announced that in terms of Rule 23 (4) he had referred the following draft Bill which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandum thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

Mr Chairman, yesterday, before the adjournment of the debate, I dealt with speeches by hon members on this side of the House and those by hon members of the PFP. However, I want to come back to the hon member Prof Olivier. I want to thank him for the support he pledged to this Bill and for his contribution on the standing committee.

He asked us to indicate why the Commission for Co-operation and Development could not be abolished. Other hon members asked the same question. The Department of Development Planning submitted proposals to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning embodying certain recommendations on the desirability of the continued existence of the commission. I expect that an indication will shortly be given as to whether this commission will continue to exist and if so, what its functions are going to be. I believe the hon member will understand that I cannot take the matter any further at this stage but that we can expect an announcement in this regard shortly. Any changes that may be effected will, in the nature of the matter, have to be agreed to by this House.

The Official Opposition does not support this statutory amendment. I wish to react briefly to the speeches made by hon members of the CP. However they will understand that it is very difficult to do so because they were somewhat confused in their arguments and their debating. Moreover they contradicted one another. It was difficult to establish precisely what they wanted to say. I am under the impression that they merely used this Bill to make propaganda for their party. It was also quite clear to me that there are still a great many matters that have to be sorted out in their ranks, particularly as far as policy is concerned.

Not far as the Group Areas Act is concerned.

I now come to the hon member for Pietersburg, who said that the reason we now wish to give property ownership rights to Black women as well is so that we can get these people around the negotiating table and tell the Black leaders that there is no further statutory discrimination. This statement by the hon member is totally untrue. The reason we did this was that many Black women are breadwinners and are unable to obtain loans from building societies in order to purchase property since under Black law they are regarded as minors.

The statement by the hon member that the name of the Commission for Co-operation and Development is being changed, is untrue as well. I have already said that the name of the commission will remain the Commission for Co-operation and Development, but the administration of Act 46 of 1951, which provides for the establishment of this commission, has been entrusted to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The hon member for Pietersburg also referred to clause 33 in terms of which, as a temporary measure, provision is being made for non-elected members, too, to have representation in regional services councils. He also referred to nominated members of this House, but in my opinion there is no connection whatsoever between nominated members of this House and the fact that non-elected members can now also obtain representation in regional services councils.

This is purely a temporary measure because such bodies do exist that do not have elected members. Next year, in 1988, elections are going to be held for all local government bodies, perhaps during October. Possibly they will be held on the same day, they might be spread over a longer period: But the factof the matter is that elections are going to be when that happens this provision will lapse and all bodies represented on regional services councils will consist of elected members.

The hon member for Soutpansberg stated that the granting of ownership rights to a Black woman amounted to her obtaining a right to property in a White area which she did not have in her own fatherland. This statement by the hon member is quite wrong Proclamation R293, of 1962 which contains regulations relating to the administration and management of towns in Black areas—in other words, the self-governing territories was amended in 1986 to make it possible fora Black woman as well to obtain property rights in a town in a self-governing territory. I think that the hon member for Bethal also referred to that.

Now the hon member for Soutpansberg maintains that the NP and the PFP are rejoicing because they have now given territorial recognition to Lebowa and other states. The hon member went on to say:

This morning I deem it necessary to provide a full picture for the benefit of the hon member for Soutpansberg and the other hon members of the Official Opposition.

The Black Authorities Act, Act 68 of 1951 provides for three phases of government—firstly a tribal authority, secondly a regional authority and thirdly a territorial authority. The Act in question provides that the State President may establish such an authority inrespect of a Black area. The Constitution of the National States, 1971, provides that the State President may for each of the Black territories establish, firstly, a legislative assembly with an executive council, and subsequently a self-governing territory with a Cabinet. In this way each of the remaining Black territories developed into self-governing territories, and each has a Cabinet.

I want to make the statement here this morning that no one can change that. I do not believe that those self-governing territories want this system changed either. Nor do I believe that these self-governing territories will give up their autonomy, their right to self-government through their own Cabinet.

Now the hon member for Soutpansberg comes along and attacks the amendment is being effected by clause 4 of the Bill. This clause amends section 2 of the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, and this Act provides that the systems of administrationtor the Black territories in the Black Authorities Act, 1951, shall be developed gradually towards self-government in those territories. This is precisely what the Government has done, and this is precisely what isenvisaged by the proposed amendment. Moreover I want to make it very clear today that what the old NP had in mind according to the hon member for Soutpansberg is still been done by the new NP—if the hon member wants to refer to us as a “new” NP.

I wish to point out to the hon member for Soutpansberg—I see this as a sign of the confusion in the ranks of the CP—that while he attacks clause 4, the hon member for Pietersburg supported it. I should like to quote from the speech by the latter:

Then the hon member for Pietersburg said the following:

Just after that the hon member for Soutpansberg and other hon members did find fault with it. That is why it is very difficult for me to understand why the hon members for Soutpansberg and Losberg—the hon member for Losberg apologised for his absence today—are opposing clause 4.

The statement by the hon member for Soutpansberg to the effect that there is no longer any question of full independence, is also untrue. That is an incorrect statement. The day after the hon member delivered that speech in this House the Cabinet of Kwa-Ndebele was here to ask the Government for independence. On the day after that the hon the State President issued a Press statement, and I want to quote from it:

The requirements were then spelt out. Therefore this side of the House does not wish to place any stumbling blocks on the path to independence of these self-governing territories. Of necessity there are certain requirements that must be complied with, which were spelt out in this Press statement by the State President. The hon member for Soutpansberg is also concerned about the fact that the Commission for Constitutional Development may now consist of members of all three Houses, since according to him the Blacks are not going to accept it. What he really wants to say is that the Blacks are not going to accept the fact that members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates may serve on this commission.

This Bill was submitted to the Cabinets of the self-governing territories and every clause was considered by them. Not one of them objected to the proposed amendment. Their comments on the Bill were submitted to the standing committee and given very detailed consideration.

The hon member for Soutpansberg then stated that it was wrong to embody legislation such as this in one Bill. Had we not done so, 12 short amending Bills would have had to be introduced containing precisely the same amendments, and I can see no reason why that would make any difference or why we should not have presented these statutory amendments in this form. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg stated that he did not support clause 19 because according to him the explanation before the standing committee had had a different meaning. I do not know who informed the hon member about the activities of the standing committee; he himself could not have been a member. I want to assure him here and now that what was said in the Second Reading speech was precisely the same as was explained on the standing committee, and the standing committee accepted it as such.

It is evident from the report of the standing committee that no amendment to clause 19 is being proposed, and I cannot understand why the hon member made such a fuss about that clause.

As far as clause 6 is concerned the hon member for Losberg elaborated on citizenship; his argument was very far-fetched. It is true that the word “citizen” appears in the clause, but clause 16 deals with the appointment of representatives of self-governing territories outside those territories in order to represent the citizens of such a territory, for example kwaZulu. This clause has nothing to do with the granting of citizenship.

The hon member went on to contend that the Government now wanted to create territories Self-governing territories already exist and each is defined by way of a proclamation by the State President.

The hon member for Losberg went on to say that every territory should have a people. The hon member will surely agree with me that the greater part of the population of kwaZulu is made up of Zulus. In the nature of the matter there may be Xhosas there too. I do not believe that there are only Germans in Germany. I think there are South Africans in Germany today as well.

This is the position in the other self-governing territories too. After all, these self-governing territories are not being depopulated by this amendment, nor are we removing the people of those self-governing territories from that territory. The ethnic groups have been recognised and developed in their traditional territories and all this involves is, of necessity, stronger emphasis on the State-territory link. The hon member for Losberg and the hon members of the CP will simply have to learn this. We must move away from certain old concepts. We are in a process of reform and we shall have to place more emphasis on the State-territory link.

The hon member for Losberg went on to say with regard to clause 6 that provision was being made for representatives to be appointed. Clause 6 replaces section 4 of Act 46 of 1959 which provides at present that representatives may be nominated. Therefore there was, in addition, no obligation to nominate such representatives.

I wish to say to the hon member that clause 6, which he is so vehemently opposed to, effects two amendments. The first is that the government of a self-governing territory will now have the power to appoint its own representatives without the consent and approval, respectively, of the State President and the relevant Minister. The second amendment being effected is the deletion of obsolete provisions.

The fact that self-governing territories may appoint representatives outside their territories confirms that the Government still recognises the linking of Blacks outside the self-governing territories to such territories. We have not abandoned that, nor can we do so. We still recognise that linkage. The ties with the self-governing territories still exists, so that those who reside outside the self-governing territories but wish to exercise their political rights within the territories are placed in a position to do so.

The hon member for Losberg also referred here to the Assistant Ministers. He contended that the idea of ministerial representatives had sneaked in through the back door of Parliament. In the first place this does not form part of the Bill before this House, but was embodied in clause 29 of the Bill before the standing committee. In clause 29 of the Bill before the standing committee, reference was made to Assistant Ministers, and the clause was negatived by the standing committee. That clause would have amended the Constitution of the RSA to make provision for the appointment of Assistant Ministers. I now wish to point out to the hon member for Losberg that the ministerial representatives are not—I repeat not—coming in the place of the Assistant Ministers; they have not sneaked in in the place of the Assistant Ministers. A Bill was introduced in the Assembly, referred to the standing committee and subsequently passed by the three Houses of Parliament. Therefore nothing sneaked in through the back door. It was considered by this House, discussed and agreed to.

I wish to point out to the hon member for Losberg further that the Constitution has not been amended to appoint these ministerial representatives. That power already existed in the legislation. All that was done was that provision was made for the Minister to entrust powers to them.

The hon member for Bethal discussed clause 1 and stated that what it amounted to was that Black women would obtain rights in White areas that they did not enjoy in their own areas. As I have already explained to the hon member for Soutpansberg, that is an erroneous statement; it is not true. The hon member stated that what clause 1 amounted to was that everyone would live wherever they liked, and on top of that he dragged in the Group Areas Act as well. I find it astonishing that the hon member for Overvaal did not also discuss that.

Surely, it is receiving your attention at the moment!

He has the Group Areas Act on the brain.

I want to tell the hon member for Bethal that Black people, and that includes Black women, may obtain property ownership rights in two ways. In the first place they can obtain them in terms of Act 4 of 1984 in development areas. These are areas outside the self-governing territories set aside for Black township development. The second way they can obtain property rights is in terms of Proclamation R293 of 1962 in Black towns in the self-governing territories. The hon member for Bethal’s statement about living wherever they like is therefore incorrect. There are only two ways in which they can obtain property rights.

