as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development, dated 5 October 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! Before I ask the Secretary to read the first Order of the Day there is a matter I want to give attention to. Yesterday during the debate on the report of the President’s Council in connection with the Group Areas Act, the words “politically dishonest” and “political dishonesty” were used several times.

One of the criteria used to determine whether an expression is unparliamentary is inter alia the ascribing of improper, dishonest or false motives to an hon member or hon members of Parliament. Having read through the speeches in which the relevant expressions were used yesterday, I have come to the conclusion that the words were unparliamentary in the context in which they were used. I therefore request the hon member for Losberg and the hon member for Turffontein to withdraw the words “politically dishonest” and “political dishonesty”.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr Speaker, may I give an explanation? I am quite prepared to withdraw the words, but I went through my speech and I merely used them in reaction to the speech made by the hon member for Losberg. I referred to the arguments he raised and then referred to their political dishonesty. I withdraw these words.

Order! I accept the hon member’s bona fides in this regard and I thank him for withdrawing the words.

Mr Chairman, I move:

To begin with I should like to express my sincere thanks to the hon members who formed part of the Standing Committee on Education which dealt with this Bill and recommended it to the three Houses of Parliament, for their contribution in this regard.

The Bill now before Parliament has various objects of a diverse nature. I shall now proceed to deal with the most important clauses in the Bill.

First of all, the Bill amends the Acts relating to the University of Zululand, the University of the North, the Medical University of Southern Africa and the Vista University, in order to limit to two the number of vicerectors who may serve on the councils of the relevant universities. This is being done on the recommendation of the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council (UTAC) for the purpose of preventing these persons, who together with the rector are officials of the council, from forming a power block which can disturb the balance in university councils.

The Medical University of Southern Africa Act, 1976 is further amended so that the Minister may establish a nursing college, instead of, as is presently stated in the Act, a nursing school, at the GaRankuwa hospital. A training hospital is attached to this university. A nursing school as part of a university requires matriculation exemption for admission. Study there is aimed at the obtaining of a degree, whilst at a nursing college, on the other hand, the Senior Certificate is the requirement for admission, and diplomas are issued there. As the training institution in question is in essence a nursing college, the purpose here is to rectify the terminology used and to bring it into line with the Nursing Act, Act 50 of 1978, and the consequential regulations and to regulate in detail the establishment of the college.

Sir, the Bill also amends the Education and Training Act, 1979, firstly, to make provision for “post-school education”, viz instruction and training provided at a technical college with a view to the pursuance of a vocation or the development of a social or recreational skill. This affords an opportunity to members of a large section of the population, who do not comply with the admission requirements of universities and technikons, to fully develop their potential through post-school education.

Secondly, the Bill provides for the establishment and operation of schools of industries and reform schools, as this responsibility in respect of Black youths is due to be transferred from the Provinces to the Department of Education and Training. The institutions will be administered in accordance with the Child Care Act, Act 74 of 1983, which also applies to schools of industries and reform schools of all education departments.

Thirdly, the Education and Training Act is being brought into line with the provisions of the South African Certification Council Act, Act 85 of 1986, with regard to matriculation and school leaving examinations.

Fourthly, the Minister is being empowered to suspend the activities at a public school or any class thereof. At present the Act provides that the Minister may close a school, but it is a drastic measure and therefore there is a need for a power merely to suspend the activities of a school or a class.

Fifthly, the provision is being amended in terms of which a teacher shall be deemed to have been discharged on account of misconduct if he is absent from duty without the permission of the Director-General for a period exceeding 14 days. The computation of this period is further defined since it created technical problems. In this regard I wish in passing to reply to the misgivings which hon members also expressed on the Standing Committee, by remarking that the provision in question is not applied in respect of teachers who, as a result of being detained in terms of the security legislation, are unable to obtain the Director-General’s permission for their absence.

Lastly, provision is being made that tuition fees shall also in future be payable at colleges of education of the Department of Education and Training. Tuition fees are payable at all tertiary institutions—including colleges of education—under the control of the respective Departments of Education and Culture. In order to achieve parity in this respect with the education departments referred to, it is necessary that the Education and Training Act be amended.

†We now come to the amendments in respect of the Technikons (Education and Training) Act, 1981. This Act is being amended, firstly, to make provision for “post-school education”, viz instruction and training provided with a view to the pursuance of a vocation. By so doing, the spectrum of education that may be offered by a technikon is broadened and the Act in question is brought more into line with the Technikons (National Education) Act, 1967.

Furthermore, the Act is being brought into line with the other laws governing the admission of students to, and the conducting of examinations at, technikons. These laws are the South African Certification Act, 1986, and the Certification Council for Technikons Education Act, 1986.

In conclusion, the Tertiary Education (Education and Training) Act, 1984, is being amended so as to abolish the Committee of University Rectors (CUR). In terms of an amendment to the Universities Act, 1955, which was passed in 1986, the rectors of the universities falling under the Department of Education and Training have representation on the Committee for University Principals. Consequently the Committee of University Rectors has become redundant and it is proposed that it be abolished.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the CP will support the amending Bill before us.

Various Acts, as explained to us by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, are being amended by this measure. On this occasion I wish to draw attention to what we regard as positive adjustments in the Act. Provision is now being made for the institution of a nursing college instead of a nursing school at the GaRankuwa Hospital. This amendment lends more status to that institution.

In addition provision is made for postschool education at technical colleges and technikons. This satisfies a great need which exists at present in Black communities.

Furthermore, the Minister is being empowered to establish schools of industry and reform schools.

We consider two amendments in particular—they are contained in clauses 7 and 9—to be of great importance in restoring order and discipline in Black education. The Minister may at any time suspend the activities of a public school or of a class for a period as determined by him.

Furthermore a teacher now discharges himself on account of misconduct if he absents himself from service without the permission of the Director-General for a period exceeding 14 days.

As regards clause 7, the Minister was in the past empowered only to close or disestablish a public school. He is now empowered first to suspend the activities of such a school or a class before taking such a drastic step. In the past—this is understandable—a school was not readily closed. This is a drastic step to take which may be detrimental to innocent pupils as well as innocent teachers. These measures, however, now make it possible for the Minister to take rapid and effective action in the event of boycotts, unrest situations and intimidation.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, it now becomes impossible for a teacher to be absent from service indefinitely without leave. After 14 days he is deemed to have been discharged because of misconduct.

We on this side of the House wish to express our vigorous support for the measures laid down in clauses 7 and 9. Pupils who do not appreciate the privilege of being able to study, who regard it is a right and not as a privilege, who wish to use it as a means of achieving political ends, have to be dealt with severely. Such behaviour has a disruptive effect on the opportunities for study of others who wish to make use of that privilege. In addition it is misuse of taxpayers’ money.

We also support the amendments to the Act dealing with steps against teachers who are absent from service without leave. People who act in this way do not have the necessary sense of responsibility to educate others; they do not belong in the teaching profession.

The CP hopes that the hon the Minister will not handle these new powers with which he has been entrusted regarding Black education with kid gloves but that he will use them in a responsible way to bring order and discipline to those schools under his control. Unfortunately over the past few years the NP has become known for not applying existing laws, not making effective use of those powers entrusted to it and for having permitted matters to get out of hand to such an extent that little discipline remains today, not only in education but throughout the country. The CP insists that discipline be restored in Black education.

Black education is financed chiefly from White taxpayers’ money. As a result of the scaling down of White standards of education owing to a lack of money, we cannot tolerate money being squandered on Black education as a result of schools being burnt down, teachers not turning up for work and pupils being absent from school for long periods.

The fact that the Government itself is requesting these new powers arouses expectations of a proper clampdown on radicals, the disorderly, the agitators and the irresponsible. We should like to tell the hon the Minister today that we shall monitor the position closely and note whether he uses his new powers or whether this will also be one of those laws that are shelved until the CP takes over the government of this country.

Clause 10 provides for examination fees, in full or in part, to be refunded or carried forward to the next examinations. We support this clause.

There may possibly be valid reasons for not writing an examination, but we want to make it clear at this early stage that we shall not accept threats or intimidation as a valid reason for such a concession. It is high time Black communities in the country started acting against intimidation themselves. To refund or carry forward examination fees in the case of intimidation will definitely not encourage Black communities to resist intimidators. In fact, such a step would concede that the intimidators ruled their communities. We cannot accord them that status.

In conclusion I should like to record our objections once again to the clause which will lead to the abolition of the Committee of University Rectors of Black universities. Black rectors have already been granted the right of representation on a mixed committee of university principals. Such mixed education committees and councils serve nothing but integration in education. They undermine the ethnic identity of education, they erode self-determination in the field of education as well, and the public may take note that the CP will get rid of the steps toward integration in education taken by the Government when we come to power in a subsequent election.

Mr Chairman, just before I come to the hon member for Brits I should like to thank the chairman of the Standing Committee on Education, the hon member for Stellenbosch, very much for the way in which he gave guidance with regard to the committee’s handling of this legislation. We developed tremendous appreciation for his patience, his technique of negotiating and of meeting other people halfway on issues, and for the work done by him outside this House of negotiating on the difficult problems besetting the legislation. The standing committee really has great appreciation for the way in which he dealt with this Bill, and we should like to thank him for that.

I now come to the hon member for Brits. I thank him very much for his support for this legislation. However, it is a pity that even after his positive support for this Bill he saw fit to attack the Government once more on matters that are really not relevant. The hon member for Brits stated unequivocally that the NP was responsible for the lack of discipline in Black education. I think that smacks of poor taste, to say the very least.

