House of Assembly: Vol14 - WEDNESDAY 18 FEBRUARY 1987
laid upon the Table:
- (1) Post Office Part Appropriation Bill [B 55—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Communications).
- (2) Judges’ Remuneration Amendment Bill [B 56—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).
as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Pension Benefits, dated 17 February 1987.
Report to be printed.
as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs, dated 18 February 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs, dated 18 February 1987, relative to the Report of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply (Administration: House of Assembly), on the proposed extension of the existing water scheme of the Groenland Irrigation Board [WP C— 87], as follows:
Report to be considered.
as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts, dated 18 February 1987.
Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.
as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 18 February 1987, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr Speaker, I move without notice:
14h15 to 18h30.
Agreed to.
Order! The hon the Minister in the Office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services requested an opportunity to make a statement. I now grant him that opportunity.
Mr Speaker, yesterday I announced in the House of Assembly the agreement between the SABC and M-Net in terms of which M-Net acquired the right to broadcast uncoded TV programmes temporarily, as well as the right to broadcast coded programmes on a permanent basis.
The Cabinet decided this morning to endorse an agreement between the SABC and M-Net in terms of which the SABC will make its TV4 channel available to M-Net on a daily basis between 18h00 and 19h00 for 75 minutes for the relay of programmes from its open channel. This ruling is valid with effect from 1 July 1987 until 31 December 1988 or until such time as M-Net has recruited 150 000 subscribers to its subscription service, whichever occurs first. When this concession expires, M-Net irrevocably becomes a coded service only and the SABC will then resume its broadcast of TV4 as at present.
This concession was granted in order to enable M-Net to start operating on a sound financial basis as soon as possible. Copies of a more detailed statement, as well as copies of the agreement concerned, will be given to the main spokesmen on the SABC of every party in Parliament, as well as to the Press.
Mr Speaker, the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill yesterday showed signs of the coming election. With few exceptions, most hon members used their time to speak about political matters. The Government and Government policy were sharply criticised; the hon member for Brakpan alleged that the Government was not prepared to spell out its policy; the hon member for Rissik asserted that the Government no longer had a vision for the future; the hon member for Hillbrow averred that the Government was no longer committed to reform and that it was dragging its feet on the subject. This hon member also asked why we wanted a mandate now. The hon member for Yeoville contended that the tricameral Parliament did not give rise to good relations and that the Government failed to put forward suggestions on how Black people could be involved in the Government.
Opposition speakers therefore attacked the NP political agenda and its policy across a broad front. This afternoon I intend replying to the allegations, accusations and criticism in this regard and to reiterate the NP points of departure and reform framework explicitly as well as the vision we hold for the future. [Interjections.]
Before getting to this, I should like to react personally to a few hon members who put questions. In the first case my hearty thanks go to my colleagues on the Ministers’ Council who participated in this debate yesterday for their constructive contributions. I regret the hon the Ministers also had to participate under pressure of time as well but they contributed greatly to keeping this debate at a high level.
I should also like to thank the hon member for Fauresmith, who is the chairman of the NP study group, for contributing. He illustrated in a good contribution that powersharing without an underpinning of own affairs offered no group security.
The hon member for Carletonville bade the House farewell and on behalf of all hon members on this side I wish to thank him for his contribution in this House over the years as well as for his comradeship. We wish him every future success.
The contributions of various speakers dealt more with matters falling under my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council and other hon Ministers and I do not intend dealing with them.
†The hon member for Yeoville was in one of his bad moods yesterday. I am worried that he is making a habit of being in a bad mood these days. I think I know the reason why he was in a bad mood yesterday. He lost a very good ally and friend who departed from that party. However, it is not merely the fact that the hon member for Bryanston departed from that party which worries him. I think the hon member for Yeoville is worried because he has a nagging feeling that what the hon member for Bryanston spelt out here yesterday is true and that the PFP is gradually edging towards the far left. [Interjections.] He is worried by that and therefore the hon member is very often not in a good mood. [Interjections.]
Order!
The hon member criticised the amount by which pensions and social benefits increased. Let me assure the hon member we are all unanimous in our support for higher increases. The hon member raised the same issue with the hon the Minister of Finance. The hon the Minister of Finance explained to the hon member, only a few days ago, that the R200 million was the maximum the country could afford under the present economic situation, however much we desired to give more.
The hon member also asked a question regarding the formula for section 84(a) allocations. He asked why these formulae were not made known. I should like to refer the hon member to Question 17 of 10 February 1987, in which the hon member for Pinetown raised exactly the same issue with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. The fact is we have not completed all the negotiations yet. I hope that they will be completed soon. The formula will be made known as soon as possible.
How many years have you taken already?
The hon member for Brakpan put a question which could very easily give rise to erroneous conclusions so I should like to give him a reply to it. The R3,8 million to which I referred in my Second Reading speech, to be paid to the unemployed, does not form part of the funds voted for job creation by the Government. This is an additional amount approved by the Ministers’ Council for emergency aid. It is welfare assistance furnished to people experiencing long-term unemployment which can no longer be covered by the Unemployment Provident Fund. It applies especially to those people who cannot slot into other employment programmes. [Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, can the hon the Minister indicate to the House how much of the R600 million to which I referred yesterday is to be made available in aid to Whites.
Sir, the hon member is now putting a totally different question and I do not have all the necessary details at my disposal. Yesterday he referred to this amount and not to the R600 million. If he desires a reply to that specific question, however, an opportunity will be created for this but I do not have all the information available now. [Interjections.]
†The hon member for Umbilo asked with whom consensus had been reached in respect of the financing of own affairs. Well, Sir, consensus was reached among the three administrations and the hon the Minister of Finance as to what extent own affairs should be financed. Their decision was ratified by the Cabinet.
*Yesterday various speakers referred to the Menlo Park incident in which a Black athlete was refused participation. I should like to get to the hon member for Sasolburg. Unfortunately he is not present in the House this afternoon but before I refer to his speech of yesterday—one devoted to this matter in its entirety—I should first like to make two general comments.
The first is that, because of the wide diversity of population groups in South Africa and on account of the changing of circumstances in our country, it is essential that more powers be transferred to local communities, to sporting bodies and other institutions to decide on their own action. This pattern has been pursued successfully over the past few years in the case of hotels and premises with liquor licences. Not an incident which occurred in this regard in the past is seen any longer. [Interjections.]
For this reason I wish to say that the principle of own communities and own organisations being able to decide on their own affairs is one of merit in a plural society. [Interjections.] That is my first comment.
The second is that the right to free choice of an institution or a community does not prevent other people from differing from or criticising that decision or the way in which that right is exercised, especially not when the implications of that decision affect many people outside that community and even have international ramifications. [Interjections.]
I should now like to get to the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon members of the CP would also do well to pay attention because they listened to the hon member for Sasolburg with satisfaction and approval yesterday. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg’s speech was a confirmation of that party’s blatant racial philosophy. Its members believe in White exclusiveness and White mastery. Arising from the Menlo Park incident, the hon member for Sasolburg claimed yesterday that the Government had done nothing to protect the rights of the White man. He later reiterated that the Government had done nothing to safeguard the interests of the White man.
By means of that pronouncement the hon member for Sasolburg touched upon the fundamental difference between this side of the House and his party and in my opinion the CP as well because it is not in the interests of the White man in this country to avoid contact and to turn away and rebuff other people in a superior manner. [Interjections.] The hon members of the HNP and the CP argue from the false premise that South Africa is a White man’s country and that all other people are intruders and strangers. [Interjections.] This may come as a shock to them but the fact is that there are a number of millions of Brown, Indian and Black people to whom this country is their only fatherland, who love it as their only fatherland and who can also lay claim to rights in this country. [Interjections.]
Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?
No, Sir, my time is limited.
Whites’ interests are not served by avoiding contact and clouding relations.
What about on the beaches?
I want to tell the hon member for Rissik how White interests are served according to this side of the House. As regards the future, they will be served by the White’s ability to come to an undertand ing with all the people and population groups in this country. [Interjections.]
Order!
If we do not succeed in doing this, we are all facing a dark, miserable future. [Interjections.] I am sure of one fact and that is that we have no chance of reaching that understanding if we are to do it on the basis of racial superiority as advocated by hon members of the CP and HNP. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon members for Kuruman and Rissik will now give the hon the Minister a fair chance to make his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.
The fear of contact is often also an expression of a person’s lack of confidence in one’s own ability to assert oneself. I wish to ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether he is afraid that the children might get on too well on the field. Is he afraid that contact would lead to their building better relationships and that they would perhaps acquire mutual confidence and respect in this way? [Interjections.]
There are people in this country who go out of their way to build bridges but there are also those who are consciously or unconsciously digging trenches. [Interjections.] It is a pity that the hon member for Sasolburg and his party—this also applies to the CP— do not realise that the road of peace for South Africa lies along the way of good relations, goodwill, mutual understanding and good terms. We, White and Black in this country, will have to come to an understanding by building bridges; if not, we shall be peering at one another from trenches.
I wish to make a last comment on this matter. Personally I have a great deal of confidence in the younger generation of White Afrikaners in this country as they are rejecting in increasing numbers the type of blatant racial prejudice with which the policy of those parties is eloquent. I believe, hope and pray that the youth of South Africa, freed from racial superiority, will choose the way of reconciliation. That is also the way taken by the NP. [Interjections.] That is why it has committed itself to reform and it is wrong to assert that the NP is dragging its feet as regards reform.
It is very easy to set high ideals and objectives. The hon members of the PFP in particular are inclined to spell out grandiosely what should be achieved in South Africa but it is very difficult to negotiate those objectives and to incorporate them in constitutional structures.
As an aid to hon members’ memories, I should like to refer again briefly to one of the most important speeches ever made in this House. At the beginning of last year, on 31 January 1986, the hon the State President spelt out the NP vision for a new South Africa in an unambiguous way in this House. In that speech he offered a framework for the future of South Africa. Hon members accusing the NP of not having a vision for South Africa should reread that speech. Time does not allow me to refer to it in detail but in brief I wish to illustrate a few aspects of that speech to remind hon members of the NP commitment to reform.
The framework spelt out by the State President included:
Secondly, it included:
The fact is that this framework and what has been added clearly distinguish us from the CP and the rightist parties on the one hand and the PFP on the other. [Interjections.]
I wish to refer to this briefly and I shall immediately start with hon members of the CP who who have so much to say. The NP rejects partition. Yesterday the hon member for Rissik came with theoretical models of three forms of partition and then said, if I understood him correctly, that the CP wished to restore ethnic states. I do not know how they wish to do this but I shall leave it at that. The fact remains, however, that partition is simply not feasible in South Africa. It is not economically viable; it is not negotiable and it is not practicable.
Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?
No, Sir, I did not interrupt the hon member yesterday. [Interjections.] My time is limited. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon the Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to reply to a question.
The policy of partition as advocated by the CP and their HNP friends does not comply with the requirement of justice. [Interjections.] It can only be enforced unilaterally.
That is untrue and you know it.
Order! Did the hon member for Kuruman say: “That is untrue and you know it”?
Yes, Sir.
Surely the hon member knows better and he will withdraw it immediately.
Mr Speaker, I shall withdraw it but it remains untrue.
Order! The hon member will withdraw it unconditionally.
I withdraw it, Sir.
The hon member should not upset himself about it. The fact is that the policy of partition is feasible only if it is implemented by force. [Interjections.] Surely it is unjust in the light of the test of justice to deny people their basic rights permanently in this country where they have lived for generations, regard it as their fatherland and, as far as we can see into the future, will remain in this country.
It is a fact that the NP has committed itself to a South Africa in which one group will not be dominated by another and in which power-sharing between the groups will lay the foundation for peace. The point at issue in the real political debate in South Africa between reasonable and balanced people in no way deals with partition.
The group of people which actually still believes in the Utopia of partition is a small group which will not or cannot accept the realities of South Africa. The best expression of the other-worldly attitude of those people is to be found in the magisterial district of Morgenzon, the White heartland where 73% of the inhabitants are Black. [Interjections.]
The actual political debate in this country involves the how and the what of powersharing. I want to contend that nobody can any longer escape the reality that White and Black in this country will share power with each other.
Yes, but what is a group?
I shall get to that hon member in a moment.
The actual debate deals with the structures in which power-sharing has to find substance. It involves the bases of power-sharing and the protection of minority groups and their rights. The NP bases its vision for the future on the reality that South Africa is a nation of minorities. South Africa is a country of different communities and groups which have to be accommodated politically and constitutionally.
What is a group?
I shall get to the hon members of the PFP in a moment as I particularly want to reply to the question why we differ fundamentally from those hon members. [Interjections.]
I want to concede that group definition is a difficult matter; the hon member for Randburg referred to that yesterday. I wish to grant that statutory definitions of groups and group differences are not satisfactory in all respects. I accept that a dogmatic group definition can produce many problems and questions. We on this side of the House are also aware of the great opposition that exists among some people because they equate group definitions with discrimination. [Interjections.] Group definition, however, does not mean discrimination; in fact, discrimitory elements should be removed from it as far as possible.
Whatever arguments we may bandy on definitions, surely this in no way detracts from the incontrovertible fact that group differences and group diversity are a reality in South Africa. This is a reality which can only be ignored with serious consequences. [Interjections.] Those hon members should just exercise a little patience as I am dealing with their view. I should like to examine the policy proposed by those hon members on the basis of the reality of groups.
The fact we accept, and which I believe the hon members on that side of the House also accept, is that there are groups here. The former leader of the Official Opposition stated that very clearly in this House on 6 May 1985. I do not wish to quote him in full as my time is too limited but he acknowledged that there were groups in this country. There are groups. From the nature of the case, this forms part of the political reality in which we live. [Interjections.] Surely we cannot accept groups as part of the political reality and then ignore them when we get to the constitutional dispensation which has to give expression to this political reality. [Interjections.] Surely we do not live in a Utopia.
Hon members of the Official Opposition have replaced the concept of “group” by “a political party” in their constitutional proposals. [Interjections.] Yes, of course, they have replaced “group” by “a political party”.
[Inaudible.]
The PFP has eliminated “groups” from its constitutional proposals and substituted “political parties” for them. They have issued a pamphlet on power-sharing but have not explained what that powersharing means. [Interjections.] The powersharing they refer to is power-sharing on the basis of proportional representation. Furthermore, they do not refer to “groups” when they talk about power-sharing but to “political parties” which should function under the conditions of free association and competition.
Absolutely! [Interjections.]
That is right, of course!
*Sir, I now want to tell these hon members that there is a world of difference between the power-sharing advocated by the NP and that subscribed too by the PFP. [Interjections.] With them the point at issue is power-sharing among political parties which can be formed on the basis of free association. [Interjections.] If groups are excluded from the constitutional dispensation, surely this means that protection of minority groups falls away ipso facto.
I took the trouble of attempting to translate the proposals of the Official Opposition in the light of the political division as manifested in White politics today. If the point in question is political parties which have to be represented in the federal government on the basis of free association and we accept that the NP is the party representing by far the greatest majority of Whites, and for the sake of argument we admit that this representation will be transferred to that federal government just like that, the NP, as the spokesman for the Whites, will have 6% of the representation in it. If all Whites were to be accommodated in one party, they would have only approximately 10% of the representation. [Interjections.] Of course that would be the case. I can refer to political experts who have done that exercise in greater detail. [Interjections.]
This consequently means that the largest single group in this country does not even qualify for the minimum representation to be able to exercise the right of veto. Hon members of the PFP propose that a party with a representation of approximately 15% can lay claim to the right of veto. [Interjections.] The Whites, as represented in the NP, however, will have a representation of only 6% in that federal government. [Interjections.]
No, Sir, we have to accept that this country with its great diversities does not have a diversity which merely has to be acknowledged in society but can then be ignored in the political and constitutional dispensation of the country. [Interjections.] I should really like to bring the hon members over there back to reality. In an article in The Economist, which is certainly not regarded as right-wing publication, I read a very interesting statement.