The hon member for Bethal also pointed out that the concept of “indigenous law” should be used rather than the concept “Black law”, as in clause 1 of the amending Bill. I wish to point out to the hon member that this has already been embodied in section 11A, which is being amended by clause 1. Therefore this does not comprise part of the amendments.

Mr Chairman, I believe that you as an authority on the subject will agree with me that “Black law” is a recognised concept that is used in the South African courts as well. If we were to prefer “indigenous law” it would have to be defined. If it referred only to the rights of Blacks, the term “Black” would have to be used in the definition. The term “indigenous law” cannot, therefore, be used as it stands to refer to Black people.

The hon member for Roodepoort referred to clause 2. It repeals the preamble to Act 46 of 1959. I want to tell the hon member that the preamble is not being repealed because the objectives mentioned in the Act are being repealed. It is being done because the objectives embodied therein have already been achieved. The achievement of the NP Government over the years that in 1959 it set itself certain objectives and succeeded in attaining them. Therefore we have now reached a point at which we can say that we are repealing the preamble to this Act because its objectives have been attained. Over the years the Government has gradually been attaining those objectives and it is now moving towards the next steps that must be taken.

The first is the granting of greater and more extensive powers. The second is the granting of independence if requested, as is also stated in the preamble. It states, and I quote:

The Government is not expunging that; the Government is engaged in doing that every day. That is the path of reform in constitutional development and it is for that reason that this statitory amendment is before this House. I wish to say here this morning that every step that the hon member quoted in full from the preamble has been complied with to the fullest extent.

The hon member also referred to the envisaged section 2 (4) (b) in clause 4, which provides that a commissioner-general shall not hold any other office of profit. I just wish to point out to the hon member for Roodepoort that this is already embodied in the principal Act and that it does not form part of the amendments being discussed in this House.

I wish to conclude by saying that the hon members of the Official Opposition raised a great many objections, particularly to clause 4. The fact that reference is no longer being made to ethnic units—I wish to emphasise this—does not change the links that Black peoples have with their territories. I do not think that any body or institution in South Africa could change that. The Citizenship of National States Act, 1970, still provides expressly which persons are citizens of the self-governing territories.

Finally I wish to say that I have studied the speeches of the hon members of the Official Opposition and can find no grounds for their arguments and objections. I reiterate that in my opinion all this amounts to is a little cheap political propaganda.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Fisheries Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited, generally known as Viskor, was established by the Fishing Industry Development Act, Act No 44 of 1944. This Act was repealed by the Fishing Industry Development Act, Act No 86 of 1978, in terms of which Viskor continued to exist as a juristic person.

The powers of Viskor were essentially of a dual nature, namely to make loans available at subeconomic rates of interest for the development of community services and for the purchase of fishing boats and equipment, and to take up shares in fishing companies and share in the profits of such companies in order to compensate for the low rates of interest.

Apart from promoting the fishing industry by taking up shares in developing fishing companies and the financing of fishing boats and equipment, Viskor also played a significant role in the social field by way of the establishment and management of housing, electricity and water schemes as well as other facilities for fishermen. In time these assets were, however, taken over by fishing companies and local authorities with the assistance of loans at a low rate of interest. By virtue of the Government’s accepted privatisation policy, and on account of a function-centred investigation into the rationalisation of Viskor by the Commission for Administration, it was decided that the corporation should be liquidated and that its financing powers with regard to the promotion and development of the fishing industry should be transferred to the Small Business Development Corporation, and its technical and research functions to the State.

In terms of section 31 of the Fishing Industry Development Act, 1978, the corporation can, however, only be liquidated on the authority of an Act of Parliament. The object of the Bill before the House is to give effect to this. In order to accomplish the efficient and meaningful liquidation of the corporation, clauses 3 and 9 of the Bill regulate the passing of the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of Viskor as agreed upon to the Small Business Development Corporation and the State. Clause 3 of the Bill makes further provision for the continued existence of the board of directors of Viskor to enable the board to finalise the affairs of the board, whereupon it will cease to exist.

In order to ensure the utilisation, to the benefit of the fishing industry, of money paid over to the Small Business Development Corporation by Viskor, as well as revenue obtained in respect of the repayment of loan debts and any portion of the investment portfolio, clause 6 of the Bill makes provision for such money and revenue to be deposited, in a special fund for this purpose, by the Small Business Development Corporation.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to support this Bill on behalf of this side of the House. To begin with I wish to apologise to the hon the Minister for the fact that the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition on environment affairs is not in the House today due to unavoidable circumstances. I therefore take his place.

It is indeed with mixed feelings that this side of the House supports the Bill. We have mixed feelings about it not only because we oppose the abolition of Viskor but because since its establishment in 1944, Viskor has made monumental contributions not only to the fishing industry but also to the South African economy as a whole. In order to define the purpose and the powers of Viskor I should like to quote from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading Speech on the Abolition of the Fisheries Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited, Bill:

This side of the House supports the Bill because all the functions, powers and services rendered by Viskor can be dealt with just as effectively and functionally by the small business development corporation and the State. All the financing powers of Viskor are being transferred to the Small Business Development Corporation as well as all assets, liabilities, rights and obligations. The services rendered to the fishing industry by Viskor are not, therefore, being terminated, but will be carried on by other bodies. In this way all functions relating to technical and research aspects are being transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs.

I quote further from the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister:

On this occasion I also wish to pay tribute to the executive chairman on the board of Viskor, Mr Corky Fick, and his board of directors for the mammoth task they have performed with regard to the development and expansion of Viskor into what it is today. I also pay tribute to all former boards of directors of Viskor since 1944 for their contributions to the expansion of the fishing industry. Our whole-hearted thanks and sincere gratitude go, too, to all the officials and staff of Viskor who, over the years of service to the fishing industry, have acquired an exceptional degree of expertise and experience, for the outstanding services they rendered over many years in the interests of the country. Having paid tribute, on behalf of this side of the House, to the officials and staff of Viskor, I wish at the same time to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure at all costs that the wealth of expertise and experience that has been built up with great effort over many years will be preserved for the benefit of the fishing industry. We on this side of the House therefore request that the officials and staff of Viskor be accommodated in the Small Business Development Corporation and the Department of Environment Affairs to the benefit of the fishing industry. This side of the House supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Ventersdorp for his support of this measure.

A piece of history was made in this House this morning. I do not know whether hon members took cognisance of it. The piece of history is not the fact that the Official Opposition supports this measure; the history that was made here this morning is the fact that for the first time in the history of this House the Official Opposition called for a division and was not unable to muster 15 members. [Interjections.]

Disgraceful!

I think the public should take cognisance of that. It is a terrible indictment of the Official Opposition.

Were we not initially going to adjourn last night?

I thought those hon members were here to work so terribly hard. They told voters how they were going to turn this place upside down.

You must keep your word.

I think that the voters should really take cognisance of the fact that …

… that you do not keep your word.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is making too many interjections now.

That is how seriously the Official Opposition approaches the proceedings of this House.

It is my privilege to support this measure. Before going into it in detail I should like to take the opportunity—this is the first opportunity I have had—to convey my sincere congratulations and those of my constituency to the hon the Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. We trust that the hon the Minister and his spouse will derive much joy from this new sphere of activity. We are sure that he will make a great success of it. I should also like to invite him to visit the constituency of Walvis Bay because we should like to show him the biggest fish processing and canning facility in the southern hemisphere. I think he would find it interesting, particularly to see how those factories function when the fish are running.

We should also like to pay tribute on this occasion to his predecessor, the late Minister Wiley. He occupied this post with the utmost dedication. Mr Wiley made it his life’s task to promote conservation. I am convinced that his influence will continue to be felt for a long time.

My first acquaintance with Viskor was in the late sixties when I had the privilege of serving as a member of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry. The chairman of that commission was Mr Chari du. Plessis who was then also managing director of Viskor. Viskor made their facilites, office space, etc available to the commission.

Incidentally, that was also the first time I made the acquaintance of the young member for Simonstown, the late John Wiley. He was not a member of the commission but he often attended the meetings of the commission, by permission, out of interest. It was from those years that I came to know Mr Wiley. His attendance at those sittings of the commission also led to our first clashes in this House—between myself as the then representative of the Omaruru constituency that Walvis Bay fell under at the time, and him, as representative of the then United Party.

Now, I cannot help being reminded of the dignified leader of the Opposition at that time, Sir De Villiers Graaff. If one looks at the disorder that prevails in this House at the moment, it is really a matter for regret that such a man is no longer with us.

I should like to express my thanks to Viskor for the subsequent years as well. As representative of a constituency which is basically a fishing constituency, my years of association with Viskor, its officials and its staff have only been a pleasure. I could really spend a lot of time telling hon members what Viskor has done to promote the fishing industry in South Africa. I think that the name “Viskor”—is indeed descriptive of the mammoth task they have performed. The developed fishing harbours around our coasts are beacons along their path, and they will always be with us. My constituency, too, can attest to this.

I am grateful to be able to inform hon members this morning that a fine boat lift was installed. That development took place there between the years 1969 and 1976. This boat lift of 214 metres is driven by two sets of 11 electric lifts capable of lifting a vessel of 6 000 tons. There is also a repair wharf where 12 vessels can be hauled out of the water and accommodated.

Dredging was also undertaken. A canal of 90 metres wide by 6 metres deep was dredged. From this main channel, smaller channels were dredged to the private gantries of the various factories. There is also a breakwater—a concrete wall 400 metres long. Within this tidal basin formed by the breakwater is an area 75 hectares in extent which has been pumped deeper to make it a safe mooring place for vessels. The soil pumped out of this area of sea was used to reclaim 44 hectares of land, for the benefit of the fishing industry in Walvis Bay. The new sea wall has been faced with stones to eliminate further erosion. This is a fine project that was established there. At the time this project cost R8,5 million rand. With the escalation of costs it would have been virtually impossible to establish such a project again today.

What is more, in Walvis Bay alone Viskor granted loans for the purchase and modernisation of vessels to the value of R12 million rands, as well as loans of R1 million rand for accommodation. In view of the expansion and modernisation of vessels and as fish became more scarce, vessels had to be equipped with refrigeration facilities and larger vessels capable of travelling for longer distances had to be provided. Viskor, with its loan ceiling of R250 000, was no longer able to meet all these needs, and many of the applicants had to turn to the Industrial Development Corporation for assistance. When the Small Business Development Corporation came into being, further overlapping took place. The Small Business Development Corporation has a loan ceiling of R750 000. Hon members will understand, therefore, that they were in a better position and could cover a wider field.

