Mr Chairman, the reply is as follows. There cannot, of course, be any question of conditions for the commencement of the settlement plan in terms of Resolution 435 until after that resolution has been adopted. Before that resolution was eventually adopted by the Government on 25 April 1978, and subsequently by the UN Security Council on 29 September 1978, there was a continuous string of proposals, negotiations and standpoints which, until the all-embracing trilateral agreement was signed in New York on 22 December 1988, constantly caused problems and were therefore subject to negotiation. I first want to clarify a matter here, and that is that there is an important distinction between proposals for negotiation and the ultimate agreement.

It is nevertheless worth noting that on 22 December 1978, when the South African Government was on the point of implementing Resolution 435 the following year, 1979, Mr A H du Plessis, then leader of the National Party of South-West Africa, moved the following motion, inter alia, in the Constituent Assembly:

1. (1) Die Administrateur-generaal die wetgewende en administratiewe gesag in Suidwes-Afrika gedurende die oorgangstydperk tot onafhanklikheid sal uitoefen;
2. (2) Die handhawing van wet en orde in Suidwes-Afrika die primêre verantwoordelikheid van die bestaande polisiemagte sal bly;
3. (3) Behoorlike en billike raadpleging met die Administrateur-generaal plaasvind oor uitstaande sake, soos die grootte en samestelling van die militêre komponent van Untag in die lig van wat die werklike behoeftes aan so ’n komponent is; wat betref magte, die magte nie sodanig moet wees dat dit onnodige onrus in Suidwes-Afrika kan skep nie, en ook ander aange-leenthede wat mag voortspruit uit die skikkingsplan wat op 25 April 1978 deur die Suid-Afrikaanse Regering aanvaar is;
4. (4) Geen vermindering van Suid-Afrikaanse troepe in die gebied sal plaasvind tensy en totdat ’n algehele staking van geweld en vyandelikhede plaasvind en ’n sigbare toestand van vrede heers nie;
5. (5) ’n Vaste en onveranderlike datum vir ’n verkiesing in oorleg tussen die spesiale verteenwoordiger van die Sekretaris-generaal en die Administrateur-generaal so gou doenlik en in die lig van redelike verwagtings bepaal word.

It is gratifying for me to be able to say that each of these conditions, which the leader of the NP of SWA stipulated for the commencement of Resolution 435, has been met. Not only have all the conditions been met, but the South African Government has also since succeeded in bringing about fundamental improvements. Firstly the Cuban withdrawal has been accomplished. It was not an issue in 1978. We did, however, enter into negotiations about that over a period of some years and succeeded in negotiating Cuban withdrawal from Angola.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister knows full well that the questions here relate to the cardinal issue of the implementation of Resolution 435. The hon the Minister also knows full well that up to the present time the NP of SWA has not yet accepted Resolution 435 and is opposed to it, but they must accept with resignation that they are being forced into it by the SA Government, and they can do nothing about it. That is what they told us, and we must understand their position. It is stated in their publications, and in one of their election pamphlets, the one from which the hon the Minister quoted last week.

The withdrawal of the Cubans is the most cardinal aspect of the whole discussion. The hon the State President made the following two statements concerning the withdrawal of the Cubans in one speech: At one stage he said that the withdrawal of the Cubans would be completed by the time the election took place. At another stage he said that by that date there was to have been a complete withdrawal of Cubans from Angola. The reason he gave was that it should take place in such a way that no single group could, at any given moment, get the better of any other group. That is what this is all about! Any attempt at watering-down or relinquishing this cardinal proposal would mean that one did not have the favourable package mentioned by the hon the State President. It would prejudice South Africa’s position.

In an interview on the subject the other day, Dr Crocker said that the changes to the conditions for withdrawal constituted a compromise. This illustrates the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ obsession with the settlement. It must take place at all costs, regardless of South Africa’s position. This capitulation prejudices South Africa’s and SWA’s position in relation to Swapo. On 1 November, the day of the election, there will only be a token South African force in SWA, which will be confined to camps. On the 13th parallel, however, there will be 25 000 Cuban troops.

What is the bush-telegraph going to make of that? It will say that it is the SA Government. Can I also tell the hon the Minister the following? He spoke about infants. This indicates that a Cabinet of infants, led by a babe-in-the-woods, has in fact made a prejudicial concession, as far as South Africa is concerned, whose political consequences on polling day, 1 November 1989, cannot be foreseen in SWA at this stage.