† The Economist is well known for its liberal views, Sir. In an article published in The Economist of 6 August 1986 the editor writes, and I quote:
*All we ask of those hon members is to acknowledge this reality—in their constitutional proposals too. What security exists for a minority group such as the Whites in this country …
Nothing!
… when their representation in the federal government proposed by those hon members will be in the region of 6%? [Interjections.] In addition, those hon members come up with a bill of rights in which the interests of minority groups would supposedly be entrenched. A bill of rights, however, only has functional significance when it acquires substance within a constitutional structure and becomes part of the attendant balance of power.
Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 68A(2).
Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,
Upon which the House divided:
Ayes—81: Alant, T G; Badenhorst, P J; Ballot, G C; Bartlett, G S; Botha, J C G; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Jager, A M v A; De Klerk, F W; De Villiers, D J; Du Plessis, G C; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P J; Fouché, A F; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Grobler, J P; Hefer, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P B B; Kleynhans, J W; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Landman, W J; Ligthelm, N W; Louw, E v d M; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, M D; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, W D; Miller, R B; Nel, D J L; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Oden daal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Poggenpoel, D J; Pretorius, N J; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Schoeman, S J; Scott, D B; Simkin, C H W; Smit, H A; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Tempel, H J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Terblanche, G P D; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Linde, G J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J (Rosettenville); Van Rensburg, H M J (Mossel Bay); Van Vuuren, L M J; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Venter, E H; Viljoen, G v N; Vlok, A J; Weeber, A; Welge moed, P J; Wessels, L; Wilkens, B H; Wright, A P.
Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Cuyler, W J; Ligthelm, C J; Schutte, DPA.
Noes—39: Andrew, K M; Bamford, B R; Barnard, M S; Barnard, S P; Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, PHP; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hoon, J H; Hulley, R R; Le Roux, F J; Olivier, N J J; Page, B W B; Raw, W V; Rogers, P R C; Scholtz, E M; Schwarz, H H; Sive, R; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Tarr, M A; Theunissen, L M; Treumicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, H D K; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Heerden, R F; Van Staden, F A H; Van Zyl, J J B; Visagie, J H; Walsh, J J; Watterson, D W.
Tellers: McIntosh, G B D; Widman, A B.
Question affirmed and amendments dropped.
Bill read a second time.
Mr Speaker, when you stopped me last night, I was discussing the question of the purchase of land from the SATS at Worcester. I have no doubt that we shall get the land, but the price is a bit of a problem. The owner of the land is the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and I want to tell him that if he wants to donate it, it would be wonderful. We shall look after it well. Just look at how well we look after his two beautiful daughters in the fine constituency of Worcester. If that does not help, I do not know what will.
I do not have many complaints about the SATS. We have enough lamentations in this House. They radiate from the hon members on the opposite side. I accept that the SATS is there to transport goods and people. Surely that is the case.
I should like to know from the hon the Minister why the SATS is opening pharmacies in competition with ordinary pharmacies. Pharmacists in my constituency are very angry about the matter, and the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa is strongly opposed to this unfair competition.
Who is complaining now?
How does this accord with the Government’s policy of privatisation? It is diametrically opposed to it, surely. How does it work and how can it be justified? Transmed has 58 pharmacies now and half a million people benefit from them. Contracts have been concluded with another 300 pharmacies. Is the small pharmacist not a good example of a small businessman or entrepreneur? He has to find his own money and run his own enterprise on a good, sound basis, otherwise he will go under. In 1984 the SATS subsidised Transmed with R174 million to keep it going. I regard that as unfair competition.
In terms of the legislation, the Minister of Transport Affairs must consult with the Minister of National Health and Population Development before new Transmed pharmacies are opened. The Pharmaceutical Society claims that this specific provision is not always adhered to. They gave the example of a Transmed pharmacy which was opened in Ermelo recently. The hon the Minister will probably have a good answer to this, but I think the SATS must keep the wheels moving and leave the pills and the pains to the pharmacists. Live and let live, or cobbler, stick to your last.
Mr Speaker, the hon member for Worcester referred yesterday to all the “good officials of the Railways”, as he put it, and everyone who works for the SATS. I should like to associate myself with him, because I also have a large number of Railway officials in my constituency, De Aar. I also have other stations there where a number of Railways people work. I should like to pay tribute to all the SATS workers throughout South Africa.
During the Second Reading debate I congratulated the hon the Minister on his appointment, and I also want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment. The hon the Deputy Minister was a good chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs and he did very good work. I wish him every success in this new position, and I believe that he will be successful in this new job as well.
During the Second Reading debate I referred to the crowding out of Whites on stations as well as in buses and other SATS vehicles. Reference is made in today’s Citizen to a number of White primary school schildren who had to use the same bus as Blacks. These children were assaulted. According to the newspaper, an eight year old was slapped, their hair was pulled and others were pushed off the bus. That is what we are warning against. I am pleased that the SATS has launched an immediate investigation into this matter. The fact remains, nevertheless, that the Government is making this kind of shoulder-rubbing situation possible. That is what we are opposed to.
The Government has made certain decisions in respect of the White Paper on National Transport Policy. We agree with some of the standpoints of the Government; we differ with others. The hon the Minister has given us the assurance that we shall discuss the White Paper on a later occasion, and therefore I want to single out only certain aspects today.
A comfortable public passenger transport system must comply with certain requirements. In the first place regular transport must be provided. Secondly the transport service must be reliable. In addition the service must be safe. It is very important that this service is also fast. In this way the travelling times are shortened. As far as possible one must eliminate changes from one vehicle to another during a journey. A service of this kind must also be convenient and comfortable for the user.
To me the most important aspect is that such a service must be safe. It is absolutely imperative in any advance planning that public safety enjoy precedence. We agree that the four provincial ordonnances should be contained in one road safety Act. Uniformity is important, because at present there is a veritable Babel of confusion, especially in respect of the application of the law. The Government’s standpoint in connection with deregulation will have to be considered carefully. I believe there will still have to be a degree of regulation, especially in respect of control over entry to this industry, the question of control over safety, control over the quality of the service and even control over the price level of the service.
One should never lose sight of the fact that public transport must be a service to the community. Public transport must be offered, therefore, regardless of the demand for it at any time. Inevitably some services on certain routes are more profitable than others. Such a service cannot be provided by a free-market economy, therefore. After all, according to the free-market principle, the profit motive is most important! Services will therefore be rendered only where a profit can be made if the free-market economy is permitted to take its course. We shall have the situation that the residents along the less profitable routes will have to do without transport.
The SATS will have to retain its social function. The public bus transport industry must be developed with the service of the SATS. In fact, it must be developed in such a way that it can become a stable industry. Hon members must note that I said “with the service of the SATS”.
To make this possible, there will always have to be a degree of regulation. Passenger transport will have to be subsidized for many years to come. I believe it is only the method of subsidisation that will differ in future.
The losses on passenger services amounted to R1 100 million during the 1986-87 financial year. The Government paid R758 million of that amount, and the SATS had to foot the bill for the amount of R342 million by means of cross-subsidising.
We want the SATS to retain its position in the market. We also want it to be possible for the SATS to broaden its social function in times of unemployment. Naturally it has to be compensated for doing so. That is why I asked the hon the Minister during my Second Reading speech for the SATS once again to create employment opportunities as it did during the previous depression, instead of reducing its number of employees by 16 000 during the past year. It should rather create more employment opportunities. [Interjections.] But what did the hon the Minister tell me in his reply? He said I expected him to dump people who could not find employment anywhere else, on the SATS. I think that was a scandalous remark made by the hon the Minister. After all, these people are not a load of garbage that will be dumped on the SATS. They are willing to work. Their work was taken from them as a result of the Government’s ineptness and clumsiness in respect of its economic policy. [Interjections.]
Surely the hon the Minister knows that one of the most important causes of the poor economy we are experiencing is the fact that there is no stability in South Africa. Surely the hon the Minister knows that investors are not willing to invest in a country in which the situation is unstable. The factories are closing as a result of this poor economy. Businessmen are going bankrupt, and people are without work. Yet the hon the Minister says I expect him to dump these people onto the SATS.
During the own affairs budget debate we had a fine example, viz R3,8 million—just as much as for the song of the former Deputy Minister of Information—for welfare work among the people who are suffering and starving. This amount is in fact less than the song will eventually cost. That is what the Government thinks of the Whites in South Africa. The policy of this Government is that the Whites’ standard of living must be scaled down. It has been scaled down to such an extent that we are faced by a situation in South Africa today in which Whites in this country are starving.
Mr Speaker, when one looks at the hon members on the opposite side of the House, and one takes note of their outward appearance, one is not sure that their standard of living has in any way deteriorated. They are in my view the very model of prosperity. They appear to have it laid on thick. [Interjections.]
To start off with the subject of the economy and to argue about it by saying that living standards have dropped simply as a result of a lack of stability is to simplify a very complex problem. I do not think the hon members really have a basis for that argument.
When one surveys the improvement of the economic situation in South Africa since this Government took steps to further stability, to see to it that law and order are maintained and to do what it could to limit the outflow of capital from this country, the Government cannot be blamed for the Whites of South Africa being in a poor position. We generally find ourselves in recession conditions. In that respect the unfavourable circumstances in which we find ourselves are therefore not only of South African origin.
The vast majority of Whites in South Africa live very well and enjoy the fat of the land. The Government is helping those people who are struggling and is trying to be of assistance to them as far as is possible. The aid programmes that have been announced by the hon the State President and the Cabinet will, in my view, go a long way to assisting those people who are Government supporters.
I think one of the greatest problems the hon member for De Aar has, is to be found precisely in the fact that a large component of SATS officials live in the De Aar constituency, because it is precisely the SATS officials who are satisfied officials and who realize what privileged positions they hold in this country. Employees of the SATS are a privileged group of employees in the South African context. They are employees who have numerous benefits, not only in respect of good salaries which compare well to those offered by the private sector, but also as far as housing and travel benefits are concerned. The SATS officials are therefore very privileged today, and that is why I have no doubt that this is going to be one of the greatest problems for the hon member in the coming election. The SATS officials are loyal South Africans and loyal Nationalists. [Interjections.] I therefore have no doubt that they will vote in large numbers for the NP. I think that is why the hon member for Langlaagte also left.
[Inaudible.]
I am convinced of it. [Interjections.]
The hon member spoke of Whites being crowded out on stations and buses. It is the absolute exceptions which they will grab at, and that is what they are trying to make an issue out of the Government investigates those kinds of exceptional cases and tries to put matters right where there is in fact a problem.
We live in a multi-ethnic country and there are cases where services cannot be duplicated every time. There is certainly a measure of rubbing of shoulders, but South Africa is a country in which such shoulder rubbing takes place in a good spirit most of the time.
With reference to deregulisation and the subsidies accompanying it, let me say that privatisation, which has become a vogue word is something which should be examined. But I think the SATS will have to guard against only giving up profitable services and keeping other services which have a socio-economic component. These are not aspects, however, which I am aiming to touch on today. There are a few other matters which I should like to examine.
As an hon member of this House and of the Whips which had a lot of involvement with the former Minister Hendrik Schoeman, I want to pay tribute to him today for the excellent services and work which he did in this portfolio as well. It was a privilege to have been able to know Hendrik Schoeman, and I think everyone in his immediate vicinity was always aware of his wonderful personality and the way in which he and his beautiful wife always treated us. It is a pleasure to pay tribute to him.
As far as the present hon Minister is concerned, we are from the same vintage and it is with great pride and gratitude that we see him in this position today. We are privileged to have him as a Minister.
We also want to wish the hon the Deputy Minister everything of the best. He is someone who is thorough and has acquired a good knowledge of railway matters over many years. I think they will be a strong team which can achieve great success with the assistance and support of Dr Grové and his highly specialized team.
I want to examine a few aspects of the SATS more closely. I firstly want to refer to the SAA. One does not only want to criticise, but also praise where it is possible. The service provided by the personnel of the SAA is one of the most outstanding that I have ever come across in any airline in the world. I want to praise them and also encourage them to maintain this standard. They provide the people of South Africa with a fine service and are also of value to South Africa as ambassadors to the many tourists with whom they come into contact.
One realizes that the economics of catering is a complicated matter involving tremendous expenses, but the food served by the SAA during the last year or so is really no longer of the same quality we were accustomed to in the past. [Interjections.] I wonder if the possibility of doing a little bit more for us in this regard cannot be examined.
A very positive point which I want to mention is the fact that the serving of free drinks is limited to a minimum and this is a tremendous improvement. It was often really neither a privilege nor a pleasure to travel by SAA when liquor was served on a large scale to people who abused it and did not know how to behave themselves. I think the steps taken by the SAA in connection with this have improved the position tremendously. I am not only referring to the quality of the service, but also the quality of people around one with whom one can chat. They are at least sober.
It is only the first-class passengers who can drink free of charge.
As far as the first-class passengers are concerned, I do not know, because I do not travel in that part of the aeroplane. I accept that the people there probably have to behave as they see fit. The hon member for Parktown, who probably regularly drinks in the first-class section, possibly knows what happens there. He can vouch for it.
Economy class passengers cannot behave themselves; that is what you are saying.
That is not what I am saying at all; I am saying I have no experience of it. [Interjections.] What I do want to say is that there are unfortunately also weaker brethren in this society of ours, who are not always capable of behaving themselves.
The railways also provides a very fine service, but there is one aspect which in my view should receive attention and that is the serving of something to eat, particularly on the train between Pretoria and Northern Transvaal. When one catches a train in the evening, one can become fairly hungry and thirsty. It will be of great assistance when as an MP one goes to work in Northern Transvaal if one could at least enjoy a little something on that train.
Are you talking to the hon the Minister or the officials?
An aspect which is also worrysome is that if one has made a reservation on a train, particularly to the north and one’s arangements are suddenly cancelled, there really is no-one whom one can phone to cancel one’s journey.
Where does the hon the Minister sit these days?
This is really a problem. I think it can result in losses. If one dials certain telephone numbers in Pretoria or Johannesburg, one is told straight out that they cannot help one, and that the only way in which one can make such cancellation, is to report before the train leaves. This is not always practically possible.
I now want to move a little closer to my own constituency. What I have to say now is not merely election talk. I have a file with me which is fairly thick by now with particulars which go back to 1978. Regular correspondence took place with the hon the Minister and his staff on the different stations in the Roodepoort area, ie Witpoortjie, Princess, Horison, Hamberg and the main station of Roodepoort.
As can be seen this service is provided over a large area, in other words it is a decentralized service. One therefore cannot rely on a large central station such as Cape Town or Durban. One can understand that. An official visit to this area was last paid in 1980 when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning paid a visit to it on 30 July 1980. From that date up to the beginning of 1981, all the smaller stations’ platforms have been lengthened, more shelters have been provided, more toilets and facilities have been made available and inspection points for tickets were also established.
But we still find the problem arising that there is not enough shelter in poor weather conditions. Toilet facilities are still inadequate on most of these stations. Since 1980 I have been asking for a new station building. The old station building was erected in 1908. In 1980 it was renovated to a certain extent, but at the moment the premises are really in a dilapidated condition. It really needs urgent attention. This was on the programme and the promise of the former hon Minister was that it would be done during 1986. Up until now, however, no attention has been paid to it. If a building becomes too dilapidated, one cannot do very much about it later on, particularly if it is a 1908 model.
The problem in other words is the parking area which is completely inaccessible and inadequate, the buildings which are becoming completely dilapidated and subways which are in a bad condition, untidy and unsafe. In connection with this I have also addressed my city council to an extent, because from surveys which have been done, it appears that only 4% of the people who use that subway are railway customers. The rest are inhabitants of the Roodepoort area. But solutions for those problems must be found. It will be greatly appreciated if the hon the Minister or some of his senior personnel came to visit us in Roodepoort so that we could show them the real problems there. If we really want to pay attention to that old building dating from 1908 or want to restore it, we could in my view make it into something very attractive. Roodepoort as one of the seven largest cities in South Africa in my view deserves more than it has at present.
Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I expressed my appreciation to the hon the Minister, the management and the staff of the SATS. I would like to add at this stage a word of gratitude to the hon the Deputy Minister for the function which he hosted for members of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs on Friday and for the gifts which the three retiring members of that committee received. I appreciate that very much. I should also like to thank him on behalf of my colleagues who are present here.
As I have only five minutes hon members will not expect an erudite speech on transport affairs but I think it may be the right occasion to mention that I represent a constituency which had the first ever railway line in South Africa. The railway line from the Point was the first railway line to be built and the first one on which trains ran in this country. Therefore my constituency has had a very long association with the Railways. In addition, the docks were also in the constituency but when I think perhaps they found that the workers were too friendly towards me they built pier number two! The new passenger terminal at the Point and the docks lay largely idle when all the traffic shifted to the container depot at the other end of the Bay. The next thing was that they took away Cato Creek from me and started the Bayhead Cartage Centre. I therefore lost that little railway interest as well. Then they closed down the Durban Station and built the great white elephant in Umgeni Road where one occasionally bumps into somebody walking around if one is lucky. However, it is a magnificent building and maybe one day in the future it will have some passengers and justify itself. I have therefore had a long association with the SATS even though all the major traffic has now been taken away from my constituency.
It is also a constituency with a great deal of loyalty. It gave short shrift to its first six MPs. For 28 years they never lasted longer than five years each. After that we settled down and in the next 49 years there have only been two MPs, the first of whom lasted 20 years and I have been there for 29 years. It is therefore a constituency to whom the railwaymen have been good; they have certainly been very good to me and I want to put that on record.
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, in the last moment or two that I have I would like to express, as this is my last appropriate opportunity in this session and in Parliament, a word of very deep appreciation to the officers of Parliament. It has been my privilege to have served in this House under seven different Speakers—strangely enough seven Governors-General and State Presidents as well. They seem to go in tandem. Before that there was that great gentleman, Chris van Niekerk, as President of the Senate. He was my first experience of anyone in the Chair. I do not only want to refer to the Speakers, the Deputy Speakers and Chairmen of Committees but also to the Clerks, as the Secretaries to Parliament were previously called, and their deputies to who one turned for all one’s information and guidance. They were especially helpful to any new young member coming to Parliament. I have never come across one of them—I have served here under four Clerks and Secretaries to Parliament— who ever failed to try to help and guide us and give us direction. In the days of Mr Hugo, Mr MacFarlane, and Mr Victor and now also Mr De Villiers one learnt the feel of Parliament and the way Parliament worked. To them I want to extend my grateful thanks.
Then there are the committee clerks who I believe are playing a major part in this new Parliament. I do not have words to express appreciation for what they are doing in keeping what is the heartbeat and pulse of Parliament in the standing committees going. To them I also want to express a word of sincere appreciation.
Finally I also have a word for my old friend, Mr Reid, who I see is not here at the moment. I remember when I first came here Mr Mentz, a white-haired old gentleman who had served here for 25 years, was the Chief Messenger, now known as Chief Service Officer. To Mr Reid and his personnel, to the floor service officers in this Chamber and throughout Parliament, and particularly naturally to all of those who work on our floors who become part of the family of one’s floor, I think this Parliament owes a great debt. This is something that most people outside would never know about but as one who is leaving Parliament after a long time I would like to have it put on record.
Let me say in conclusion that if I should get homesick for Parliament I have a parliamentary bench at home in my lounge. I can sit on that bench and let the memories roll back over the years. I might add that that bench is much harder than the soft benches we have at present because it is one of the hard benches that we sat on till 1961.
Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of the Third Reading debate and I should like to thank the hon members on both sides of the House who took part. I received an apology from the main speaker on transport affairs in the Official Opposition, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who cannot be here today. I shall try to deal with the matters he raised in the debate nonetheless.
In the first place the hon member referred to the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs and he doubted the necessity of his appointment here. I take it amiss that he did so. The hon the Deputy Minister fulfils an extremely important function in the two departments; he is busy every day and he is becoming busier and busier as the division of work becomes more meaningful and he entrenches himself more and more in the work.
†The hon member enquired whether the hon the Deputy Minister’s salary and furniture would be paid for by the National Road Fund. The reply is “no”. His salary, travel and subsistence allowances, telephone accounts, stationery, furniture as well as all costs relating to his driver, will be paid from funds appropriated by the Treasury under the vote of the Department of Transport as well as that of the Department of Public Works.
The hon member again referred to the privatisation of the SA Airways. I want to state very clearly that the selling of the SAA as a going concern to the private sector is totally out of the question. However, what could be considered is the possibility of shareholding by the private sector. As I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate, even employees of the SAA could then obtain a share in it.
*It must be very clear that there will be no sense in transferring the SA Airways, which is a state monopoly to a great extent at present, to the private sector just as it is. In my reply to the Second Reading debate, I said that the question of a partnership is a matter which will receive very thorough consideration.
The hon member also referred to the possibility of chartered flights to encourage tourism in this country. I can give the hon member the assurance that as far as the Government and I are concerned, our eyes are wide open to the possibilities tourism has for this country. Even chartered flights are not out of the question as long as they take place in co-operation with the SAA and its pool partners.
The hon member also referred to the positive effect that that kind of tourism can have on this country, in that people are brought here so that they can see what really goes on here and can go back to their country to refute the one-sided reports, as he called them, that are shown on television there. I should like to thank the hon member for striking this tone about the misrepresentations about South Africa that are presented abroad.
I should also like to thank the hon member for Worcester for the contribution he made here today. He referred in particular to productivity with reference to the staff of the SATS. When one talks about productivity, one has three things in particular in mind, viz effective management in the first place; secondly, training; and thirdly, the worker’s dedication. The SATS does a great deal to promote these aspects to which I have referred, and that is why the SATS is successful in its enterprise.
As proof of the SATS’ labour productivity, I can mention that as a result of the normal staff turnover since 1982, the number of staff has decreased by no less than 75 000 or almost 27%, whereas the traffic has increased by 9,5% during that same period. Rendering of service to consumers has not suffered because of this reduction in any way. The work force has been trained and motivated in various ways to be able to make the best possible use of the relevant infrastructure and equipment. Courses in team work, productivity groups and quality groups have been established with the purpose of involving the work force in participating in management and problem-solving.
Operating productivity was further increased inter cilia by having trains running for longer periods, loading trains more heavily, increasing the average speed of trains, improving terminal turn-around time and minimising empty wagons.
In addition the supply and demand of inter-urban trains and domestic flights has been balanced by rationalising schedules. A further example is the centralisation concept according to which goods pilot traffic in a large area is collected at a central point from where the distribution then takes place. The result is that the transit times of packages and small consignments can be reduced drastically and a better service can be rendered to the clients.
As far as capital productivity is concerned, it is a pleasure to mention that the SATS invests only in assets which lead to greater productivity and will ensure competitiveness and a good return. Before any new investment is made, it is ensured that optimum use is being made of the existing capacity. Keeping the afore-mentioned in mind, I am satisfied that the SATS can enter the future with confidence.
I want to thank the hon member for Worcester for the way in which he makes his contributions in these debates. He has a personality of his own, and that is why he makes inimitable speeches here which everyone enjoys. I thank him for that, and even though he tackled us about the question of pharmacies, for example, we shall not blow off steam at him.
As far as the pharmacies are concerned, I want to tell the hon member that this pharmaceutical service exists to give beneficiaries a better service at a cheaper price for the SATS. That is the only reason. In addition I can tell the hon member that without these pharmacies, the contribution of the SATS to Transmed would have had to be approximately R30 million more. We always consult with the relevant Ministers before any new pharmacy is opened. In short it amounts to the rendering of a cheap and effective service to employees, only as far as medicines are concerned. If there is any possibility that the same service can be rendered by private pharmacies at the same price, we can talk about it.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister with reference to his reply whether these Railways pharmacies, of which there are a few in my constituency too, also render emergency pharmacy services to the employees? If not, who is supposed to render those services?
A good question.
Sir, I do not know whether or not those pharmacies render emergency services …
The answer is no.
I shall enquire into the matter, and ask the management to supply the hon member for Welkom with an answer. [Interjections.]
The Progs do not even want you to speak! [Interjections.]
I now come to the question of the site to which the hon member for Worcester referred. Land is available there; that is quite correct. As far as co-operation is concerned, there is no problem in negotiating with the local authority which sees to the zoning of the piece of land about the alienation of the land. As the hon member rightly said, the price will be the matter which will involve the actual negotiation.
The hon member for De Aar took part in the Second Reading and Third Reading debate on this Bill. He gave an example of an incident that had taken place on a vehicle on which Whites and people of colour were present. The hon member will probably agree with me on what I want to tell him. I do not think we would be able to live in this country of ours, in which three worlds meet, as it were—a developing world, a developed world and an underdeveloped world, without incidents taking place. I think the hon member is realistic enough to realise that. [Interjections.] The point is …
[Inaudible.]
Yes, that also happened then. [Interjections.] The point is that the things the hon member referred to are absolute exceptions. When they do happen—as has been announced, and as the hon member himself put it—immediate steps will be taken to investigate the matter and, if at all possible, to prevent further such cases. The hon member also referred to the White Paper on National Transport Policy. He laid particular emphasis on the question of safety. I quite agree with the hon member. It is also the SA Transport Services’ policy to ensure the greatest possible degree of safety, both of the goods and of—and particularly of—the people they convey. The hon member’s requirements—a regular service, reliability, safety, a fast service—all represent ideals one can strive for. What the hon member must understand, however, is that all those ideals cost a great deal of money. The hon member contends that there should be a degree of regulation. That is exactly what the White Paper says, there must be regulation in the sphere of quality in particular, however.
The hon member asked for more employment opportunities to be created. He referred to the past, when the Railways supplied many employment opportunities to people. Of course, this work done by the Railways was commendable. The hon member will remember, however, that the issue was the creation of infrastructure. That infrastructure was created over the years to such a degree that there is reserve capacity this year. The creation of infrastructure by people—even with pickaxes and spades as was the case at the time—is no longer possible today, particularly not in the set-up we are living in.
In conclusion I should like to refer to the hon member for Roodepoort, who referred to privatisation and pleaded that the SA Transport Services should guard against our being saddled with only the uneconomical socioeconomic services. I am in complete agreement with the hon member. That is exactly what the policy of deregulation does not intend. The aim in respect of deregulation is that the SA Transport Services will be capable of competing properly in a market in which everyone must be able to compete under the same conditions. In fact, I am convinced that the SA Transport Services will be a very important competitor in that market, to the benefit of the South African economy and to the benefit of the public in general.
In addition the hon member for Roodepoort referred to facilities. He laid emphasis on the quality of food in particular. I can inform the hon member of a recent decision to improve the quality of the food supplied on the domestic flights. The good news is that this will be done without an increase in price. [Interjections.]
The hon member also referred to certain administrative problems, as well as to certain shelters and certain facilities in his own constituency, and also to subways inter alia. I want to give the hon member the assurance that I shall attend to this personally, and if anything at all can be done about the matter, I shall get in touch with the hon member.
I think, Sir, I have replied to almost all the hon members’ speeches. I thank them once again for their participation in the debate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Mr Chairman, when this debate was adjourned on the previous occasion, I was starting my reply to the arguments raised by hon members who took part in the debate. I began with the relevant Official Opposition speaker, putting certain questions to him and receiving certain answers from him. In this connection I also made certain statements to which he responded. I should like to begin, for the sake of a comprehensive coverage of the debate, by referring briefly to that.
Firstly I asked the hon member Prof Olivier whether he accepted, as a sound and acceptable statement, that if one criticised other hon members of the House, one should subject oneself to the same test, standard or criterion. The hon member conceded that he thought it would be a reasonable statement, consequently implying that I could, on the strength of his arguments, subject him to the same criteria as those he applied to other hon members of Parliament.
The first test I should like to use in that specific context relates to the way the hon member began his argument by saying how amazed he was to learn, in the Standing Committee on the Constitution, that all the majority parties in all the Houses of Parliament should support the legislation under discussion, whilst they oppose the same legislation, or legislation of a similar kind, referred to another committee last year.
As a result of this amazement on his part the hon member also said that he could not comment on the ethical codes of people who acted in this way. By making those statements he was questioning the ethical codes involved in this conduct on the part of other hon members. By any logical conclusion this also means that if, on any specific occasion, one adopts a standpoint other than the one one adopted on a previous occasion, one’s ethical code should be questioned.
I should now like to put the question to the hon member himself: To what extent does his political past comply with the criterion he has laid down for other hon members? My contention is that if one were to subject the hon member to a test—by way of his own statement he said that he accepted that he should be subjected to such a test— according to his own conclusions one would have to question his ethical code and that of his party.
Whilst we were together in this House, however, the hon member and members of his party changed their standpoint in regard to specific subjects. I thought it was, in fact, one’s right to change one’s standpoint if one could be convinced of a better standpoint, but apparently that is not true as far as this hon member is concerned. That is why, in his own arguments, the hon member Prof Olivier is actually questioning his own ethical code and that of the party to which he belongs.
Now that is a lovely argument!
Of course! Let me give the hon member for Durban Central an example, because he is still very young. Hon members of the Official Opposition supported this side of the House on legislation for Black local authorities. In fact, we had their wholehearted support. When we presented the additional legislation on regional services councils—I made the mistake of saying it was in 1984, but it was in 1985—the same Bill was rejected by those hon members on the grounds that it was based on separate institutions established on a group basis. Where is the logic, the ethical code and the morality of an hon member who does that kind of thing and then accuses people of non-ethical behaviour? [Interjections.]
I want to take this further, because fundamentally there is actually something else involved too. What is involved is the fact that the hon member and his party accept the members of the other Houses as long as they agree with them, but as soon as members of the other Houses endorse standpoints that do not accord with his and those of his party, those members and their ethical codes are called into question.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?
No, Sir, not now; later. Hon members need not accept my evidence for this conclusion. They can accept that of the hon member for Bryanston, and it need not be based on the statement he issued, about which his fellow party members accused him of sour grapes because he did not obtain a nomination, but on the statement which he sent to his leader, in all seriousness, a year ago. It was on 20 January 1986 when there was no question of an election or a nomination. There was only a question of a worried party member who was concerned about the course being adopted by his party. That is why we cannot react to this by saying that he did so because he would not be nominated again.
I want to quote one statement he made in this document on 20 January 1986:
We are not the ones saying this. It is someone in the inner sanctum of the party, seeing whether he cannot save the soul of the party. He went on to say:
That is probably one of Horace’s important documents. [Interjections.]
That is very interesting—I like the hon member’s interjection— because, in the face of this document and this indictment, that hon member and his party kept the hon member for Bryanston in their party.
We did what?
They kept him in their party. [Interjections.] What actually becomes apparent from the document is something that this side of the House has continually been saying. The fact that hon members of the Official Opposition profess to speak for other people, including people who are not in Parliament, is idle talk, because there are people in their own ranks who warned them, a year ago, about their conduct towards hon members and accused them of hypocrisy. I wish to contend that in this debate we have obtained confirmation of the atmosphere about which the hon member for Bryanston warned his party. He warned his own party. [Interjections.]
The hon member Prof Olivier is a legal man—he will not mind my saying that he and I both obtained our degrees at the same time and that he did better in the examination than I did—and I am asking him why, in the course of time, he has gone downhill to such an extent.
I did not quite hear that?
The hon member must listen—I shall give him another chance to hear.
What are you looking at the …
Because I do not want to look at the hon member for Sandton at all, since looking at him is such a shock to the system. In fact, it is an effort to look at his face. [Interjections.]
The hon member went on to debate the Bill on the basis of the provision enabling the appointment of ministerial assistants. That is correct, is it not? With all due respect, surely that is not what is contained in the Bill. After all, the clause being dealt with has nothing to do with authorisation for the appointment of office-bearers. Surely the hon member knows that is true.