Therefore a measure of duplication took place. The Commission for Administration undertook an investigation into Viskor and other matters and subsequently made a recommendation to the Cabinet that Viskor be phased out. We now find ourselves in the position that although this was a Cabinet decision, the law provides that only a law of this Parliament can abolish Viskor. That is why this measure is before this House today. I should like to make it very clear that no one is going to suffer as a result of the fact that Viskor is now to be phased out.

Therefore, in taking our leave of and thanking the staff of Viskor I should also like to thank and pay a sincere tribute to Mr Okkie Fick, the present chairman of the board of directors. His involvement has been tremendously valuable. We shall always appreciate his interest, open door policy and advice and we hope that he will enjoy a very pleasant retirement when he gets out of harness after disposing of this task.

I should also like to express my gratitude that the hon the Minister saw fit to word clause 6 specifically in such a way that the funds being transferred from Viskor will be utilised by the Small Business Development Corporation in the interests of the fishing industry. The hon the Minister also specifically emphasised in his Second Reading speech that these funds would be used for the fishing industry.

It is true that the functions of Viskor have in fact already been transferred to various bodies. As has been mentioned, its financial functions have already been incorporated in the Small Business Development Corporation and 86 loans have already been granted in co-operation with Viskor during the period 1 April 1986 to 25 May 1987.

As far as fishing harbours, boathouses and so on are concerned, this has been transferred to the CPA and the province has already accepted responsibility for that in Walvis Bay. Just recently we had serious problems concerning the synchrolift, and I should like to convey my thanks to these bodies for their prompt and correct action. I also thank to the Department of Environment Affairs and Viskor that were able to assist actively in surmounting this problem in record time. After this has been finalised it will be the task of the Small Business Development Corporation to assist interested bodies.

I read in the annual report of Viskor, which will probably be their last annual report, that they request that the research on aquaculture in particular should not fall by the wayside and I trust that the hon the Minister as well as Marine Development will attend to this matter.

I should also like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that the other two Houses—in particular the House of Representatives—have already given this measure their consent. The hon member for Mamre represents a very large fishing community and they are satisfied that they will not suffer as a result of the Bill. I therefore take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I think it would be appropriate at this stage to welcome the new hon Minister in charge of this portfolio. He took up this portfolio under unusual circumstances. I know he comes from the sort of background that I am sure will help him to be a success in this portfolio, and we wish him well in his task. It is unfortunate that his first Bill it is tainted with some controversy, which we will deal with in the context of the Bill, but as for the hon the Minister’s task, we wish him well.

I think it is also appropriate for me to congratulate the hon member for Ventersdorp on being his party’s spokesman in this regard. We wish him well too. He had the difficult task of discussing the Bill this morning without having had the benefit of being party to the standing committee discussions, but clearly he has done his homework on the Bill.

I would like to join both the hon member and the hon member for Walvis Bay in their tributes to the executive chairman of the Fisheries Development Corporation and his board of directors. They have done an outstanding job over the years. Their record is evidence that in the task they have undertaken, they have been successful, dedicated and effective.

I think it is also appropriate for me to join the hon member for Walvis Bay in paying tribute to the former Minister of Environment Affairs Mr John Wiley. We were implacable party political foes and we had some heated controversy in the environmental field. Nevertheless he was an effective and highly respected Minister in this field, and he also had our respect for many of the things which he undertook in that capacity. That brings me to the Bill itself. I regret to say that we on this side are not happy about the phasing out of Viskor.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Uitenhage knows the background to this discussion. There was some controversy and I do not think the hon the Minister did justice to this controversy in his opening speech. In the hon the Minister’s introductory remarks he merely said that in terms of Government policy it had been decided to phase out Viskor. No background and no motivation was provided and I believe the background and the arguments need to be placed on record.

There is a considerable record. Viskor goes back to 1944. It has had over 40 years of successful operation and in recent times it has received the support of important public bodies. In 1980 the Treurnicht Commission which was an authoritative commission in this field, found in favour of Viskor. On page 48 of the Treurnicht Commission report they say that they had taken note of the corporation’s activities and the recommendation they made was as follows:

As recently as November 1985 the department and the Government published a draft Bill on marine matters which made wide reference to many marine matters but included provision for the continued existence of the corporation and, in fact, the expansion of its activities.

Furthermore, as recently as a few months ago, the latest major commission of enquiry into the fishing industry, viz the Diemont Commission, reported on a wide variety of matters and devoted a special section to Viskor. They had some very disturbing things to say. It would appear that the Diemont Commission was by-passed in this matter although they investigated it as part of their overall brief. They say on page 74 of their report:

That is an extract from the Diemont Commission Report and it is a surprisingly strong condemnation of this decision.

They go on to motivate their disagreement with the Government’s decision to phase out Viskor by setting out the financial background. We must remember that Viskor was founded with a small share capital base and has cost the State nothing over all these years. It has invested wisely, it has built up substantial reserves and it has assisted many entrepreneurs in the fishing industry. As it stands today it has accumulated substantial assets without costing the taxpayer a cent.

Secondly, noting what Viskor has achieved they go on to make a very important point in paragraph 11.15 (b):

The third motivation they put forward is:

Another point that they make, is that scholarships were issued by Viskor and they query whether this will fall away or not. Finally they say:

I hope the hon the Minister will in his reply pay attention to some of those points.

Opposition to the abolition of Viskor was also forthcoming in the form of a very strong and motivated submission from the SA Deepsea Trawling Industry Association. They make a number of interesting points. I believe that it is worth mentioning some of these points for the record.

They say that almost all fishing nations have found that a specialist agency is needed to promote fisheries development and that the concept of the FDC has been admired so widely internationally that it has been used as a model for similar agencies in other countries such as India, New Zealand and Canada. They also say that fishing, like agriculture, is a specialist activity which deserves its own specialist independent structure to attend to the needs of the industry. They also talk about the plight of coastal communities and I think it is common cause on all sides of the House that the coastal communities have been in great difficulty in recent years because of the plight of the fishing industry. They make the point that Viskor has an unsurpassed record of service to these communities, assisting them and putting them on their feet again.

Many points are made regarding, inter alia, the foundation of the fishmeal industry by Viskor, the financial record of Viskor etc. Finally, they say that:

They concede that:

Their conclusion is:

So we have a picture of massive opposition to the concept of the abolition of Viskor.

Oh, come now!

We have the Treurnicht Commission underwriting the concept. We have the departmental intent as expressed in November 1985. We have the Diemont Commission, which was the most recent one. We have the industry association that I have just referred to and we also have the Viskor board itself. It actually appears to me as though the major motivating force for the abolition of Viskor as opposed to its reconstruction was in fact the late Minister Wiley. It is unfortunate that that motivating force has now departed and the new hon Minister is faced with this problem.

I think many of the points that have been made are very weighty points. I believe we are going to regret not having this specialist institution in the future. It may well fall to this hon Minister to have to remedy the vacuum that will be left by the disappearance of this body.

Another aspect of the background is the whole way in which this was handled, the fact that it was not referred to the Diemont Commission when it was the obvious thing to do, and the fact that the standing committee was told that it was more or less a consensus measure only to find out that it was actively opposed by the board of Viskor. In section 11.17 of the Diemont Report we read:

That is an extraordinary statement to have on record in a Government commission and we cannot ignore it.

This brings me to the Bill itself, and the clauses in the Bill. I have some important comments to make here. Clauses 3 and 9 regulate the passing of the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of Viskor, and clause 6 provides for the money and the revenue to be placed in a special fund. Clause 3(5) states that the investment of the corporation in Sea-fare Properties (Pty) Ltd is to abandoned. I am advised that that building is worth approximately R1,5 million, a substantial amount of money. I do not understand why that investment should simply be abandoned. It has a value; the funds that are attributable to the value of that building should be redirected for the specific benefit of the fishing industry. I ask the hon the Minister to respond on that point.

Clauses 3(3) and 3(4) provide that an initial amount of R7 million should be transferred from Viskor’s resources to the SBDC. That has been done and the balance is to “be distributed in the manner determined from time to time by the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, by notice in the Gazette". The balance over and above that initial R7 million is considerable. The Viskor board have been extremely prudent and successful in the investments they have made. As at 25 May 1987 the total value of their investment portfolio in four public companies was given at over R17,5 million. There is therefore a considerable amount of money at stake. I do not think that it is appropriate that this balance of money should simply be transferred to be distributed in a manner determined from time to time by the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Finance. I believe we should have had a specific earmarking for the fishing industry. The hon member for Walvis Bay said it was to be for the fishing industry and the hon the Minister said in his speech that to ensure its utilisation for the benefit of the fishing industry the money would be paid over to a certain fund. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the money being used for other purposes. I believe we need something more specific than we have at the moment to make sure that that money is to be used purely and simply for the benefit of the fishing industry. At this stage it is not specified. In terms of clause 3(4) at the moment the Government is able to redirect the money to be used for general revenue purposes if the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs concurs.

Clause 6 states that the SBDC shall deposit all its money in a special fund. Again it is fine that we should have a special fund but what guarantee is there that this will be used simply and solely for the benefit of the fishing industry? It should have been stipulated accordingly.

On the point of making sure that this money is used for the benefit of the fishing industry, I would like to quote again from the report of the Diemont Commission on page 74.

But what do we say in the White Paper?

They sum it up very well when they say in paragraph 11.16:

I think the hon the Minister and the department are no doubt genuine in providing an assurance that this money will be applied in the industry, but what cast-iron guarantees do we have in terms of the Bill that this will always remain the case? [Interjections.] Well, I do not know how cast-iron White Papers are.

Having set out that background and having asked the hon the Minister for those assurances, I can only conclude by saying that it is with the greatest reluctance that we will support this Bill. We do so only because it appears that the horse has already bolted. If it were possible to say that this decision could be reversed and Viskor be reconstructed we would most certainly be in favour of that.

I still believe that the demise of Viskor is going to leave a gap; I do not believe that it has been fully and properly motivated by the Government that we should not have a specialist agency such as Viskor was. I believe in the future we shall probably wish to come back to it. I have my doubts as to the ability of the SBDC to focus sufficient attention on the needs of the fishing industry. Without in any way detracting from the abilities and the skills of the SBDC, their skills are not directed particularly to the fishing industry.