That is really an old CP statement.

It is a pity that in a debate such as an education debate, the hon member has to make such statements to express his difference of opinion with this side of the House. Does this mean that the intimidation and the victimisation that has occurred in Black education had its origins in the NP? Does it mean that the fear that has been instilled in that Black child that if he were to obey the education authorities and were to come to school, action would be taken against him involving the “necklace” murders that have taken place and with which they were threatened, has its origins in the NP? This is such an absurd statement that I want to dissociate myself completely from this standpoint, and it is really a pity that the hon member stooped to that level.

The legislation under discussion mainly makes provision for five matters. It makes provision for a recommendation made by AUT that the number of vice-rectors in the councils of certain universities will be limited to two.

The second principle that came under discussion here was dealt with by the hon member for Brits, and that is the institution of nursing colleges for the training of nurses in the Black hospitals, at GaRankuwa in particular.

A third principle that is being dealt with here is that this Bill amends the Education and Training Act, 1977, in order to bring the Act into line with the provisions of the South African Certification Council Act, 1986.

It also concerns the closing of classes—the hon member for Brits also referred to this—and leave for teachers who, through no fault of their own and without having had the opportunity to apply for leave, are prevented from carrying out their duties due to circumstances completely beyond their control. The legislation under discussion is merely making provision that such teachers will now be given the opportunity to hand in leave applications. The legislation also makes it possible for the Director-General to define in the conditions of service of teachers that when they are in a position in which they have to apply for such leave, they are in fact able to do so. However, it is not being done in such a draconian way as the hon member for Brits is suggesting, which would mean that a teacher in circumstances of this nature would be disqualifying himself.

When one takes note of the background situation that gave rise to the legislation under discussion—I am now referring to the exclusion of classes or class groups in Black education—one should carefully consider the circumstances in which Black teachers have found themselves during the last few years. Let me say that no scholar is very fond of subjecting himself to the discipline or instructions of the teacher. I could even add that certain teachers—unmotivated teachers of course—do not object too much when their holiday can be extended and it is not necessary for them to go and teach when circumstances prevent them from doing so. In circumstances of this nature therefore, when action is taken in the ranks of a population group by means of extra-parliamentary activities, attacks by the ECC, by trade unions, by the ANC, by the UDF and by means of radical actions by certain elements on university campuses which are bent on the victimisation and intimidation of students, whether by means of threats against their lives or those of their parents or whether by burning down their homes and the destruction of their personal properties and the persecution of those who are loyal, it becomes necessary for the Government to place certain legal powers in the hands of the Director-General to enable him, as well as the senior inspectorate, the principal and the senior staff of a particular school, to clamp down on those who are the cause of the unrest in such a way that the loyal and motivated students and teachers can continue with their educational activities, as they would of course like to do, because that is their heartfelt desire.

I am therefore grateful for the step that we are now taking here. In every school, regardless of the race or colour of the pupils and teachers, these activities usually start with a small group of people. It can even arise in a class group. It can also arise in a particular classroom situation in which the class is divided into groups. Such students can take the matter so far that they can eventually spread the feeling that they have against a certain teacher or a particular disciplinary action in the school, throughout the school and in so doing eventually poison the school to such an extent that the situation becomes completely unmanageable.

The specific clause to which the hon member for Brits referred now gives the Director-General, his inspectorate and the principal involved the power to clamp down on such a rebellious group in such a way that they can even be removed from the normal school activities. Their parents can also be consulted separately. In this way the opportunity is created for dealing with the grievances of such a group of people without the rest of the education process being detrimentally affected in the process.

This therefore means—I say this in conclusion—that by means of this legislation we are also vesting in the organised teaching profession the powers which are necessary to maintain discipline in schools. Teaching is a difficult discipline. We have referred to this several times by now. It demands a great deal of its senior staff, in fact of every staff member. It is a dedicated and—even in the best circumstances—difficult service. With this legislation we are giving them an opportunity, also in after-school activities in this area, in which the principal, personally, also accepts the responsibility.

We are giving these people the powers by means of which they can ensure that the activities that take place there are in accordance with educational principles and the spirit of the education of children of the particular group. I am very grateful for that.

We would very much like to support this legislation and gladly place the entire contents of this Bill into the hands of the Director-General and of the entire educational profession. We hope that with this they have been given something that will normalise the education of Black people and will raise it to the level on which we should all like to see Black education, and we hope that this will also lead to a better level of education, something which we really and truly wish these people to have.

Mr Chairman, I shall in the course of my speech be referring to a number of the points that the hon member for Brentwood made during his speech. Let me say that the first two points that I wish to make in this Second Reading debate concur with the points made by the hon member for Brentwood.

The first is that this is essentially an omnibus Bill with a number of different components. I shall be referring to some of them, and hon colleagues from our party, who will be speaking later, will handle some of the other clauses.

Secondly, I should like to associate myself with the thanks conveyed by the hon member for Brentwood to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Stellenbosch, for the fair, patient, thorough and yet efficient way in which he handled the proceedings of the committee and gave all hon members an opportunity to express their views within that committee. We should like to thank him for that.

The hon members of the NP on that committee were from time to time slightly troublesome from our point of view, but I am sure that that feeling was mutual. Nevertheless I would like to thank them for the support they gave us in our request that we obtain evidence from Black people in respect of this Bill. I believe it is of fundamental importance that when we are dealing with legislation affecting the Black community in this country, we make every possible effort to get their views, whether we are going to like those views or not.

As a result, the committee invited Atasa, the African Teachers Association of South Africa, the NECC, SAYCO and the Urban Foundation, giving a spread of organisational types and interest groups, to submit evidence to the standing committee. We had some refusals, and we had some useful information as a result of that.

I should like to quote brief extracts from a couple of newspaper reports which I think are interesting in terms of the work that we are doing. One report from the Weekly Mail is entitled “Parliament asks NECC’s opinion”:

A report in The Star contained the following statement:

The report goes on:

The following is a final quote from The Star:

Clearly, Sir, the comments sent in by the NECC for example were, in a sense, irrelevant to what the committee itself was doing in terms of the Bill. I do think, however, that it is of vital importance that one at least gives people the opportunity to comment. One may not like what they say or they may even refuse to make use of the opportunity that one offers them but then at least one has given them such an opportunity.

There is one point which arises from that quote and from the representations that they sent by telex to the committee which is very relevant. That concerns the question of the release of all detainees—people who are being detained without trial. I think for example of a person like Mr Vusi Khanyile who is a senior member of the NECC. People like that can and must play a vital role in bringing about a more stable and better situation in education. That particular gentleman has been in detention for about a year without trial or any charges being brought against him, and I consider that to be iniquitous. In general, looking at this Bill, I think we need to recognise that very often the Security Forces in this country can destroy efforts to stabilise education in Black schools.

I want now to refer to clauses 5 and 22 which deal with reform schools and schools of industries. We support these clauses but we are interested to know what exactly has happened up to now. We understand that these schools previously fell under the provincial administrations but over time those schools have ended up in self-governing homeland areas or TBVC areas so that there are currently none in what the Government would call White South Africa. What I would like to ask the hon the Minister—I have had great difficulty in obtaining the information from either the hon the Minister of Justice or the hon the Minister of Law and Order—is what has been happening in the interim to children or juveniles who have been convicted in court and who in terms of the Children’s Act or the Criminal Procedure Act would normally have been sent to these places. What has been happening to them? Have they been ending up in prison? I should like the hon the Minister to enlighten the House because it is a matter of real concern that children who should have gone to reform schools or schools of industries having been sent there by the courts or other agencies empowered by law to do so, have been ending up in prison because those institutions have not been available.

There are a number of clauses limiting the number of vice-rectors on councils and we have no objection to that. I might say that in reading the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech I noticed a new element which had not been mentioned specifically in the committee. I would be interested in some further comment on that element. I should like to quote from the hon the Minister’s speech where he deals with this limitation to 2 of the number of vice-rectors who can serve on the council of a particular university. He said:

I was not aware that that was a problem and I would be interested in further enlightenment. I concede that it may be a theoretical problem but I should be grateful if the hon the Minister would enlighten the House as to whether that problem has occurred or whether it is merely intended to prevent the possibility of its occurring.

We in the PFP welcome the abolition of the Committee of University Rectors because, as the explanatory memorandum indicates, it has become redundant as they now serve on the Committee for University Principals. We welcome this and we are very pleased to see that another element of “own affairs” bites the dust. I hope the rest will follow before long.

In a narrow context, in the sense of considering this in a standing committee clause by clause, the only individual clause which remains in the Bill to which we objected is clause 7. I shall refer to that later.

We believe that it is not enough to look at the Bill in a narrow context, clause by clause, when we are in a Second Reading debate as opposed to the details in a standing committee. I believe that Black education deserves more than this.

Seen in its wider context, this Bill is an admission of failure. It is a patch-up job in Black education. It provides for the suspension of schools and classes thereof, the repayment of examination fees, more precise and amended conditions for the discharge and reinstatement of teachers, and changes to the access to school premises.

It is an attempt to manage a rotten system better, and the PFP is not prepared to accept this. We believe that segregated Black education as practised in this country is inherently educationally corrupt because it continually puts apartheid before education to the detriment of millions of people of this country.

I want therefore to move the following amendment:

1. (1) establishing a single ministry of education, with appropriate decentralization and devolution of authority and administration on a non-racial basis;
2. (2) enacting common basic education legislation for all South Africans;
3. (3) providing for representative leaders from all communities to be involved in education decision-making at all levels; and
4. (4) ensuring the optimum utilization of all education resources on a non-racial basis.”.

