kept very busy constantly obviating loopholes also as far as this legislation is concerned.

As hon members know, a few amendments to the Stamp Duties Act were passed last year to put an end to involved schemes to avoid paying stamp duty, which is payable upon the cancellation or redemption of company shares, in terms of Item 15 (4) of Schedule I to the Stamp Duties Act, 1968. Consequently I am pleased to see that the proviso to section 98 (2) of the Companies Act, which for years made up a branch of avoidance schemes of this nature, is also being deleted. This should serve as a further deterrent for people who want to avoid stamp duty in this way.

In addition it is pleasing to see that this Bill not only takes from the taxpayer, but also—as the hon the Deputy Minister said—gives him something. It is specially striking that a number of exemptions are being introduced, and the amendment proposed by the envisaged new section 9 (1) (k) in the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, makes it clear that no estate duty is payable if a person obtains property by operation of law as a result of the contraction of a marriage in community of property with another person if that person was the owner of fixed property before the date of the contraction of the marriage. As a result it is merely logical that without this exemption, estate duty would definitely have had a penalising effect on marriages contracted in circumstances of this nature.

The extension of the exemption of stamp duties to, for example, scientific and technical research institutions, associations that provide medical, dental, blood transfusion and hospital services, institutions that promote nature conservation and animal protection activities, as well as certain institutions which provide residential accommodation for the elderly, are welcomed.

It is an irrefutable fact that the number of elderly people increases tremendously every year and we all realise that the Government cannot manage to meet all their needs on its own. The joint efforts of the private sector and the Government, in whatever form, for example tax relief, as I mentioned in this case, are therefore encouraging.

While I was studying the explanatory memorandum, I was struck by the fact that certain amendments are being made with the intention inter alia to eliminate any uncertainty and to make matters absolutely clear. That is something I support.

It is not always that easy for the man in the street to interpret and understand legislation, since he does not have such a good grounding in that regard. Even our country’s jurists often differ with one another, and we see that daily. That is why we have so many legal actions and court cases. It can only be to our benefit to attempt throughout to eliminate obscurities in our legislation as far as possible and to make things clear in simple, comprehensible language.

I do not want to elaborate much on the budget proposals contained once again in this Bill, since these have been discussed comprehensively in the Budget debate. There is one aspect that I should like to address, however, and that is the question concerning the date of the implementation of the stamp duty increases announced in the Budget Speech. This matter received considerable attention in the Press, in that the increases came into operation as early as 1 April 1989, whereas there was no legal authorisation for the collection of the additional stamp duty until this Bill is passed by Parliament today.

According to the explanatory memorandum, I see that this has been the practice for many years, but that then the legislation is a transitional provision, as contained in clause 13, which leaves one with the choice of paying additional stamp duty within one month after the date of the implementation of this Bill. In my opinion it is logical to a great extent that 1 April was chosen as the date of implementation, since that is the beginning of the Government’s financial year, and since the Minister of Finance would like to collect a full year’s additional stamp duty. Consequently it appears that a great deal of unnecessary fuss was made about this.

Apart from the unfortunate fact that the sales tax rate was increased by one percentage point, and of course discussed extensively during the Budget debate, the rest of the amendments to the Sales Tax Act seem to be mainly of a textual and administrative nature. The clear definition of a returnable container should considerably facilitate the administration of the relevant legislation in that sphere, and this also applies to the amendment to the Regional Services Councils Act.

In my opinion the highlight of this amending Bill is undoubtedly the extension of the moratorium on stamp duties and transfer duty, in which a rationalisation of a group of companies is being effected. I noted that these steps were also welcomed by the Press.

In addition to the advantages this temporary exemption will have for the private sector, it will also be to the advantage of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue in that groups of companies are now being given an opportunity to get rid of many dormant and unnecessary companies, which naturally will lead to a reduction in the number on its company register, which in turn will lead to administrative savings.

Of course the same argument applies to the register of the Registrar of Companies. In addition groups of companies can now order and arrange their subsidiaries and divisions in such a way as to effect essential and protracted savings and administrative benefits, which will allow those groups to function in a more streamlined and economical way. The ripple effect of the savings cannot always be quantified, but must be massive. I do not think one always realises their extent.

Our party sometimes differs sharply with the Government with regard to political standpoints, but I do want to give credit where it is due. The establishment, and now the extension of this moratorium, is one of those aspects, and I think the business world in particular should be grateful to the Government for this very important step it has taken. Consequently I want to appeal to company groups which have not yet availed themselves of this opportunity, to make use of the chance if this is at all possible. We should like to support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon nominated member, Mr Douw. I merely want to say a few words in connection with him and his speech. The speech he made proves that not only was it well prepared, but also that he has a thorough knowledge of the subject on which he spoke. I also want to mention today that his work in the Joint Committee on Finance is not only of a very high quality, but that he is one of the people—I think the chairman will agree with me—who probably makes one of the greatest contributions in that committee. If anyone wants to tell me that an hon member in the House of which he is a member does not make his contribution to finance, I reject that. I can always present my hon friend as an example, not of one person, but of many of the hon members of that House who can make an excellent contribution to the management of finance in this country. I say that with great pleasure.

I think the hon member for Barberton had to contend with the same temptation that got the hon the Deputy Minister into trouble. I must warn him that if one uses selective figures, one can get into trouble. If one wants proof of that, I can merely refer him to what has happened during the past few days with regard to using selective figures. I can tell him that Johannesburg is alive. It does not matter whether we have CPs there or NPs. Johannesburg is a city which will continue to exist and which in reality will always be the leader in this country, in the business world, in the financial world, and will also, may I say, be an example when it comes to politics in South Africa.

One of the problems my hon friend has, is that he does not like GST. I do not like GST either. The difference between us, however, is that whereas both of us do not like GST, I do not like the AWB, and he does. That is the difference between us with regard to politics.

†Mr Chairman, because this is a taxation measure and I will have relatively little time during the debate on the Income Tax Bill, I would like to take the opportunity, before I continue, of paying tribute to the retiring Commissioner for Inland Revenue, to thank him and his staff for the co-operation one has always had from them. Particularly, on this occasion, I want to say to him and have it recorded in Hansard that I believe that he has made a very substantial contribution to the taxation laws of South Africa and the administration of a good fiscal system in our country. I wish him well in his retirement, and I hope that his services will still be available to the State in some or other capacity so that his great talents may not be lost to us.

At the same time, I would like to welcome his successor to office, and wish him well in the job. He follows in the footsteps of many outstanding men and I am sure that he will similarly make a contribution.

The hon the Deputy Minister has spoken about the question of tax avoidance and tax evasion again, and he has pointed to some of the measures contained in this Bill. To make our position quite clear I want to say that we will support the hon the Minister in any endeavour to deal with tax evasion. We will also support him in a measure against tax avoidance, which is antisocial and undesirable and which it is necessary to put an end to, provided that it is not retrospective.

In other words, if one gives people warning that as of a particular date certain procedures will no longer be permitted, it is open to the legislature to say that it is a socially, fiscally undesirable action which they are going to put an end to, and that even though it may be legitimate at the time it is done, it may no longer be done from then onwards. That is why the measures contained in this Bill which are designed to do away with undesirable tax avoidance schemes will meet with our support.

The second issue which I want to raise is the question of the increase in GST. We oppose that increase. We think it is untimely and unnecessary. There are other sources of revenue available. All we had to do was to deal with the surplus of last year differently and we would have been able to avoid the question of an increase in GST. That is one example of how to deal with it.

The reality, however, is that we cannot support the increase in GST because, regardless of whatever other harmful effects it might have, it has certainly now increased prices at a time at which it should have had exactly the opposite effect. Therefore, we do not believe that the increase in GST can be justified in these difficult inflationary times.

The other matter which relates to the GST increase is, of course, the question of VAT. We have regrets that VAT has been delayed. It has already been delayed quite substantially beyond the original time-table. If it means that in the end the legislation is going to be better and that it is going to be easier to phase it in, then we understand. Once all the loopholes have been tightened up in the legislation, once there has been adequate consultation, we do not believe it to be in the national interest to unduly delay the introduction of VAT. There are many reasons why VAT should come in, and I have advocated it ever since GST was introduced, when I opposed it and suggested that VAT should be introduced.

We believe that, while the legislation must be foolproof and effective, for which time obviously needs to be taken, the introduction of VAT should not unduly be delayed. We are concerned that it is, in fact, being delayed.