The authority or power to make appointments, as the hon member for Mossel Bay has rightly pointed out, is contained in the existing section 28. So to argue here that the legislation should be opposed on the grounds that it authorises the extra appointment of people, whatever the number may be, is surely not true from a judicial point of view. It is not factually correct. The fact is that section 28 of the Constitution already makes provision for such appointments.
†I should now like to deal with the hon member for Durban Point who raised the same arguments. The hon member for Durban Point and his party supported a yes vote on this Constitution which in fact contains section 28. At no stage that I know of did the hon member for Durban Point or any hon member oppose section 28 of the Constitution Act of 1983.
At no stage was it ever suggested that they would be Ministers or …
Then I want to ask the hon member: When he supported section 28, what did he in fact support?
Normal officials.
This is very interesting. At no point were officials appointed in terms of the Constitution Act! They were appointed under the Public Service Act. That hon member has been here the longest, as far as I can remember, except for the hon member for Houghton.
Don’t rub it in!
I will! That is a compliment.
The hon member for Durban Point should know better than anybody else that what I have said is the truth. When he supported section 28, he supported the appointment of people other than officials appointed in terms of the Public Service Act.
There is another explanation for his change of attitude. It is a very sad one. The hon member and his party have made an election pact. In terms of the election pact in Natal the hon member for Durban Point reluctantly has to toe the line. This is what this is all about!
What utter nonsense!
Now the hon member for Umbilo is interrupting me. The hon member for Umbilo started his speech with a very sound description of fleas. They jump on and off a person. I suppose he is an authority on that.
I only have to look over there and then I do not have to worry about the fleas!
The point is that the only political future the hon member for Umbilo thinks he has is to jump on the bandwagon of the PFP and the indaba. He is therefore used to the type of exercise he attributes to fleas.
At least it is a decision of integrity.
Then we come to another aspect of the hon member Prof Olivier’s argument which he also shares with other hon members. He said that the legislation before us was precisely the same as that considered by the other standing committee. That is not, however, correct. Surely the hon member knows it is incorrect.
How does it differ?
I should like to explain to you. That is quite an intelligent question.
I was on that committee and it seemed the same to me.
Then the hon member did not read that one or this one.
*In terms of the proposals for the constitutional amendment which the other committee considered, there was a specific provision to the effect that the appointments for which provision had been made should be persons belonging to the group of the Minister transferring the function to him. There is no such restriction or provision contained in this.
That is splitting hairs.
No, that is fair enough. The hon member is a lawyer. I am not splitting hairs. It is a very serious point.
*As soon as one advances arguments, the hon member says “one is splitting hairs”.
The second is—the hon member may have a look at that—that those people who would have been appointed would have been people who, within a specific period of time, would have had to become members of Parliament. That does not apply in this case. Let us nevertheless accept for a moment that the principle is the same, and let us see what the hon member Prof Olivier goes on to say.
He said that that committee, in contrast to the committee dealing with the Constitution, represented other interests. I now challenge the hon member Prof Olivier to tell me what other interests were represented in the standing committee on my department …
I think you know what he means.
No, I do not know; I am trying to find out. How would I know?
I know what he means, therefore you know as well.
Well, you have never made any attempt to say what it means.
*The hon member said, Sir, that that committee represented other interests than did the committee dealing with the Constitution. All the parties represented in the standing committee on my department were also represented in the committee dealing with the Constitution.
That is correct.
So it was not a question of other interests, but the same interests.
I want to go further and ask whether it is not the function of standing committees to bring people with divergent standpoints to the point of consensus. I thought that when we debated the Constitution and the whole concept of standing committees with one another, we said that standing committees could possibly be in a position to obtain consensus that open debate could not achieve.
That is the purpose of the exercise.
Yes, that is the purpose of the exercise, as the hon member for Mossel Bay says.
Now, after consensus has been achieved, the standpoints of the people who shared in the process of reaching consensus are being questioned. Their conduct and ethical codes are being questioned and they have to weigh up their actions against the dictates of their own consciences.
The hon member goes even further. Quite suddenly he is tremendously concerned about the financial implications, and he opposes the legislation on those grounds.
No, that is just one leg of the argument.
Of course! I have dealt with the other leg, although there might be a third one as well.
A monster, eh?
Well, I suggest the hon member looks in the mirror. [Interjections.]
*Let us look briefly at how valid the hon member’s standpoint on the financial implications is. There is only one conclusion I can draw from the hon member’s argument, and that is that before he can support any steps taken, he wants to know exactly what the financial implications are. If that is the hon member’s standpoint, let me concede that it is a valid one. In the light of his own view of criteria, however, I also have to weigh up his and his party’s other actions against the same norms.
Who is watching you up there in the gallery? You keep looking up there. [Interjections.]
Cannot the hon member understand that it is an effort to look at his face? [Interjections.]
*It is with the hon member Prof Olivier, however, that I am now conducting a debate. I want to ask him whether he has considered the financial implications of the indaba proposals. Could the hon member tell me what the financial implications of the proposals are? The hon member’s party is, after all, committed to an election pact with the NRP on the indaba proposals—not on the concept of the indaba, but on the proposals.
What are the relevant facts? The facts are—I am saying this in a general sense …
The indaba bothers you and Schutte, does it not? [Interjections.]
Let me just tell the hon member that it does not bother me. It really does not, because the indaba proposals, and the hon member’s attitude to them, could ensure that he does not come back to this House. [Interjections.] From that point of view I therefore welcome the indaba proposals.
I am now speaking to the hon member Prof Olivier and my discussion is based on his own arguments. [Interjections.] The economic committee of the indaba states that it has not addressed the full financial implications of the implementation of the indaba proposals. The committee goes further, however … The committee states that what it already knows at this stage—and these are now my own words—is that Natal itself cannot afford the implementation of the indaba proposals. [Interjections.] They go on to state that the central Government will have to be asked for a subsidy with a view to implementing the indaba proposals.
Not at all—we shall just impose a heavy duty on the water!
What did the hon member say? I am not discussing the merits of the proposals now. I am just discussing the formulation of the hon member’s argument in regard to the legislation.
Let us take the matter further. Those proposals imply the appointment of 150 members of a legislative assembly. What are the relevant financial implications?
Subtract the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu!
The hon member Prof Olivier will answer that. Secondly, what are the relevant conditions of service? If it were necessary to duplicate this in the other provinces, how many legislative assemblies would we then have? [Interjections.] Let us not argue with one another. Let us stick to the facts, in as much as they are known. If we have specific standpoints, we must have them substantiated by facts. That is why I am saying that no one could in any way understand the arguments of those hon members opposite, who argued the question of costs. The fact of the matter is, however, that they are going to fight an election on the basis of the unqualified financial implications of proposals that they have elevated to the level of an election issue.
The hon member also spoke of “verant-woording” or accountability. This in no way detracts from the principle of parliamentary accountability. The fact is that powers and duties are entrusted to officials by Ministers in terms of the provisions of Acts granting those powers to the Ministers themselves. No one has ever argued that there should not be a delegation or transfer of powers from the executive authority to the officials or administrative authority. No one has ever said that doing so detracted from the right of protest or objection by officials. Hon members know, in fact, that Ministers have already been compelled, within the system, to relinquish their posts on the basis of the actions of certain officials. The hon member Prof Olivier will agree with that. If that is true in regard to the transfer of powers and responsibilities in that specific case; if it is true in regard to the transfer of powers in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act and specific legislation authorising this, on the basis of what judicial principle can it be argued that in the Bill we are ignoring an encroachment upon the general principle of accountability? Surely that is simply not true. Therefore let me tell the hon member again: Let the other fellows play politics. Why does he do so?
I now want to come to the hon member for Kuruman. I see he is not here. He has probably made his apologies. I accept that, but it is a pity that the hon member is not here. [Interjections.] Listen to what the hon member said. He said that in this legislation, which is virtually the same, word for word, as the other legislation before the other standing committee earlier on, provision is being made—his words, not mine—for the appointment of ministerial representatives. In the legislation, however, not a single word is said about such appointment. The draft legislation before us relates to only one principle, that of whether those people, appointed in terms of section 28 of the Act, can exercise powers on behalf of someone else or not. That is all. In other words, 90% of the debate was irrelevant and did not in any way relate to the Bill.
The hon member says that people have done a somersault. He probably watched them doing that, because if there is one thing that can be said of the hon member’s party, it is that that is the kind of thing they do. I have no problem about that state of affairs as far as they are concerned, but I again ask the same question that I put to the hon member Prof Olivier: Why does one not apply these tests to oneself?
The hon member also said that the appointments would be political appointments. With all due respect, let me ask whether a government would appoint its opposition to such posts.
What about Alan Hendrickse?
The Constitution makes provision for that, and the hon member for Barberton surely knows it. In fact, in terms of the draft constitution which the hon member supported, there would have been a full Cabinet Council for them, and a Cabinet Council consisting of equal numbers. The hon member must not try to use clever arguments on me. He must have a look at what he himself supported. His remark is simply flung here into our midst, just in case someone reacts to it. The hon member for Barberton knows better than that. I expect it from the hon member for Pietersburg, but not from him.
†The hon member for Hillbrow did the same thing. I know he had a problem. He was not supposed to speak. He was deputising for someone else, and I understand the reason for this. [Interjections.] He obviously read neither the clause nor the minutes of the standing committee.
Would you like to answer my question?
I am going to. Firstly he said that the FCI, Assocom and the Association of Law Societies had asked to give evidence. That is not true. The Association of Law Societies never asked to give evidence; they just submitted a document. It was Assocom that said that the FCI had indicated that they would want to give evidence. This is, however, very interesting. I can understand the concern of hon members to hear evidence; I think that is quite fair.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if it is not a fact that members of the standing committee made a request for these bodies to give evidence?
That is true, but that was not what the hon member said. He said that these bodies had asked to give evidence, and I have just said that that is not factually true.
What is the point? [Interjections.]
Ah, you are too petty to understand!
Does the hon member not want to go to kindergarten? Then he could play with little balls.
You are trying to score debating points.
If I am trying to score debating points, the hon member is getting in the way.
†The hon member Prof Olivier said that the concept of this legislation was the same as that of the legislation dealt with by their own committee.
Exactly; I agree with him.
Well, let us accept it then. Was there ever a motion before that committee from the opposition parties or anybody else to seek the evidence of Assocom, the FCI or …
No, because it was obvious that the whole committee was against that Bill. That was why they did not have to.
Did they attempt to seek the evidence of the Association of Law Societies?
They did not have to.
The point is that the committee met many times. There was never a suggestion that those bodies should be called to give evidence to support argument opposing the legislation.
We all took one look at the one clause and did not like it. Nobody liked it.
You said nothing. [Interjections.]
Order!
I wish the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition had made a speech as he had intended doing. I understand why he could not.
May I not make a speech now?
I do not think that would be fair. The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition will understand.
Who are you to criticise fairness anyway? [Interjections.]
Let us take this a little further. [Interjections.] The hon member for Hillbrow said the following:
Sir, that pertains to section 28 of the Act and has nothing to do with this Bill:
Their functions are going to be those transferred from or assigned by Ministers to them.
Such as?
The functions that I perform in terms of housing can be assigned to a Deputy Minister or a ministerial representative, and so can welfare or whatever. That is not the point, however; I am now dealing with the arguments of the hon member. He asks:
I have said that section 28 does not preclude the appointment of these appointees for either own affairs or general affairs. What we are dealing with here, is not the issue raised by the hon member.
Will they be appointed for general affairs?
That is the prerogative of the State President but I shall advise him to do so.
The hon member said:
This objection is not relevant to the clause that we are dealing with. It is only relevant in terms of section 28.
We are dealing with the principle of the appointment of such people.
We are not dealing with the principle of the appointments but with the question of how to assign work to the people appointed in terms of section 28.
That is what the Bill is all about.
Oh no! The hon member is now simply talking nonsense now.
The hon member for Soutpansberg is not here, but I want to begin with a matter he raised, ie that in connection with an application that was delayed. I do want to say at once that that matter was, in fact, unnecessarily delayed. Secondly I apologised to the hon member in writing for the fact that it was delayed at a specific departmental level. As far as I am concerned that should not happen and I do not condone it. The hon member for Soutpansberg, however, advanced the best argument I have heard throughout the entire debate for the appointment of such assistants. He said that if there were such a person in Soutpansberg, he would not have had to travel all that far to make his representations. He would simply have been able to do so right there.
Are you going to appoint someone at Soekmekaar and in each and every town?
No, I shall go looking for the hon member there, because he is going to be looking for many people who will be leaving his party. [Interjections.]
Apart from the delay, in terms of the town planning scheme there never was any application for the re-instatement of that application. The reason for that was that the requirements laid down by the Abattoir Commission would have had financial implications embodying costs of R24 000, which were apparently too high for the applicant. What he neglected to say, was that that old abattoir is at present being occupied by squatters. Perhaps he wanted to send a message to the owner to remove the squatters.
The hon member also said that these appointments amounted to political favourat ism. That statement means only one thing, ie that in regard to matters receiving its attention, the Government was favouring certain people. The hon member has no reason to make such a statement.
The fact is that the concept of these functionaries is such as to bring the Government closer to the people they have to serve. Secondly, as far as possible, we want to make provision for such functionaries being able to make decisions on a decentralised basis so that one does not have everything happening in a central office in Cape Town, Pretoria or Durban. No one will be able to find any fault with that. It is part of a broad view of decentralised decision-making in our country that we do, in fact, need. One of the most important elements in the solution of the political or constitutional problems of this country does, in fact, lie in the maximum number of powers being exercised at a level which is as close as possible to the people themselves. I am in no way apologising for that.
Lastly, the exercising of the powers by these people will in no way have an adverse effect on me or any other Ministers who may possibly delegate or transfer functions in regard to Parliament. There is no one who does not argue that although this is one country, in different provinces or regions there are various provincial or regional approaches. I think it is a good thing for us to accept that the same thing does not need to be done in the same province or region in the same manner and that specific circumstances should be taken into account. In their decision-making such functionaries, who have decentralised executive authority, will also directly be in a position to take into account other circumstances which apply in a specific region or province. I am therefore saying that we should disagree with one another if we must, but we should do so in such a way that we do, at least, remain within the framework of the provisions of the legislation and the codes and norms that we set ourselves.
Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,
Upon which the House divided:
Ayes—72: Alant, T G; Badenhorst, P J; Ballot, G C; Bartlett, G S; Botha, C J v R; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Jager, A M V A; Du Plessis, G C; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P J; Fouché, A F; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Grobler, J P; Hefer, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P B B; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Landman, W J; Ligthelm, N W; Louw, E v d M; Marais, P G; Maree, M D; Meir ing, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, W D; Miller, R B; Nel, D J L; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Poggenpoel, D J; Preto rius, N J; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Scott, D B; Simkin, C H W; Smit, H A; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Tempel, H J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Terblanche, G P D; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Linde, G J; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J (Rosettenville); Van Rensburg, H M J (Mossel Bay); Van Vuuren, L M J; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Venter, E H; Vlok, A J; Weeber, A; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wilkens, B H; Wright, A P.
Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Geldenhuys, A; Ligthelm, C J; Schutte, DPA.
Noes—36: Andrew, K M; Bamford, B R; Barnard, M S; Barnard, S P; Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; Gas trow, PHP; Hardingham, R W; Hart zenberg, F; Le Roux, F J; McIntosh, G B D; Moorcroft, E K; Olivier, N J J; Page, B W B; Raw, W V; Rogers, P R C; Scholtz, E M; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Tarr, M A; Theunissen, L M; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van der Merwe, W L; Van Staden, F A H; Van Zyl, J J B; Visagie, J H; Walsh, J J; Watterson, D W; Widman, A B;
Tellers: Hoon, J H; Snyman, W J.
Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr J H Hoon dropped.
Bill read a second time.