We do not believe that patchwork in itself is what is needed or is going to bring about the necessary improvements.

What did the voters say about the National Education policy.

What does the country say about yours?

I really think that shows how blinkered that side of the House is. We are talking about an education measure for Black schools, and the hon member asks me what the White voters think about it! That is exactly the point that we are trying to make. I am grateful to the hon member for Langlaagte for making it.

That is exactly the problem. It is what the Black communities of this country think about Black education that is causing the problem, not what the White community in this country is thinking about Black education.

But not what you think!

The need for a single education Ministry, common basic education legislation and representation at all levels is illustrated by this Bill. We should all be asking ourselves why this Bill is deemed necessary for Black schools and not for White schools.

There are many provisions in this Bill that apply to Black schools only, for example clause 7. In terms of this clause the Minister may at any time suspend the activities at a public school, or any class thereof, for such period as he may determine.

We recognise that this is a less drastic measure than the closure or the disestablishment of a school. The hon the Minister already has these powers which I might say own affairs Ministers, for example, in White education also have.

Two of the reasons why it is less drastic are, first of all, that having suspended a school rather than closing it, the need for students to reregister at that school does not arise. That in itself sometimes becomes a point of contention as we discovered here in the Western Cape earlier this year. The departmental difficulties in respect of teacher posts. What should be done with the teachers at a school which is closed for the time being for whom posts therefore do not exist has also been problematical. Suspending a school in that sense would help solve those problems.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is still an extremely drastic measure. The fact that one has to contemplate this sort of measure is a clear indication of a loss of control by the authorities within that education system. The hon member for Brentwood made reference in passing to the fact that this was the same kind of thing that one might need in a White school in order to suspend a class or a troublesome group. The fact is, however, that there is no legislation that applies to White schools that enables the authorities to suspend a class, or even to suspend a school or a group of students in a school, as opposed to individual pupils in a school. The suggestion that the same kind of problems could exist in White schools is not taken into account in legislation.

We are concerned that the easier one makes it to suspend a school, as opposed to closing it, and particularly an individual class, the greater the temptation to use those powers—because they are less drastic—will become. The possibilities of the victimisation of groups of individuals or a class can also increase. In the process, clearly, if a class or a number of classes are suspended, the innocent as well as the guilty will suffer.

Why do we have this measure? When one looks at the 1986 disturbances at the schools under the Department of Education and Training, one sees that we have been advised in answers to questions that 146 schools were affected by disturbances last year involving 72 000 pupils—presumably there were 72 000 pupils at those schools; they were not necessarily all individually involved in the disturbances. When one looks at secondary schools alone, one sees that nearly a third—just over 30%—of those schools were affected by disturbances.

I am well aware that there are many complicating factors involved in this, and I am not trying to oversimplify it, but certain basic facts do remain: Firstly, that the Black education system is rejected by the Black community; secondly, that Black education is determined in its essence by Whites and not by Blacks; and thirdly, that Black education is inferior at this stage in South Africa. [Interjections.] The Government frequently claims good intentions and a striving for equal educational opportunities, but I believe that in practice they should hang their heads in shame.

Last week the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House announced the rationalisation of White colleges of education. He pointed out that there were surplus teachers, and as a result they were going to close or amalgamate certain colleges. In the Cape alone six colleges are being looked at, and could be affected. In addition, teachers are being retrenched. Now, Sir, South Africa is crying out for teachers. It is the single most important difficult shortage to fill; yet the Government insists on squandering invaluable education resources and millions of rand of tax-payers’ money to entrench its racist own affairs policy. We had further evidence of this in this House during question time this afternoon.

White teacher training colleges stand half-empty. Some have already been closed. Some are going to close, and hundreds of qualified White teachers are being retrenched, while the education of Black children remains strikingly inferior, primarily because of a shortage of suitably qualified teachers. This is an absolute disgrace. The Government can forget about trying to persuade any serious educationist that it is striving for equal opportunities in education. The hypocrisy and double standards make me very angry when I know the harm being done to our country and the prospects of a peaceful future.

What is the position in this regard in Black schools? The shortage of properly qualified teachers and the problem of control are some of the problems that give rise to this Bill. We were told during the course of this year that there is a shortage of 4 673 teachers and, in addition, 7 367 professionally unqualified teachers in Black primary schools. In secondary schools there is a shortage of 466 teachers and 756 teachers are professionally unqualified.

I wish to leave aside the question of professionally unqualified teachers because, particularly in respect of primary schools this is sometimes as much a technicality as it is a reflection of the quality of the teacher. I accept that, although I do think it is desirable that steps be taken. I know some steps are being taken to try to remedy that situation.

However, we are talking of a shortage of 5 139 teachers in the Department of Education and Training only, Jet alone the TBVC or homeland departments.

In addressing this the department has told us that between 1985 and 1991 they plan to establish 10 additional colleges at a cost ranging between R5 million and R10 million each. They are therefore talking of spending R50 million to R100 million over that period to attempt to start remedying the situation.

What is the contrasting position with White teacher training, besides the points that I made earlier about the rationalisation which the hon the Minister of Education and Culture referred to? R85 million is being spent on the Pretoria Teachers College alone of which the completion is—I think—due this year. R85 million is being spent on one college for Whites where we have a surplus of teachers and empty colleges that are being closed, compared with R5 million to R10 million per college that is being spent on 10 colleges for Black education. That is the contrast.

The Government is refusing to admit students who are not White to these so-called White colleges. It is simply a racial hang-up and a desperate and irrational clinging to own affairs. Universities, private schools and some other educational institutions are open to all races. Why are teacher-training colleges not open too? Students can train and qualify at an open university and in multiracial classes. It makes no sense for them to be excluded from teacher-training colleges. We already have the buildings, the equipment and the lecturers. We do not have the goodwill to squander.

I should like to challenge the hon the Minister in charge of this Bill and this department. Has he requested admission to these colleges for Black students, not as a complete remedy and not in lieu of building extra colleges which are needed, but as an attempt to bridge the gap in the short term at least?

Merely by filling the empty places in White teacher-training colleges a year ago the Government could have increased the number of Black students undergoing teacher-training at colleges by 50%. Since then some more colleges have come on stream, so that percentage will have decreased, but that was the position just over a year ago. While it is not the answer, to everything, it would have made a substantial difference.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister if he did ask whether Black students could not be admitted. If so, what was the response he received? If he did not ask, I should like to know why not. Even in terms of NP ideology I cannot understand what the difference is between a Black person being admitted to train as a teacher at the educational faculty of an open university, whether it be the University of Cape Town, Witwatersrand or any other that may admit Black student teachers…

Stellenbosch.

…—Stellenbosch as well, apparently—and then to go and teach in Black schools, as opposed to allowing them to train together with White students in formerly White teacher-training colleges? Even in terms of NP ideology, it is just beyond me why that is an insurmountable barrier.

I hope the hon the Minister will address that issue, because it is absolutely vital if we are to believe the Government’s oft-stated intention to try to provide equal education opportunities, even within what I consider to be the irrationality of the Government’s education policies. If, at the level of teacher training colleges, which are under their control as opposed to autonomous or semi-autonomous universities, they insist on racial practices, they can hardly claim to regard Black education as such a high priority within the framework of their policy.

After what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture said today and his statement last week, it should not surprise anybody that the Black education system is totally discredited within the Black community.

Clause 9 provides a precise definition of 14 days in respect of teachers absent without permission. There is no problem with this provision on the face of it, because it simply tightens up what is meant by 14 days, but there was a potential problem in respect of teachers in detention without trial or under arrest but not convicted of any offence. According to the most recent figures available when we asked the question, 147 teachers had been detained by the SA Police during the past 12 months. I am pleased to say that we received assurances in this regard from the department and the hon the Minister. I would like to quote from the report of the Standing Committee on Education:

1. (i) paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 21 of the Education and Training Act, 1979, is not interpreted as being applicable to cases where it has become impossible for the teacher to perform his duty and/or to apply for leave to the Director-General; and
2. (ii) the Department of Education and Training does indeed interpret and apply the relevant provision in this manner.

In the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, he made reference to the fact that there had been queries about this, and said the following:

I am grateful to the hon the Minister for his assurance that that is the practice.

Even regarding provisions such as this definition of 14 days, one is forced to ask oneself again why this is of such relevance in Black education. Why is there no equivalent definition—I am not referring to absence without leave as such—or requirement for tightening up in respect of White education?

Clause 11 refers to tuition fees at colleges of education. I should like to inform the hon the Minister in this regard that there is considerable suspicion—I can assure him that this is so—in some Black education circles about the current admissions policy regarding colleges of education. I understand the background to these tuition fees and the fact that, as I understand it, the bursaries will be increased by a similar amount, but there is suspicion as to whether added control is envisaged. This clause itself is not a cause of concern, but there are suspicions regarding the current practice regarding admissions to colleges of education. Have there been changes in respect of the final recommendations and selections? There is a suspicion that the department and the regional offices are beginning to apply a sifting procedure to make sure that students who are on SRCs do not get into teacher training colleges, whereas before it was primarily the school principals who recommended people as suitable candidates based on character and academic performance. I would be grateful to have the comments of the hon the Minister in this regard because, as I say, there is some concern about it.