On that basis, therefore, and with great reluctance because it appears that there is no alternative, we will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall react to the points mentioned by the hon member for Constantia in a moment. I want to begin by referring to the hon the Minister who is dealing with legislation in his new capacity as Minister for the first time, and we should like to congratulate him on his appointment.

This particular Ministry requires exceptional treatment because of the fact that there is constant conflict between the preservation of our resources on the one hand, and their development on the other. We know, however, from the background of the hon the Minister in respect of agriculture as well as the other Ministries, that he is very well equipped to reconcile these conflicting elements. We wish him every success in his position.

The standing committee unanimously accepted this Bill in its present form. There was some initial opposition, as the hon member for Constantia said, and there were a number of reservations among most members of the standing committee, especially because of the very exceptional position the FDC filled and the number of years in which it augmented and assisted these communities as well as industry. The hon member for Constantia is quite right. In 1980 the Treurnicht Commission found that the FDC should continue its activities, and the commission submitted a report to Parliament accordingly.

During recent years things have changed very rapidly. Certain functions, such as harbour development and scientific research, were taken away from the FDC. The most important aspect was the tremendous change as far as the financing of equipment and boats was concerned, something that had simply gone completely beyond the means of the FDC. In this connection I want to refer to the submission of the South African Deepsea Trawling Industry Association to the committee, in which this important point was made:

This is one of the most important aspects for which the FDC could not make provision.

The committee was aware of the Diemont Report and the very strong standpoint it adopted concerning the envisaged abolition of the FDC. The hon member also quoted from the report. That was what led to the committee’s requesting oral or written representations, but the only ones we received—and they arrived late—were representations from the SA Deepsea Trawling Fisheries.

The committee went further, however, and requested evidence itself. Mr Fick, the chairman of the board of the FDC, gave evidence before the committee in Pretoria. When he was specifically asked for an opinion on the continued existence of the FDC, he could not give the committee an answer. He did not ask for the continued existence of the FDC, despite the fact that the management had indicated in the previous annual report that they were in favour of its being retained. He did not adopt that standpoint when he gave evidence before the standing committee, however.

We went further. We also had Dr Vosloo of the Small Business Development Corporation there. He was questioned at length about all the members, and he satisfied them on the aspects about which the hon member for Constantia waxed lyrical today. We also questioned the then Minister about why he wanted this legislation.

With all due respect, I think the hon member for Constantia discredited the then Minister, the late Mr Wiley, today by talking as if this legislation had been forced on the industry. This was just as unfair as the Cape Times efforts to denigrate this man whom we all respected immensely. [Interjections.]

Now you are going overboard.

I am not going overboard at all.

The fact is, the then Minister was there and he gave his reasons in detail. It was unanimously decided …

What about the motion in the Standing Committee?

… in view of the evidence, that there was no other option.

It is true that at that stage some of the functions of the FDC had been performed by the Small Business Development Corporation acting as an agent for almost a year, but nevertheless, as far as the Diemont Report was concerned, we published a White Paper in which it was said that the FDC’s funds would be available—there is a fund—to the industry.

I must honestly say I was rather surprised to hear the standpoint of the hon member for Constantia here today. In this connection the Diemont Report makes the following strong recommendation:

†Hon members have the assurance of no less a person than Dr Vosloo, the hon the Minister and, in fact, this Bill itself.

*The side of the House should therefore like to support the Bill, especially since, in our opinion, it was the best thing for the fishing industry at the time.

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to the fine contribution made by the hon member for Uitenhage. He obviously has a thorough knowledge of this subject. His speech was very well prepared and in particular I appreciated his high level of debate and the very skilful way in which he differed with the PFP.

On behalf of this side of the House I should also like to pay tribute to the memory of Mr Wiley. Mr Wiley was an exceptional person. He not only had a remarkable love for these matters but was also a well-liked person. I also got to know him on the cricket field. His death is truly a loss to this House.

We should like to congratulate this hon Minister on his appointment and wish him everything of the best. As far as we are concerned, he is probably the best person to replace Mr Wiley, and we look forward to a very pleasant relationship with him. I think he will serve this cause with just as much dedication as his predecessor.

We are pleased to support this Bill, but I should like to refer to the problem which sometimes arises and which the hon member for Ventersdorp experienced in some degree. He was not a member of the standing committee and is now suffering the disadvantage of not having participated in those discussions and therefore not having been able to experience the spirit in which those debates were conducted. It is a pity that we did not decide earlier this year to discuss certain matters again, for the sake of the new members. That is the situation, but it remains a problem for new members like the hon member for Ventersdorp.

This brings me to the hon member for Walvis Bay. His criticism and insults introduced a sour note into a debate which was otherwise conducted very correctly and on a high level. He made two points which were, in my opinion, uncalled for. He referred to the fact that it was, according to him, apparently the first time in history that the Official Opposition had not had enough members here to compel a division. Secondly, he referred to disorder prevailing here today which, according to him, did not exist in the time of Sir De Villiers Graaff. I should like to react to his statement on disorder and ask upon whom it reflected.

Let me tell you.

Were his comments perhaps intended to reflect upon the Chair because it allowed disorder to prevail here—I think Mr Speaker should take cognisance of that—upon the opposition or perhaps upon the Government itself? I think his reference to disorder was actually a reflection on himself; for where is the hon member today? He is the Government’s main speaker on this subject, but he is not even present in the House.

He excused himself and has already caught a flight.

Good, I accept that excuse, but then he can consult Hansard to read what I have said in reaction to his speech.

Koos, you people must not fight.

Order! I should like to ask the hon member for Overvaal not to take too long explaining why he wants to react to the hon member’s speech.

I only need another two minutes for that.

To set the record straight, I should like to explain that the reason why so few of us are here—I think it is necessary to mention this—is that the indication during the previous Parliament was that Parliament would adjourn on 25 June. All we did was to arrange certain important meetings for today, and therefore there are only 10 hon members here today. Another reason why there are so few of us in the House today is that no members of the Cabinet are present. I ask hon members where they are. Today is no exception either; the members of the Cabinet are hardly ever here.

They are not interested. [Interjections.]

The NP are the ones who break their word, and that is why we could not compel a division today. The NP has, in any case, become a party of broken promises. That is how we have come to know them in the political sphere. [Interjections.]

If they accuse us of disorder, I should like to ask, besides pointing out that there are no Ministers here, how many times the bells have had to be rung in this House because not enough hon members of the governing party were present.

Order! I cannot allow the hon member for Overvaal to discuss this matter any further. He must return to the Bill.

I should just like to sum up by saying that we reject totally the accusation made by the hon main speaker of the NP concerning disorder and the fact that we were not here. This situation is the result of the NP’s breaking its word, and I reject his accusations with the contempt they deserve. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pity that in this fine debate we had to listen to the hon member for Overvaal’s explanation of why the Official Opposition cannot be the Official Opposition today. [Interjections.] I do not think we should pursue this matter and further pollute—if I may use the word—this debate with this kind of argument. [Interjections.]

I want to associate myself with the congratulations of previous speakers on our side and on the opposition side to the new hon Minister dealing with this legislation. I also want to wish him everything of the best. I also want to associate myself with the congratulations of other hon members to the board of directors and officials of Viskor for what they have achieved for the fishing industry since 1944.

It is interesting that it is one of the arguments in the memorandum explaining the phasing-out of Viskor that this is in accordance with the Government’s policy of deregulation and privatisation. The hon member for Ventersdorp said that he supported the Bill with rather mixed feelings, and I want to tell the hon the Minister that I also do so with rather mixed feelings. When I look at Viskor and the involvement of the State, I think the activities of Viskor’s officials and board of directors deserve a big compliment from this side of the House and the taxpayer, because the State initially invested just over R4 million in Viskor by way of capital, but later got back R2,4 million in dividends and almost R4 million in taxes, expressed in round figures. While Viskor was in existance the State therefore got back R6,3 million in the form of dividends and taxes from the investment it had made in Viskor.

The hon member for Constantia referred to the liquidation.

†He referred only to the investments listed on the JSE, but if one looks at the total assets of Viskor, one finds that they are liquidating in the region of R33 million. [Interjections.] While in existence, they lent something like R37 million to the industry and also contributed about R46 million to research.

*When one looks at this picture of Viskor, one feels it is a pity that such a fine organisation has to be phased out. I nevertheless want to point out at once, that I support the legislation and the motivation for it. I support the argument of the hon member for Uitenhage and the explanation given by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech; I support this fully.

I want to associate myself with one aspect of what the hon members for Constantia and Uitenhage said. They referred to the assets of Viskor and the assurance the hon the Minister gave that the assets would be transferred to the SBDC with the specific request that they be utilised for the fishing industry. Although this is not provided explicitly in the legislation, I think the hon the Minister’s assurance is enough to ensure that this will happen.

I want to ask the hon the Minister one question in this regard. The hon member for Uitenhage referred to this in different words, but it is a fact that 70% of the fishing fleet is 30 years old and older. This is actually an unhealthy state of affairs. There are a few big companies and a number of families operating the fishing boats that are involved in the fishing industry, and it therefore goes without saying that the capital needs of the people involved will differ. The big companies will need capital on a larger scale than the small operators. For that reason I want to know if the hon the Minister can tell me whether arrangements have been made with the IDC to make the necessary financing available for larger loans which obviously cannot be accommodated by the SBDC. I should like a reply to this.

I want to make a final appeal as regards the prescriptions and guidelines of the SBDC when they consider the loan applications of individuals in the fishing industry. It is a fact that the SBDC does not readily lend more than R750 000 and that a borrower must not have more than R1,2 million in assets, because he can then get assistance elsewhere. If one considers the replacement cost of fishing boats, which varies from R35 000 to R1,5 million and up to R3 million, one feels that it will probably be necessary for the SBDC to adjust its restrictive guidelines as regards loans to the fishing industry to ensure that individuals can fit into these financing guidelines and be accommodated.

These few remarks will suffice, and in conclusion I want to repeat my good wishes and thanks to the present chairman of Viskor and his board of directors for the work they have done over the years. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think it is a great pity that the hon member for Overvaal tried to bring this very pleasant debate, which was at a very high level, down to the level which normally typifies his debating. I feel this is a great pity.

Were you in the House when he discussed the fishing industry?

This entire department is so noble and honorable that it is actually a pity he participated in this debate. When he participated in this debate this morning, only 43% of the members of his party were present. The CP will have to explain to its supporters where its responsibility actually lies and whether it is prepared to accept the responsibility it is supposed to accept.