Mr Chairman, I have no fault to find with the package as it is. We actually believe that this package should have been arrived at some time before.

Following the visit of Mr Clark in 1981, the package was extended to include the Cuban situation. It was also extended significantly by the agreements in New York and Geneva to include:

1. (d) respect for the sovereignty and sovereign equality and independence of states;
2. (e) non-interference in the internal affairs of states, etc.

These have become integral parts of the package and I want to ask the hon the Minister, in light of this and of his statement at the time, what the extent is of South Africa’s ongoing commitment to Unita. Do we have any commitment to Unita in the financial, military or logistic field? I ask this because of a statement by the hon the Minister of Defence in this House only last week, when he said:

Secondly—

We would like to know whether South Africa has any extra-territorial commitment to Unita or Renamo or anyone else and whether that commitment would not be in defiance of and contrary to the spirit of the agreement which our officials have negotiated in New York and Geneva.

Mr Chairman, I am amazed. The hon member for Soutpansberg is harking back to the story he told in the joint meeting about what the State President allegedly said about the timetable for Cuban withdrawal. As far as his standpoint on the mandate is concerned, it seems as if, by this time, he has probably begun to realise that his story about the mandate having lapsed is so erroneous that he does not want to repeat it at all. Hon members will remember what a fuss he made about that.

Secondly, when he raised the matter of the withdrawal of the Cuban troops, why did he not simply read the following paragraph of the hon the State President’s speech? Why did he stop? Why did he not simply read a little further, because in the very next sentence the hon the State President said (Hansard, 24 August 1988, col 15509):

Can one get a clearer picture than that? The hon member stopped short just this side of that categorical indication, by the hon the State President, that the whole timetable still had to be negotiated. I am not the one who says so. It is Hansard that says so.

This brings me to the hon member for Sea Point.

†The South African Government, in coming to a bilateral agreement with Angola on the closing down of ANC camps in Angola, indicated in those negotiations and in the agreements mentioned by the hon member that we shall not interfere in their internal affairs. It is quite clear that we are obligated not to render any material assistance to Unita or any other party fighting in Angola. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Minister had merely read two further paragraphs from where he stopped, he would have seen that the hon the State President said (Hansard, 24 August 1988, col 15509):

[Interjections.] Consequently there had to be a timetable which had to be concluded by the time the election took place. [Interjections.]

My second point concerns the mandate. As far as the mandate is concerned, we shall give due attention to that at a later stage. [Interjections.]

I merely want to tell the hon the Minister the following. If he says the mandate has lapsed, his statement is a half-truth, because in this speech made by the hon the State President—the hon the Minister probably wrote it for him—it is stated that it is South Africa’s opinion that the mandate had lapsed. We know the whole story about that, but that is, in other words, a submission. It is not a straightforward standpoint. He can put this question to his caucus, and also to the two academics who are writing theses about this. [Interjections.]

If the mandate has lapsed, however, can the hon the Minister get ready to tell us what South Africa has been doing there since the mandate lapsed and up to this juncture. What was actually South Africa’s title in SWA?

Mr Chairman, I marvel at the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs referring to a standpoint that Mr A H du Plessis adopted on 22 December 1978, and not rather to his own letter written to the UN, a letter contained on page 152 of this bundle of documents from his department. In it, amongst other things, he lays down as a condition that Swapo bases in Angola should be monitored by South Africa. That is a standpoint that does not appear anywhere in the agreement that was concluded.

Secondly I should like to point out that it has consistently been the South African Government’s standpoint that Swapo’s privileged position as “sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia” should be relinquished as an express condition for the implementation of Resolution 435. [Interjections.]

Let me ask the hon the Minister: Where is the resolution which is now being adopted by the General Assembly, the Security Council and other organisations, a resolution in which Swapo relinquishes this standpoint about being the “sole and authentic representative of the people”?

The hon the Minister must not come along now with the standpoint that Dr Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the UN, said so, because he is merely a spokesman for the UN. He is not a body … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it has categorically been agreed that Swapo will be monitored in bases in Zambia and Angola. It amazes me that the hon member does not read the reports before he opens his mouth here and talks a lot of nonsense. [Interjections.] It has categorically been resolved.