My colleagues will cover other aspects of this Bill which I have not touched on. Let me say in conclusion that we believe that fundamental reform is required in education. The time for piecemeal repairs to try to contain the dissatisfaction with Black education is long past. We will therefore be opposing this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is an earnest young man. He is in fact a serious person. I must say that I do not for a moment doubt his sincerity when it comes to the interests of Black children and their education. On the contrary, I believe he really has their interests at heart. However, he also has a very important shortcoming and that is a lack of balance in his approach to matters.

The hon member cares so little for those of us on this side of the House or for what we feel strongly about that it completely warps his judgement. To have such malice in one’s heart is an enemy of realism. It has a tendency to drive out reason and reasonableness, it impedes good judgement, it restricts one’s positive abilities, and finally it frustrates even one’s genuine attempts to promote a good cause. The hon member is a competent man and he would be able to make a much better contribution to the public life of our country if he could show just as much comprehension for his White fellow citizens as he does for the Blacks to whose affairs he obviously has decided to dedicate his entire life.

Today the hon member also dedicated a lot of time to matters that were not relevant to this legislation, and consequently I am not going to react to the matters be raised. I nevertheless thank the hon member for his friendly remarks about and his contribution to the activities of the standing committee. This applies in any case to all the hon members of the standing committee, because from them I received nothing but goodwill and willingness to co-operate.

The Standing Committee on Education deals with very sensitive matters which often have a high emotional content and are often also strongly politicised. In this connection I thank the hon the Minister for the understanding he showed for our problems and for the assistance that we received from him.

I came to know the Director General of the department, Dr Brand Fourie, and his senior officials who were involved in our comprehensive consultations, Mr Jaap Strydom, Mr Yssel and Adv Retief, as dedicated people. They serve the cause of education, particularly of Black education, under extremely difficult circumstances and they do so in a way which is deserving of the thanks and appreciation of us all.

The measure before us now is also one which is aimed at promoting the broad educational interests of Blacks. Clause 5 and others will bear out my statement. This is the clause in which provision is made for post-school education to be provided at technical colleges. This is a very meaningful development, because many Blacks do not meet the entrance requirements of universities and technikons.

Post-school education at their own technical colleges therefore makes it easier for them to develop their occupational skills. I hope that this is the beginning of a really serious effort to advance technical and vocationally-oriented education in South Africa. It is in the interests of the country that there should be such an effort and that it should succeed.

We in South Africa are involved in a struggle for survival in more than one sphere. One of these is the economic sphere. The determining factor in this connection is the question of whether or not we are going to succeed in industrialising sufficiently, and to succeed we have to train more technically skilled people for the industrial sphere than is the case at present. This applies to all population groups, but in the case of the Blacks the need for this is merely further accentuated by statistics. This is as a result of their numbers and as a result of the historical backlogs in their education.

This year there are 4,674 million Black children at school in the Republic of South Africa, including the national states. These are children in normal public schools—4,6 million Black children out of a total school-going population of 6,6 million. Of those slightly more than 106 000 Black pupils are in Std 10.

We find today that Black children, just like all other children who have a normal matric certificate, are having a difficult time getting a job. If one looks at the statistics over the whole spectrum of Black education one becomes really concerned about the future.

This year there are just over 752 000 Black children in Grade I. The figure for Grade I to and including Std I is 1,9 million children. If just over 40% of this year’s Grade I children reach Std 10, there are going to be more than 300 000 of them in the year 1998. In the meantime the numbers will increase annually and after 1998 the increase will be staggering. The cumulative effect of the production of Std 10 pupils from now until the end of the century can be disastrous for our country unless something is done about it now. Our economy simply cannot accommodate millions of people with an academic Std 10.

If one looks at the situation after Std 10, one finds that it is even more worrying. This year there are just over 61 000 Black students at universities. In comparison there are only about 4 700 Black students at the technikons. The figures for the technical colleges really frighten one. There are only 575 Black students who are receiving training with a view to qualifications up to and including a level of three years after Std 10. As far as training up to a level of more than three years after Std 10 is concerned there are only four Black students out of a total Black population of 28,4 million. These statistics give one an indication of the scope of the challenge facing the Department of Education and Training. The Department simply has to succeed in coping with this challenge because there is no room for failure.

I want to say in agreement with the recommendations of the De Lange Report that we have to pay serious attention to the possibility of following the example of West Germany as far as the education of all groups in our country is concerned. In West Germany students are divided into two streams at a certain stage, those who continue with a mainly academic education and those who are channelled into the direction of technical and vocational training. As a result West Germany has one of the lowest unemployment rates with regards to its youth. It is only approximately 10% as opposed to the 22% of Britain.

Let me say today that if we do not succeed with something similar to what is certainly made possible in clause 5 of the Bill it would mean that the education system in the RSA would be promoting revolution. Nothing could be more conducive to revolution than providing large numbers of young people with education without the prospect of a suitable post with a better future. They will simply reject the present system and seek their salvation elsewhere.

As the hon member for Cape Town Gardens indicated, the standing committee in its wisdom has decided to invite certain bodies to express their opinion of the Bill. The Urban Foundation was one of those bodies. We received a well-substantiated memorandum from them. It was largely as a result of their representations that it was decided to abolish the original proposed clause 12, which would have placed certain restrictions on the presence of pupils at school after school hours.

We went even further than that. Section 40 of the Education and Training Act was extended to make doubly sure that the Foundation’s programme for in-service training of teachers and compensatory education for pupils would not be affected by the present provisions. This simply proves once again what can be achieved by a positive, constructive approach.

As the hon member for Cape Town Gardens also indicated, the committee, at the request of the PFP, also invited the National Education Crisis Committee to give their opinion. Irrespective of what the hon member had to say about this, let me tell the House that the result was undoubtedly not a happy one. The NECC clearly does not have the educational interests of Black pupils as a primary consideration in mind. They use education as an instrument to promote their revolutionary political aims.

That is very true.

They began by using the bona fide invitation of the standing committee, with the assistance of a willing Press, for political purposes. One distorted report after the other appeared. Eventually we received a telex message from them in which they had very little or in fact nothing to say about the merits of the Bill. It was nevertheless good that we received it because their political aims emerged so clearly from it. They begin by saying:

That is why they reject the Act in its entirety, in the same way as the PFP is also doing by means of its amendment today. They also reject those extremely positive parts which make provision for technical college education, which make provision for a nursing college at the hospital in GaRankuwa and which make provision for all the other positive provisions.

†They demand:

They also demand:

*They responded in revolutionary language to our friendly invitation to them. In this connection I want to refer briefly to a recent publication of the Institute for Futures Research at the University of Stellenbosch, Revolutionary Strategy in South Africa. It was written by Elizabeth Dostal. Due to a lack of time I shall merely quote certain relevant passages on page 57 and 58:

I do not have to say anything more about the reaction of the NECC to the invitation of the standing committee. Their grounds for this should be clear to everyone. This is in any case irreconcilable with the aspirations of those of us who place the interests of education first.

This Bill wishes to promote the education of Black children in spite of the revolutionary onslaught being made on it. The aim is to do this with the least possible disruption. That is why clause 7 also makes provision now for the suspension of activities at public schools, as previous speakers have mentioned. At the moment only the drastic step of closing or disestablishing the school is possible. The new clause also makes it possible to suspend the activities of a class. That is what the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is objecting to so strongly now. This merely shows once again the inclination of the PFP to allow themselves to be led by distrust and suspicion instead of reason. Regardless of what positive explanations may be given to them, in the back of their minds they are controlled by distrust instead of allowing themselves to be controlled by their own intellect.

If the suspension of the activities of a school is less drastic than closing it down, the suspension of the activities of a mere class is surely the least disruptive of all possibilities. Surely it can only be a good thing to add a further choice to this enabling provision.

When one discusses actions taken at Black schools, one must in any event bear in mind that Black education is developing and that it can in many respects differ from, for example, White education. Black education, for example, does not have such a clear division between primary and high schools. It happens, for example, that primary and high school children receive education in one complex. This sometimes gives rise to unique problems, which must also be approached in a unique way. That is why it is a good thing to make provision for the suspension of classes.

While supporting this legislation, I also wish the hon the Minister and his department everything of the best on the road ahead, because our future to a great extent depends on their successes.

Mr Chairman, I have the honour to follow upon the hon member for Stellenbosch, who is the chairman of the standing committee which dealt with this Bill. I listened with great interest to his standpoints with regard to the Bill, and I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I have difficulty, obviously, in accepting his overall point of view, although there are some points with which I fully agree.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has already explained the PFP’s standpoint on the Bill. The hon member for Stellenbosch also made some rather sweeping statements which I believe are a rather sad reflection of his party’s policies and also a complete failure on his part to understand the sincere concern that we in the PFP have with regard to Black education in this country.

I want to support the hon member for Cape Town Gardens in his stand against this Bill. I also want to support fully the amendment he moved in this House today. I want to make it clear, however, that I was not a member of the standing committee which discussed the Bill. Nevertheless, I do find the Bill unfortunate even in its name, because the name had of necessity to include in brackets the words “Education and Training”. This indicates yet again the separateness of the South African education system. We are not dealing with a Bill that affects education in general but one that affects education only as an own affair. We have before us, therefore, a Bill that deals only with Black education—a Bill which has to be debated by Whites, Coloureds and Indians, but not by the people it affects most of all. This point was made, of course, by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens in reply to the interjection by the hon member for Langlaagte.