There are some other things which I would like to touch on, for instance the question of allowing transfers to go through in order to enable separate insurance businesses to be conducted in separate companies. The concession which had been granted to separate short-term and longterm insurance businesses in separate companies is completely logical, and I am fully in support of that. However, to separate different classes of short-term insurance is impractical, because many of the activities of a company, which are contained in one policy, will be included in different types of short-term insurance. Therefore, to have that type of short-term insurance in separate companies is utterly illogical.

I can give hon members an example. One can get a policy which covers one against theft and fire. The theft part has to be in the composite class; the fire part has to be in the fire class. It is quite impractical to have two separate companies in order to deal with that situation. Except for dealing with short- and long-term insurance I believe this is not a practical situation.

The second point that I am unhappy about is the issue of imposing the debit duty on items which relate to Post Office savings accounts and Post Office accounts generally. To my mind the Post Office accounts are largely used by the lower income groups. The poorest of the people normally use the Post Office as a place for depositing their savings. I appeal to the hon the Minister that he should have a second thought about the Post Office and these debit items. He is really imposing a duty on people who can least afford it, and where the items are normally very small. Even though the actual duty itself is only a small amount of money, we are dealing with people who are in many cases the poor of our country, who regard this as the easiest means of putting the few rand that they have safely away. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister that the Post Office Savings Bank’s ordinary savings account should be exempted from this duty. In this regard I think we have a social duty to see to it that this is not done.

May I in conclusion deal with another matter, which the hon the Minister will say I am doing for election purposes. However, he thinks everything is mentioned for election purposes, and I can understand that. He is very sensitive about this. It is just a little item. Why is he against people entering into antenuptial contracts? He is doubling the duty with regard to antenuptial contracts. What does he have against people who want to get married? What does he have against people who want to enter into antenuptial contracts? These are normally young people on the brink of their lives who are going to start married life together. I have always thought that this Government would impose a duty or a tax on every conceivable human activity. I have always thought, however, that they would exclude one. One I thought they would not do it to.

However, they are getting very close to it by now seeking to double the duties in respect of antenuptial contracts and going for young people at this moment in time. What has the hon the Minister got against young people who want to get married that he wants to increase this duty by doubling it? What has the hon the Minister got against young people? What is the matter with the hon the Minister? With great respect, why does the hon the Minister want to do this? I would like the hon the Minister to answer that.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon member of the DP in this debate. The hon member has dealt with the Bill before us thoroughly and I would just like to add this to what he has said: The more tax evaders there are the lower is the amount of tax in the kitty. This compels fiscal policy to increase taxes vertically rather than horizontally. Therefore, I welcome the measures taken by this Bill, especially for the last point that the hon member for Yeoville raised. The taxation on the antenuptial contract of young couples should be done away with and the hon the Minister should give that his consideration. I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the speech of the hon member for Camperdown was short and sweet and I thank the hon member for his comments on the crackdown on tax evaders.

As far as the hon member for Yeoville is concerned, I support his comments on the the contribution made by the hon member Mr Douw in the joint committee. I would also like to say that the hon member for Yeoville made an outstanding contribution. I would like to thank the hon member for his party’s support on the measures designed to curb tax evasion schemes, but I think his comments on GST are at the moment purely designed to catch votes whether the hon member likes it or not. I will deal with that later in my speech.

The amending Bill addresses various problems and necessary amendments to the Transfer Duty Act, the Stamp Duties Act, the Companies Act, the Regional Services Councils Act, the Sales Tax Act and the Taxation Laws Amendment Act of 1988.I only have time to deal with one or two aspects.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, this grants and clarifies various exemptions in respect of transfer duty payable on property relating, inter alia, to property acquired by an heir or legatee by way of testamentary succession. It also restricts the exemption to property owned by the deceased and does not apply to property acquired by an heir from the survivor in terms of a mutual will. There have been proved to be difficulties with this but this measure does bring clarity.

Clause 1 also removes the uncertainty about transfer duty payable on registration of transfer property owned by spouses married in community of property and provides a necessary and specific exemption so as not to impose double duty.

Various amendments to the Sales Tax Act are also addressed. Firstly, in the Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Finance on 15 March it was announced that the rate of GST was to be increased from 12% to 13% with effect from 20 March. In limiting the increase of GST to 1 % it is clear that an objective evaluation of all the relevant economic factors had to be made. It is true to say that with the fast growing informal sector, which is largely unaccounted for as far as being taxpayers to fund all sectors of our society is concerned, the temptation to increase GST further to recover taxes from this sector must have been very great. With the Government’s commitment to curb the level of State expenditure for the 1989-90 financial year to an increase of only 15%—equal to the expected inflation rate, and that is showing no growth in expenditure—in the continued fight against inflation, it would have seemed to be unwise to increase GST any further. The discouraging effect of excessively high rates of individual and corporate tax and the country’s need for an enterprising and dynamic private sector as the key to economic growth compelled the Government not to increase direct taxes, and I think the taxpayers can be grateful for that.

Against the background of curbing Government expenditure to the lowest possible level an optimal degree of loan financing had to be utilised, and to avoid the necessity for a further increase in direct tax burdens, to limit the demands on an overheated economy and to avoid putting excessive pressure on the balance of payments, it was clear that there was no choice but to increase the rate of GST.

It is estimated that the additional income for the 1989-90 financial year will raise R1,150 billion, and R1,250 billion for a full year. The Government is convinced that this measure will be adequate to meet the needs of the economy and no further increase in GST is therefore expected.

It is clear that there are still many tax dodgers in respect of GST. I have mentioned this before and I do so again. Only yesterday I had a call from a representative of a large trader in the liquor industry, who complained about the problems experienced by legitimate liquor retailers who are in competition with traders in the TB VC countries who are retailing their wares free of GST to persons outside their countries. It is claimed that millions of rand are involved.

We welcome the secondment of young chartered accountants to the department of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. They are doing sterling work in putting a finger on the crooks. I would suggest that attention be given to this matter of liquor traders which I have just mentioned.

Other amendments to the Sales Tax Act cover the determination of gross value and taxable value where donations are regarded as a sale within the definition of sale. Clauses 19 to 24 cover the necessary textual amendments.

Clause 29 deals with the extension of temporary exemption from stamp duties and transfer duties on companies undergoing re-organisation and rationalisation. The hon the Deputy Minister did discuss this. However, the fact is that the extension was needed by organised commerce. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to join the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South who expressed certain sentiments regarding the contributions made by the hon member for Yeoville, as well as the hon member Mr Douw. I think their contributions were of assistance to us in our meetings which were regularly held.

The Bill, as mentioned, introduces amendments to various Acts, such as the Transfer Duty Act, the Stamp Duties Act and the Sales Tax Act.

It clears up all the doubts in respect of transfer duty in undivided half share in a joint estate and marriages completed in community of property. The proposed amendments to the old Stamp Duties Act are consequential. Clause 14 clears up any uncertainty with the transfer duty when marketable securities have to be transferred from the trustee to the beneficiary and the registration of transfer of such a nature will now be exempt.

I would also like to endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Yeoville with regard to the avoidance of tax and also the exemption of duties for Post Office savings in that this is the poor man’s bank. With these few words we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank those hon members who supported the Bill.

I should like to begin with the hon member for Barberton. It is true that he did not support the Bill, but it was never the intention to have the exemption embodied in the envisaged new section 9 (1) (e) (i) of the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, made applicable to property other than that of the deceased. This is a matter of principle, and owing to increased abuses involving this section as a result of the amalgamation of estates and settlements we were therefore compelled to amend this section in order to clearly formulate the original intention of the legislature.

This brings us to a very interesting point, and this involves the GST received from our Boksburg office. If the hon member had made some further inquiries, he would have ascertained that taking the GST figures of an area and using them as an indication of the business activities of that area is quite wrong, because in a tax office area the businesses also pay in the GST of their branch offices. This means that if the head office is situated in Boksburg, it also obtains its revenue or its GST from all its branches, and it pays in the total amount.

Mr Chairman, if that is applicable to this year, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he would concede that the branches did the same the previous year?

That is possibly the case. [Interjections.]

There is an improvement of 26%.

That is not necessarily applicable to Boksburg. [Interjections.] That is where those hon members make the mistake. They assume that it is only Boksburg’s GST that is paid. [Interjections.] It applies, however, to an area that is possibly considerably larger than the Boksburg area.

Hon members must remember that capital equipment forms a very large portion of GST, and there are many industries in Boksburg. I could give hon members a figure. Of all the GST that is paid, 40% is paid on capital goods. [Interjections.] No, one cannot use that figure, because there are factories there, and there are payments made from other areas; not only Boksburg, but also places nearby, depending on the location of the head office. [Interjections.] No, those statistics are incorrect. [interjections.]