Mr Speaker, I move:
The proposed amendment of section 28 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act No 110 of 1983), seeks to enable Ministers to assign powers, functions or duties to certain persons appointed by the hon the State President under that section.
The hon the State President has the power to determine the conditions of service of such persons, including their membership of a medical aid scheme.
*Because it is deemed necessary for persons, appointed for the above-mentioned purpose, to be able to become members of the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme, the proposed amendment to the Act under discussion provides that the hon the State President may approve that any other office-bearer, not already mentioned in section 1, may become a member of this medical aid scheme.
Such approval should be published in the Gazette.
Second Reading resumed
Mr Chairman, I want to say at once that we, in the consistent application of our principles, will also oppose this Bill.
Before I get to that, I want to ask you kindly to allow me, with reference to this legislation, to make a few comments particularly regarding the personal remarks passed by the hon the Minister.
They were not personal remarks. [Interjections]
The hon the Minister says they were not personal remarks. [Interjections.] I just want to say that I do not want to go back to the merits of the Bill. What we are now concerned with is the reference to myself and the changing of standpoints. About this I still have something to say as a member of the House. As a former academic and as a person who was in the academic field for a long time, I want to say that the essence of academics is that one changes one’s mind or can be induced to change one’s mind, and that one must then say so with the honesty of one’s knowledge and insight and conscience. We have all undergone that process.
[Inaudible.]
Yes, but the essence of this is that one must be able to say rationally on what rational grounds one has changed one’s standpoint. [Interjections.] Otherwise a change of standpoint means absolutely nothing. But I am still waiting in vain for a rational explanation for the change of standpoint which took place. That is all I want to say. Consequently the hon the Minister must not come and tell me in all honesty that it merely concerns my change of standpoint.
To tell the truth, the hon the Minister will know that two of the Deputy Ministers of the Government served on that original standing committee. Consequently I do have reason to expect and to assume that those two gentlemen—I think they both served on the other committee as well—must at least explain to me rationally on what grounds they changed their standpoints. Simply to say that a change in standpoint as such must be condoned …
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the legislation to which he is referring and which was discussed in the other committee, contained the same principle as that appearing in the subsection?
I do not want to enter into a debate with the hon the Minister on the principle, but the hon the Minister cannot say on the one hand that people have changed their standpoint and that they were entitled to do so, and at the same time say that there is no connection between the two Bills. [Interjections.] Then there is a lack of logic in the hon the Minister’s defence. [Interjections.] I wish I had had the opportunity to go into this, but I know that the rules of the House do not allow me to react fully to all the things which the hon the Minister said.
I am actually very keen to do so and I am honestly sorry that our procedure in debating is such that the hon the Minister only enters the debate at the end and consequently one is not actually in a position to react to what an hon Minister has said. [Interjections.] This is an unfortunate state of affairs which one must accept in the House, but I would like to suggest that consideration be given to the question whether hon Ministers should not enter the debate at another stage, so that there can be an opportunity to react.
Order! I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier that it is very refreshing when an hon member is able to say what he wants to say without stretching the rules to breaking point. [Interjections.]
May I stretch the rules a little more, Mr Chairman? This directly concerns this Bill with which we have problems and which is now being discussed. It also concerns the question of the indeterminate nature of the financial implications. In the Bill provision is simply made for the State President to nominate office-bearers who then become part of Parliament. Unrestricted provision is again being made, with indeterminate financial implications.
It seems to me as if superficially reference can be made to the fact that the financial implications of the Indaba proposals have not yet been worked out either. With all due respect to the hon the Minister, I want to say that the Indaba proposals were proposals. Here we are dealing with a Bill, that will come into effect when this Parliament passes it. Expenditure will then have to be incurred in this regard. This Bill and its financial implications cannot be put on a par with the indaba proposals which have not yet served before Parliament. The day the indaba proposais are before this Parliament, it will be the responsibility of hon members of this House to account for the implications of those proposals.
Is it not a bit late for that?
The hon the Minister tried very hard to slip through a gap, but there actually was no gap.
Sir, I want to return to the Bill; I am not going to take up much more of the House’s time. I just want to say, as the hon the Minister himself indicated, that this is a logical continuation of the other Bill. Obviously one has problems with this matter when one has rejected the other Bill in principle. As regards pensions and a few other matters one must then also reject the implications of the Bill which follows on the first one.
We know there is a dilemma. After all, I have no desire, after something has been put into operation by another Bill, to say that I want to prevent people, either out of spite or for whatever other reason, from participating in the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme. This would be unfair to people who were appointed in certain posts. If others were to be denied those benefits, this could also be seen as unfairly favouring those of us who are in this House. Consequently there is a dilemma; I honestly want to say that this is a problem one is faced with.
In view of the fact that we could not agree to the previous Bill, for the reasons I have indicated, and which I really still believe are convincing reasons, we have no other choice but to oppose this Bill as well. What I am saying is that we cannot agree to this Bill.
In addition I want to say that I discussed a possibility with the hon the Minister owing to the wide-ranging nature of the proposed amendment contained in clause 1. In terms of this clause the State President is authorised to appoint any person as an office-bearer who can then become a member of the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme. I feel that the provision which can be made in terms of this is too wide-ranging. It is possible in theory—someone mentioned this to me in the course of the day—that the State President can decide that his gardener is an office-bearer, and so on. I feel this is possible in theory.
We find ourselves in the position that, in the first place, I could not find a definition of an “office-bearer” in any legislation, except in the Act which deals with the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament and other office-bearers. I am not aware of any other legislation in which it appears. Consequently this Bill allows the State President, for the purposes of the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme, to appoint anyone as an office-bearer without any restriction.
I am glad that the hon the Minister has drawn my attention to the fact that the provisions in connection with the pension scheme for members of Parliament and political office-bearers already stipulate that the hon the State President can appoint anyone as an office-bearer as far as pensions rights are concerned, and this person will then qualify to belong to the Parliamentary pension scheme. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, it would surely be ridiculous to say that whereas he has the authority to appoint a person as an office-bearer for purposes of the pension scheme, he would not also have the authority to appoint a person as an officebearer for purposes of the medical aid scheme. Under these circumstances it consequently seems to me as if the objection which I have in this connection is not actually valid. In view of the fact that the pension legislation contains a provision in this connection, it does not seem logical to me nevertheless to come forward with a possible amendment which I originally intended to do as regards the Bill under discussion.
By virtue of these standpoints and in view of the fact that these two components are directly linked, as is not only clear from the Bill itself, but also from the original problem which I had with it—the wide-ranging formulation of the provisions in the measure— namely that in the Bill itself there is no reference to the kind of people who will be appointed in terms of section 28 of the Constitution, I felt that this provision in the Bill was too all inclusive. As it now stands, any incumbent or office-bearer can be appointed. In view of the fact—as I have however said— that the Pension Act already contains such a wide-ranging provision, I feel that it would be ridiculous in this case to introduce a restriction with regard to the specific reference to section 28.
Next I just want to point out that in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill this provision is specifically linked to the previous Bill which was agreed to earlier on today. That is why that nexus exists. In view of the fact that we found the previous Bill unacceptable, it consequently goes without saying that we cannot support the Bill under discussion either.
Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier misused this opportunity to attempt to reply to the hon the Minister’s reply to the previous debate. [Interjections.] As he admitted himself, he stretched the rules of this House so far that they almost broke. I do not intend to elaborate on that theme. The matter has been disposed of. That measure has already been agreed to by this House, and consequently there is no sense in prolonging that debate.
The hon member Prof Olivier also had doubts about the measure under consideration at present. He contended that the provision in the measure was too wide-ranging. But then he went on to refute his doubts himself. Consequently I think that the hon member was simply thinking out loud and then came to the conclusion that it would be ridiculous to incorporate a restriction in the measure under discussion which would not tally with the authorisation in existing legislation.
I do not think I can do better in support of this measure than the hon member for Durban Point did in the standing committee. The hon member for Durban Point held it against me when I said light-heartedly in the debate on the previous measure that I had gained the impression that the hon member was not serious in his opposition to that measure. But I want to set the hon member’s mind at ease. I assure him I was not being serious. I was merely poking fun at him regarding the matter. But what is indeed the case is that the hon member for Durban Point made it very clear in the standing committee that it would make no sense—and the hon member Prof Olivier has just admitted this— that it would be unfair after we had agreed to the previous measure, to exclude those person who might be appointed to the relevant posts, from participation in the Parliamentary Medical Aid Scheme. The hon member for Durban Point made this quite clear and I do not think I could put it better.
This is indeed a measure which follows on the previous measure, as the hon member Prof Olivier put it. The House having agreed to that legislation, I cannot see any sense in opposing this measure simply as a gesture of consistency; unlike the hon member, Prof Olivier, who in fact considered that a reason to oppose this measure. The hon member Prof Olivier, like the hon member for Durban Point and I, and I believe all the other hon members in this House, accepts the necessity for these office-bearers to be included in the Parliamentary Medical Aid Scheme. But it seems to me as if the hon member Prof Olivier and his party—with all due respect— are a little sensitive about the matter of consistency, particularly after the hon the Minister had mentioned their inconsistency.
That is unfair.
Particularly after the remarks of the hon the Minister, the hon member may be a bit sensitive and now he is adopting the attitude that they must be consistent. I do not believe that approach holds water. We must ask ourselves whether it is indeed fair to those persons who are appointed in terms of section 28 of the Constitution—as has been emphasised repeatedly; not in terms of the previous measure, but in terms of section 28 of the Constitution—to exclude them from the benefits of the Parliamentary Medical Scheme. I do not believe there is a single hon member who will adopt the standpoint that those office-bearers should be excluded.
If that is our standpoint, on what possible grounds can objections be raised to the measure at present under consideration? I can see no purpose in it and no justification for it. Consequently I take pleasure in supporting this measure as a consequential measure to do the right thing by these office-bearers.
Mr Chairman, it is indeed true that this is a consequential measure, arising out of the previous legislation we have just discussed. However, it is significant that this legislation appears on the Order Paper under the name of the Minister of National Health and Population Development. The legislation was also introduced under the name of the Minister of National Health and Population Development. It really seems to me that we have here an example of a ministerial representative, and that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has been appointed as a representative of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. He is in fact carrying out these delegated functions for that hon Minister.
Since we adopted a very strong standpoint against the principle of that measure in the previous legislation as well, I move as an amendment:
If we look at the present members of the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme in terms of the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme Act of 1975, which was again amended in 1984, we see that provision is made for an extra category of persons who can belong to this medical aid scheme. Now if we look at the various categories, we notice that in 1984 an amendment was effected to make provision for a certain category for appointed members. Hon members will recall that before the Constitution was amended, three categories of persons were members of this medical aid scheme. These categories firstly made provision for the highest echelon of the legislative authority, as well as the legislative authority of Parliament and the provincial councils; secondly, for the judicial authority, and thirdly for the executive authority, or the administrators who were appointed, the MECs and so on. In 1984 provision was also made—except for Ministers who can only sit in the House of Assembly for one year, but who have to become members—for MECs of a province, who are also without exception appointed members, to become members of this scheme. A category (f) is now being added to these five categories, viz:
My observation is that provision is being made here for a number of ministerial representatives, and this could perhaps be an indication of what position these people are going to occupy in the Government of this country. These people who are now being included as members of the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme are all members who have been appointed on the basis of their party-political convictions. They are therefore all supporters of the Government who can become members of the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme.
Office-bearers who are going to be appointed by the hon the State President and who are going to be granted delegated executive powers, are in my opinion becoming part of the executive authority. There is a difference, however, since they do not have to be accountable to the electorate. They are therefore accountable only to the legislative authority or their employer. They are therefore accountable to those above them. It is important to remember that these appointments also have financial implications for the ordinary voters. The question is whether these ministerial representatives are going to come from the Government’s coalition partners in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, or from those population groups. It is very important to ask the hon the Minister that question, since that will ultimately determine how many possible members will be appointed, and this contains very serious implications for the medical aid scheme.
We want to ask whether these people outside Parliament are being appointed, but are in fact part of the Government. It seems to me that there is total confusion as to how precisely that Government is constituted. [Interjections.] Hon members will recall that after the Hendrickse incident on the beach, the hon the State President appeared on television for 25 minutes and stated precisely that this Government was not a coalition Government …
[Inaudible.]
I shall come to that now. The issue is these people as part of the Government. He said that this was not a coalition Government. He said that he was going to read it slowly so that members of the Cabinet and hon members opposite would understand it clearly. However, I want to quote what the hon member for Roodepoort had to say a while before that in an interview with the Courier Austral Parlementaire magazine of the third quarter:
Is it therefore a coalition Government or not? The hon member for Roodepoort says it is a coalition Government.
André Fourie, too.
The hon the State President says it is not a coalition Government. Another question arising out of this is: How many of these so-called other officebearers mentioned in this measure can there be? The number is not mentioned in the Bill.
I want to ask the hon the Minister: Where are the chairmen of the regional services councils going to fit in? Are they also going to fall under this legislation or not? The hon the Minister said in his reply to the debate on the Constitution Amendment Bill that the question of numbers, status and conditions of service was relevant to the discussion of section 28 of the Constitution, which is now on the Statute Book. I agree with that. It was relevant then. However, I do just want to point out that this side of the House was very strongly opposed to accepting section 28 of the Constitution. Does the hon the Minister wish to argue? This side of the House vigorously opposed section 27 and section 28. For example, in that debate the hon member for Brakpan said:
He went on to propose that a person—
… Who is not a member of a House is not competent to be a deputy minister, unless he becomes a member of a House within three months from the date of his appointment.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With due respect, I take pleasure in listening to the hon member, but the legislation to which the hon member is now referring, is not the subject of discussion on my motion.
The hon member may proceed.
The fact that provision is being made for office-bearers from outside this House is a fundamental principle that is being accepted here because they are being accepted as members of the Panned Medical Aid Scheme. [Interjections.] With respect, this new power that is being built in to section 28—the hon the Minister is quite correct in that respect—is a new power. The fact that they are appointed was accepted as far back as 1983. The power to delegate the functions of a Minister is the matter under discussion. This measure also has a financial implication for the voter at large, as well as the taxpayer. It is really a new principle, particularly in the case of this legislation, because the State also subsidises the members of the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme. The more of these so-called Parliamentary representatives there are going to be, the greater will be the amount the taxpayer will have to contribute.
What is so new about this principle? It is an old principle.
Of course it is a new principle. There has never been a situation like this in which we have to make provision for people from outside this House who are simply appointed by the State President at random, for the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme, to which the taxpayer of South Africa is also going to be asked to contribute. The greater the number of members is going to be, the greater the Government subsidy is going to be, and the more the taxpayer is going to pay.
If we look at the Minister’s Second Reading speech on the Constitution Amendment Bill, in which provision is made for the officebearers who now have to be accommodated in Parmed, we have a good indication of who all we shall have to accommodate. The hon the Minister said, and I quote:
He then went on to say:
The hon the Minister has just told the hon member for Soutpansberg that if there were such a representative at Louis Trichardt, there would not have been this delay. That hon Minister therefore foresees that in each region …
Which part of the Bill are you discussing now?
I am discussing section 1 of the principal Act. It determines the kind of people who are being accommodated in the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme. [Interjections.]
The hon the Minister gave no indication of the number of people we are dealing with here. He did in fact indicate that it would possibly be the own affairs Ministers who would each get a representative so that it could be brought close to the voters in every region. The hon member for Parow said that his voters did not want to come from way over there to come and see a Minister here; they want representatives nearby, right there in Parow. [Interjections.]
The fact of the matter is that the possibility exists that every own affairs Minister in the three Chambers is going to get a ministerial representative. If we count them, there are 13 such Ministers in the three Chambers. If there are eight regions in the country, this in fact means that 104 ministerial representatives can be appointed. These are the possibilities. [Interjections.]