Then the hon member made a remark in passing about the hon member for Uitenhage saying that he had debated at a high level today, as if he did not do so every day. This is in contrast with other hon members whose names I do not want to mention, who are not always able to debate at a high level. It was also rather outrageous of the hon member to attack the respected hon member for Walvis Bay here before he had acquainted himself with the facts. [Interjections.]

I have nothing more to say to the hon member except to tell him that if I had to give a new colleague advice on how he should and should not behave in this House, I would advise him not to act like the hon member for Overvaal, then he will never go wrong.

All he does is kick his shoes to pieces.

Cheers!

It has been said here a number of times that we have great appreciation for the work Viskor has done over a period of approximately 42 years. I also want to mention the officials of Viskor, particularly in the oyster industry and in the research facet in the Southern Cape, many of whom were personal friends of mine. One of these officials, a personal friend of mine, passed away in Knysna just after the phasing-out started.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that at the moment only 42% of the members of the NP are present? [Interjections.]

Even if only 10% of us here, there will still be far more of us than of them.

Not in 1989.

I also want to take this opportunity to convey the thanks of our standing committee to the hon member for Uitenhage. For the information of our new hon Minister in particular I want to say that I have very great appreciation for the role played by our chairman specifically in the handling of the phasing out of Viskor. What was important to me was that he never tried to bulldoze this Bill through the standing committee. I make no secret of the fact that initially I also had my doubts about the phasing-out of Viskor, and I want to dwell on this briefly and also ask for certain assurances from the hon the Minister this morning.

We had many questions, so many that eventually, as the chairman pointed out to us, we also heard oral evidence in Pretoria. I want to tell the hon the Minister that my sceptical attitude was based on two facets in particular. The one concerned the oyster industry and the other the small fisherman, particularly the small fisherman of the West Coast, whom I know fairly well.

Anyone who has not yet made the acquaintance of the good fishermen of the West Coast, and particularly those from the area our hon Minister comes from—I am now referring to areas like Dwarskersbos, Tieties Bay, Paternoster, Lambert’s Bay, Velddrif and Elands Bay …

Are you talking about Sandy Bay?

I want to tell the hon member that they do not catch fish at Sandy Bay. [Interjections.] Any hon member who has not yet slept under cardboard boxes with these fishermen while they were waiting for the tide to turn so that they could go out in their boats to catch harders, or who has not yet eaten bokkems washed down with sweet wine for breakfast with these fishermen, does not know what lies in the hearts of the fishermen of the West Coast.

He does not know what heartburn is! [Interjections.]

They say the only sweets that do not give that hon member heartburn are Rennies. [Interjections.]

What I am also concerned about is the sentiments surrounding these fishermen, and we cannot allow them to be prejudiced in any way in the long term.

Other questions which immediately came to my mind when we initially had to think about the abolition of the Act, was what would happen in future with regard to the allocation of study grants to the children of the fishermen; what would happen specifically with regard to the purchase and repair of boats; what would happen to the staff, particularly those persons involved in research in this industry; what would happen to the creation of harbour facilities and housing for the fishermen, and I could carry on in this vein.

It was, however, gratifying to me when the gentlemen the hon the Minister mentioned here, appeared before the standing committee in Pretoria on 20 November of last year, and particularly when we got a reasonable assurance from Prof Vosloo with regard to the various facets I have just mentioned being taken care of.

When we look at the history of the SBDC since 1 April of last year, we find that up to and including November of last year 488 loans had been approved. I shall get back to the period up to the end of May of this year. I have been informed that up to and including November of last year 53 loans for the purchase and repair of 44 boats, totalling R5,2 million were approved. When we look at the figures and statistics from 1 April last year to 25 May this year we find that they have allocated 65 boat loans totalling R6,194 million. A total of R616 000 was also made available for 15 fishermen’s houses. Six development loans totalling R1,294 million have been allocated. In addition 86 loans totalling R8,104 million have been allocated. These development loans include guarantees for the fish processing industry and guarantees for mussel farming.

What I am trying to say is that it seems to me that the rate has increased under the SBDC compared with what it was under the old Viskor. It immediately seems to me as if the funds of the SBDC are rather depleted. This matter will have to receive attention to make provision when problems arise. We cannot allow the old point of departure that Viskor is the small fisherman’s land bank, to disappear entirely. Consequently one will definitely have to see to it that the SBDC can provide the necessary funds to the small fisherman.

I believe that in the long term it is inevitable that small undertakings will be able to benefit from their incorporation in the SBDC. At the start of the debate it was also mentioned by the hon member for Walvis Bay that the larger undertakings must as far as possible accept as their point of departure that they must stand on their own feet. When they cannot stand on their own feet they must apply to the Industrial Development Corporation for assistance. That must be our point of departure.

This morning I want to ask the hon the Minister one thing. We were initially told that the SBDC would be incorporating the experts in the fishing industry in its regional committees. As far as I know—I may be wrong—this has not yet been done because the old Viskor continues to exist until such times as matters have been finalised. We will definately have to give attention to making provision in these regional committees for experts, because as far as I know, at the moment there is not much expertise in the SBDC in this regard.

I am not going to dwell on the background of Viskor as regards its establishment etc; this was done fully by the hon member for Caledon. But we reached a stage where we had to ask ourselves what direction we wanted to move in as regards Viskor. Quo vadis, Viskor? The former Minister quite rightly decided that certain functions would have to be transferred to some or other organisation. I believe that the Minister considered all the options at that stage—who could do Viskor’s job and who could act as agents in future. I believe he eventually made the correct decision.

I want to say a few words about the oyster industry. It is important to note that the old Viskor initially started oyster farming, which eventually became an earner of foreign exchange for us. I want to refer in particular to the fact that Viskor subsequently involved private enterprise in this venture. I feel this is important. They did not keep everything to themselves, but they took the first opportunity that came their way to get private enterprise involved in the matter.

As far as the farms are concerned, they initially managed them in partnership with private enterprise. Their point of departure throughout was that they should not compete with private enterprise. That is why in 1982, specifically in Knysna, Viskor withdrew entirely from oyster farming. After that they were only involved in research, which was very important.

By 1 April of last year, as far as I know, they only had two Whites and two Coloureds still in their employ. I satisfied myself that they looked after those workers satisfactorily. One Coloured man was transferred to the Department of Forestry for example, and a friend of mine, who has now passed away, would have been transferred to the Cape Town office. Provision was also made for the pension benefits of these workers. As far as I know the staff on Thesens Island have already been transferred to the Parks Board, which will now exercise jurisdiction over the entire island.

What is important is that a former official of Viskor has in the interim started an oyster seed farm at Mossel Bay. This shows that they also allowed him to set up a private enterprise. Thus far, we have always imported the seed. His work is important, and I really hope he will succeed in getting the farm going.

At the moment there are three private oyster seed farms in Knysna, namely the Knysna Oyster Farm, the Garden Route Oyster Farm and the Southern Cape Oyster Farm. At the moment they are still handling the research aspect themselves. Nevertheless there is one shortcoming, namely market research with regard to outlets, specifically as regards the overseas market. At the moment only a small quantity is being exported to the East and Europe. Approximately 75% is marketed locally. As far as the oyster industry is concerned, I do feel we must try to work out a research package, having regard to its export potential.

Research must be undertaken to make the oysters cheaper. [Interjections.]

Yes, we can look into that too.

In conclusion I want to make one suggestion to the hon the Minister, namely that we should perhaps examine the restrictions with regard to the commercial exploitation of oysters along our coast, specifically between George and Knysna. Whereas a few years ago one could still remove oysters by hand, today there is a restriction of 25 per day, with a minimum size of 5,08 cm. As a result one really battles at the moment to find a single oyster, because the people who exploit the oysters commercially under permit, are simply exterminating them. My personal standpoint is that we must see whether we should not restrict these permits to a greater extent. Eventually we must make oysters more accessible to our public and to our tourists. That is where our salvation lies in future.

I am convinced that today, with this legislation, we are taking a step in the right direction. I should like to thank Mr Fick and his staff. All I am asking of the hon the Minister is that he treat our fishermen compassionately in future.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, the late Mr John Wiley. One thing one cannot say about John Wiley is that he was not enthusiastic about the job he had to do. He was an enthusiast, he strove to restore our marine resources and he worked with enthusiasm for the welfare of the fishing community. We want to honour him for that.

At the conclusion of this debate a few matters are very clear to me. Firstly it is clear that we are all taking leave of Viskor with a touch of sadness. It is almost the same as when I buy a new car; it is very difficult for me to take leave of the old one. One realises that one needs the new one, but one so readily holds on to the old one. That is precisely what is happening here. Almost every hon member who participated in this debate said that he was supporting this Bill, but with mixed feelings. Today I want to be very honest by saying that I too am piloting this legislation through with mixed feelings because I probably had most of the directors of Viskor in my constituency. Hon members will understand that these people also came to me and said: Look, please see to it that Viskor is not just simply phased out”, and I did that. I had long discussions with my predecessor, Mr Wiley, on the phasing out of Viskor. I shall return to that, with reference to the remark made by the hon member for Constantia.

Before I react to the speeches of hon members, I should like to convey my thanks to Viskor, as all the hon members have in fact done, and specifically to the present chairman and executive director. As one listened to the speeches that were made here and to the praise that was heaped on Viskor, one realised that this organisation fulfilled a very important function, and that in time to come, until it had finally been phased out, it would have to fulfil an important function in regard to the application of the funds. Its task is not yet complete. We thank Mr Fick, all the previous chairmen, the directors and the officials for their service. We also want to thank them for their last annual report. It is an interesting source of information on the industry.

The phasing-out of Viskor resulted from an actual situation, ie that it had been determined that the capital needs of the industry were far beyond the capabilities of Viskor. Secondly, it was also the result of our changed circumstances, as the hon member for Uitenhage also stated correctly. There can be no doubt that Viskor was right for its time. It was extremely right for its time. It did wonderful work, but due to the development of the SBDC a measure of overlapping has arisen between the financing possibilities of Viskor and those of the SBDC. The hon member for George made the admirable remark that the small fisherman regarded Viskor as the Land Bank of the fisherman. It is an apt remark. This was the case, but a measure of duplication definitely arose with the development of the SBDC. It is certainly also our goal to bring about the greatest possible measure of rationalisation in our administration.

†After the Commission for Administration had recognised the limitations of Viskor, they addressed the future role of Viskor, and it was then established, firstly, that the financing function of Viskor could just as well be carried out by the Small Business Development Corporation in conjunction with the Industrial Development Corporation.