Order! I recall that when the hon member for Barberton raised these points, he was listened to in complete silence. I suggest that the hon the Deputy Minister also be listened to in silence.

The question of the increase of 1% in the GST was also attacked here. It was said that it would have an effect on inflation. There was also the argument that the increase was unnecessary and that it would hurt our people.

What economist or economic journal, or whatever person involved in the field of taxation, did not continually tell us, during the past 12 months, that we should increase GST? They pounded away at us with that information. When we increased it by 1%, we were told that it was too little and that we were being ridiculous. We were informed that we would not succeed in achieving the proper economic results.

We must now be honest about the fact that in 1988 domestic consumer spending at constant prices increased by 7%. The hon member for Barberton knows that. He cannot say that these figures of mine are incorrect, because they are the known figures supplied by the Reserve Bank. The hon member knows that domestic spending, on an annual basis, increased by 6% over the first three months of this year. One is very quick to draw conclusions, but if one looks at what that increase in expenditure embodied, the interesting fact that comes to light is that from 1986 to 1988 the sale of television sets, in terms of the applicable index, increased from 74,1 to 122,8. Motor vehicle sales increased, in terms of the index, from 85 in 1986 to 110,6 in 1988.

The problem with this increase in consumer spending is that the imports index immediately shot up. We are being attacked because this increase in consumer spending far outstripped South Africa’s production. This means that products were imported. We do not have reserves for more than eight weeks.

When one looks at what happened to our gold and foreign exchange reserves during the past 12 months, one realises in what a crisis South Africa finds itself. Now the hon member is saying that we should not try to limit the consumption. Did he want us to increase interest rates even further? That is surely the other method we could have employed. We must now convey sound monetary and fiscal policy to the public.

If one looks at consumer spending, it does not seem as if consumers are ever going to stop spending money. What confidence would the rest of the world have in South Africa if it could not pay its debts?

The hon member also spoke about the levying of GST on medication. Every day we receive requests to exempt certain products from GST. The problem, however—the hon member knows this too—is that as soon as one grants exemption, one loses a tremendous amount.

Let us take the exemption of foodstuffs as an example. The purchases of those persons who can benefit from that exemption total an amount of approximately R300 million, but we lose R1,5 billion. When we come to value added tax, it means that with exemptions one does not achieve what one had in mind. The hon member knows that. Some of the hon members of the House of Representatives, for example the hon member Mr Lockey, have in fact said so.

As far as capital equipment is concerned, 40% is derived from GST. I agree that when we come to value added tax and have a new system, we can re-examine the matter.

I am grateful to the hon member for Yeoville. This time he did not raise so many political issues in his speech.

†The stamp duties on ANCs, antenuptial contracts, are levied, according to the people in my office, as an office fee for work done in regard to the registration thereof in the deeds office. I do not know how much they charge at the deeds office because I am not a lawyer but the hon member for Yeoville ought to know because he is a lawyer.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon Deputy Minister a question?

Certainly, as long as it is not a technical question. As I have said, I am not a lawyer.

It is a very nice question. Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister if he has any plans to tax any activities after marriage as well as before marriage? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must be more specific!

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell the joke told by my hon Minister. When he was attending a bazaar, someone came along and shook hands with him, saying: “I should like to shake the hand that repeatedly dips into my pocket.”

†The hon member also mentioned the question of the Post Office Savings Bank. I would like to point out to the hon member that this duty was imposed last year and so it is not in this Bill. The amendment effected by clauses 5 and 6 should have been put through last year.

The hon member also mentioned the problem with GST and I covered that. As I have already said, it is a question of maintaining a balance between increasing the interest rate or increasing the GST—or both? However, one must remember that we did have an increase in gross domestic consumption in respect of real constant prices of 7% during last year. We just could not afford that.

*I thank the other speakers for their exceptional contributions.

First Reading debate concluded.

Question put to the House of Assembly: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Division demanded.

Declarations of Vote:

Mr Chairman, we are voting against the Bill mainly as a result of the increase in GST. In his reply the hon the Minister tried to imply that GST was increased by 8,33% this year with the noble aim of curbing expenditure. In practice this might have the effect of curbing expenditure, but the true facts are that GST was increased because the Government had cash-flow problems. The Exchequer wanted to get more money and that is why GST was increased—for no other reason whatsoever. We are therefore voting against the Bill.

Mr Chairman, there are many provisions in this Bill which we would support and others which we are against. The decisive feature, however, is the increase in GST. As far as we are concerned, the increase in GST affects the living standard of the people of South Africa. We find it not a matter of good timing, we find it undesirable and we find that it is taking place at a phase in the economy when there should be relief to the people rather than further burdens on the people.

There was the argument that there was a choice between an increase in the interest rates or an increase in GST. In reality South Africa has had both an increase in GST and an increase in interest rates. We have in fact had the worst of both worlds.

The other issue which arises is that the hon the Minister contends that one cannot deal with an increase in consumption of the nature which we had. Here again, we differ from the Government. As far as we are concerned it is absolutely essential to discourage the consumption of imported goods. One needs to discourage that. That is why we have been the advocates of a “Buy South African” campaign, not only this year or last year but for a number of years.

One cannot have a situation in which one so discourages consumption in South Africa that one creates unemployment as a result of it. South Africa cannot afford the instability that this unemployment would cause; on the contrary, we believe that we have to build South Africa. We need inward industrialisation and jobs. We need to encourage local industry. In these circumstances we can have selective measures which discourage imports and the consumption of imported goods, but which maintain the stability of our country, which is so vital.

Mr Chairman, it is clear that the opposition to this Bill by the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and the DP is pure vote catching.

At no time when we debated the Bill in the joint committee did they ever raise the question of GST. Now that we are getting close to an election they have brought up the question of the increased GST.

In my speech I dealt at some length with the position as far as overheating the economy goes. I mentioned that it was preferable to have an increase in GST as opposed to direct taxation. It is, however, absolutely clear what their standpoint is. They are looking for votes out there and they are not looking after the interests of the economy. With the particular measure before us and the increase in GST the interests of the economy are definitely being considered.

I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

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

Question agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting)·

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

Question agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting).

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—86: Aucamp J M; Badenhorst C J W; Badenhorst P J; Bartlett G S; Blanché J P I; Bloomberg S G; Bosman J F; Botha C J v R; Brazelle J A; Chait E J; Christophers D; Coetsee H J; Coetzer P W; Delport J T; Dilley L H M; Du Plessis B J; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Geldenhuys B L; Golden S G A; Graaff D de V; Grobier ACA C; Grobler P G W; Hardingham R W; Hattingh C P; Heyns J H; Jooste J A; Jordaan A L; King T J; Koornhof N J J v R; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Le Roux D E T; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Maré P L; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meiring J W H; Mentz J H W; Meyer A T; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Oosthuizen G C; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Retief J L; Scheepers J H L; Schoeman R S; Schoeman S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Schutte D P A; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Steyn P T; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Thompson A G; Van de Vyver J H; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van der Walt A T; Van Deventer F J; Van Gend D P de K; Van Heerden F J; Van Niekerk W A; Van Vuuren L M J; Van Zyl J G; Veldman M H; Vilonel J J; Welgemoed P J; Wentzel J J G; Wessels L.

NOES—31: Andrew K M; Burrows R M; Dalling D J; De Jager C D; De Ville J R; Derby-Lewis C J; Eglin C W; Ellis M J; Gastrow P H P; Gerber A; Hartzenberg F; Hulley R R; Jacobs S C; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Lorimer R J; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Nolte D G H; Schoeman C B; Schwarz H H; Snyman W J; Swart R A F; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H; Van Gend J B de R; Van Vuuren S P; Van Wyk W J D; Walsh J J.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a first time.

Second Reading taken without debate.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, as far as we are concerned, we are going to oppose this Bill. We do so because we believe that there is an anger among the taxpayers of South Africa. It is an anger that will only be fired more by this legislation. It exists among taxpayers, the public, the consumer and the pensioner.

Why are they angry? Their anger can be summarised on nine grounds. Firstly, as far as South Africa is concerned, we are being overtaxed. We are paying far too much in taxation. Secondly, we are not satisfied that the money is being used for purposes which should be regarded as necessary in the present situation in South Africa.

Thirdly, we are displeased by the degree of inefficiency which exists in the administration of the affairs of this country.

Fourthly, we are unhappy about the duplication of services which exists in South Africa.