It has also categorically been resolved—I have the report here before me; if the hon member wishes to read it, he may do so—that all UN assistance to Swapo will cease; that Swapo will relinquish its privilege position in the UN; that no UN funds will any longer go to Swapo; that all parties will receive equal treatment and that there will be complete impartiality. All these aspects have already been decided by the Security Council or will be decided when the enabling resolution is adopted by the Security Council … [Interjections.]

When?

Resolution 435 cannot be implemented if the Security Council does not adopt that resolution this week. So, what is the hon member’s problem? If the Security Council does not adopt the resolution, Resolution 435 will not be implemented. If the Security Council does adopt the resolution, Swapo must lose its privileged position. I cannot understand the hon member’s standpoint at all.

Lastly, the UN’s story about Swapo being the “sole and authentic representative” of SWA is no longer applicable. It is specifically because Swapo has seen this coming that Swapo wants to initiate discussions with us. Swapo has seen the writing on the wall. Swapo is telling us: “It makes no difference what is going to happen in the future; we shall have to co-operate with you people.”

As far as the hon member for Soutpansberg is concerned, I have before me the proposal about which the hon the State President spoke:

That is a “proposal”. He said it was a proposal. If one makes a proposal about dates and timetables, and if one says that it is a proposal, that it is going to be a hard nut to crack and that there still have to be negotiations about the timetable, how can the hon member try to make us believe that it was an undertaking? [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I would like start my reply by quoting from a statement released by Mr Gene Louw, the Administrator of the Cape. This statement is dated 8 December 1988 and reads as follows:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I find it interesting that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is replying and not the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because surely provincial affairs belongs squarely in his department.

Up till now every question I have asked in this House concerning provincial affairs has been replied to by that hon Minister’s department. I have a feeling that the hon the Minister knows nothing about this affair.

But you put the question! [Interjections.]

Listening to that hon Minister’s reply I believe that he does not know much about it either because he did not reply. He just read a statement which we all have read but I thank the hon the Minister. I have come here to appeal to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development not to continue with this and to intercede on behalf of Dr Kane-Berman to have her reinstated as the Chief Superintendent of Groote Schuur Hospital. That is what I am asking him for.

The hon the Minister has given many reasons— we do not have time to debate them—but I would like to ask the hon Minister if it is not a fact that Dr Kane-Berman was the most devoted medical administrator with ability and a personality which was appreciated and respected by everybody. Is it not a fact that Dr Kane-Berman has been punished for a five line comment in The Weekend Argus? If one looks at it on its own one might think it is radical politics, but one must look at the whole article. Mrs Helen Suzman, MP for Houghton, makes a flippant remark in that article that if women were to take over South Africa’s Government it would be much better than it is. If one reads the whole article one could see it was like that. [Interjections.]

I would like to continue. [Interjections.] Is it not a fact that there was no public outcry afterwards? There were no medical people reacting to this. Only five weeks later, when it became public that she had been demoted, was there a public outcry. [Interjections.]

Is it not a fact that her demotion resulted not only in a local outcry, but also in an international one? Is it not a fact that she was not reprimanded and that her sentence was severe? The transfer is punitive, with loss of rank, grade and joint staff benefits and conveniences. Yet the hon the Minister makes very little of it.

Is it not a fact that Dr Kane-Berman was supported by her colleagues at Groote Schuur Hospital, by the Medical School, by the University of Cape Town, by MASA and by everybody, saying that it was unbelievable? Is it not a fact that this decision came from the hon the State President who felt insulted by one of her remarks?

Mr Chairman, I should like to continue my reply to the hon member for Parktown and tell him that this was a considered opinion. In fact the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation wrote to the MEC on 23 November 1988 saying that a transfer to another position should be suggested and considered in this case.

Furthermore I want to point out to the hon member that Mr Van der Vyver, the Provincial Secretary, wrote to the Commission for Administration on 30 November 1988 requesting that a transfer be effected in terms of section 3(1) of the Public Service Act—Act No 111 of 1984. [Interjections.]

It is very important to note that the Secretary of the Commission for Administration, Mr Robson, indicated on 8 December that this transfer had been approved upon the request of the Provincial Secretary. It was therefore a considered opinion which was approved by the Commission for Administration.

Secondly there was no question of her being downgraded. She retained all her benefits and her salary, everything. I can quote to hon members from letters in this regard. She also retained her benefits, as well as her fringe benefits.