I therefore assume that if the Government uses its mandate which it thinks it is going to get on 6 May, provision must also be made for Black ministerial representatives. I am asking the hon the Minister frankly this afternoon: If they are going to accommodate the Black people up to the highest level in the central Government of this country, viz Parliament, how is provision going to be made for ministerial representatives for these Black people as well?
Having said that, I also come to the financial implications, since this Bill definitely contains financial implications. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance—the hon member for Waterkloof—said in his speech during the debate on the Part Appropriation, when he elaborated on the financial implications of the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba (Hansard: House of Assembly, 10 February 1987)—
This is part of a power-sharing situation. Apartheid costs a great deal, but this power-sharing situation is going to cost a great deal more than apartheid. I say to the hon the Deputy Minister I agree with him: Powersharing is going to cost a great deal more money—with or without entrenchments like the kwaNatal plan! This is clearly illustrated in the Bill under discussion as well.
I am now referring more directly to the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme. When we look at the claims pattern of our medical aid scheme—ie the medical aid scheme for hon members in this House—we find that the average claims of our scheme differs completely from those of other schemes. In comparison with other medical aid schemes it is considerably higher. Why? The answer lies in the fact that this scheme is meant mainly for the people who serve on the various bodies I have mentioned. These are people who have reached middle age, and older. We know that this is when the ailments begin. I could mention open-heart surgery as an example. The hon member for Parktown will be acutely aware that there are many potential open-heart surgery patients sitting in this House today—which could contain enormous financial implications for any medical aid scheme! [Interjections.] When I look at the anxiety and tension on the faces opposite, I see many people who are tired and sickly and on the old side, who are a great risk to any medical aid scheme. [Interjections.]
Now the other question that arises is what the claims profile of these new office-bearers who are going to be incorporated as members of the scheme is going to look like. What is the claims pattern going to look like? If the envisaged office being proposed here is to serve as a consolation prize for pensioned Members of Parliament, MPCs and defeated NP candidates after 6 May, it could definitely have a detrimental effect on the claims pattern of the Panned Medical Aid Scheme, and place an increased burden on the taxpayer of this country. No-one can deny this. The most important reason why we are registering the strongest form of parliamentary protest against passing this Bill, is because provision is being made here for a number of officebearers who could only be Government supporters, whilst provision is being made, by way of a subsidy by the taxpayer, to make each of them a member of the Panned Medical Aid Scheme. [Interjections.] This principle is wrong. It is an undemocratic principle, and one for which the taxpayer of this country will have to pay dearly. It is totally unacceptable, and we therefore register the strongest form of parliamentary protest against it.
Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier made a statement here with which I wholeheartedly agree, namely that the essence of academics is that if one changes one’s standpoint one must have a rational reason for doing so. I think that is the standpoint he adopted. Consequently I believe I would also be correct in saying that there must also be a rational reason for adopting a standpoint. This applies not only to a change in standpoint, but also to the adopting of a standpoint. Now I want to tell the hon member in all fairness that the reason they have advanced here today why they cannot support this Bill is not a rational reason.
A rational argument would have been that a Bill had been passed and that certain people were going to be appointed, whether the hon member was opposed to that or not, but that those people’s position in respect of pensions and medical aspects had to be dealt with. That would surely have been a reasonable standpoint to adopt as far as the hon member was concerned.
The hon member for Pietersburg moved here on behalf of the CP that this Bill be read today six months. As I understand it, this is the strongest Parliamentary protest one can lodge and today I want to tell those hon members that we must preserve the traditions of Parliament. They are making a mockery of this six months motion, because for virtually every piece of legislation we submit, they use this six months motion. Will they please not consider attacking the Bills on merit and stop using this ploy of a six month motion, and keep it for really important matters instead? [Interjections.]
The hon member for Pietersburg said that we were discussing a new principle here because we were admitting people outside Parliament to Parmed. The hon member is wrong. The administrators are members of Parmed, and they are outside Parliament. Judges are also outside Parliament. There are many such categories. The MPCs are also outside Parliament but they are members of Parmed, and consequently I want to tell the hon member that the statement he made was incorrect. This is not a new principle. It is an extension of an existing principle, and the statement which the hon member made was incorrect.
He mentioned a further problem, namely that we would now appoint Nationalists in terms of the legislation, and that more Nationalists would gain admission to Parmed. [Interjections.] Now when I listen to those members I cannot understand why they are so worried. Let us say these people are appinted at the end of the month, this would mean that they would only hold these posts for two months and six days before those hon members, as they are saying, take over the Government in this country. Then they can discharge everyone, and they will not have any problems with this. Why raise these tremendous arguments here today if they are convinced that in two months and six days’ time they are going to be sitting on this side of the House? Then they can abolish this legislation. [Interjections.]
But they tell their story about taking over on 6 May rather derisively. They say that those of us on this side of the House have a risk profile as far as Parmed is concerned. Let us look at the kind of people the CP have nominated as candidates. I would not consider Mr A C van Wyk as a very young man, who is a particularly good risk. [Interjections.] What about Rev Mossie van den Bergh? I think he is a bit on the old side, not to mention Lang Hendrik van den Bergh who must be as old as the hills by now. [Interjections.] Is this the profile these hon members want to incorporate in Parmed after 6 May?
That old crowd the CP wants to bring to Parliament is going to be the death of Parmed. They will annihilate Parmed if it must take care of them. [Interjections.] Our only hope—thank the Lord—is that very few of those old fossiles will make the grade at the election.
We take pleasure in supporting the Bill.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay summed up the argument which I advanced in the standing committee correctly. Consequently I will not repeat the entire argument now. Our attitude is that we are opposed to the other Bill, but now that it has been decided by the committee, and also by Parliament, that it will be possible to create such posts it would be unreasonable of us to say that the people holding the posts may not enjoy medical protection or pension benefits.
The only mistake the hon member made was when he tried to predict our behaviour with regard to the Bill. He summed up our attitude correctly, and for the reasons I have mentioned we will not vote against the Bill. But we are opposed to the package before the House, and consequently we shall abstain from voting, because we do not want to contribute towards making the acceptance of this package easier for the Government.
Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Caledon, Parow and Mossel Bay for the fact that they argued in favour of the acceptance of the main Bill, to which this Bill is supplementary.
I hope you will allow me, Sir, to stretch the rules as far as the hon member Prof Olivier is concerned. He presented two interesting arguments. The first was concerned with the change of standpoint. He says one is entitled to change one’s standpoint if one can justify it to oneself.
Do you not agree.
I am coming to that. He says that if one cannot do it, it is unethical and one’s conscience should be the judge. The hon member will have to concede, however, that there is no objective criterion with which to measure it, because it also applies to his own subjective criterion. That was not, however, the argument which the hon member advanced. I have his Hansard here and the hon member did not say that other hon members should examine their consciences, nor that they have contravened the ethical code for not having undergone an accountable change of standpoint. He is free to go and read his Hansard. He reproached them because they changed their standpoint in the first place. These are the facts. Therefore his argument was a mere quibble and he did not in any way deal with the objection this side of the House had to his conduct.
Secondly he said that he did not find it strange that his party had made an election pact with another party concerning proposals, the financial aspects of which they had not considered. He said that if the proposals were accepted—if I heard him correctly, he can correct me if I am wrong—then the Government would still have to introduce them here. If his party, however, were now to become the Government, are they not then obliged to implement those proposals? Would he not then be morally obliged to do so?
Yes.
The hon member says yes. If he feels duty bound to introduce the proposals here, in the event of their winning the election, then surely it is only morally and ethically correct that he tells the people he is asking to vote for him what the financial implications are. [Interjections.] Or does the hon member’s moral ethics apply only to certain elements of his moral activities? I want to ask the hon member to refrain from arguing in this way. I do, however, appreciate the hon member’s standpoint concerning the legislation we are now discussing. It was a consistent standpoint and in fact was all that was still consistent about the opposition’s standpoint in this debate.
The hon member for Pietersburg spoke of possible candidates for open-heart surgery. Perhaps the main thing the hon member and his party need is in fact open-heart surgery, because we in this country with all its problems will not make much progress unless there is a change of heart. I would recommend that Parmed pay for a change of heart among those hon members if that were possible. [Interjections.]
The hon member advanced the strangest arguments. He asked whether the claim profile is going to change. I want to ask him whether the Parmed’s claim profile does not change every day as he grows older. If he is so concerned about Parmed’s claim profile, why does he not withdraw from the election so that a younger man can be elected in his constituency?
Just look at that dejectedness.
See how dejected the hon member is. I asked the hon member for Parktown a moment ago what progress had been made by the medical profession in terms of brain transplant operations. The hon member said that they had not made much progress.
At this stage it is only being done on animals.
They have only done it on animals and the ruling has been given that we in this House may not compare people to animals. My freedom of debate has therefore been curtailed to some extent.
Order! I am not sure whether the hon the Minister may not compare animals to people.
I shall accept that ruling as it is, Sir. I am of the opinion, however, that it would be fair towards animals if areciprocal ruling were to be given. [Interjections.]
Birds are all right.
But not hawks.
*Let us now examine the way the hon member argues. One of the hon member’s arguments is that we should now involve people from outside Parliament in this scheme. Is that correct?
Yes.
The hon member says yes. Consequently, according to him, we are introducing a new principle. I now want to ask him whether the administrators of the provinces are not outside Parliament.
There are only four.
Surely we are now dealing with the principle. The hon member’s principles are, however, determined by numbers. Does he want to tell us that if some of his principles do not apply in one case, he also has enough other principles? The hon member is no longer dealing with the principle, but with numbers. He says there are only four, and he was therefore satisfied with four. Surely the MEC’s are also outside Parliament, in the same way as the administrators are.
They are also people who have been appointed.
The hon member for Kuruman has made so many mistakes. He can now give me an opportunity to confine myself to the hon member for Pietersburg.
I want to ask the hon member for Pieters burg whether the MEC’s were not also appointed.
They were not.
They are now, according to the Act. [Interjections.] Surely the principle has already been accepted as far as they are concerned. Where does the new principle come from now.
Furthermore I now want to mention that judges are also part of the scheme. Are they inside Parliament?
But they do not have the powers Parliament has.
I am also referring to that; the hon member’s argument is that we are dealing with a new principle. The principle that he is arguing about, is that people from outside Parliament being included in the scheme. The judges are also there, and not only four of them. What becomes now of the lofty principle of the hon member for Pieters burg?
Furthermore he told us how the hon the State President had explained the relationship of the hon Ministers of the other Houses in the Cabinet. Am I right?
No, that is not what I said.
Did the hon member not say that the hon State President had explained it?
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?
No, Sir, the hon member should sit down because I am talking to him. He should listen carefully. Hon members should just listen to the kind of categorical statement he made. He said that in terms of this legislation only Government supporters would be appointed. Did he say that?
Yes!
But is it true? Do the majority parties in the other Houses support the Government’s policy? [Interjections.] When that hon member rises to speak his mind stops working. That hon member has presented a single argument concerning the legislation which has any substance whatsoever. [Interjections.]
Why do you always belittle people by making personal remarks?
Surely, the hon member’s arguments have no substance.
Surely, what the hon member is saying is not true. On what basis can he say that? Let us take it a bit further. Are there not going to be Coloured Ministers in accordance with the policy of the hon member’s own party? Are there not going to be many more than at present? There are going to be Prime Ministers and, according to him, Presidents as well. Furthermore, I want to ask him whether there are not going to be Black Ministers and Black Prime Ministers.
Not in our government.
I am not referring to the hon member’s government, but to the government of the country, even if it were another country. [Interjections.] Yes, it could be us as well. Now I should like to know from him what it is going to cost the country.
Surely, we are now paying for the governments of other countries as well?
The hon member for Koedoespoort is asking whether we are paying for the other countries. Is he not aware of the fact that when he was a member of the NP, other states became independent and that we, in terms of those independence agreements, accepted responsibility for certain financial transfers to them?
We shall not do it; surely you know that. [Interjections.]
That is interesting! That is interesting! [Interjections.]
Order!
Hon members should remember that that is not merely an incidental interjection coming from simply another hon member; he is the Chief Secretary of the Conservative Party. He is therefore adopting an official standpoint on behalf of his party. This standpoint is that if he and his party were to come into power, they would rescind the agreements with the independent states in respect of financial arrangements. [Interjections.] He has just said it. The hon member has this minute said that they are no longer going to do it. If words have any meaning, they are going to rescind the agreements which one state has concluded with another. [Interjections.] The hon member should now come and tell us how much morality is involved in rescinding agreements in which the hon member and his party in this Parliament participated. Now he says that if the CP were to come into power, they would rescind the agreements.
What does the hon member for Kuruman say about that? What does the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is the deputy leader, say about it? They cannot hear me now. [Interjections.] The leader of the CP in the Cape does not want to answer, and the deputy leader of the CP is even less inclined to answer me. [Interjections.]
I come now to the hon member for Sunny side. He and I are candidates who elevate the profile of the scheme a little. He is the iron man. Is that why he left Sunnyside? Is it because he does not want the heavy burden of his iron profile in Parliament after 6 May?
No, apparently they were looking for a strong man in Won derboom! [Interjections.]
Superman Jan! [Interjections.]
Oh, is that the reason? We should, according to what we heard today—from the hon member for Koedoes poort as well—accept that we are dealing with a party for whom agreements have no meaning whatsoever.
You are talking rubbish! You are trying to steal a political march on us.
No, we are not going to get away from this. It has been placed on record that the CP is going to rescind agreements. They now want to find solutions for the country and they want to be trusted in the search for solutions for the country. They say they have discussed solutions with other leaders, but arising from the hon member’s statement this afternoon, I want to know which leaders will believe them when they say that they are not going to rescind their agreements. [Interjections.]
Who can believe your leader?
The hon member can believe him. [Interjections.]
Order! There are many interjections from my left, and even more from my right. I believe the hon the Minister is quite capable of making his own speech.
By way of summary, I want to say that not one of the CP’s arguments holds any water. I want to say to them that this debate was a tragic one for them because the hon member for Koedoespoort, not intentionally, but coincidentally and honestly told the truth. He disclosed the true intentions of the CP. That is why the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon member for Kuruman are not paying any attention to the debate, talking to each other so loudly that neither can be heard.
I want to conclude by referring to the hon member for Durban Point. The standpoint which he adopted this afternoon is the same as the one he adopted on the standing committee.
†This might be the last time that I speak before the hon member leaves. I would like to say to him on a one to one basis that I have a high regard for him as a person. I have a high regard for his representation in Parliament—I believe he has carried out this function in the highest tradition of Parliament. I want to say that publicly. I would like to say that when he leaves he will indeed leave an empty place not only in this House but in the hearts of many hon members, especially in my own. I thank him for the co-operation that I have received from him.
Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,
Upon which the House divided:
Ayes—70: Alant, T G; Ballot, G C; Bartlett, G S; Botha, C J v R; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Jager, A M v A; Du Plessis, G C; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P J; Fouché, A F; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Grobler, J P; Hefer, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P B B; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Landman, W J; Ligthelm, N W; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, M D; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, W D; Nel, D J L; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Poggenpoel, D J; Pretorius, N J; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Schoeman, S J; Schoeman, W J; Scott, D B; Simkin, C H W; Smit, H A; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Tempel, H J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Terblan che, G P D; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Linde, G J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J (Mossel Bay); Van Vuuren, L M J; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Venter, E H; Viljoen, G v N; Vlok, AJ; Welge moed, P J; Wright, A P.
Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Ligthelm, C J; Schutte, DPA; Van der Watt, L.
Noes—31: Bamford, B R; Barnard, M S; Barnard, S P; Burrows, R M; Dalling, D J; Gastrow, PHP; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Le Roux, F J; McIntosh, G B D; Moorcroft, E K; Olivier, N J J; Scholtz, E M; Schwarz, H H; Sive, R; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Tarr, M A; Theunissen, L M; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van der Merwe, W L; Van Heerden, R F; Van Staden, F A H; Van Zyl, J J B; Visagie, J H; Walsh, J J; Widman, A B;
Tellers: Hoon, J H; Snyman, W J.