Fifthly, we believe that there is confusion about what our Government’s priorities for expenditure are.

Sixthly, we are unhappy, and so are the public, about ideological expenditure on apartheid institutions that will in any case, over time, no longer exist. What is happening is that the Government is maintaining at considerable cost apartheid institutions which they themselves have already said are going to be dismantled.

Seventhly, there is frustration at the failure on the part of the Government to implement tax reform, instead of which we have ad hoc action and new taxes being levied upon the public of South Africa and upon companies.

Eighthly, I believe there is a fury amongst the public, the taxpayers, the consumers and pensioners at their being told that they are not worse off than they were some years ago, when so many of them are struggling to maintain reasonable standards of living.

Ninthly, it is quite clear that there are inadequate measures to control inflation which to a considerable extent is due to the mismanagement of the economy in the past few years. It is no use that every blame is sought to be apportioned to external factors. External factors have certainly had an influence. The reality however is that there are factors which are due to the mismanagement of the economy over the past few years.

When the Margo Commission report was made public, there was great hope for tax reform in South Africa. When the White Paper was published there was a degree of disappointment, but still there was hope that there was going to be reform at a reasonable pace. The reality is that we have not had organised tax reform. On the contrary, what we are having is ad hoc measures and a piecemeal, slow, unsatisfactory implementation of only some of the measures which were recommended. Even measures that were accepted by the Government in its original White Paper are still gathering dust upon the shelves. However, when it comes to taxation, last year we had what was called minimum company tax. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are really conversing too loudly. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, last year we had minimum company tax and we were told this was a once-off situation that would not be repeated. It had a clear element of retrospectivity as an ingredient. This year we have a loan levy instead of a direct tax. We have a loan levy instead of reform. The real situation is that the loan levy is another method of raising money from companies in South Africa.

The provisions of clause 29 relating to the levy are vague. They leave gaps, and again they contain an element of retrospectivity. The levy does not take account of the fact that there may be a reduction in the income of a company during the current year, particularly when the Government is seeking to dampen the economy and when this is likely to happen to a large number of companies. When a discretion is given, that is done in regard to what is termed an error in assessment… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members will force me to mention them by name. They are actually turning around in their benches to speak loudly, and that is not acceptable. The hon member may continue.

There is a reference to a discretion where there is an error in the assessment. I would imagine that if there is an error in an assessment, one should not be assessed on that tax in the first place—never mind having a levy imposed on the tax as well. There is also a provision which gives a discretion when there is an appeal and the Commissioner for Inland Revenue thinks there is a likelihood of success in the appeal. If there is such a prospect of success, why then would he be persisting in his opposition to the appeal? It really does not make sense.

The interest rate is fixed whereas we are living in times of variable interest rates. Interest rates are going to change as we go along. In addition to that the interest is taxable which means that if a company were to be paying 50% tax, the cost to the State of obtaining this money would only be 8%—which I think is quite cheap money to obtain in these times.

What is also unsatisfactory to my mind is that the payment is required by 31 July, which is just around the corner. The cash flow of companies was not taken into account in dealing with this. When this was raised in the Budget debate the answer was that there would be negotiable certificates which could be pledged or sold in order to obtain money to pay taxes. Therefore, what one can do is borrow money from the bank at a rate in excess of 16%. That money and that interest would not be tax deductible because it would not be borrowing for the purpose of producing income.

That is wrong!

Is that wrong?

It is not money borrowed for tax, it is borrowed for a loan.

It is borrowed for a loan to pay tax and if the hon the Minister is going to allow it to be deductible, he has to amend the Act.

[Inaudible.]

I am very happy that he said that. I now want to place it on record that the hon the Minister—through his interjection—is saying that the interest at which one borrows to pay this money is tax deductible. Is that right?

I said it here last Friday!

If that is so, then I am very happy to have it placed on record here. However, it still means that one has to borrow at a higher rate, and what is clear is that there is no provision for negotiable certificates in this Bill. There is no provision of that kind at all and that has not been covered in the legislation. In these circumstances we must say to the hon the Minister that as far as we are concerned, this particular levy is an unacceptable means of raising money from the public.

The second reason why we take this view is that we find that there is completely inadequate action in respect of bracket creep. We have already demonstrated that the total amount which is going to be raised in respect of taxation this year is going to be substantially higher on the same rates as before.

That means that whereas people get increases because of inflation, the fisc takes an ever-increasing amount of money away from them. Any examination of the figures demonstrates that bracket creep is in fact reducing the living standards of the people in our country.

The other factor in relation to inflation is that the Government completely ignores the effect of inflation on matters such as retirement annuity contributions, which are not increased. It ignores the amounts which can be commuted in respect of pensions and ignores the fact that inflation is taking place. It ignores the fact that gratuity payments remain as they have been for many years. To my mind the Government does not have due regard for the interests of the taxpayer when it comes to the impact of inflation on him. On the contrary, the Government takes the view that inflation in fact enables them silently to extract more money from the taxpayers of South Africa.

We now come to the question of the export allowance. That has now been taken down to 20% of turnover, and I am sympathetic to the concept that one has to do something in regard to export allowances where they have been abused. However, if one looks at the manner in which this is being done at the moment, the 20% of turnover is illogical for a small business which is sought to be built up and it is even more illogical for a very large business with a very large export turnover. For example, to allow a marketing allowance of 20% on somebody who is exporting R50 million would be outrageous but to somebody who is starting a small business, to allow only 20% will in fact be a hardship, even though he may carry it through to future years.

Of the other matters that I would like to touch on briefly, the first is the question of the concession given to medical and dental practitioners in order to attend overseas retraining, if one may use that word.

I would like to use the opportunity here not only to welcome that but also to ask why it is only being applied to those two professions, because there are other professions who can also benefit from this. Why, for example, cannot lawyers have exactly the same concession? Why can only doctors and dentists have it? They should be given the same concession in this regard.

I would like to take the opportunity here while we talk about this concession to refer to one of my colleagues who is not coming back to Parliament and who raised this issue, namely the hon member for Parktown. He has raised this issue—as have others—over a number of years. I think that he for one will be pleased that this concession has been granted. I think the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development knows that he has raised it on various occasions.

While I pay tribute to him in this regard I would also like to pay tribute to him as a member of Parliament and as a colleague. The hon member for Parktown has decided not to come back to Parliament at this stage.

Why?

He may or may not change his mind. I do not know. That is his prerogative. However, as a colleague and friend I pay tribute to him. I pay tribute to him as a member of Parliament who has done his job in holding his portfolio and who has been fearless in his criticism. I think the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development will testify that he has never been afraid in this House.

I believe that many of the things that he has said have made constructive contributions toward health in South Africa. I think that the hon member for Parktown has been a good member of Parliament and I would like to say that here.

The next thing which I would like to deal with is the question of medical expenses. With the rising medical costs which exist in South Africa I would like to ask the hon the Minister to pay some attention to giving further relief and a more direct and effective form of relief in regard to the medical expenses which people are incurring.

Unless one belongs to a medical aid scheme or is rich, or unless one is poor and goes to the hospital service, medical expenses are becoming an extremely harsh burden, particularly on the middle classes of South Africa. We need to look at that situation. When I talk about medical expenses I am also referring to the cost of medicines, which gives me grave worries as I am sure it does the hon the Minister.

There are provisions in this Bill which we do support. The provisions relating to gold-mining are, I think, certainly a move in the right direction, and I would like to compliment the hon the Deputy Minister on the work he did in laying the foundations for these. I think they are provisions which are of great advantage to the gold-mining industry. I would imagine that he is now looking to an even greater extent at the marginal mines, because one of the things that do arise—I would like to raise this with him specifically—is that we cannot actually afford, because of the fluctuation of the gold price, to have marginal mines closed down and get into a state where they cannot be reopened. I think the State and the gold-mining industry need to co-operate in order to ensure that the mines are kept open until the gold price comes right. I, for one, believe that the gold price will come right.

There are many other provisions in this Bill which—as the light is now flickering and telling me that my time is up—I cannot deal with. However, the reality is that South Africans unfortunately are being overtaxed and therefore, in these circumstances, we regretfully cannot vote for this measure.

Mr Chairman, I suppose I should say right at the outset that we are going to support this Income Tax Bill. There are many aspects of the Bill we are not happy about, but as a whole the Bill before the House is quite acceptable to us.

We represent the deprived communities in this country. This community is dependent on government expenditure. This government expenditure is essential to eliminate backlogs. For that reason we must support it, because the State is dependent on its revenue from taxes. We therefore have no choice but to support it.