Finally, it is very clear to me why the hon member for Parktown and that party have broached the matter. It is because they support what she said: “Nelson Mandela as the head of South Africa.” [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like at the outset to correct one thing the hon the Minister said and that is that this was in fact a demotion. She was transferred from the position of Chief Superintendent of Groote Schuur Hospital to the position of Senior Superintendent, which is a lower post. The fact that she retained the same benefits was a concession made to her, possibly because the administrators realised they were doing a wrong thing by her.

What I really want to know is, throughout all the inquiries that we have made about this—I have spent long hours speaking to the MEC and Dr Watermeyer about this matter—and throughout all the inquiries that were directed to them from various sources, they could not come up with any reason for transferring Dr Kane-Berman, other than this silly little article in The Argus. That was the only reason: The fact that she, in lighthearted fashion, made certain political remarks.

Now, I happen to know this woman personally and I happen to know that she keeps herself away from politics as far as she can. [Interjections.] This is the first incident … [Interjections.] … yes! This is the first incident that anybody can point to where she has even expressed a political view publicly. Now, after 28 years of service to this province, is this the way to treat a person who has devoted her life … [Interjections.] … to the hospital services in this province?

Does one ruin a woman’s career just because politicians feel sensitive about her suggesting that some sort of absolutely hypothetical government should replace this Government? The whole thing was hypothetical!

The trouble with this Government is that it has become so arrogant, it has become so petty, and if I might add, so stupid, that it looks just as stupid as it is.[Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is clear from the hon the Minister’s inability to answer this question properly without quoting from previous statements and other people’s letters, that this instruction came from the hon the State President.

The hon the State President instructed his subordinates, who include the hon the Minister, to get rid of that official. That official is respected and provides the best medical service, but now after 28 years, she has to be dismissed because she made a statement to a newspaper. When one reads this in the broader context, one sees that she apologised. She did everything possible to see to it that this was done properly and that justice prevailed. The Government made this decision for political reasons, not medical reasons, but they are very holier-than-thou when it comes to medical and ethical standards. This decision is contrary to any medical and ethical standards.

As always I accuse the Government of putting politics before anything else. Racism in South Africa is more important than the health of the people in the Groote Schuur Hospital. That is what is most important to the Government.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to give me any reason for questioning Dr Kane-Berman’s ability. All she did was to suggest people as possible Ministers. After listening to the hon the Minister, I recommend that the hon the State President seriously consider her suggestion for a new Minister of National Health and Population Development, because that could only be an improvement.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply by referring to the hon member for Parktown. The hon member himself put this question to me. I have it before me in his handwriting. Here it is very clearly: “The Minister of National Activity.” That is how he changed it. [Interjections.] That is the first point.

Secondly, I want to tell the hon member that the hon the State President or the hon the Acting State President has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. Thirdly, I want to tell him there is no doubt that the patients of Groote Schuur complained. These are patients who cannot choose their own doctors; they have to go there because it is the only place where they can go to, and there were many.

On 12 January I personally conveyed it to the Medical Association of South Africa and they accepted the fact that a patient who had to go to a general hospital could not select his own doctor. They had accepted, therefore, that for those patients her words were a very serious matter. What were her words? I quote as follows:

†This is really what they are talking about. I would like to tell the hon member for Groote Schuur I think she is a very good doctor. I think we should see whether the University of Cape Town is going to appoint her as Dean. For that we will have to wait and see.

Will you approve?

If she is appointed as Dean we will approve because then she works for students and in an environment where the propinquity with the ANC is well-known, as with the PFP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon Minister misinformed the House. The relevant question is not in fact in Dr Barnard’s handwriting.

Order! That is not a point of order. That is something the hon member can debate.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I did not supply the Advisory Allocations Committee with schedules of book orders for schools. Insofar as other hon members of the Ministers’ Council are concerned, I refer the hon member for Springfield to pages 67 to 76 of the report of the James Commission. I shall elaborate on that shortly, therefore (a) and (b) fall away.

In referring the hon member to the report of the James Commission, I want to say that there are inferences and probabilities that somebody else did supply this information. I want to quote from page 74 of the report of the James Commission. Referring to Mr Rajbansi the report states:

The report states further:

The finding of the James Commission is:

Mr Chairman, it is quite clear who was responsible for the handling of the allocation list. Nevertheless, I would like to state that this is a damning indictment of the entire procedure that was followed by the Department of Education in the allocation of orders for school books.