This emphasises the tragedy of the system. It emphasises too the fact that the Government has turned its back on the golden opportunity presented to it in the form of the De Lange Committee’s report really to prove its honest intentions with regard to Black education. If it had heeded the recommendations in the De Lange Committee’s report, amending Bills for education and training would have been unnecessary today. I am thinking particularly of one important recommendation in the report, viz the implementation of real equality of educational opportunity, which the Government claims it is committed to. I refer, of course, to a single Ministry of Education.

We would like to see a single Ministry of Education implemented—as is recommended in the amendment proposed by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens—with a proper devolution of authority and with administration on a non-racial basis.

I want to take this point further if I may and refer to the recommendation in the De Lange Committee’s report, because I believe that today we are discussing educational structures and the process of education as they exist in South Africa. When we discuss the patching up of existing education legislation, which is all we are doing now, we need to remind ourselves of the system we could have had if the Government had been brave enough to act positively for the good of all South Africans and for the good of South Africa itself. By referring once again to the De Lange Committee’s report, I am simply providing the background as to why we are unable to support this Bill. I am also indicating why we are moving an amendment to the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.

The important passage in the De Lange Committee’s report reads as follows:

1. (1) A single Ministry (One Minister and department).

It is recommended that a single Ministry of education be created to effectively meet the need for a national education policy aimed at “equal opportunity” and “equal quality and standards” and relevance to the changing educational needs of the RSA.

[Inaudible.]

Sure, but let me finish the whole statement and go on to the next point, if I may.

And the important point is that—

This recommendation, I might add, was supported by all participants in the HSRC Commission. The report makes it very clear that fragmentation of this central function would not solve any of the problems involved in the education process and in the control of education in this country.

Unfortunately, this recommendation was ignored by the Government although there are vague attempts by members of the governing party to align the new Department of National Education with the type of department De Lange had in mind. What the Government actually did was exactly the opposite of what the De Lange Report recommended. It did in fact fragment the central function by establishing different education departments under different Ministers in the own affairs structure. Consequently we have before us today this piecemeal legislation, again affecting one group of South Africans only, emphasising not a common education policy for all South Africans but rather separate policies for separate groups. I want to emphasise once again that until a single Ministry of Education exists there will never be, and there never can be, equal education for all.

The legislation before us is nothing more than an attempt on the part of the Government to patch up a whole pile of legislation which, through changing circumstances in South Africa, is rapidly becoming outdated and unworkable. The hon the Minister himself refers to the Bill as having “various objects of a diverse nature”. I accept that some of the clauses being dealt with are of a relatively minor nature and do bring structures existing in certain Black academic institutions into line with academic institutions in other education departments in this country.

There are, however, certain amendments which give cause for concern. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has dealt with these. These amendments are, I believe, an attempt on the part of the NP to make the Government appear to be coming to terms with the realities of the problem of Black education. However, what is in fact happening is that the Government is having to admit that it is unable to handle the conflict that exists in Black education, a conflict that is the direct result of the Government’s policies over the years; the Government’s failure to take real cognizance of the De Lange Report; and the problems that have arisen following the implementation of the own affairs system of education which has unfortunately left Black education high and dry. We find instead that laws are being amended to allow the hon the Minister to deal with problems in Black education more readily as and when they arise but there is no attempt on the part of the Government to come to terms with the real problem which is why the problems arise at all. This is of course the result of their own education policies.

There would be no need, for example, to pass laws to suspend classes if the Government had acted in terms of the De Lange Report; if they had in fact acted responsibly with regard to Black education. I refer of course to clause 7.

What is required is not a patching-up of the existing legislation, but new legislation altogether which will in fact come to terms with the realities of South Africa.

We must accept that Black education is in a critical state, and the Government has acknowledged this. It has, for example, increased the amount of its spending on Black education within the Department of Education and Training by some 31%, and by some 43% within the national states—an increase which this party, the PFP, indicated it was pleased with, particularly since these increases were well above the inflation rate. I must say, however, that in the end it is not enough to spend millions of rand trying to upgrade a system which is inherently wrong and unacceptable to the people it serves. It is not enough therefore to try to change these laws piecemeal to enable greater control than existed before. It is a sad reflection indeed that clauses such as 7 and 12 have to exist, clause 12 even with its amendments to the amendments.

In actual fact, that legislation of this nature has to be amended, must be seen as an admission of the failure of the original laws in the first place. Only when new education laws and new education structures which encompass all South Africans are created, will there be a slackening of the real tensions that underline the whole system of Black education.

Mr Chairman, it surprises me that the hon members for Cape Town Gardens and Durban North could make so much of a discussion of this Bill. Everything contained in it is really so obvious in terms of the solution to our situation and the updating of a law which has deficiencies that I really find it amazing that we are having any discussion of this Bill at all.

However, since I have been in this place since May, I have at least learned by now that one needs lots of little hooks to hang a whole lot of things on and then one can range widely in one’s discussion, because ultimately what it amounts to is that we have once again listened here to two arguments which actually reproached the Government in the sense that it is really the fault of the Government that things have gone so awry and that all this Bill represents is this Government’s attempt to sort out its bungling as far as the policy and administration of education is concerned. It is easy to make such sweeping statements, allegations which really are not justified. It is easy to say that all the unrest at schools is due to the so-called apartheid which they keep on talking about. This is on record and, strangely enough, there are still some people who believe it, but fortunately today—they must remember this and that is why there are so few of them on the other side—there are no longer all that many people who believe it.

I just want to raise a few matters, because I think that when allegations of that kind are made it is also our duty, even though I would not like to digress, to say something about these remarks.

Take for example the allegation that the suspension of classes can promote victimisation. Nothing is said about all the intimidation which stirs up unrest and so forth, but please do not give the Government anything by means of which it can exercise power, because then it is going to victimise people!

You really are talking nonsense now!

As regards the question of the limitation on the number of vice-rectors on university councils, it is now being asked whether there is a problem. This is merely a preventative measure that is being taken here in order to promote good administration. It is very simple. Managerial expertise in fact dictates this kind of arrangement.

A university council is constituted from what the report of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission calls the lay members, as well as of the members who are appointed to such a council by virtue of their posts and elected from the university staff to serve on such a council. It is customary that at least two members of the senate are elected to serve on a university council. Apart from that the rector and vice-rectors serve ex officio on the council. Apart from that there is still an indirect representation of the personnel as well, the officials of such a university council by means of the election of representatives by the convocation. At the convocation the lecturing staff in fact have a fairly big say as well. Usually the people who vote are mostly the lecturing staff.

The report of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission emphasises that the lay members should make up the majority. This does not mean that it is a mere majority that is at issue. In the measure under discussion provision is made for at least five employees of the council. It is not the case that they necessarily have to form the majority to govern the council. However, they have to be experts; therefore people who can have a very big influence. In order to curb this influence, their numbers have to be restricted. If after a while there are six, seven or eight, we can definitely expect problems. Hon members must remember that there are normally almost 20 members on a university council. In certain cases it is less.

When such an arrangement is made it is really simply indicative of common sense. Surely it is evidence of good sense that such a preventative measure is in fact being taken in order to ensure adequate administration and to ensure that people who have an interest in an institution do not acquire too much of a say in the decision-making and consultation of the council of such an institution.

That is why the Progs do not understand it!

I also just want to refer to the whole question of the suspension or the abolition of the committee of university rectors, to which the hon member for Brits objected.

This of course is now being referred to as a step in the direction of integration. Black, Coloured, White and Indian education is also being referred to. If we really want to begin conjuring with terminologies we are all wrong when we speak of Black education, for example. Indeed there is no such thing as Black education. There is education for Blacks. There is education for Whites, and so forth. When teachers come together, they come together as teachers. That is also precisely the case in CUP. CUP is comprised of people with the same interests. The kind of work that they do is also more or less the same. They deal with the same problems, problems that they cart solve jointly. With regard to this I just want to refer to one example. This concerns the whole question of library books, which have become so extremely expensive. They are virtually no longer affordable. A body like CUP creates the opportunity for people to consult with each other on such a level in order to find ways and means and to reciprocate in helping each other with, for example, library books and the making available of library facilities. This in my view is a very practical solution, and not integration at all.

Last but not least I just want to say something about tertiary education. This concerns the whole question of the establishment of a nursing college, where certificates or diplomas instead of degrees will be conferred. This is a great need in a profession in which one does not really need academic training, but much rather a practical technical training. It is different to the case of medical training. The training of nurses is mainly concerned with the aim of the work done by the nurse. There are two kinds of engineers. There is the one who still handles pieces of equipment while the other one sits at his drawing board and designs. The latter is usually a manager. In the same way there are two kinds of people in the medical profession—the one who cuts the person open and has to work on his innards and the one who has to restore him to health. The provision of a college is therefore a very good thing, because there is a great need for this. However, inherent in this is also the possibility of a much greater production of people who could help.

In conclusion I do not want to forget to say the following. When people ask why, if people can be trained at a so-called open university, they cannot just as well attend the same teachers’ colleges, this is simply evidence of a lack of understanding of the nature of the training of teachers and teachers’ colleges on the one hand as opposed to universities on the other. The teachers’ colleges are usually concerned with the preparation of junior school teachers, while universities are concerned with the training of high school teachers. For primary school training one has to have people with empathy. It concerns the creation of an atmosphere which is completely different to the atmosphere in the case in which can meet people of other cultures at the academic level. When one is engaged in this activity on a large scale the cultural background of the people involved is more definite. That is precisely why it is also so necessary that with regard to teachers’ colleges there is still good reason to differentiate. This is perhaps less the case at universities.