I want to discuss a few aspects of this Bill, namely confidentiality, SITE, or Standard Income Tax on Employees, and the issue of tax avoidance and tax evasion. I should like to refer first to the new provisions in connection with confidentiality.

We consider it to be of the utmost importance that taxpayers can reveal their personal affairs to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue’s officials in the knowledge that that information will not be made public. The Income Tax Act has always contained provisions requiring confidentiality, and the Commissioner’s staff have built up a record as regards their strict adherence to those provisions.

However, it has now come to light that if information does leak from a revenue office, a newspaper which gets hold of this information is not prohibited from publishing it. We recently had the case where an internal instruction of the Commissioner in connection with the tax affairs of members of Parliament was leaked to the Press. Like any other group of taxpayers there are probably also a few MPs who do not meet their obligations, and it is the Commissioner’s duty to see to it that they contribute their rightful share.

However, if the public knows about such an instruction, this can create the impression that the entire group, whether they are members of Parliament or whatever, does not comply with the Act. It is important for such misconceptions not to be created, and for that reason we welcome this amendment.

In my speech on 2 September of last year during the First Reading debate on the Income Tax Amendment Bill, I mentioned that I could not support the increase in the determining of a long-term insurer’s taxable income from 40% to 70% of his investment income. Long-term insurers undoubtedly have an important role to play in encouraging long-term saving by individuals, which must also play a big role in the combating of inflation. I am therefore glad that in future the determining of a long-term insurer’s taxable income will, as a result of the amendment in clause 13 of this Bill, be done on a more scientific basis.

As the hon the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech, the so-called trustee approach is now being applied to insurers. This means that it is accepted that an insurer holds and invests funds on behalf of these policy holders and that he must also pay tax on behalf of his policy holders which is as close as possible to the tax the policy holder himself would have paid if he had invested his funds himself.

This approach has been debated for some time now, and one of the problems resulting from this is the handling of the profits made from investments, shares and immovable property. Because these profits would not be taxable in all cases in the hands of the policy holders, they are not taxed in the hands of the insurer at all. I have no problem with that, particularly when we think of the small man who is saving in the long term by means of an insurance policy. However, we will have to see to it that we do not create a privileged tax position which enables the insurers to draw investment capital from rich people at the expense of other financial institutions with whom they are competing.

One of the most important principles which the Margo Commission laid down was that the Income Tax Act should not be used to benefit specific sectors. In accordance with this the Commission recommended that all so-called tax expenditure should be removed from the Act. We are glad to see that one of the last remaining examples of tax expenditures is now being addressed in clause 9 of the Bill, namely the marketing allowance in terms of section 11bis of the Income Tax Act. Although this allowance is not disappearing entirely, it is being restricted to 20% of the export turnover earned. This amendment will have no effect on the efficiency of exporters, but will put an end to the big tax losses suffered in the past in connection with films, for example.

A great deal can also be said about clause 10, to which the hon member for Yeoville referred. The hon member for Yeoville referred to the deduction being granted to medical practitioners and dentists attending courses and congresses abroad. However, I should like to know what the position is as regards engineers and other natural scientists who also attend courses abroad and elsewhere. Are these people going to qualify for a similar deduction?

I come now to the provisions of the Bill which deal with the SITE system. I want to refer specifically to the separate taxation of husband and wife, which has become a thorny issue. Two breadwinner families have felt for a long time now that they are paying relatively too much tax. If a married woman earns an income, she indeed pays more tax than she would have paid as an unmarried person. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the combined household of these two costs them less than the households of two single persons.

In its White Paper on the Margo Report last year, the Government committed itself to eventual separate taxation of husband and wife. With the introduction of SITE last year, a married woman was taxed separately from her husband up to an amount of R20 000. With the amendments which are being proposed in this Bill, all her earnings will now be taxed separately. Consequently we now have separate taxation of a married woman’s earnings, but we still do not have equal taxation. In the lower income groups a married woman now pays less taxation on her earnings than her husband paid before, but she still pays more than an unmarried person pays.

The problem here is that to tax married women separately and equally could mean a loss of more than R3 billion to the Treasury. The question is who will have to compensate for that loss. The answer is simply that single breadwinner families, that can definitely not afford an increase in their tax burden at this stage, will have to shoulder that responsibility. In the circumstances we are glad that while we are moving towards totally separate taxation of husband and wife, this is being done in a circumspect and extremely responsible way.

Lastly the Bill also deals with the old matter of tax avoidance and tax evasion. Clause 6 deals with certain short-term redeemable preferential shares and clause 19 deals with the exchanging of interest for dividends. There is a very clear distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax evasion is illegal, for example when a person does not declare all his income in his income tax return. People who are guilty of tax evasion are robbing their fellow-citizens and they are robbing the Commissioner for Inland Revenue who must take steps against such people with the full power which the Act vests in him.

On the other hand tax avoidance is, as far as I am concerned, not illegal, and I think we sometimes become too emotional about this. If someone can succeed, within the provisions of the Act, in paying less than someone else may think he should pay, this cannot be held against him. But that does not mean that we must simply accept the position. If a wealthy individual or company succeeds in legally paying no tax, this simply means that other taxpayers, particularly those who do not have access to sophisticated tax advice, must pay more.

We feel that every individual and company must make a contribution according to their ability to pay, and for that reason we welcome these two clauses which are aimed at protecting the tax base. With these words I am saying that we support the Bill.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Barberton to speak, I appeal to hon members on both sides of the House to lower their voices if they have to converse at all. This really does not sound like a House in session; it sounds more like a church bazaar. The hon member for Barberton may now proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall try to be brief, because I think the most important matters in the Bill which deserve discussion have been dealt with already either by the hon member for Yeoville or the hon member Mr Douw. I find myself in the somewhat difficult position of having to repeat what has already been said.

As far as the question of the loan levy on companies is concerned, I agree with the arguments of the hon member for Yeoville and have already argued in a previous debate that the interest a company has to pay on the money it has to borrow should not be deductible for tax purposes by that company if a company has cash-flow problems and has to borrow the money in order to pay that loan levy. In my opinion the interest payable on the money which such a company has to borrow should not be deductible by that company for tax purposes because it is not a loan entered into with the aim of generating income, but merely of making a loan to the State.

A thing that strikes one as very strange is the reason that is given for this loan levy now being so suddenly introduced, namely in order to cool off the economy somewhat. However, this takes place at the exact time at which the requirement which applied to financial institutions to have a certain part of their investments in prescribed assets, has fallen away. I cannot reconcile these two things. Why does one exempt the one section from provisions that it must invest in the State, but oblige normal companies to lend money to the State? The hon member for Yeoville has already referred to the taxation imposed on companies last year. However, this year they are being burdened with this additional obligation! This is going to cause cash-flow problems for companies, and I do not believe the hon the Minister wants that.

I should also like to endorse what the two hon members whom I mentioned had to say with regard to the question of clause 10 of the Bill. I believe that we must congratulate the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development on succeeding in getting the hon the Minister of Finance to do something which would benefit the profession of the hon the Minister of National Health.

However, this is not acceptable. I congratulate the doctors and dentists on this, but the Margo Commission did say—I accepted that this was the Government’s standpoint as well—that our tax system should be neutral as far as possible.

Under the old Act, before this concession was phased out, this concession did not apply only to doctors. Engineers also had this concession, but they are excluded in the new provision. I agree that the medical and dental profession is important for our country, but one cannot treat the engineering profession differently. If the hon the Minister wants to make the taxation system neutral, why can the other professions not also receive tax concessions in this regard?

If I may, I also want to refer to the position of married women. We are satisfied that considerable progress has been made on the road to the eventual separate taxation of men and women. However, with the new measure that has now been introduced, married women who work for a salary or for remuneration are at an advantage. This means that we now have a new type of discrimination.

There is now discrimination between the married woman who works for a salary and the married woman who, for example, is in a partnership in a firm of lawyers or a medical practice. I can see no differences in principle between these two types of women. Nor do I see any practical problems in respect of the collection of taxes. I see no practical problems.

After all, one cannot discriminate in principle against one woman medical doctor who works for the State or whoever works for a salary, and another woman medical doctor who works in her own practice. Why must the one pay more tax than the other? One simply cannot justify this! This applies particularly to our professional people. It is specifically these trained women, who receive training at the great expense of the taxpayer, whom we want to retain in the profession so that they can provide a service. However, I am afraid that the present taxation scales discourage them from giving the company the service that they are in fact able to provide.