I would like to remind hon members that we are dealing here with an allocation that involves some R8,5 million for the current year. That is a large sum of money!

I want to make the point that the James Commission has found that the procedure adopted is inconsistent with the guidelines laid down by the State Tender Board. As a result, during 1986, 1987 and 1988, the most extraordinary changes occurred in these allocations which were given to many booksellers. Some were given enormous increases, whilst others were not. It would appear that the allocations were given to supporters of the NPP and/or Mr Rajbansi and/or Dr G K Nair. The latter incidentally was found to be an untruthful witness by the hon Mr Justice James when he indicated that Mr A K Singh had handed him schedules reflecting the allocations.

I want to remind hon members that the commission found that appalling irregularities and unexplained inconsistencies took place in these allocations. No serious attempt was made to achieve honest awards based on merit.

This afternoon I want a firm commitment from the hon the Minister that the whole procedure of the allocation of book orders will be reviewed drastically to ensure that it will be administered honestly, fairly and openly. I want a firm commitment from the hon the Minister that in future the further allocation of books to schools would be done by way of the guidelines that had been provided by the State Tender Board.

I want a firm commitment in that regard because I believe it is the only way that we can put an end to this indictment that has been levelled against the entire department and in fact against the entire Ministers’ Council. I can see no reason why we cannot follow these guidelines. The guidelines are simple and are applied openly, and those who are discriminated against have right of recourse to the authorities that are available to them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when we followed the proceedings of the James Commission of Inquiry we were seriously disturbed. I support the need to encourage Indian businessmen to participate in the provision of books for the Department of Education. That is a noble thing to do because in many instances these people are discriminated against. However, that philosophy must not be turned into a means to enrich a few in the process. [Interjections.] The hon member for Springfield made that point and I go along With him. What I do not want to see is the creation of a monopoly or the situation where one man who trades in half a dozen names and who is conveniently located all over the country, is patronised because of the patronage which he in turn extends to somebody else.

We should try to avoid this and in the process give support to many others who would welcome it. It should be done on a basis which we can defend and which can be defended by those who participate in providing books to the Department of Education.

Mr Chairman, it would appear that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has relinquished a very important function that fell within his jurisdiction. If this is not the case, I would like to know if this function was actually wrenched away from him. If this was the case, did he report this transfer of his duty to another officer, official or politician at the first opportunity in the Ministers’ Council?

Mr Chairman, I would like to take up the point made by the previous speaker.

The shadow Minister!

The shadow Minister, as I am told. He was unfortunately not present at the James Commission where he would have discovered and realised for himself that the attempts that were made by the hon the Minister to have this on a proper basis and to have the criteria used in the allocations furnished to him, were without success. The then Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was the overbearing factor.

I go along with the idea that the allocation of books must take place on a regional basis. The number or value of books required for a region must first be established. It must not be the other way round where certain booksellers are first given a globular sum and then one looks for schools to be allocated to them. First of all one should establish the requirements of a region and then one should promote the people who belong to the booksellers’ association and who provide the service on a competitive basis. People will then be given the opportunity as small businessmen to participate in the supply of books and to take part in the economy of that particular region.

Mr Chairman, I take note of the advice offered in this House. I take note of hon members’ suggestions in the determination of future allocations. I do not refute the statements made by the hon member for Springfield, but I want to give him a commitment here and now that the whole matter of allocations is already being looked at. I have already effectively instructed the administration to formulate a new policy in consultation with the Tender Board to the effect that the allocation process be currently redesigned in collaboration with the State Tender Board to ensure free competition among bona fide booksellers and to exclude all possibilities of collusion or improper interference by either officials or political office bearers. [Interjections.]

I want to assure the hon member for Cavendish that I did not relinquish my duty. In fact, it was not my duty to snoop. The allocation was given to a committee which had merely to mention to us that the matter was being fairly dealt with. Only when I realised that there was an improper allocation, did I make the enquiry and it was then that this revelation came to the fore.

I can once again assure this House that we will be keeping tight control over the allocations and that this new formula will be put into operation.

Order! This was the first time that interpellation has been introduced and I congratulate hon members on having acquitted themselves very well of the task.

Debate concluded.