Mr Chairman, we would like to support the measure under discussion. We think it is a very practical measure. We think it is necessary that it is done in this way. We also wish the department everything of the best in its application.

Mr Chairman, apart from various purely technical and administrative measures touched on in this Bill, there are also certain particularly controversial provisions which are directly concerned with the unrest situation in the Black schools and attempts to deal with that unrest.

Because of the controversial nature of these measures that are being proposed, one would have expected the Government to have held consultations across as broad a spectrum as possible before coming to this House with this legislation. According to my information this consultation across a broad spectrum did not in fact take place.

Who are your sources?

In one case in which the Government did consult an interested organisation, namely the National Education Crisis Committee, that is to say the NECC, to which the hon member for Stellenbosch referred, they ultimately ignored that body’s opposition to this Bill completely.

The hon member for Stellenbosch referred to the NECC as being revolutionary.

You do not think so.

If this is true, why did they consult it? Why did they consult a revolutionary organisation?

It was the Progs who wanted to consult them.

No, Mr Chairman, if it had been so revolutionary, they would not have consulted it.

They could not come to terms with the fact that this organisation, which represents Black education very directly, rejected the Bill because the legislation they planned could not really take their objections into consideration.

What do they want?

What attests to cynicism, however, is that while the hon the Minister wanted to hold discussions with the NECC on this legislation, at the same time the hon the Minister of Law and Order had practically the whole of the NECC leadership locked up in accordance with security legislation. Five of the six top leaders of the NECC were locked up but were not tried or charged. At the same time the hon the Minister wants to negotiate with the NECC.

What gives you that idea?

With whom does one negotiate? It is in the newspaper, in the Cape Times of the 8th.

But surely the Cape Times is not a newspaper!

Mr Chairman, the hon member cannot read. He cannot read any newspaper. Five of the members of the NECC top management…

Order! The hon member is being interrupted too often. The hon member may proceed.

Five of the six top members have been arrested. The only remaining member of the NECC, Mr Eric Morobi, arrived at a conference in Johannesburg in a “cloak-and-dagger” manner. I am referring to the conference of the “Five Freedoms Forum”. His appearance was not announced beforehand, and he made his speech from the stage quickly because he feared that he, too, would be detained.

Were you there too?

Yes, I was there. That is how I know what happened. [Interjections.] In the Western Cape, when the Chairman of the NECC wanted to come and talk to me at home, he was so nervous that he would be arrested by the police that he was hours late. [Interjections.] The vice chairman for the Western Cape has also been locked up.

The Government is making a mockery of negotiation and consultation. If on the one hand one says one is going to consult the NECC and ask for their opinion, but first of all one locks up all the leaders, one obviously hopes the remaining leaders will say the right things. The hon the Minister is therefore making a mockery of negotiation in going about things in this way.

The unrest at our Black schools will not be brought to an end by the kind of legislation we are discussing today if the Government continues to lock up representative leaders instead of talking to them.

This Bill should be rejected because it attempts to address only the symptoms of the South African disease, in other words the unrest situation in the schools. This is a symptom of a disease, the disease of apartheid. In an attempt to address the symptom of apartheid—in other words, the unrest in the Black schools—the hon the Minister is introducing measures in the schools, in what amounts to implementing a permanent state of emergency in the Black schools.

The measures contained here will mean that even if the state of emergency were lifted throughout the country, measures would still be in force in our schools, the effect of which would be the same as if the state of emergency had not in fact been lifted. The legislation now makes provision, inter alia, for the Minister not only to close Black schools if in his opinion there is any unrest, but simply to suspend activities. This is a very clever play on words because the effect is exactly the same. The school is not closed but the children have to go home if the activities of the school are suspended. So what is the difference? What happened at Langa High School when the scholars went back to school but refused to reregister will now not happen again because the children will not need to reregister. They will automatically be able to continue with school activities. This is a practical, positive measure which eliminates the problem that arose there. However, the fact remains that the Minister is still interfering in and suspending the activities of a school, and that the parents have no say in a matter that concerns them very closely.

You have not read the Bill.

I have read it very thoroughly.

Perhaps we should give you a Dutch Bill.

Sir, perhaps the hon member for Stellenbosch should tell us who in the Black community he has consulted in connection with this legislation. [Interjections.]

I am constantly consulting people.

Such vague answers again!

Black people who really represent the community are not consulted. [Interjections.]

The legislation also makes provision for further control of admission to Black schools. What this measure as well as others amounts to is simply that the Government is further reinforcing its overall control over Black schools. Instead of involving Black communities more directly with their schools, this legislation is in fact trying to prevent such involvement on the part of the community in the activities of the schools. This is the direct result of the legislation before us. No attempt is being made to encourage the parents or the community to become involved in the activities of the school. The hon the Minister ought to know that tension exists between his department and the parent communities of several Black schools. Why then introduce further legislation that will increase this tension, instead of relieving it?

Are you advocating lawlessness?

I am not advocating lawlessness, as this stupid interjection from my left suggests. There is unrest in those schools and in those communities.

Are you not helping it along?

Order! The hon member for Germiston District is continuously making interjections that are disturbing the hon member who is now speaking. The hon member must stop this. The hon member for Claremont may proceed.

There is no point in our coming to this House with legislation that will not result in a decrease in the unrest. The lawlessness and unrest will continue unless the legislation really addresses the causes of the unrest. The hon the Minister cannot do this alone. One cannot view the education situation in isolation. The education system and the schools we are dealing with are in actual fact only a facet of South African society. What is happening outside the schools has a direct effect on what is happening inside.

†Neither this proposed legislation nor any future legislation is going to address and defuse the unrest situation in our Black schools successfully. Our Black schools merely reflect the tensions and grievances that exist outside the school in the larger Black community. I should like to point out to the hon the Minister that the school unrest will continue for as long as this Government maintains an education system which is based on apartheid. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has referred to the inequalities between White and Black education.

It will also continue for as long as Black citizens have no meaningful say in the drawing up of the system of education which they have to endure. That is what we are dealing with again today. Black input is lacking; this legislation does not reflect the wishes of the Black community which it addresses.

The unrest will continue as long as Blacks are so frequently denied a stable family life which denies their children the opportunity to become proper students and to be able to perform at school. That cannot be done as long as we destroy people’s homes and deny them a family life.

That is why students and teachers and parents are working on a system called alternative or people’s education, a system which is systematically being implemented in Black schools and being practised in many schools—a fact which I believe the hon the Minister acknowledges and tries to counter by further controlling access by the public to schools.

In conclusion I want to repeat one very important aspect—that one cannot see the school in isolation to the community. If one goes out in the morning and uproots with bulldozers the homes of ten Black families…

What about the ANC’s uprooting?

… and those children cannot do their homework that afternoon. The next day one will have pupils who are not performing at school.

This morning in Bloekombos, Kraaifontein, this Government demolished ten squatter homes with bulldozers. I went there this morning and I have photographs of the bulldozers in Bloekombos, Kraaifontein.

Yesterday the hon member for Wellington said he supported the removal of these people. If one demolishes the homes of ten families, who have children… [Interjections.]…—not only in Bloekombos, but many other places—in 1987, one causes unrest in the schools.

This kind of action causes unrest, and this legislation cannot solve the problem. This is the problem in the Black schools. This happens every time a pupil is denied access to a college in Cape Town. I am a member of the board of the Cape Town Teachers’ College which has many empty places. We do not yet know from the hon the Minister exactly what is going to happen. However, this year a few hundred students who applied to the Khayelitsha Teacher Training College were turned away because the college was full. These students could easily have been absorbed into the Cape Town Teachers’ College.

For as long as these inequalities persist and for as long as the apartheid policy of this Government is maintained, unrest in the schools will continue and these Bills will have no effect.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Claremont proved to us again today that he really meant it when he said before in this House that he was actually involved in extra-Parliamentary activities.

This organisation, the NECC, made it very clear to us in the telex they sent that they did not really recognise us and this system we are part of. Today it seems to me that the hon member for Claremont does not recognise this system either. He is merely sitting here because it suits him and because by sitting here he can get publicity outside.

It therefore seems to me that he wants to practice politics in such a way as to ensure that what he said today would not happen, would really not happen and that there would still be unrest in our country. I want to ask the hon member rather to leave his politics out of education, because what the hon member actually told us here today was that he was not prepared to allow more Black nurses to be trained, because he did not support this legislation. In this legislation provision is made for nursing schools to be changed into nursing colleges and that the requirements for admission are in other words being lowered. This is creating the opportunity for more people to be trained. But what does the hon member say? He says that he does not want more Black nurses. He is therefore depriving the Black people of this privilege.

I want to convey my thanks to the hon the Minister for his Second Reading speech and for the clear objectives he explained to us. I believe that clauses 1, 2, 3 and 19 also give effect to the UTAC’s recommendation to limit the number of vice-rectors who are members of a university council to not more than two. I think it is a good thing to keep the necessary balance in the membership of councils in this way. The council, for the information of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, is constituted from persons from a variety of walks of life. For that reason I believe that the balance would be disturbed if too many vice-rectors were to serve on the council.

I have already dealt with clause 4, which changes the designation of “nursing school” to “nursing college”, and I have pointed out to hon members that in my opinion this can help to allow more nurses to enter the profession by means of this specific nursing college.

A great deal has already been said about clause 5 and I should just like to refer in passing to the concept of “post-school education”. I am referring specifically to one aspect, namely the development of a social or recreational skill. From experience we know what a tremendous contribution such activities, which are presented by a technical college, can make and what an enriching effect this can have on a community.