Finally, in this budget there is no relief whatsoever for the highest group of individual taxpayers; on the contrary, as a result of bracket creep—I am not even talking of the few cents that were given—there is in fact a considerable increase in income tax payable by the man in the street. Therefore we are sorry, but we cannot see our way clear to supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the hon member for Barberton, the CP and the DP do not support the legislation. It is clear to me that during the election campaign the opposition parties are going to attack the Government on the economy, and not on policy.

†The DP with their daily negative, warped and misleading utterances at every possible opportunity give misleading statements to the public. Apparently it is even the Government’s fault that the petrol price went up, when they well know it was due to the price of crude oil.

Following on the debate on tax and tax reform which emanates from the release of the Margo Report and the Government’s White Paper on the subject the subject enjoyed high priority in the past year by means of many follow-up investigations. The Tax Advisory Committee established in accordance with one of the Margo recommendations and consisting mainly of private sector members gave further impetus to the tax reform process.

The Government is frequently criticised for unpopular taxation measures but more and more these are a result of inputs from the private sector and I wish people would understand that.

In respect of rates applicable to individuals, disappointment has been expressed by many that because of other concessions made which would reduce the amount of collectable tax income, no general reduction in rates of tax could be made.

Fiscal drag, or bracket creep, is a problem which will have to be addressed in the future by, for instance, the introduction of much wider bands of tax rates, as recommended by the Margo Commission, or by fixing one or two flat rates of tax.

The further adjustment to SITE as addressed in this Bill has been widely acclaimed, even by opposition parties here. Not only has it simplified the formula for the calculation of tax on the remuneration of married women, but it has also given women a certain measure of independence as far as their financial affairs are concerned, and reduced the combined total taxes payable. There is no complicated working out of tax relief or of who must pay for what share of their joint taxes, and no nasty additional tax assessment long after the year-end in respect of underpaid tax.

Married women now also enjoy tax privacy. They do not have to tell their husbands what they earn if they do not want to—not that I am sure that that is such a good idea!

The cost to the fiscus of the new SITE system is estimated to be in the region of R140 million per annum. The discrimination against working women who run their own businesses and who have commission earnings, or who work for their husbands in their own businesses, and where SITE does not therefore apply, deserves consideration. The system hits particularly hard at small businesses of the kind started in large numbers by Black and Brown couples.

I realise that a total change to the system of separate taxation would cause a substantial loss in tax revenue, but will halt or discourage creative tax planning by the clever or unscrupulous tax dodgers. There are many cases today where affairs are arranged in such a manner as to secure massive tax relief by “wife swopping” in business, or by establishing largely entirely fictitious businesses whose funds are diverted from the husbands.

There is far more tax corruption in the private sector than one realises, but ways and means are being found by a vigilant Department of Inland Revenue to remove the temptations and the culprits.

The new SITE system also provides a valuable new retirement annuity tax concession to married couples, as each spouse is entitled to his own retirement annuity fund contributions and, properly structured, can allow greater combined tax-deductible contributions.

The higher rebates individuals are provided with this year, particularly in the case of taxpayers over the age of 65, will give substantial relief to the low income and pensioner groups, and should be welcomed by all.

Not much has been said of the additional benefits to the needy but only the bad news is published by our critics and the aged abused at disinformation meetings such as the one organised for pensioners in Claremont recently.

Certain substantive provisions concerning the imposition of loan levies on companies are also introduced in this Bill. In the past year the imposition of loan levies was a normal provision but in recent years this has not been the practice. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville has made it quite clear that we wish to oppose this Bill and he has, in fact, spelt out nine reasons for that. He referred to anger amongst the public of South Africa on the issues of cost of living, inflation and taxation. This anger was reflected earlier this week—the previous speaker also made reference to it—during a meeting held in Claremont organised by the Association of Retired Persons and Pensioners. He referred to disinformation leading up to that meeting.

In my opinion that is actually not a reflection of what is happening. What, in fact, is happening is that to my knowledge there has never been a time when so much attention has been given to the state of the economy, the cost of living and related issues. The meeting called on Monday was not a political meeting. It was organised by an organisation responsible for the affairs of old people and pensioners in order to reflect their attitude and their views on what is happening in the economy.

One of the aspects of the increased cost of living is clearly increased taxation. This particular increase demotivates the people who are now making it quite clear to the Government that they have had enough. Reference was made earlier to the fact that the recommendations of the Margo Commission that it was critically necessary to reduce taxation has not yet been addressed.

This year tax rates have, in fact, not been increased but additional revenue of R3 billion or 22,5% additional personal taxation is budgeted for.

This increase, it is said, is due to three factors namely growth in the number of taxpayers, increases in salaries and wages and bracket creep. The latter of the three was again referred to by the previous speaker.

I wish to say something about bracket creep. Based on calculations made by the Central Economic Advisory Services covering the period 1972 to 1985, an average 10% increase in remuneration was accompanied by an 18,7% in personal income tax, in other words, after tax income rose by a considerably lower percentage.

The Margo Commission recognised that high tax rates have a detrimental effect on economic performance by discouraging work and encouraging leisure. The Commission recommended that rates be kept as low as possible but nothing meaningful has been done.

Bracket creep has done a lot of this hon Minister’s work for him, as again illustrated this year. Revenue from personal income tax is budgeted to increase with no increase in the tax rates.

Much time has been devoted in this Parliament to this subject but I make no apologies for raising it again. I wish to show that the position is in fact getting steadily worse. I have taken 1980 as a base year and looked back 10 years to 1970 and forwards 10 years to 1990.

A man earning R12 000 in 1980 is, in pre-tax terms, no better or worse off than if he had earned R 4 331 in 1970. However, after tax he would need a tax cut of R819 to be as well off in 1980 as he was 10 years previously.

If one looks forward 10 years and makes the same calculations based on pre-tax earnings of R12 000 in 1980, the tax cut required to keep him in exactly the same position, amounts to R5 400.

Looking backwards the difference was R819, but looking forward the difference is R5 400. This is purely due to bracket creep and to the impact of inflation on his income that has put him into a higher tax bracket and has taken a greater slice of his earnings in income tax.

However, that is not the full story. In addition fuel levies have been increased and GST has been increased from 4% in 1980 to 13% right now. Then RSC levies have to be paid as well. It is quite simply a combination of bracket creep, taxation and levies which has reached intolerable proportions. We accept that tax revenue has to be raised in order to meet Government expenditure. The only real solution to punitive taxation is a cut-back in that expenditure. Once again we must say to Government that we cannot afford the expensive, ideological, non-productive expenditure required to prop up apartheid, which in itself is the main cause of our economic woes.

Some years ago a study was undertaken by Prof Michael Savage of UCT, which estimated in the years 1985-86 that 12 cents in every R1 spent by Government goes towards maintaining and enforcing segregation, imposing apartheid programmes and on policing and guarding the system. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly endorsed this when he said that apartheid was expensive and that Whites would have to be prepared to pay the cost of apartheid.

Mr Chairman, we oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, first I would like to point out that a married person who earns less than R12 000 per year is virtually exempted from income tax. This is a very liberal dispensation as far as the ordinary worker, who has just about no trade, is concerned.

While we are discussing dispensations, let us take a look at the scales of taxation. Let us look at the taxation of a married person in for instance the higher bracket of more than R80 000 per year. Let us say it is R85 000 per year. Such a person then pays R27 260 plus 45% of every rand over R80 000. On a figure of R85 000 he then pays R27 260 plus another R2 250, which gives one R29 510. This is virtually a third of his income because it is almost R 30 000.

Surely that is not a good dispensation. To me that sounds more like theft. Surely this is no encouragement for a person to go out and try to make a bit of money if one has to hand it back just like that. This also offers no encouragement for one to create work for others.

Let us return to the scales and look at the levy for married as well as unmarried persons who earn, for instance, between R30 000 and R35 000—say about R35 000. These are the people in professions among we Coloureds, if I may put it like that. Let us say this is a married person who earns R35 000. That a person then pays R6 460 according to the scale of taxation, plus 37% on the additional R5 000. This additional R1 850 then gives us a total of R8 310.

The unmarried person who earns between R30 000 and R36 000, pays R7 220 on R35 000 per year, plus 41% of every rand for the remaining R5 000, ie a further R2 050. The total is R9 270. The difference between the two is only R960 per year. In other words one does not even have to pay R80 more per month. I suppose somebody will now tell me it is no longer worthwhile being married, or what am I saying?

Nevertheless, we in the DRP do not intend to shoot down any financial legislation. We reject economic sabotage or any other kind of sabotage. Whatever we do, we shall see to it that the people of South Africa do not suffer because of it.