*I shall return to the role of the I D C when I respond to the hon member for Caledon.

†Secondly, it was established that the research function should be transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs; and thirdly, the technical functions with regard to fishing harbours should also be transferred to this department.

*After the Commission for Administration made these observations, it recommended to the Cabinet that an in-depth investigation should be instituted into the role of Viskor. The Cabinet accepted this recommendation in 1985.

†In 1985 the Cabinet had already decided that the abolition of Viskor should be discussed with the directors of Viskor.

*This is not simply a sudden whim of the Government.

The hon member for Constantia said that this was a sudden whim on the part of the hon the Minister.

He said that, but that was not the case. I shall come back to this hon member. It was not a sudden whim on the part of Minister Wiley. There was a long run-up to this process.

†As could be expected, when the whole matter was referred to the directors of Viskor they adopted a subjective attitude. That is quite natural. I will also refer to the Diemont Commission in replying the hon member for Constantia. I think the Diemont Commission also expressed a rather subjective opinion on the whole matter.

*I shall tell hon members why. I asked the department if they regarded the entire matter concerning the phasing-out of Viskor as part of the terms of reference of the Diemont Commission. Their answer was no. The Diemont Commission was at liberty to take note of what had already been reported in the previous annual report of Viskor, that of 1985, namely that discussions and negotiations were in progress and that the Commission for Administration was examining the phasing-out of Viskor.

†We can have a very long debate on whether it was part and parcel of the terms of reference of the Diemont Commission to look into the whole Viskor situation. The opinion of my department is that it was not so very difficult for me to judge.

*Perhaps the hon member has a point. I shall concede that. However, what is more important is that in spite of the objections of the Diemont Commission, of the deep-sea fishing community, of individual members and of myself, after one was informed about the whole situation one realised that however difficult it may be for us to take leave of Viskor, the facts in favour of the phasing-out of Viskor were so overwhelming that everyone would accept it later on. I have recently approached those directors who approached me in the past to discuss the phasing-out of Viskor with my predecessor and they have conceded that the facts are overwhelming and that they simply have to accept it. I also spoke to the Deep-sea Trawling Association and they also said that they would simply have to accept it.

†Finally the Diemont Commission accepted it, albeit reluctantly.

*The Government accepted it in its White Paper, in which it states very clearly that if Viskor is eliminated, certain things will have to be done. The Government states that it accepts the recommendation of the Diemont Commission. What was the Diemont Commission’s recommendation? Let us examine recommendation 11.27.4 in the White Paper, and I quote:

That was the recommendation. The Government states that it—

Hon members can therefore see that the Government itself had reservations about the phasing-out of Viskor, ie that if Viskor were phased out the funds would have to be used for the fishing industry. Today I want to give hon members in this House the assurance that where the application of the funds are entrusted to the discretion of the Minister I shall apply this recommendation very strictly and I shall see to it that all the money that becomes available is used in the interest of the fishing industry.

I now want to refer briefly to the hon members who participated in the debate. The hon member for Ventersdorp had a difficult task. Both our jobs were made difficult by the fact that we were not on the standing committee and that we had to acquire all the pearls of wisdom we used here today at a later stage. I thank the hon member for his and his party’s support for the legislation. He asked today that the expertise that exists today should not be lost. I want to give him the assurance that this will not happen. The expertise that exists amongst the officials of Viskor, has already been transferred to the SBDC, and also to the Department of Sea Fisheries. No expertise will be lost.

The hon member for Walvis Bay apologised for the fact that he could not attend the rest of the debate. I am sorry that the hon member for Overvaal is not here either, because I wanted to deal with their speeches at the same time. The hon member for Walvis Bay acted with great dignity, as befits a good front-bencher. I think it befits front-benchers in this House to act with perhaps a little more dignity than the men in the middle and the back benches. The hon member for Walvis Bay reprimanded and corrected the Official Opposition with great dignity.

That is how it should be.

Yes, he corrected them very politely on a little mistake that crept into their organisation. He was neither aggressive nor bitter about it. I am sorry that the hon member for Overvaal overreacted to this courteous little reprimand from the hon member for Walvis Bay.

He has probably gone hunting. [Interjections.]

The hon Whip informs me that the hon member for Overvaal apologised for not being able to be here, and I accept it. The hon member for Walvis Bay like other hon members also, paid tribute to my predecessor. Actually he gave the House the assurance that no one would be harmed in this process. He referred to the large number of loans that have already been given by the SBDC. He also mentioned something that was very important to me.

The hon member for Walvis Bay pointed out problems that arose in the Walvis Bay harbour after the function of Viskor had already been transferred. He also mentioned the efficient way in which those problems were dealt with. Therefore, particularly with reference to this incident, I have no doubt that the problems of the fishing industry will continue to be dealt with adequately. He argued in favour of research on aquaculture. This is a matter that is close to my heart. I have also held discussions with international experts on this question of aquaculture. I do hope it will develop into a very important industry in South Africa—an industry that will to a great extent be able to contribute to the protein requirements of our country. I see the hon member who talks about these matters so often, is nodding his head.

†Next, Sir, I should like to refer to the hon member for Constantia. I must thank the hon member for his kind words in relation to my appointment as successor to the late Mr John Wiley. I also want to express my appreciation of the tribute the hon member paid to the chairman of the standing committee.

I believe the hon member for Constantia is to a certain extent justified in asking the questions he did. I am not perturbed about that at all.

*That is all I ask. The hon member also asked these questions on the standing committee as well, and received answers. I just want to ask him to accept matters as they stand now. However, it seems to me the hon member accepts the realities with difficulty.

I merely want to have it recorded in Hansard.

Good! I have no objection to the hon member putting questions. However, having asked his questions and having received replies to them on the standing committee and, on top of that having received the assurances that I gave him today, I ask him to accept it. Is the hon member prepared to accept the assurances that I am giving him?

Yes, I accept them. However, we shall keep an eye on matters.

Very well. [Interjections.]

†In relation to one particular aspect, Sir, the hon member for Constantia is definitely wrong. I want to place that on record. Mr Wiley was not the motivating force as far as this matter is concerned.

*Mr Wiley was not the motivator of this. I can give the hon member that assurance. I often held discussions with him on this. He himself had his reservations about it. He was not certain that it was in fact the correct thing to do. However, he allowed himself to be guided by the findings of the Commission for Administration, which I presented to the hon members earlier. He also took note of the realities with which he had to deal. I therefore think it is a little unfair to allege that the abolition of Viskor is solely the result of the actions and decisions of the former Minister.

†I believe, Sir, that if the hon member for Constantia would refer to the remaining sections of the principal Act, he would see that there is sufficient reason to be satisfied that the whole industry will be served well.

*What remains now that Viskor has disappeared? In the principal Act there are still a whole number of provisions that make provision for adequate service to the fishing industry.

The hon member for Constantia also wanted to know what was going to become of Seafare Properties and what the value of the building was. It is being placed in the ownership of the State. After we have pasted the legislation under discussion, we shall then, in terms of the mandate in this material, pay careful attention to how we deal with these assets. If this specific property—the building itself—could be adequately used in the interest of the industry, we shall ensure that that happens. At the moment it does not seem to be the case, but we shall look at it closely. Any funds that we may receive from the sale of that property, will be used in the interest of the fishing industry. The hon member for Constantia may rest assured of that.

In the same fund as under clause 6?

Yes, under clause 6.

As far as the application of the money is concerned, the Government will act in terms of its White Paper. [Interjections.] The hon member asks what the value of a White Paper is. It is an undertaking given by the Government. If a White Paper is worth nothing, no undertaking is worth anything at all. Today I give the hon member this undertaking.

Thank you.

The hon member for Uitenhage also conveyed his congratulations to me, and I want to thank him for that. We want to pay tribute to him as chairman of the standing committee and congratulate him on being appointed to the post once more. He did important work, and I want to thank him very much for that as well as for the efficient way in which he replied to various points of debate.

I have finished with the hon member for Overvaal; he did not really mean to participate in the debate.

I also want to thank the hon member for Caledon for his fine words. He also said that he was sorry to bid farewell to such a fine organisation. He also raised a very important matter.

This matter, the question of the age of our fishing fleet, causes me great concern. Seventy percent of the boats of the fishing fleet that are older than the acceptable age for fishing boats. I have set it as my goal to see—here are hon members who are nodding their heads who can bear witness to the fact that I am already working on this—what we can do to renew our fishing fleet. I am told that when one asks for tenders for one of the big trawlers these days, the quotations are approximately $15 million to $20 million. That is an enormous amount that will have to be spent annually on replacing our fishing fleet. Most countries in the world subsidise their fishing fleets in one way or another.

The hon member for Caledon also asked about the contribution of the IDC, and I want to tell him that they in any case have always been accessible to industries related to the fishing industry. We should perhaps also hold discussions with the IDC in regard to the establishment of a shipbuilding industry in South Africa and the replacement of the boats of our fishing fleet. I want to thank the hon member for Caledon for his contribution.

The hon member for George said that he had had such fine friends amongst the officials who worked in the oyster industry. It is perhaps from eating oysters that he looks so fit. [Interjections.] We shall take good care of the oyster industry, which is actually an important new industry in South Africa. We shall also take good care of the small fishermen of the West Coast.

When I look around me, I do not think that there is anyone in the House who can talk with more authority about the fishermen and the fish industry of the West Coast than I can. I was born on the West Coast and I have spent much of my life there. I grew up in the time when we did not eat stockfish or kingklip, but bokkems, snoek, maasbankers and galjoen. [Interjections.] Doctors now tell me that they have established that there are few things that are as good for one’s heart as galjoen oil. [Interjections.] I see the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is looking at me in a funny way. It is said that galjoen oil is excellent for people who have problems with high cholesterol etc. I have wondered whether I should not recommend to the department that people on presenting a doctor’s prescription, should be given permits to catch galjoen.

I agree with the hon member for George that we should look after our small fishing communities. I often discussed this with my predecessor. It does not help only to pay attention to the large fishing industries, that are of course of great economic value. The fishing industry is a very important industry. However, we should also pay attention to the small fishing communities, those unique communities that are so attractive to tourists. I completely agree with the hon member for George.