Clause 7(b) provides that the Minister is being authorised to suspend the activities at a school, or any class thereof. As has already been pointed out, it may happen that a standard 9 class, for example, is disrupting the activities at a certain school to such an extent that the matrics or the rest of the school are suffering. It then seems to me the obvious solution to be able to suspend the activities in such a class temporarily, in order to afford those persons who do want to work the opportunity to prepare for their examination. At present the legislation only provides for closing an entire school, which may result in the innocent parties who want to carry on with their work also being deprived of the opportunity to do so.

We are aware that what now has to be legalised is already being done in practice on the strength of the logical principle that the greater includes the lesser—in other words, if the Minister, as is the case at present, may close a school, there should be no reason why he cannot perform a lesser action, namely merely suspending classes. All that is happening here is that what is actually accepted in practice, is now being included in legislation.

As regards clause 9, I consider it reasonable that there should be no misunderstanding regarding the calculation of the period of 14 days. In my opinion it is also fit and proper that a time limit of three months should be laid down within which a teacher may report for duty and the Minister may reinstate that teacher, subject to conditions laid down by him. The position at present is that a teacher who has absconded may return years later and demand to be reinstated.

I consider clause 12 to be important because, through the implementation of the clause, the school can be used as a training institution to the advantage of the entire community. Because many of our communities still lack the necessary physical facilities, this school and school building can also meet these needs in a responsible way.

For that reason it is a pleasure for me sincerely to congratulate the hon the Minister entrusted with education and training for being so far-sighted as to make it possible for these pupils and people to continue with their education too. I believe it is in the interests of the education and training of the entire community.

Mr Chairman, I follow gladly after the hon member for Kimberley North, and I would like to pick just one of the points he made and, as it were, wrestle with him on that point.

He said, in reference to the hon member for Claremont, that he should leave politics out of education. Rightly or wrongly, I believe politics and education in South Africa are inextricably intertwined.

I said his politics.

I note that the hon member for Kimberley North has now said the hon member for Claremont’s politics must be left out.

The hon member for Kimberley North will understand that in South Africa there is no way of separating politics and education.

I should like to commence by referring to a document over the signature of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and I quote it with full acceptance of what he says. There are three quotes of which the first is one by Diane Ravitch:

The second quote is the Minister’s own words:

These quotations come from a booklet of his department entitled The Teaching Profession—a Labour of Love. I agree wholeheartedly with those views.

If we apply those views to the educational situation in South Africa in totality, I think we must agree that, in perspective, it is not being administered with intelligence. I am afraid that there is a distinct lack of cooperation, purpose and goodwill at many levels.

I want to make it quite clear to the hon the Minister that the PFP has moved an amendment in order to establish the educational perspective of this Bill in the totality of education in South Africa, and it is from that angle that we will be viewing this particular amending Bill.

The hon member for Stellenbosch was praised by my colleague the hon member for Cape Town Gardens for being an excellent chairman, and I wholeheartedly agree. He is an excellent chairman and he has run the committee well this year. I agree with the words of the hon member for Stellenbosch that education is an “extremely sensitive” area that we examine. In fact, I should go as far as to say that it is more important than anything else that we solve the problems that divide us in education, because if we do that we shall solve the majority of our problems.

Whether hon members on the opposite benches like it or not—maybe they do not like it—the PFP do not represent an extreme in education. In fact, we represent a middle course or third option. There are people to our left and people to our right. It is that totality that needs to be reconciled.

We want to give the Bill itself, as well as the amendment, the full coverage that I think it deserves in the educational totality. First of all, I want to look at clauses 1, 2, 3 and 19 of the Bill itself. I shall look at the amendment later. If there are more than two vice-rectors at a university these clauses allow only two to serve on the council. My colleague the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has covered this point. If I may, I should like to link this to the question as to whether the hon the Minister is aware whether this is the case in other universities in South Africa. If it is, let us leave it at that.

The second point I want to touch on covers the whole question of the abolition of the Committee of University Rectors and the fact that the rectors of the universities that fall under this hon Minister’s department do in fact now serve on the Committee of University Principals. The CP on my right objected to that because they saw this as a breakdown of separate education. We believe that it is a positive step in the direction of the intelligence, co-operation, goodwill and purpose that the hon the Minister has said he supports.

When we look at the universities I want to link this to the problems of the educational structure. In question 387 I asked the hon the Minister the following:

In his written reply to my question the hon the Minister’s department provided me with certain figures.

These are not good figures. At the University of Zululand, 23% graduated within the minimum time available. At the University of the North the figure was 41%; at Medunsa 30%, and at Vista, 11%.

I do not want to talk about the students per se, but I do want to take a look at them within the perspective of the education structure as a whole because as far as one is able to gather, the percentage at other universities is appreciably higher and there must be significant educational and other reasons for this. We believe that in considering these kinds of facts in education as a whole, it will become apparent that the fact that we have a divided education system is reinforcing rather than easing the situation in regard to the problem area of pass rates.

The second point I should like to consider, is that of the establishment of technical colleges under the auspices of this department. We in these benches view this as a very positive thing. We are very pleased that technical colleges have, in fact, been established. However, in the words of Goethe, “One always has time enough if one applies it well and wisely”. It is 1987 and there are at present 113 000 White students in the technical colleges falling under the department of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. There are also 679 Black students. My complaint is that we have had the time and oh, how we have wasted it! We really have wasted it. If, however, having made the decision that technical colleges are needed, we were to ask the question: “Will the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly allow his technical college facilities to be used by the Black people in order to give them the impetus they need?”, the answer would be no. We have separation. We have the five departments of education and although we have the much vaunted section 14 of Schedule I, which the hon the Minister is so wont to quote, it is not being used to any great extent. We believe that we shall only begin to make any progress when we have an executive education department that can oversee education as a whole and identify the problems and difficulties.

Thirdly, Mr Chairman, I want to deal with the concept of the certification council. There are amendments in the Bill itself regarding the certification council and examinations. We support these, as we supported the establishment of the certification council last year. Here again, however, the time factor is at issue. The certification council has not been appointed yet. Nearly a year after that Bill was passed we still do not have a council and we are still faced with the attendant problems. Interestingly enough, one of the provisions contained in the legislation which we passed in order to establish the South African Certification Council is that common examinations may be established with the concurrence of one or two Ministers. I want to repeat what I said when we discussed that Bill last year, namely that I believe that if students were to write common examinations, a great deal of the heat that is currently being generated by racially separate examinations would be dissipated. We had common examinations before 1960 and there is no reason why we should not have common provincial examinations, as it were, once again.

Related to that—and I should like to ask the hon the Minister a specific question in this regard—is the whole question of syllabus creation and the role of his particular department. In his speech during the discussion of his Vote earlier this year, the hon the Minister made reference to the fact that his department would have a say in the whole concept of the creation of new syllabuses for his department and that the curriculating centre for these would fall under the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly, who is leaving the House at the moment. [Interjections.] What I am concerned about, is the exact relationship between the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and that curriculating syllabus centre. What is the exact relationship between them? Is it being run on an agency basis? Are we, in fact, looking at common syllabus creation? We certainly hope that that is the case.

The fourth major area covered in the amending Bill before us is that of teacher training. There are a number of areas—my colleague the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has already covered some of them—regarding the full use of colleges, and I am not going to repeat those. However, I just want to make a particular point to the hon the Minister for Education and Development Aid: There was a need to amend the Bill which came before the standing committee because the certification council for teacher training is not yet in existence and so the Bill was amended by departmental amendment.

What I am concerned about is that when we had a discussion on teacher training and its proposed Bill on the standing committee last year one of the problem areas was to have a representative body that was linked to the rectors of the colleges. What has happened subsequent to that is that in the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly a committee of rectors of colleges of education has been brought into existence, so it is now possible for the standing committee or the department, or whoever, to liaise with a representative body of college rectors. However, although this legislation we have before us does make reference to teacher training and the need for common certification, we still—as far as I am aware—unfortunately do not have a committee of rectors of colleges falling under this hon Minister’s department. I think it is necessary that the DET establishes such a body before the standing committee comes to consider a certification council on teacher training probably next year. Here again one must note departmental differences in educational structures causing considerable problems even in devising legislation.

Also under teacher training one must make reference to the setting of fees. Here for the first time in this legislation fees are being set for colleges of education. This is linked to the whole concept—or so I understand after having made enquiries into the matter—of bursaries and increasing bursaries so that parity—the hon the Minister made mention of this in his speech—can be achieved between departments. All I want to point out in this respect is that I trust that in the movement to set fees and to increase bursaries some relative balance is achieved between the two so that the student who in the past was not in fact meeting fees will receive a bursary sufficient for him to meet all those fees so that he will be placed in a no worse financial position. That kind of situation pertains as far as we are aware in other departments. We hope that that parity is enjoyed.

I would now like to make reference to a clause that was removed from the Bill by the standing committee. It is the old clause 12 which proposed the following:

I read this to have it recorded in the text of Hansard. That was the old clause and we are very pleased—and I must say this directly to the hon the Minister—that that clause was in fact removed.

However—there is always a catch—we also believe that the hon the Minister actually needs to look at the whole concept of section 40 of the original Act. If I may just quote its marginal note, section 40 of the principal Act states:

It then promptly goes on to list six exceptions and the Bill before us today adds a seventh.