Question affirmed and amendment moved by Dr W J Snyman dropped.
Bill read a second time.
Mr Speaker, I move:
The main purpose of the Bill now before this House may be deduced from its long title, namely to provide for the establishment of regional tender boards and to arrange for matters relating thereto.
Hon members will recall that the Provincial Government Act, 1986, Act 69 of 1986, was passed to provide for the dissolution of provincial councils and for the administration of provincial and related matters. That Act repealed with effect from 1 April, 1987 a number of Acts or parts thereof, among which—except for two sections—was the Provincial Finance and Audit Act, 1972. The two sections referred to are numbers 27 and 29 (2) which may be summarised as follows: In terms of section 27, agreements for procurement of supplies and services and for the disposal or letting of property of a province are concluded by the executive committee.
Subsection 29 (2) of the Act reads, in part, as follows:
These sections were not included in the legislation since aspects concerning procurement actions on behalf of the provinces were at that stage still under consideration and the Government wished to make sure that the change-over would be as smooth as possible.
*As all directives and regulations in respect of the procurement of supplies and services or the disposal of letting of movable property applicable to other Government Departments will, as from 1 April 1987, also apply to provincial administrations, it follows that they will, as from that date, fall under the jurisdiction of the State Tender Board, established under Act 86 of 1968. This means that the procurement function, in its widest sense, will of necessity have to be centralised.
The quoted sections of the Provincial Finance and Audit Act, 1972 have therefore become redundant, and it is accordingly proposed that they be repealed.
However the Government has felt that in view of the size of the country and of requirements that may be peculiar to a particular region, it is not desirable to centralise all procurement activities in Pretoria but that it is expedient rather to centralise the execution of functions—but subject to the overall control and guidance of a central organisation. This central organisation, acting as a co-ordinator, will ensure that all relevant directives, including those designed to implement government policy, for example the granting of preferences for local manafacture are observed. The idea is that a uniform policy will apply and that conditions of contract will be the same irrespective of whether a tender is dealt with by the State Tender Board or a regional tender board. The fact that uniform tender conditions and procedures will apply and that the format of tendered documents will be identical, will also be to the advantage of the private sector.
Organised trade and industry have already welcomed the proposal because it will not be necessary to keep and consult different sets of conditions, documents, etc; price adjustment formulas for contracts will be for the entire central and provincial segments of the public sector; and organised trade and commerce need only approach one body (the State Tender Board) in regard to policy matters.
†You will note, Sir, that the administrative burden on tenderers will be eased and shared which will result in savings as it will now be possible for tenderers to employ only one specialist in the tender field.
The nature of purchasing procedures followed by Government departments and other State and parastatal institutions has a significant effect on trade and industry in South Africa. Uniform procedures and the standardisation and the rationalisation of all State purchases will therefore be of great benefit both to the State and the private sector. For instance, the calling by all State institutions for tenders subject to uniform conditions and in accordance with standardised specifications will not only eliminate confusion among suppliers but also encourage local manufacture and reduce the level of stock keeping of imported spare parts and components. This in turn will create more employment opportunities and, through promoting exports via offset puchasing, benefit the country’s balance of payments. It can also be expected that inviting tenders for the larger volume of requirements of all State institutions in a certain region will result in more competitive prices and that these economies of scale will lighten the burden of the Exchequer.
In order to apply the principles of decentralisation of administrative processes as far as possible, the State Tender Board will allow regional tender boards, where established, to operate under delegated authority. It is envisaged that the regional tender boards will deal with the procurement of supplies and services as well as the disposal or letting of movable property of all Government departments, general as well as own affairs, within defined areas of its jurisdiction. General period contracts, of which there are more than 300, will still be arranged by the State Tender Board. It will thus be possible for the procurement requirements of the Administrations: House of Representatives and House of Delegates to be met by the regional tender boards established in Cape Town and Pietermaritzburg. It should be noted that, as in the case of the State Tender Board, members of the regional tender boards will be appointed by the Minister of Finance. The boards will consist of not fewer than eight and not more than 10 members—some being Government officials and others representing the private sector. Two members of each regional tender board will be appointed from a panel of four nominated by the relevant Administrator.
It should also be noted that the establishment of regional tender boards will not be limited to the four provincial capitals but that the Minister of Finance will have the power to establish others on the recommendation of the State Tender Board. For the time being only four are envisaged, viz in Cape Town, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein and Pretoria. The Bill has been phrased in such a way that a new regional tender board can be established very easily. The idea is not, however, to see a proliferation of regional tender boards.
*The administrative work of regional tender boards will be carried out by a decentralised office of the office for State Purchases, the administrative arm of the State Tender Board.
At this juncture I wish to comment briefly on one important aspect of the co-ordination between the State and the private sector in matters concerning State purchases, and give hon members some idea of what has been achieved, particularly in the field of electronics. After certain investigations by the Industrial Development Corporation, the Government appointed a Standing Committee on Electronics, primarily to serve as a forum in which departmental requirements can be discussed and ways and means considered to promote the local electronic industry.
These terms of reference were broadened during December 1985 by the then Minister of Trade and Industry when he directed that the Committee should be responsible for handling, in collaboration with the relevant Government institutions as well as the private sector where necessary, of all cases relating to the electronics industry of which the Minister should have knowledge. These various organisations—in the private and public sector—work closely together on a voluntary basis, and although decisions regarding the purchase of electronics are taken on a co-ordinated basis, each and every institution controls its own purchases. This co-operation ensures that through State policy we are achieving maximum economies of scale, standardisation, reasonable production runs, cost effectiveness and simplification of spares and stores, and thus maintenance at lower cost.
In order to promote the local electronics industry, standard tender price preferences of up to 25% on tender prices for local content and a further 10% for local design are allowed on all purchases by Government departments, the Post Office, SATS, parastatal institutions such as Escom and CSIR, and local authorities.
Furthermore, the opportunity has been created for the identification by consumer departments of the so-called joint projects. In the process it has been possible to identify five companies capable of manufacturing data terminals locally and as from 1 April 1986 all standard and non-standard data terminals will be procured from these manufacturers on a tender basis. This will be for an initial period of 3 years. Substantial similar arrangements have been made in respect of mobile radios. Certain other studies are at present still being undertaken.
† Another field where co-ordination of State purchases and practices is absolutely essential is in respect of countertrade or counterpurchasing which for example includes off-set purchasing on tender documents. In the case of direct off-set the exporter agrees as a tender condition to buy components to be used in the production of the export products sold to the importing country. In the case of indirect off-set the exporter agrees to buy unrelated products from the import country. This kind of offset purchasing is standard practice in many countries.
Government departments and parastatal institutions are themselves involved in imports and exports. Tender boards which adjudicate on tenders and call for supplies from abroad are being briefed on policy matters associated with such transactions.
Clearly, thus, the legislation before the House today will allow for purchases by the State to be used far more effectively as an instrument of economic policy, encouraging the development and establishment of new industries or sectors of industry and making it possible by standardisation of specifications to promote longer production runs and greater cost-effectiveness in our country. These envisaged steps are part of an enhanced role for the tender boards as an instrument for economic development in South Africa.
It should be stressed that the authority to make purchases, delegated to departments and provincial administrations will not be materially affected by the proposed amendments. Although it is planned to review the delegations with a view to uniformity the idea is definitely not to curtail them unnecessarily. In other words, if a department needs an article of relatively small value and the article is not available on one of the general period contracts that are still to be arranged by the State Tender Board, it would still be possible to make use of the delegation, provided the cost does not exceed the limit laid down for purchases in terms of the delegation.
For the information of hon members I also wish to mention that the two principles incorporated in the Bill have been cleared with the Administrators of the provinces concerned. The Standing Committee on Finance has also considered the matter and, with minor amendments which I think are improvements, given the measure its appoval, for which I am grateful.
Second Reading resumed
Mr Chairman, this is a piece of legislation which, of course, arises out of the abolition of the provincial councils. It has taken a rather interesting turn in that the regional tender boards which are to be established are intended to take the place of the provincial tender boards. When this was initially considered, the standing committee took two particular resolutions, and I think the hon the Deputy Minister should react to both those resolutions.
The first was, insofar as the constitution of a tender board was concerned, that the board’s constitution and membership should be representative of the population of South Africa as a whole. In other words—whether it is regarded as non-racial or multiracial does not matter—the reality was that one would have members of all population groups represented on the tender board.
The second resolution was that there should be adequate representation of the private sector, so that the private sector would play a meaningful role on the tender board. I think the hon the Deputy Minister owes the House and the standing committee a reply on those two resolutions.
What happened then, however, was that, this Bill having gone to the other two Houses, the proposal came that it should be changed in order to provide that one person should be appointed from a list of names of persons designated by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly, one from a list of two names by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives and one from a list of two names of persons designated by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates. Furthermore it was proposed that two people should be appointed from a list of names submitted by the Administrator, as well as a certain number of people who could be employees of the State but who had to be in a minority.
What I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister—and I hope he will show me the courtesy of answering me across the floor of the House—is whether he agrees with the following statement:
I wonder if I could get a reaction from the hon the Deputy Minister in relation to this statement. Does he agree with that statement?
I will reply to that later. I am listening to your speech now.
Order!
Mr Chairman, it is important that I should hear what he says.
Just you carry on with your speech. I will reply to your whole speech later. [Interjections.]
Order!
The reason why I ask this, Sir, is because I believe the hon the Deputy Minister’s answer to this is very important. It is a very simple question I am putting to him. Who is going to appoint the Black people on this tender board?
Definitely not you!
I believe that is a certainty, Sir. The hon member for Kimberley South is absolutely right. It is not going to be me. I would imagine, however, that in accordance with National Party policy that appointment should be made by Black people—by Black representatives. The reality is that if one is going to participate in joint decision-making on matters of common concern up to the highest level, one should be able to have a Black representative body that will make the appointments to the tender board.
That can be negotiated.
Oh, can that be negotiated? It can be negotiated, Sir, says the second hon Deputy Minister of Finance coming to the rescue of the helpless first hon Deputy Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] If it is going to be negotiated, Sir, with whom is it going to be negotiated? Somebody should tell us. [Interjections.]
I want to read, Sir, from a publication of the National Party, which asks the following question:
It asks this very fascinating question, Sir.
What is the date of that publication?
The date of this publication is 10 February 1987. It is a very up-to-date publication. It poses six questions. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to tell the House whether he believes it is in each case a true reflection of his party’s policy or whether it is possibly someone else’s party’s policy. It asks, for example:
I should imagine, Sir, that that is not National Party policy. I believe the hon the Deputy Minister will concede that that is our party’s policy. We have always argued about it. Then, Sir, it continues to ask:
Is that the sole prerogative of the National Party?
Of course not!
“Of course not”, says the hon the Deputy Minister. That means it is not the sole prerogative of the National Party, Sir. Then it asks:
Now remember, Sir, the word “all” is used. Furthermore the term “South Africans” is used—
And here the word “joint” is used—
Now Sir, because this is relevant in relation to this particular issue of appointing people to the tender board—which makes of this issue a decision-making process—the hon the Deputy Minister should tell us whether he agrees that all South Africans should participate in joint decision-making on matters of common concern up to the highest level. Is that National Party policy? I believe we are entitled to know whether that is indeed National Party policy. We are also entitled to know whether “all South Africans” really means all South Africans or only some South Africans. We should be told whether the word “all” has a different definition in the National Party’s dictionary from what it has in mine. Furthermore we are entitled to know whether “South Africans” means South Africans irrespective of whether they are White, Black, Coloured or Indian. Does it indeed mean all South Africans? If that is so, there is a serious casus omissus in this Bill. Then there is no procedure, if this is NP policy, for the appointment by a Black body, at the same level as these other bodies which are now named, of Black representatives on this board.
Are you pleading for a fourth Chamber?
No, I am pleading for Black people on the tender board. I cannot plead for anything else or the Chairman will rule me out of order. He is watching me like a hawk. He wants me to make one wrong move and I shall be out of order.
Order! May I point out that I am listening carefully because I cannot allow the debate to take the form of a dialogue. The hon member is perfectly entitled to put his questions and the hon the Deputy Minister—who I believe will take part in the debate—can then reply to the questions. However, I am not going to allow a dialogue to be conducted. The hon member may continue.
Mr Chairman, I look forward with great delight to his answers.
The next question is:
A united South Africa means a unitary state …
What are you quoting from?
I shall tell you in a minute. It goes on to say:
Does he believe that? I understand his reluctance to give an immediate answer not only because of your ruling, Sir, but because of other factors.
In fairness I think I should quote the other things just to complete the picture. It continues:
I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he claims that as a sole prerogative of the NP. I do not think he does.
In concluding, it asks:
Those are six questions to which I think the hon Deputy Minister should give me an answer on behalf of the Government and himself.
Are you serious?
I have to be serious. I shall tell him why I am serious. Insofar as this Bill is concerned, it requires an answer from the Minister as to whether Black people are going to be on this tender board.
Why didn’t you argue this matter on the standing committee?
I did. The hon the Deputy Minister knows all about it.
You were not there?
No, I actually moved the resolution that it should be multiracial and if he remembers—the hon member for Smithfield has a good memory—the argument then was whether the word “multiracial” was right or whether it should be “non-racial”. Is that true?
Yes.
He is an honest chap. He really is.
You were not there.
I was there. How could I have moved the thing if I had not been there? [Interjections.] I wasn’t there on another occasion, but when this was moved I was there.
When it was accepted, you were not there.
When this motion was moved and agreed to by the committee, I moved it and it was accepted and I would like the hon member for Smithfield to explain how one can move a motion without being there. That is nonsense!
I want to know from that hon Deputy Minister: Who is going to appoint the Blacks? Are they going to be appointed in accordance with these six questions and in particular the one that I mentioned first about agreeing that all South Africans should participate in joint decision-making on matters of common concern up to the highest level? Are we going to have Black members? Who is going to appoint them? Which Black body is going to submit names? I want to know these things, because this Bill does not provide for them.
I think that he owes us an answer. He must tell us whether these six things which I have quoted are NP policy or not. He may say to me that I misquoted them. He may say to me that I have quoted them from a CP pamphlet …
No, we are not that stupid!
He may say all sorts of things to me. However, the reality is that he owes us an answer in relation to this matter. If one does not have a Black body which is representative of Black people and which can put forward names in the same way as Coloured, Indian and White people can put forward names, then what I have quoted is meaningless. It is a bluff and a fraud.
Hear, hear!
Mr Chairman, I myself have a point I wish to raise but I shall also pursue this argument of the hon member for Yeoville. We have come to know the NP recently as a party which does not care a scrap for the Whites. [Interjections.] It is supposedly busy with reform but what does this comprise? Its reform means capitulation to non-Whites. That is its entire policy. What else is its reform? This has been the case from the start. I want to know what NP members mean by reform. Their reform means—it is camouflaged in eloquent language—the handing over of White South Africa to the non-Whites.
I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that two Blacks will be appointed in terms of this legislation.
Give me that guarantee.
They will simply appoint them. In terms of subsection (1)(a) of the proposed section 3A this White House of Assembly will appoint one member and under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates can also appoint a member each. That makes three. In addition, paragraph (d) of the subsection provides:
The Administrator will also appoint two Blacks.
There it is, Harry.
Who says so?
I do not wish to go as far as saying they are devious enough but it is a trick they always play.
The Administrator is not a Black.
That is why the hon the State President said that under the new dispensation Coloureds and Indians fell under the new structure but Blacks were being kept out and discussions with them were still proceeding—there is such and such a council and all. The central White Government remains overall but this is where the gap is being provided. I bet hon members whatever they like that they will enter the election and say Blacks will not come in. They will whisper to Blacks and liberals, however, that they will admit Blacks by means of the new section 3A(1)(d). [Interjections.] They will act like Minister Horwood during the information scandal when he said he had not examined the things he had signed. They will treat this the same way just after the election. [Interjections.]