We therefore take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, there are many examples in this Bill of how the taxpayer is being accommodated. I would like to give attention to three of these.

First I want to refer to the position of married women. Last year a start was made with the separate taxation of married women earning less than R20 000. The promise was then made that in the future married women could be accommodated more. Within the very next tax year this promise is being fulfilled. The limit of R20 000 is being lifted and now all married women’s emoluments are being taxed separately.

In terms of the standard income tax their final accountability is established at the end of a tax year and they no longer even have to submit a return. It is estimated that this accommodation will cost the Government R139 million in the present tax year. This Government is a friend to married women. In the Press a lot is being written about the economy and taxation, but I wonder whether we will read somewhere in one of tomorrow’s newspapers “Government handout of R139 million to married women”.

A second example I want to mention of the taxpayer being accommodated is the question of senior citizens. Senior citizens are a priority to this Government. During their lives these people have made their contributions to the economy. The Government now acknowledges this by also granting them tax concessions. Previously people over 65 years of age were only able to obtain a tax rebate of R500. To help them further this amount is being increased by 190% to an amount of R1 450. This concession is costing the Government approximately R23 million.

Again I wonder whether somewhere in the newspapers we will see a headline which reads as follows: “Government increases tax discount for people over 65 with 190%, costing the State R23 million”.

This is not the only benefit for senior citizens given in this tax Bill. People over the age of 65 are at present exempted from submitting preliminary tax returns if their taxable income does not exceed R20 000 for a given year of assessment, and such income is only derived from salary, pension and investments. It is a big bother for senior citizens whose income exceeds that limit, periodically to have to complete these returns and pay in money. In order to accommodate them to a certain extent it has been decided to raise this limit of exemption to R25 000. This means a temporary loss in revenue of R9 million for the State.

A third instance of the taxpayer being accommodated is the rebate on income tax. This Bill results in the primary rebate of married taxpayers being increased from R1 100 to R1 250, and for other taxpayers from R750 to R850. The cost of this concession to the State for the 1989-90 financial year is estimated at R358 million. Here is a third headline for the newspapers: “Government gives discount on income tax to the taxpayer in the amount of R358 million”.

These examples will suffice as an indication of the Government’s wish to have an income tax system which is as fair and equitable as possible, and that the Government is sensitive about bringing relief where it is needed.

In the five minutes at my disposal I have indicated how the Government has given the taxpayers relief totalling R529 million. The hon spokesman of the CP says it is nothing but a few cents, which he is not even prepared to mention. I challenge the other political parties to print this information in their election pamphlets which they are going to distribute to the people, so that the truth about what this Government is doing for the taxpayers can be brought to their attention. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik brought us the clear message that in this budget there is a great deal for the married women and senior citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.] After the excessive increase in expenditure—I have mentioned this previously—we are not trying to cool down the economy gradually, but rather to restore it gradually to a point of balance.

The hon member for Yeoville, for example, did not have too much criticism of the hon the Minister of Finance’s package when we announced it. In articles and speeches that hon member himself said that South African citizens should be careful not to borrow on too large a scale. [Interjections.] That is correct; he said it. That is one of the problems. The hon member knows that during the past 18 months too much use has been made of bank credit.

The hon member for Yeoville attacked the 20% measure. The hon member knows that section 11bis, the auxiliary marketing allowances on exports, were really a major cost item for this economy. The hon member knows that under section 11bis we have lost State funds which have not necessarily always promoted exports. The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and his department carried out an investigation into the matter, and as a result of the problems we have with section 11bis, we hope to phase it out completely in the space of a year. The hon member also agrees that we must get away from tax allowances and rather revert to subsidies.

†The hon member mentioned medical expenses. As a result of the recommendations of the Margo Commission we are implementing the principle that people above the age of 65 years can deduct all their medical costs for tax purposes.

*It is interesting to see that the public’s contributions to medical funds have increased tremendously. I think that is a very sound development, and I hope that after Prof Mouton’s report has appeared, we shall also be able to tackle the problem involving pensions.

The hon member, and also the hon member for Barberton, had quite a bit to say about the loan levy. If one analysed the cash position in our companies—I am only taking the insurance companies and pension funds as an example—one would come across a cash amount of R32 billion.

In this country, which according to the hon member for Yeoville has been plunged into such terrible poverty, we see again this morning that certain companies have had a 60% increase in profits. Yesterday we saw companies which showed a 40% and 47% increase in profits. Our companies almost have a problem with their cash position in the recent past as a result of the good profits they have made. I must thank the relevant parties in industry, because they have made a very real effort to increase our exports.

I must say that when such good profits are made, the question that should also be asked is whether they should not, at times, be less quick to increase their prices and re-examine the position of some of their workers.

The hon member for Barberton raised the question of SITE, specifically referring to the question of working married women. SITE now allows the married working woman to pay her own tax directly. Professional women, however, are not permitted to do so. Hon members know, do they not, that we have a serious problem with dividing up income. He knows what can happen with the shifts taking place between men and women—the separation of funds. Women working for themselves can still continue to deduct their 22,5%. I also want to know from the hon member what one does with investment income in cases in which women work for themselves and their husbands also work for themselves.

The hon member Mr Douw made a very fine contribution. I am glad he also mentioned the problem of secrecy. There was a certain degree of unpleasantness, and none of us would like to have the Receiver’s letters—the Receiver’s instructions—lying about all over the place. I agree that we do not want secrecy in regard to all aspects. I also agree that too much secrecy leads to corruption. In this case it is justified to have the Receiver’s office protected and not to attempt to make political capital out of an internal administrative situation.

The hon member for Pinelands used the phrase “cut back spending”. He did not tell us, however, where he wanted to reduce State expenditure. I now want to put a question to the hon member for Yeoville. Our largest item of expenditure is in regard to the Defence Force. Is the hon member suggesting that we should reduce the Defence Force’s expenditure by 20%? The hon member is not looking me in the eye.

†I should like to ask the hon member for Yeoville this question. Our biggest expenditure is in regard to the Defence Force. Is the hon member proposing that we cut Government expenditure on the Defence Force by 20% ?

*The hon member is not going to reply to me.

Let us examine the second item. The second most important item is education. I now want to ask hon members on my left whether we should curtail expenditure on education.

Never!

Must we curtail expenditure on housing?

Never!

Obviously.

It is obvious. The public is being told, however, that that is where the money is going. The money must now be diverted. It is easy to say that apartheid is the cause. When we analyse the situation, however, we find that what is specifically involved here are the Defence Force, the Police, education, housing and interest on our debt. We must pay the interest on our debt; we have no choice. Surely we cannot go bankrupt.

I want to conclude with these words. Let us examine the unemployment rate in South Africa. I know that too few of our Black people have been employed. When we look at unemployment amongst the White people and Brown people, however, we find that the figure is not really that large if one compares it with that in America, or even after the increase with that in the United Kingdom. The success achieved by our exporters really indicates how successful an economic policy is being implemented.

I have mentioned the profit on our companies. Over the past six or seven months we have had no reason to complain about the profitability of our private sector. These are not the signs of a country which has gone to the dogs. In view of what is happening to the gold price, I want to reiterate that if one takes the decrease in the gold price and sanctions into consideration—Mobil Oil has now also withdrawn—the South African economy has made a wonderful recovery after years of assaults on this economy. It has recovered to such an extent that we almost achieved too much prosperity and had to adopt measures to bring overall private consumer spending down again. Last year it was 7%, and 6% in the first three months of this year, and the country cannot afford that.

We are adopting a sound monetary and fiscal policy, and when we introduced the package 14 days ago, the hon the Minister of Finance said it was not being done for election purposes, that it was not a popular measure, because it hurt. Our people are hurting at the moment, that is true. Interest rates are cutting deep, but I am certain that the pressure on our interest rates and the pressure on our balance of payments will disappear in the near future, or at least be reduced to allow the business cycle—the wave of prosperity—to rise to its peak once more.

First Reading debate concluded.

Question put to House of Assembly: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Speaker, as a result of the NP Government’s overspending in the past, and at present too, the present-day South African society is an overtaxed society. As a result the man in the street is no longer able to save; in fact, the little he does save is frittered away on unproductive expenditure by the authorities. The hon the Minister was unconvincing in his reply, and we have no other choice but to vote against this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we have outlined the reasons why we will not support this Bill. However, I would like to draw attention to a few facts. Ten years ago income tax produced 15% of total State revenue. Last year it produced 30%. Ten years ago GST produced 12% of total revenue. Last year it produced 30%. These are near enough approximate figures. That shows how the individual taxpayer has paid more and more by way of tax. We are being overtaxed.