The hon member referred to the work of the standing committee and the achievements of the SBDC. I wanted to mention this to hon members, but I am pleased that the hon member has done so already. He also asked that we should see to it that the expertise is not lost, that we should transfer it. We are in the process of doing this. Research in different spheres is important; research on the fishing industry is complex and expensive, but it is of the utmost importance if we want to protect our fishing resources in the future. We shall have to spend more money on fisheries and marine research.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This is the first occasion that I have had to move the Second Reading of a Bill, and it is indeed an honour to have the opportunity of doing so in this House.

Before I come to the details of the Bill, I would like to express my thanks, as the former chairman of our Standing Committee on Transport Affairs, to hon members of this House who served with me on that committee, for the co-operation and support that I have had over the past few years. No doubt all these hon members will be able to testify that this standing committee has had a very fine period of co-operation. I think a high degree of goodwill has existed and still exists amongst those hon members who serve on it. When it came to this particular Bill, we had quite a number of meetings to try to sort out the problems that we had with it, but at no stage can I say that the hon members making their contributions made them in anything but a spirit of goodwill and of trying to help to find a transport policy in South Africa which would be of assistance to every sector of this industry in the country. This I can testify to. I thus pay tribute to those who served on this committee. If they are still serving—and I know that there are some of them—I hope that they will be able to continue in that same vein.

The Transport Advisory Council Bill is a first and very important step with regard to one of the four policy areas upon which the functions of the National Transport Policy Study were focussed, namely the rationalisation of the organisational structure of the South African Transport Services administration.

The Bill under discussion and this particular council will play a major role in the organisational structure which is designed to accommodate recent developments under the new constitutional dispensation and will provide for ongoing developments in the freight and passenger transport policy areas. Later on when I have more to say about a few clauses in this Bill, I hope to highlight the particular point I have just made.

The National Transport Policy Study was launched in the light of an urgent need to rationalise and update the current fragmented transport policies which until now have formed the basis for the respective Acts regulating transport and which were not entirely in line with either the transport needs of the country or our national economic goals. It was also envisaged that a policy formulation body be established which would represent all parties directly or indirectly involved in transport. I have already indicated that the establishment of this particular advisory council will be the first step in trying to deregulate and also to help us privatise transport, something which we have heard of such a lot recently in this country.

The importance of participation in the transport policy process need not be emphasised. Participation can be facilitated by various procedures. Consultations, investigation and research are three aspects I would like to emphasise as they are amongst the most important. The consultative process is especially valuable where decision-making has a high policy content. These processes expand the decision-makers’ sources of information and provide affected individuals with an opportunity to participate by attempting to influence a decision.

A major component of the Government’s economic policy is its encouragement of the private sector to participate more actively than ever before in the implementation of economic development policies and the economic system in general.

The Transport Advisory Council is designed to accommodate these policy considerations regarding private sector participation. It is also anticipated that this body will provide an effective forum for consultation between the private and the public sector and thus provide ample information upon which both sectors together can make transport policy recommendations to the hon the Minister and to Parliament.

The inherent functions of this council provide sufficient reason for Parliament to approve the immediate establishment of such a body. The council will advise the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs on all aspects of transport policy as it pertains to international, national, regional and modal affairs, whilst its members will represent the interests of all population groups and all users, operators and other participants in transport, giving due regard to passenger and freight transport, the various modes and various other interests in transport, which may crop up.

If one looks at the number of clauses under discussion, one could study the most important one, and that is the composition of the council. If one looks at this, one sees that there is almost no interested party affected by transport, related to transport, or with an interest in transport, that we are not prepared to give ample representation on this particular council.

I think it also gives one the opportunity of finally dealing with the sort of accusation that one often hears, namely that the private sector is not in a position to make adequate representations to the Government and to the hon the Minister. In the composition of this particular council, the private sector has the major say. Make no mistake about that particular issue. One also cannot say that the council will be a puppet of the Government. The appointees to be nominated by the Government are fewer in number than those to be appointed by the private sector. This therefore will not be a body of which it can be said that they will be acting as the Government requires them to do.

It is really the private sector which will have an opportunity of talking in the true sense of the word. To my mind, therefore, this is the most important factor. One can look at the ratio between the members appointed by the public and private sectors. One will find that the public sector has 42,5% and the private sector 57,5% of the representation on this particular body. It is, therefore, dominated by the private sector.

One must look too at the wide range of interests to which we are prepared to give representation on this particular body, such as agriculture, mining, aviation, commerce and industry, road transportation and the shipping industry. Even employees and ordinary motorists are involved. So is the tourist industry. All of them will have representation on this body.

The other interesting point here is that the interests of all the population groups in South Africa will be adequately catered for. There is no question of ethnicity; there is no question of any form of discrimination with regard to the value of the appointee. The aptitude and suitability of the appointee are the only criteria that will apply. It is merit which will be taken into account, and not the racial origin of the person involved.

I am making these few important points in order to illustrate that this body will really assist in helping us to determine a policy and to advise the Government. This will be in the interests of the transport industry in South Africa, and in the interests of all our population groups.

*I just thought I would explain these few points in more detail. There are probably other hon members who can do so more thoroughly, but I think that is another aspect of very great importance.

†We should also look at the clause dealing with the management committee which will take over the work of the council when it is not meeting. That is actually a new clause which the standing committee brought forward but I also think it will greatly assist the workings and operation of this particular council.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, there are obviously considerable advantages to establishing a specialised advisory body in the Government sector to give advice on industries which are as diverse as the transport industry. It is unthinkable that a single Minister or another functionary in a specific department can take it upon himself to consult all the different subdivisions of a specific industry, evaluate the information himself and adjust and formulate policy from time to time. Such an advisory body can rise to relatively quicker and more resourceful long-term and short-term planning, and this will then obviously lead to cost-effectiveness.

In South Africa in particular there are various factors which make an advisory body of some or other kind in the transport industry essential. Factors which play a role in changing circumstances from day to day and which also require an adjustment in transport policy, are inter alia township development, urbanisation, depopulation and the establishment of industries. These are but a few examples. In so far as clause 10 of the Bill therefore makes provision for the advisory function of this council which is being envisaged, and the research and other groundwork which is of necessity related to this, such a Bill deserves support.

The Bill also consolidates the functions of the National Marine Advisory Council, the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee and the South African Shipping Board in the Transport Advisory Council, as is apparent from clause 14. This should have a beneficial effect because it concentrates the overall planning of all aspects of transport in a single body. There can therefore now be better coordination between the different components of transport. This in turn means that the all-important cost effectiveness is encouraged.

For the sake of convenience, while I am dealing with clause 14, I want to refer briefly to clause 15(b) on the same page. It amends section 6 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, and reads as follows:

Section 6(8) of the Merchant Shipping Act reads as follows:

If one deletes the words indicated in clause 15(b), one finds that in what remains of the existing subsection the word “van” appears twice in succession in the Afrikaans text. This plays no role grammatically and should not be there. If it is left there, it will be an indication of an oversight on the part of the legislature of which this House is of course a part. The same problem occurs in section 6(9). Again the word “van” will appear twice in succession in the Afrikaans text after the amendment has been made.

I checked the English text and it is clear that this technical problem does not occur there. As regards the Afrikaans text I want to recommend that this Bill should not go through in its present form without provision being made for the deletion of the second “van” where it appears in the relevant subsections of the Afrikaans text.

There are further technical aspects in the Bill which are unacceptable because they seriously hamper the interpretation of the Act. Clause 3(1) provides that the council shall consist of 40 members, appointed by the Minister, of whom, in terms of paragraph (j), “one shall be a person nominated by the National Road Safety Council”.

In this clause there is therefore a definite reference to a single representative in the proposed Transport Advisory Council. In clause 3(2) the following appears:

I should like to emphasize the words “appointees”, “persons” and “their”. It is quite clear that in this clause, which refers back to clause 3(1)(j), reference is now being made to more than one person, and this cannot be the case, because in clause 3(1)(j) a single representative is referred to. This is therefore a contradiction arising out of the crossreference in the two clauses.

Another aspect which crops up in this regard is that the same mistake is repeated in clause 3(3)(a), which reads as follows:

Yet again reference is made here to more than one person, while clause 3(1)(j) clearly refers to only one person. [Interjections.] The English text contains precisely the same errors, and it is therefore also necessary to amend that text before the relevant Bill will be technically correct.

I now want to refer to clause 5(1)(e) which reads as follows:

I cannot hear.

I shall speak a little louder.

I mentioned yesterday in other debates that this expression “an office of profit under the Republic” is an archaic expression. It is an expression which, as far as I could ascertain, originated in the wording of similar statutory provisions dating from the time when South Africa was still under British rule constitutionally and it was provided that a person held “an office of profit under the Crown”. The expression “an office of profit under the Republic” was then used in legislation without any rhyme or reason after the country became a Republic without due regard to the fact that grammatically and constitutionally it was actually a strange phrase to use.

In the Constitutional Laws Amendment Bill, which was discussed yesterday, the more preferable phrase, “an office of profit in the service of the State” was used. I very strongly recommend that this phrase be used in preference to the phrase being used in the relevant Bill, because this can only lead to a better interpretation of the Act and an easier application of its provisions in this connection.

I have another point of criticism regarding the Bill. Clause 3(1)(g) makes provision for the appointment of representatives of the provinces by the Administrator of each province, but does not lay down any criteria in terms of which he must appoint these representatives. It does not make provision either for election or for advice to the relevant Administrator by the relevant provincial authority before the appointment of a representative by the Administrator in terms of this clause. On that basis it is unacceptable to us.

In the first place we should like to see appointments strictly on the basis of expertise so that the persons can make a really significant contribution, and in the second place we would like to see democracy maintained, in the sense that provision is at least made for the relevant provincial authority to make a recommendation to the Administrator in this regard. Furthermore, my party is opposed to the structuring of the provincial authorities at the moment, which in our opinion assumes that there is a curtailment of democracy. We are therefore opposed to this specific provision.

Unfortunately the Bill clearly contemplates the composition of the advisory council on a multiracial basis, as appears from inter alia clauses 3(1)(g), 3(h)(ii), 3(k)(viii), and probably also 3(k)(xii). The Conservative Party’s standpoint on total self-determination for all peoples, particularly in government bodies, is well-known. As a result of this aspect we cannot therefore support the Bill.

In summary I want to say that in spite of the commendability of advisory bodies—we agree entirely with this—for the reasons I have given, we can unfortunately not support the relevant Bill.

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the linguistic elucidation of the Bill. I hope it is linguistically correct now. Let us come back to the contents of the Bill, however.