They will tell Blacks that they will be brought in under the tender board. We are already saddled with provincial management committees and in some of them non-Whites form the majority. I now want to ask whether they can give a guarantee that they will not appoint a non-White Administrator in future. Will they guarantee that? [Interjections.] No, that cannot happen.
[Inaudible.]
No, because they say the Administrator …
[Inaudible.]
Can the hon the Deputy Minister guarantee that his post will always remain White? [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister cannot guarantee that because they are going to change that just after this election.
I want to quote a whole paragraph from the hon the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech because that contains the entire essence of this Bill:
Now comes the most important sentence:
The entire soul of the Bill lies in that sentence. It is so.
Where does it say that?
It is on page G.2 of Unrevised Hansard copy of the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech. The hon the Minister said that and this is its logical consequence. What did the hon the Deputy Minister have to say further in his speech, however?
It is a fact that the four provincial councils fall away and their tender boards now fall under the State but the Government says it wants to institute a regional tender board for each province. We say that is nonsense. The arguments put forward are that the Republic is too large. Tendering will be a local matter entirely now.
According to him, the State Tender Board will continue to fulfil the same function as in the past; it will deal with all the tenders for the various departments—the Railways as well.
Much of the work of the tender boards of the provincial councils has already been removed, however. Some have been upgraded to the Central Government; others to other departments. Now the hon the Minister is to open offices in the four provinces for each of those regional tender boards which now have very much less work. What will he do further? He is to institute a board for each of those regional tender boards.
In the first Bill before the standing committee the minimum number of members was to be six and the maximum 10. Now, after an amendment, the minimum is 10 and the maximum 14. The Administrator appoints them. We have also heard that the provinces are to be subdivided so that the Cape Province will have two administrators and the Transvaal two as well.
There will be three.
It will end at 10. Let me keep to my two administrators for the Transvaal. I am very pleased the hon member for Kimberley South has said there are to be three administrators so that we are at least aware what is to happen.
The minimum number of members on the board is now to be 10. Apart from the five civilians, five officials are to be appointed as well so there will be ten members for each of these regional tender boards. If one therefore has six regional tender boards, there will be 60 members as a result above and beyond members of the State Tender Board who have to be appointed. An office will then have to be opened and personnel appointed for each board. There will have to be a minimum of five senior officials on each board. This legislation states very clearly that officials or employees will form half of the members of that board. Surely one will not appoint the chauffeur, the persons making tea, etc, all to those boards; it will be senior people who are appointed. If there are to be 14 members, what will the magnitude of the attendant costs be?
It is now being said the Republic is too large. If a man is in Port Elizabeth or Cape Town, those tender documents still have to be submitted in writing; they have to be posted to Pretoria. Assume the Cape Regional Board sits in Cape Town. The man in Port Elizabeth or East London still has to send his documents to Cape Town. The time remains the same whether he sends them to Cape Town or Pretoria. There is absolutely no necessity for such an office to be opened in every region or province. This can be done in a much better, easier and cheaper way.
I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why there are two offices in Pretoria if the offices have to be close by. These offices will be in the same building or perhaps separated by a single storey. One office is for the State Tender Boards of the entire country and the other purely for the province of the Transvaal. Why this type of duplication?
I think we are concerning ourselves here with a matter which could have been left alone; the hon the Minister is just squandering money. To me it smacks of jobs for pals. Anyone voting for the NP has to be given some post or other. Will this thing end here? At the moment one still has a regional tender board but when regional services councils are instituted it will eventually expand until one has an endless number of regional tender boards. I think this turns the entire situation into a farce; consequently our vote is against this Bill.
Mr Chairman, it was very interesting listening to the hon member for Sunnyside because he put forward the identical arguments today to those he raised in the standing committee. To my mind the point of interest is that the hon member stares so blindly at the function of decentralisation that an imporant principle escapes him and his party because, if I am not interpreting him incorrectly, he is not opposed in principle to the inclusion of those of colour on these regional tender boards.
No, I did not say that.
He kept dead quiet. His standpoint was the same in the standing committee—that he was not opposed to Coloureds and Indians serving on regional tender boards.
I do object to that and you know it.
The hon member did not raise any objections to this point.
Mr Chairman, I merely want to ask the hon member, as there has been much talk about this mixed regional tender board and as I said that I voted against it entirely on principle …
Order! Does the hon member wish to put a question or make a statement? [Interjections.]
I am asking the hon member, Sir, whether I voted altogether against the composition of these tender boards in principle. He need say only “yes” or “no” in reply. [Interjections.]
Sir, perhaps we should give the hon member another opportunity to put a question as I still do not know what the question is. [Interjections.] What is most interesting is that the hon member blithely wanted to reply to the hon member for Yeoville in the process. I think part of his answer was actually right because he referred to the Administrator but I do not think the reply the hon member …
And if the Administrator is Black …
If the hon member for Yeoville would only listen, I want to tell him that to my knowledge Black people also serve on the executive committees of the provinces.
One.
That makes no difference; the principle is that a Black man can actually serve on the executive committee.
Yes, but there is only one. [Interjections.]
The principle of the matter is that a Black person may serve on the executive committee.
Yes, but just compare it with this tender board. [Interjections.]
The principle of the matter remains that such an administrator and his executive committee may surely appoint a Black person to their regional tender board if they see fit.
I wish to return to the hon member for Sunnyside. Because the hon member did not adopt a standpoint in opposition to the mixed tender board, I want to say I gain the impression that a change has been brought about in that party in the sense that …
But I am telling you we are opposed to it.
As regards their standpoint, members of the CP are opposed to the decentralisation of authority to regional tender boards. [Interjections.] They were so obsessed by this problem that the most important matter escaped them because they did not vote against it in principle as they did not realise they were dealing with a mixed regional tender board. They have just found this out.
Is this your farewell speech?
No, I think the hon member for Kuruman will have the opportunity yet to make his farewell speech. There will be many more opportunities for the hon member for Newcastle to speak in this House—after 6 May as well.
Yes, for the CP member for Newcastle. [Interjections.]
Order! If hon members wish to put questions to the hon member holding the floor they are to do it in the prescribed way or refrain from interrupting the hon member. The hon member for Newcastle may proceed. [Interjections.]
When I consider the hon member for Sunnyside’s objection to the decentralisation of power, I think it is an aspect which deserves attention. With the best will in the world I cannot imagine a party capable of adopting such a standpoint when an effort is being made to delegate authority to the lowest level possible. The hon member referred to the hon the Minister’s speech. Surely the hon the Minister illustrated in it that there were basically two important aspects to the need for these regional tender boards.
In the first case it involves the geographic size of South Africa, our surface distribution. In the second case it concerns the needs which a particular region may have. The Cape is a very good example of a region which may have particular needs—even the hon member for Sunnyside referred to this— in a sense that in future there is a possibility of further second-level governmental institutions. As an example such regions may be established in the Northern and Eastern Cape. A decision may then be taken on the basis of such needs as may arise. I could perhaps just quote from the proposed section 2A, the insertion of which is being contemplated:
This hon Minister will therefore receive a proposal from the State Tender Board if the need for the institution of a regional tender board arises in such regions as may come to the fore. There are further advantages attached to the decentralisation of the functions. The hon member for Yeoville referred to the reasons why inter alia regional tender boards were now to take over the functions of the provinces and I believe various advantages are attached to the fact that they are to fall under a central authority, especially as regards the uniformity of tenders which will result from this.
One finds in the first place that this overall co-ordination, which will form part of the functions exercised by the State Tender Board, will certainly cause uniform documentation to be required. Tender forms will have to be uniform as well as tender conditions and procedures. I believe that this in itself already represents a very great improvement on the former system under which differences could perhaps have existed within the various provinces because they did not fall under this uniform policy.
I think there is a further advantage to the aspect of standardisation and I think it will be welcomed by organised commerce and industry among others. This is the uniformity now being instituted regarding technical specifications, etc. The hon the Minister devoted considerable time in his Second Reading speech to illustrating the benefits the institution of this overall co-ordination at this point could hold for the country in general. There are other advantages, inter alia price adjustment formulae, which are very important aspects if they are co-ordinated. It is also beneficial when this is brought up under a uniform policy. As for determining policy, it is important that this be done by one body.
A further advantage is the fact, as I have already said, that it provides for the needs of a specific region. I hold reasonably strong views on this because I believe there are definite regional needs. The opportunity provided by the regional tender boards can best satisfy these needs because it encourages local manufacture among other aspects. It can stimulate industries involved with matters peculiar to a particular region.
Yet another advantage is that it decreases required stock levels of imported goods. The last point to which I wish to refer only briefly deals with the decentralisation of powers. I want to quote clause 3 in this regard:
I shall now quote section 5(2) of the principal Act:
It is very important—I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister in this regard—that, in speaking of delegation of powers to regional tender boards, such delegation should actually take place. The success of a regional tender board will depend in great measure on the delegation of powers.
I take pleasure in supporting this legislation with these few comments on delegation on behalf of this side of the House.
Mr Chairman, as has been clearly indicated, the object of this Bill is to remove the existing provincial tender boards and replace them with regional boards which will be subordinate to the State Tender Board. I concede that to have them subordinate to the State Tender Board could have certain advantages in that there may be standardisation of conditions of tender and also of acceptance of tender—at least one would hope that that would be the case.
We have no strong feelings about this particular Bill, but here again we have the feeling that it is change for the sake of change. The existing tender boards appear to have done a pretty good job over many years but, as I mentioned, there may well be certain advantages in effecting a change.
This Bill has the unique distinction of having I think the largest number of addenda of one sort or another—I am not quite sure what one calls these additional prints that we get. We are up to D on this Bill at the moment— in other words we have received a 4A, 4B,4C and 4D. Unfortunately I could not attend the last meeting because I had to attend another standing committee meeting but I noticed that at that meeting they had changed what I considered to be the whole concept of this tender board.
Originally, as the hon member for Yeoville indicated, there was considerable debate on the composition to ensure that it would be either multiracial or non-racial. My own feeling was I think possibly the same as that of the hon member for Yeoville—it should be non-racial and suitable people of any particular race group should be able to serve on it. The minimum number of members for the board was increased to accommodate that situation. That was fair enough.
However, unfortunately, I believe, a totally racial aspect entered at that further meeting where it was decided that representatives nominated by each of the Houses were to be appointed on the board. That was very specific. There was nothing specific, however, about commerce and industry. If one wants to ensure that any particular group does get on then obviously that should also be specified. However, it is not specified in the Bill except that one assumes that if only half of the members will be officials then there must be some coming from elsewhere, and perhaps one can assume that they will come from commerce and industry.
The point made by the hon member for Yeoville is very valid in respect of Black representation if one is going to have a specifically multiracial body. The provincial executives today are responsible for non-homeland Black affairs. Quite obviously there will be a large number of items coming up before the tender board which relate particularly and specifically to those functions. That being the case I feel that if one is being specific about the various other groups, one should also be specific about the Black group, because in Natal non-homeland Blacks are in fact far in excess in number to any of the other groups. Presumably, therefore, there will be quite a considerable amount of work involving this group.
As I have said, I am personally sorry that I could not attend that meeting—the chairman knows perfectly well why I could not be there. Had I been there I would clearly have made the point that it was a mistake to put in the Bill that the House of Representatives, the House of Delegates and the House of Assembly must make recommendations. It is fair enough to have made it clear that it was intendeed that all race groups should be represented, but to make it as specific as this and then to leave out a most important group is a mistake.
As I said earlier I cannot really see why it was necessary to change the basic format. I can see that rationalisation and standardisation do have their various problems but there is another aspect that worries me. Where it was originally proposed that this be confined to four boards to replace the existing provincial boards, the concept of there being only four boards was negatived. It now means, of course, that there can be any number of these boards.
I know the intention is that when we ultimately get regionalisation where the provinces are cut up into three or four different provinces or parts or whatever one wishes to call them there will be appropriate boards for those. However, with all due respect, I cannot for the life of me see why when four boards were able to do the job before there now have to be seven, eight or nine boards to do the same job some time in the future. I cannot really see why that is necessary.
We in these benches have been complaining bitterly for a long time about the number of people who have been hitched on to the NP gravy train, and this means a few more can be hitched on. I am not saying that this will happen initially—-initially there will probably only be the four—but in a very short space of time these additional boards may well come into being. This aspect is really disturbing.
As far as the principle of the Bill is concerned I can go along with it because as I say we do not have any strong feelings concerning it. However, as I have indicated, there are certain aspects of the change to the Bill which came about during a further meeting that I was unfortunately unable to attend that I am not at all happy about.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo comes and complains about things that happened in the standing committee in his absence. If he cannot do his job in the standing committee and attend its meetings to put his view there, he must not complain. We did not ask …
Mr Chairman, on a point of personal explanation: I am being castigated because I happened to have two standing committees running at the same time. That was the reason why I was not there. I object to …
Order! I presume the hon member for Umbilo raised his point of personal explanation off his own bat. He must kindly not do so in future. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.
That hon member comes with all kinds of wild accusations. He complains about what did not happen in the standing committee. The reality is …
That was really mean!
That was very shabby of you!
Oh, I shall come to the hon member presently.
†The hon member for Umbilo comes with all kinds of wild accusations. He says this is the NP’s gravy train. Is that hon member aware of the fact that the members of the tender board are not paid? They work for nothing.
Don’t they get allowances?
That is right but what is the gravy train? Where is the gravy train?
The chairman gets …
That hon member who says …
[Inaudible.]
No. It is a voluntary thing they serve on and there is no payment involved.
They get an allowance.
They get a daily allowance to cover their expenses. They get R6 per day or something like that. It is very much less than what their real expenses are.
At least tell the truth.
The hon member for Umbilo who has served on many bodies altruistically over the years knows that his real costs are in excess of the amount he is advanced by the authorities. That hon member knows that this kind of thing is a labour of love and no gravy train. [Interjections.] Therefore I say it is an insult to the very dedicated people who are serving on the tender boards of South Africa today. That hon member is insulting members who are currently serving on the tender boards when he says that they are now part of the NP’s gravy train. That hon member knows that the members who are nominated to serve on these tender boards by, for example, the Chambers of Commerce, Seifsa and the Afri kaanse Handelsinstituut are distinguished people, but he comes here and talks about gravy trains! [Interjections.] Sir, I will not let him insult members of the private sector in that way for a cheap political thrill on the eve of an election. [Interjections.]
I will answer all the questions. Furthermore, he says he agrees with the hon member as far as Blacks are concerned. Quite frankly, Sir, I should like to tell the hon member how the State Tender Board is currently constituted.
We are talking about the provincial tender boards.
All right, I will get to that. Exactly the same principles will apply in the delegations.
†The same applies to the Afrikaanse Han delsinstituut, the Federation of South African Steel and Engineering Industries, the building and civil engineering industries, the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, the South African Agricultural Union, the Association of Chambers of Commerce.
So one can go on. That hon member knows …
Where are the Blacks?
That hon member believes it is a mistake that Blacks will not serve on the tender boards. What I am trying to say is that the tender boards, as they are currently constituted, are not in any way racially constituted.
How many non-Whites have you got on them?
They are not in any way racially constituted. There are a number of interest groups represented on those boards that can best serve the economy—they are usually distinguished people— but now that hon member, being so obsessed with race, is dragging all kinds of racial arguments into the debate on a Bill in which that should not even have been mentioned.
I say this, firstly, because the members of the tender boards are not paid. Secondly, they are doing a labour of love, serving all segments of the community. The people who are represented on the tender boards are people who represent interest groups and not racial groups.
And Nafcoc? [Interjections.]
With regard to the fact that the standing committee has now suggested changes whereby the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates should also be able to nominate members to serve on the tender board, I can only say that I do not know what is in their minds. [Interjections.] I hope the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in the House of Assembly, an Administrator or the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in the House of Delegates or the House of Representatives will feel free to nominate a Black, White, Indian or Brown man—the best person for the job.
In accordance with the Resolution adopted today, the House adjourned at