The hon the Deputy Minister issued a challenge as to what my view was on defence expenditure. He has forgotten that he himself looked at the budget which I had prepared before the hon the Minister presented his Budget and in which I showed where the individual cuts were and where I did not indicate that there should be defence expenditure cuts; on the contrary, I said there should be a real increase.

In other departments, however, there were increases in real terms which brought it down because I do not believe in duplication of expenditure. I do not believe in unnecessary expenditure. I believe that the scope of government has to be reduced and that priorities have to be set out.

The hon the Deputy Minister said two things on which I want to challenge him clearly and provide one of the reasons why we will vote against this measure. He started off his speech by saying that there was a lot in the Budget for the aged. I say that the aged are being neglected. There is neglect of the elderly people in our country.

Secondly, he said towards the end of his speech that unemployment was not large in South Africa. I challenge him on that and say that unemployment is large, substantial and a very real problem in South Africa.

I say with great respect that one cannot vote for this measure because we are being overtaxed. There is too much expenditure on government in South Africa and there is insufficient attention being paid to the priorities which we need to apply in South Africa. We must have expenditure. We have to apply it in accordance with strict priorities for our country. The hon the Deputy Minister could not spell out those priorities in response to my challenge because he knows in his heart that the wrong priorities are presently being applied. Therefore we will vote against this measure.

Mr Chairman, when this Budget was introduced by the hon the Minister of Finance on 15 March generally favourable comment was received from most financial critics, namely Assocom, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, bankers and others. The public analysis of the Budget presented produced the opinion that overall, in terms of what was needed at this stage of the business cycle, this Budget was a good one. Now the hon member for Yeoville, who earlier in the year agreed with that particular stance, has changed his whole attitude.

This Bill formalises the taxation proposals referred to in the Budget Speech. However, now that the election phase has been entered the whole stance has been changed and suddenly from being a good Budget it is now a bad one. The normal parrot cries of bad government go out.

Hon members of the opposition parties, the CP and the DP, should go back and reread the speeches which they made early in April. It appears they have taken leave of their senses or have made intellectual somersaults. However, all that has happened, is that they have decided that this is the soft underbelly to attack and the Government is now being attacked on the economic battlefield, because they will never succeed in attacking this Government on policy.

What is true, is that the economy is actually booming, but regrettably overheating. This past year the average earnings growth of financial industrial companies quoted on the Stock Exchange was 32% and the growth in employees’ earnings in that sector was almost as high.

There is much good in this Budget and in this Bill, which is clearly part of the ongoing economic reform process aimed at ensuring that the South African economy progresses on all fronts on the sound path already set. I think it is quite clear that we are moving in the right direction and I have pleasure in endorsing my support for this Bill.

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

Question agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting).

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

Question agreed to.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—90: Alant T G; Aucamp J M; Bartlett G S; Blanché J P I; Bloomberg S G; Bosman J F; Botha C J v R; Brazelle J A; Chait E J; Christophers D; Coetsee H J; Coetzer P W; De Klerk F W; De Villiers D J; Delport J T; Dilley L H M; Du Plessis B J; Edwards B V; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Geldenhuys B L; Golden S G A; Graaff D de V; Grobler P G W; Hattingh C P; Heunis J C; Heyns J H; Jooste J A; Jordaan A L; King T J; Koornhof N J J v R; Kotzé G J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Le Roux D E T; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Maré P L; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Mentz J H W; Meyer A T; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Olivier P J S; Oosthuizen G C; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Retief J L; Scheepers J H L; Schoeman R S; Schoeman S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Schutte D P A; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Steyn D W; Steyn P T; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van de Vyver J H; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van der Walt A T; Van Deventer F J; Van Gend D P de K; Van Keerden F J; Van Niekerk W A; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Vuuren L M J; Van Zyl J G; Veldman M H; Vilonel J J; Welgemoed P J; Wessels L.

NOES—28: Andrew K M; Burrows R M; Dalling D J; De Jager C D; De Ville J R; Derby-Lewis C J; Ellis M J; Gastrow P H P; Gerber A; Hulley R R; Jacobs S C; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Lorimer R J; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Nolte D G H; Schwarz H H; Snyman W J; Swart R A F; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H; Van Gend J B de R; Van Vuuren S P; Van Wyk W J D; Walsh J J.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a first time.

Second Reading taken without debate.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, so determined is the new leader of the NP to hand over to a Black majority government in an orderly way that he wants to place this amending Bill, despite opposition from both of the other Houses as well as other political parties, on the Statute Book through the agency of the President’s Council.

We reject this Bill as a first step in the Government’s announced objective of one Parliament and one joint Cabinet, in which Black Ministers and Deputy Ministers of general affairs may be appointed. They may therefore be appointed as Ministers to portfolios such as Defence, National Education, Finance, Law and Order, etc. These are people without any experience of first-tier government. This forecasts chaos and grave problems in the RSA.

It will also be the first time that Black Ministers may be permanently appointed to the Cabinet—unlike the case of Whites, Indians and Coloureds—without having to be members of Parliament. They will be accountable to no one except the State President. This is a violation of the democratic principles on which the political system in the Republic of South Africa is based, and it is unacceptable to us.

We also reject this Bill as a calculated effort on the part of the NP to condition the Whites, by a process of gradualism, to acceptance of the authority of strangers over the Afrikaner people and over the Whites in the Republic of South Africa. This is unacceptable to us and it will not succeed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ermelo, who has just spoken, said the Black people had had no experience of government.

First-tier government.

Yes, first-tier government.

I want to point out to the hon member that the only experience his party has had is that of governing in Boksburg, and they made a mess of that. [Interjections.]

The NP and the Government are introducing this Bill firstly because we believe that a better climate must be created for the negotiating process in South Africa. We believe that in these times which lie ahead the negotiating process must be promoted and with this measure, even though it is a small step, we want to say to the Black people of South Africa that we are in earnest about allowing them to participate in government in our country at every level. This is the message which this legislation must convey. [Interjections.]

But we are also telling the White voters that the way to the ultimate destination of peace in this country lies through the participation of people, and not partition or capitulation. We want to make it clear with this legislation of ours that the way we have chosen is the correct one, and that is that Black people and all other people in this country must be represented on the various levels of our government. With that we gladly support this Bill.

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

Question negatived.

Bill rejected.

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

Question negatived.

Bill rejected.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—90: Alant T G; Aucamp J M; Bartlett G S; Blanche J P I; Bloomberg S G; Bosman J F; Botha C J v R; Brazelle J A; Chait E J; Christophers D; Coetsee H J; Coetzer P W; De Klerk F W; De Villiers D J; Delport J T; Dilley L H M; Du Plessis B J; Edwards B V; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Fismer C L; Fourie A; Geldenhuys B L; Golden S G A; Graaff D de V; Grobler P G W; Hattingh C P; Heunis J C; Heyns J H; Hunter J E L; Jooste J A; Jordaan A L; King T J; Koornhof N J J v R; Kotzé G J; Kriel H J; Kritzinger W T; Kruger T A P; Ligthelm C J; Louw E v d M; Louw I; Louw M H; Malherbe G J; Marais G; Maré P L; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Mentz J H W; Meyer A T; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nothnagel A E; Odendaal W A; Olivier P J S; Oosthuizen G C; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Retief J L; Scheepers J H L; Schoeman R S; Schoeman S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman S J (Walmer); Schoeman W J; Schutte DPA; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Steyn D W; Steyn P T; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel K D; Swanepoel P J; Thompson A G; Van Breda A; Van de Vyver J H; Van der Merwe A S; Van der Merwe C J; Van der Walt AT; Van Deventer F J; Van Gend D P de K; Van Heerden F J; Van Niekerk W A; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Vuuren L M J; Van Zyl J G; Veldman M H; Vilonel J J; Welgemoed P J; Wessels L.

NOES—29: Andrew K M; Burrows R M; Dalling D J; De Jager C D; Derby-Lewis C J; De Ville J R; Ellis M J; Gastrow P H P; Gerber A; Hartzenberg F; Hulley R R; Jacobs S C; Langley T; Le Roux F J; Lorimer R J; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Nolte D G H; Schwarz H H; Snyman W J; Swart R A F; Treurnicht A P; Uys C; Van der Merwe J H; Van Gend J B de R; Van Vuuren S P; Van Wyk W J D; Walsh J J.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.