I merely want to tell the hon member for Roodepoort that I think it was Webster, the American statesman, who said: “There is nothing as powerful as truth, and often nothing as strange.” This Bill is being opposed for the umpteenth time—not because of its contents, but because of the composition of the transport advisory council. I want to tell the hon member that the CP member who served on the standing committee, Mr Ferdie van Heerden, the former member for De Aar, held the same standpoint. Although he supported the Bill, he also withdrew his support because according to him, it would have been a racially mixed body.

I should like to come back to the contents of the Bill. In my opinion it is important to look at the establishment of the transport advisory council. The transport advisory council represents the first step on the long course to a new South African transport policy. At this stage the South African transport policy is fragmented. It consists of a large number of laws which do not really have much to do with one another, each of which is an attempt to address one specific problem in transport affairs.

I am sorry that the hon member for Roodepoort did not put his standpoint on the broad aspect of a transport policy. Secondly I am sorry that the hon member did not state the CP’s view in connection with the important phase the transport sector in South Africa is entering.

We have heard numerous times how the hon members of the CP adopted certain standpoints against deregulation, privatisation and associated matters.

Socialists!

The former member for Nigel came out very strongly against privatisation and deregulation. We should like to know from the new hon members what their standpoint is, because apparently the CP’s standpoints on certain aspects have changed since the election. This may also be the influence of the AWB. I do not know whether or not that is the case, but nevertheless there is a change in standpoint, and I should like to know what their standpoint in this connection is. [Interjections.]

The contents of this Bill provide for the establishment of a new transport advisory council. I am sorry the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central cannot be here. I think the hon member for Bryanston will deal with the Bill. I want to request the hon member for Bryanston immediately to withdraw the amendment they proposed in respect of clause 3 of the Bill, even before we get to the Committee Stage.

We are going to withdraw it.

The hon member says they are going to withdraw it. I want to thank him, because it would put that party in an embarrassing position. The amendment they want to withdraw was proposed in the standing committee by the PFP. Apparently the PFP does not always know what its left and right hands are doing. [Interjections.] The hon member will see what we mean when we get to that point. I am pleased that he is going to withdraw the amendment, because it would create an anomaly in the legislation if this clause, which was proposed by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, was passed.

The standing committee discussed this Bill for a very long time. The standing committee discussed this Bill very thoroughly. Once they had received the memorandum, they listened for a very long time to various people who gave oral evidence before the standing committee.

Hon members will remember that this legislation commenced with the recommendations of the National Transport Commission, which were made available to us on a confidential basis before being tabled here, merely so that we could take cognisance of why the recommendations of the National Transport Commission differed from the provisions in the Act. The National Transport Commission’s study proposed a transport advisory council of 15 members. I think that under certain circumstances this would be a very good recommendation.

There are two important points that we have to try to point out here, however. The first is that it is an advisory council. People so easily think that this council is going to prescribe policy to the Minister. There was a great deal of opposition to the second point, and as chairman of the standing committee, I received telexes about this inter alia this week requesting that we consider the matter once again. It is high time that we replied to the question, and had the reply recorded in Hansard, as to why the hon the State President does not appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman. We debated this point for a long time. At the same time as we began debating this measure in the standing committee, legislation was passed by this Parliament to change the powers of the hon the State President in such a way that he could cut down on certain red tape on the one hand, and could transfer some of the powers to the Cabinet Ministers he appointed on the other. The idea was that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs could appoint these people. I do not think it is essential that the hon the State President appoint these people. For reasons of status, perhaps it is a good thing for the hon the State President to appoint them. I do not doubt that. Who advises this committee, however? The committee does not advise the hon the State President. The advisory council which is being established, advises the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the two departments that fall under him on policy and policy aspects. That is why it is essential in my opinion that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs appoint the chairman and vice-chairman he wanted to advise him and to serve on the council.

I come back to the composition of 38 members proposed in the legislation by the Department of Transport Affairs. The standing committee thought fit, after reaching consensus, to extend this to 40 members. I think it is essential that since the function of this committee is mainly an advisory one, it should be as representative as possible. This committee has to cover a large field and serve a lot of interest groups. In the second place, it follows that the majority—approximately 23 to 25—of these members will come from the private sector. I think the principle stated as an objective by all the memoranda and evidence that was submitted, viz that the government sector be in the complete minority as against the private sector which is by far in the majority, was complied with.

In studying the recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study, the clear conclusion was reached that the hon the Minister would be placed in an unenviable position in that he would have to nominate the appropriate organisations whereas only 15 could be nominated. The hon the Minister will then also have to appoint the people and receive recommendations about this from the organisations. I think the new way is much better. The legislation deviates from the National Tansport Policy Study, which now has 40 members and in which the organisations have been nominated. The organisations will recommend people, and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs will make up his transport advisory council from these recommendations, so that we can all co-operate in promoting the interests of transport.

In my opinion we are obviating two important problems with those new compositions. In the first place the hon the Minister is no longer being placed in the impossible position of having to choose whom he wants to appoint. That function is being transferred to the respective organisations which will nominate people.

Secondly I am convinced that this will force the organisations to interpret their role in this advisory council in the correct way. I do not think that anyone who maintains in future that he had no say in the matter, can blame the Government or the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs for that. In that case we should have to go back and see which organisation was involved and which people they had nominated in that organisation. I think the new tendency that is being consolidated in the transport advisory council, and in which we have moved away from the recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study, completely obviates this problem which elicited a lot of criticism in the past.

While I am on the subject, I also want to say that although there are a number of organisations which are going to disappear when the transport advisory council is established, and there are organisations which are going to disappear in the medium term, such as the National Transport Commission and the road transportation boards, I should like to convey our sincere thanks at this early stage to all the people who served in these organisations over many years. I think those people played their part and made their contribution to developing the transport sector, which contributes approximately 9% of the gross national product today, and we on this side of the House want to convey our sincere thanks to them.

As is the case with everything in life, we have reached the stage at which renewal is necessary in this country, not only on the constitutional level, but also in various associated spheres of which transport is one. This aspect is part and parcel of that necessity, as is the whole aspect of a greater say by the private sector as well as the devolution of power.

That is why we feel it is a good thing to effect a change in transport affairs at this stage by establishing the transport advisory council. As I have said, the transport advisory council is the initial stage of the new transport policy.

We have a further problem, however, and I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister something. I would appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister could tell us in his reply when we shall reach the second and third stages at which we shall really begin to implement the whole new transport policy, because there are a number of new measures resulting from the National Transport Policy Study, that have to be passed.

The most important questions in this connection concern what will happen to the South African Transport Services; what will happen to the permit system; what will happen to the subsidy system; and, most important, what will happen to the cross-subsidisation. In adding all those matters together, one important aspect remains. Hopefully the hon the Minister will give us an insight into it in his reply.

On which date do the hon the Minister and his department envisage the possibility that the new laws of the National Transport Policy Study will be implemented, and how long does the hon the Minister envisage it will take to solve the above-mentioned problems by implementing the new South African transport policy?

I find it very interesting that the South African transport sector was very enthusiastic in the beginning. Lately we have been getting the impression in the standing committee, however, that some of these bodies that were so enthusiastic before, are back-pedalling. It is interesting that privatisation and deregulation will not require sacrifices from the Government only.

We must realise that deregulation has advantages and disadvantages for everyone in the transport sector. It is going to be detrimental to some of those that belong to the Government, but it will also have certain advantages. At the same time, however, it will have certain advantages and disadvantages for the private sector.

We are getting a certain impression from those people who, together, are ultimately going to take the decisions on what the transport policy of South Africa will involve. There are people who were initially enthusiastic, but reversed their position because they were dissatisfied, and began to lay down conditions for the implementation of the new transport policy.

I want to make a request to the hon the Deputy Minister that we adhere more strictly to the rules that were spelt out in the National Transport Policy Study and in the White Paper on transport. I do not think we should start back-pedalling and postponing things year after year. The former Minister of Transport Affairs, Minister Hendrik Schoeman, made certain promises which were to have been realised over a period of time. I think that hon Minister was correct when he made those promises. In the meantime the period he envisaged has expired, however, and there are a number of questions from the public about when we shall reach the stage the Minister envisaged. I think it is desirable to reach that stage as soon as possible and to deal with it in a responsible way.

In conclusion I want to deal with certain aspects of the legislation itself. Basically the Bill consists of two very important clauses, apart from the explanation about the members. I have said that the members come mainly from the private sector, which I think is a good thing because these are the people who want to have a say with the hon the Minister. I want to say something to the appointed transport advisory council, and that is that the emphasis must be on the word “advice”. Ultimately policy will still be made by the hon the Minister, the Cabinet and the department. I think we must make this matter very clear at a very early stage to everyone who is going to participate in this discussion about the composition and the function of this council. The emphasis of this council is on advice and the Government of the day will continue to prescribe policy.

As far as the composition of that council is concerned, the standing committee decided to appoint a management committee so that decisions could be taken much more quickly than was anticipated earlier in the Act. The important point is to ensure that if the transport advisory council advises the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the department, this advice is implemented as soon as possible. It is important that problem areas be eliminated as soon as possible. That is why a certain change was made by clause 7, specifically providing for the accommodation of that acceleration of recommendations.

Another very important clause is the one that provides for the appointment of subcommittees. I am convinced that this advisory council will work, because provision is being made for subcommittees which consist not only of members, but also of experts. When these subcommittees sit, it is possible under certain conditions for them to co-opt experts to help them to accelerate and facilitate the process, and to advise the Government as soon as possible so that the Government can take action.

One further important point follows, viz that these people do not have the right to vote. Any possible criticism, therefore, that this is a way of accommodating more people than the legislation provides for, does not hold water. There are 40 members who have the right to vote and those 40 members ensure that the legislation will be applied under all conditions. There is a possibility, however, that if there are not enough experts among those 40 members, they can be replaced by other experts who can make a contribution to assist us with the problem in the short term.

One important point remains in enabling this committee to do its work. I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that a body is established in the department to provide information. No committee can function without information. I think the time is ripe to establish a directorate or department—I do not know what we should call it—in the Department of Transport Affairs, which will specialise in collecting information and …

Order! Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon member in order to suspend the business of the House.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have reason to believe that the motion I want to submit will be quite popular.

Hear, hear!

Before I do that, I should like to remind hon members that this House decided that after adjourning today, we shall meet again on 27 July.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Order! Before we adjourn the House, I should like to wish each hon member a pleasant recess and a safe return, with all of them filled with renewed zeal.

And the same to you, Sir.

Question agreed to.