When we look at the comparisons between legislation falling under this Minister and legislation for other departments we note that section 40 as worded here and referring to unauthorised persons who may not visit certain schools is not contained in any other legislation. We have discussed this with certain legal persons and we can only believe that it is because other schools are covered by the common law trespassing situation. We wonder whether rather than making provision for six exceptions plus the seventh exception of today it would not be preferable for the hon the Minister to consider deleting the whole of section 40 so that the common law would then apply and the department could exercise its right over who was in its school grounds at any time of the day or night in terms of common law trespassing.

I want to deal very briefly with a fifth aspect, viz technikons and the technikons certification council. Here I want to emphasise the words of the hon member for Stellenbosch who referred to the numbers. The numbers are so totally inadequate as to be frightening. There are at the moment some 4 000 plus Black students at technikons registered under the department of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture: House of Assembly. There are also some 80 000 White students and the difficulty is that although this hon Minister is doing his best in his department—this we believe—to stimulate technical education I got the following reply to a question asked today. It was a question concerning the admission of persons to hostels. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House was asked what the policy of his department was regarding the admission of non-White students to hostels provided at technikons falling under his control. The hon the Minister’s reply was that non-White students were at present not admitted to the hostels of technikons under the jurisdiction of his department.

We are aware of the case of a number of Black students who wish to train at a particular technikon and who wish to get into a hostel—and we know that the hostel has room for them. It goes against the very thing that the hon the Minister spoke about—namely a labour of love—to turn them away from a particular hostel simply because of the colour of their skin. I know that the hon the Minister is aware of it.

The sixth aspect of the Bill before us concerns a change in the definition of the period of 14 days. We have no problem with the changing of this definition. We also checked the White legislation in this regard. The ordinances for Whites actually say 31 days. I do not know why there is a difference and the hon the Minister possibly does not know either. The 31 days are defined in no other way except that they may be absent for 31 days.

The seventh aspect deals with the Medical University of Southern Africa and the establishment there of a nursing school or a nursing college. Again we are very pleased about the situation but again we see it in a single racial context. Why cannot we see it in the totality of the nursing needs of South Africa? That is the point that the hon member for Kimberley North needs to be concerned about. We are not protesting and saying that there should be no Black nurses. We believe that there should be many more nurses in South Africa and we are not concerned with their colour. We believe that the provision needs to be viewed in its totality and not on the basis of department by department.

The last point—here again we have to thank the hon the Minister’s department—is the acceptance of the amendment in our committee of carrying fees forward. That was in the original amendment that we received but a second amendment that was effected in the standing committee, was to the effect that the Minister can make exclusions. We are pleased that that provision remains because we believe it is a valuable one. Perhaps it was not utilised very much in the past but we are certainly pleased that it will continue to exist in the legislation.

So much then for the Bill itself. I have praised a number of aspects and the hon the Minister is aware that I have also asked a number of questions.

I have also said that there are disparities between the various departments. The PFP have moved an amendment. I intend to look very briefly at the four areas covered by that amendment.

First of all, we believe that the Government needs to address the problems of Black education properly by establishing a single Ministry of Education with appropriate decentralisation. I know that this hon Minister and I have scrapped across the floor previously because he said that one department would never work and that only Adolf Hitler had had one department in Germany. We now have Lander with their different departments. We are saying—and I will repeat it—a single Ministry of Education with appropriate decentralisation and devolution of authority and administration on a non-racial basis is what we want.

What do we have at the moment? I quote from a publication of Sanso entitled The Structure and Operation of the South African Education System:

That is very important: It is not an umbrella body. This is from the Sanso report of that department.

They do not have a super Minister so how can they be a super department?

I also want to quote from a speech made by Dr Ken Hartshorne in 1979. I want to ask the NP whether things are in fact significantly different. He said:

I want to repeat that last sentence:

I want to say that it may be that in the years to come this hon Minister’s department will have a Black Minister in the Cabinet. We know the NP is thinking of ways in which to establish this. That fact of having a Black Minister heading this department—which we know the NP has said is a possibility…

Are you going to accept it?

… is still not acceptable unless the Black population as a whole has representation in order to achieve their own elected position. Otherwise he is an appointee of the White establishment. That is the catch and that is exactly the point that Hartshorne made.

And the White one? Is he appointed or not?

Of course—an Uncle Tom!

Similarly, I quote from a report from the Centre for Applied Social Sciences of the University of Natal, namely The Classroom crisis: Black demands and White responses:

What we are saying is that in the totality of the educational perspective in South Africa the piece of legislation we have before us today however desirable its many features are—and they are desirable—must in fact suffer from that very lack of vision on the part of the NP.

Secondly, we say in our amendment that there should be common, basic education legislation in this country. Here I want to quote from the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, an Act, I think, that this hon Minister knows well. The following principles are entrenched in this Act:

1. (i) That equal opportunities for education, including equal standards of education, shall be strived after for every inhabitant of the Republic irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex;

That is an extremely desirable objective. I quote further—

1. (ii) that recognition shall be granted both to that which is common and to that which is diverse in the religious and cultural way of life of the inhabitants… and to their languages;…
2. (iv) that the provision of education shall be directed in an educationally responsible manner at the needs of the individual and those of society, and the demands of economic development, and shall take into account the manpower needs of the Republic;

This is a general Act, Sir. It applies to every South African and to all departments, and all I want to say is that I see in some of the diverse legislation affecting the four executive departments things that clash with these aims. By their very nature they must clash. I do not see that this department, in its legislation, is striving for equality of education in terms of education legislation. The department may be doing so in terms of its funding—there is a 10-year plan—but there seems to be no attempt to get to grips with the commonality of legislation. The hon the Minister shakes his head, and I am very pleased that he is doing so. [Interjections.] That is excellent, Sir.

You can only find 14 days against 31 days. There you are saying so yourself.

The hon the Minister will be aware that the suspension of schools does not apply to White education. The hon the Minister will also be aware that there are a number of other areas, including unauthorised persons on premises that are not provided for in White education legislation. There are also a number of other areas that are not even in this amending Bill we are considering.

We believe, therefore, that it is important for the commonality of education, in terms of its executive function, if I may put it that way, to be transmitted into legislation. If the Government is moving towards this, thank goodness it is. If it is not, then what we have before us is “patchwork ad hoc-cracy” at its very worst.

Thirdly, we propose representativeness. Blacks reject separate education, and we believe that their representativeness needs to be carried through in the education department itself, in the parent structures, in the provincial or regional structures and in the highest bodies of the land. Then we will have true representativeness.

Lastly, I turn to the question of optimum utilisation of educational resources. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has talked about using the 2 500 empty places in colleges of education. I merely want to ask what is being done with the 200 000 empty places in White schools. Is rationalisation going to take place and will those be transferred to this hon Minister’s department? Or can a better, more equitable system of utilisation be brought about?

I suggest to this hon Minister that he has a crying need for school hostels. Yet there are 25 000 empty places… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this was a debate that took a strange turn. It is a debate on an amending Bill which regulates anew a number of matters of detail concerning the existing legislation, and yet it is being used by the PFP as a debate relating to a discussion of policy, like the debate on a Vote. The entire spectrum of education policy was brought into it.

I think that this in fact points to two deficiencies on the part of the PFP, The first, which they apparently ascertained after the event, is that they did not do enough homework to enable them to react during the debate on the Education and Training Vote. The second is that they also neglected to make sufficient use of the meetings of the standing committee to raise the large number of questions about detail that they raised here. I do not think it would be fair of me to take up the time of this House by replying in full detail to the series of questions, each of which would take at least two to three times as much time to answer properly as they took to ask. Therefore I shall necessarily have to be brief in dealing with the large number of matters raised by the hon members of the PFP.

In the first place I wish to associate myself with hon members on both sides of the House with regard to the message of appreciation they conveyed to the hon member for Stellenbosch as chairman of the standing committee, for the leadership and diplomacy he displayed in successfully piloting these matters through that committee with the consent of hon members of all three of the Houses. I want to say here that the other two Houses of Parliament accepted with acclamation, and without all the objections raised here by the PFP, the amendments to the existing legislation contained in the Bill. It is clear that the PFP is in any event hopelessly out of touch with the majority of spokesmen in the other two Houses of Parliament.

I should also like to thank the other hon members of the standing committee for their contributions on the committee and in this House.

The Bill represents the annual adjustments to the existing legislation of the department. It is not a review of the entire fundamental legislative structure of the department, which is what hon members of the PFP asked that it should be. That is simply not what it is. They caused the debate to take an entirely different turn that was in conflict with the essential structure of the legislation.

What is striking is that the changes to be affected in the existing legislation are in fact relatively minor changes. This attests to the fundamental soundness of the set of laws regulating the educational activities of the department. Had that not been so it would have been necessary for us to effect far more drastic changes, particularly in the difficult circumstances the department has had to endure in recent years.

In fact I believe that the existing legislation has shown that it is flexible and adaptable even to the difficult demands made in new and challenging circumstances in recent times. Where necessary certain adjustments had to be made specifically in order to take specific situations into account, particularly situations of crisis and unrest that had also occurred the previous year in the school system.

In this regard I should also like to convey thanks and appreciation to the Director-General and his staff because they are the professional people responsible for constituting, formulating and maintaining this legislation to which so relatively few marginal changes have had to be made. This attests to the fact that we have really outstanding intellectual and professional qualities. That is why I find it so painful that the hon member for Pinetown should have said:

We would have to go a long way to find greater intelligence, greater purposefulness than is to be found among the professional advisers and leaders who are active in the department and assist the Government. [Interjections.]

I should also like to mention that in fact three very fundamental and positive matters are dealt with in the legislation, albeit in passing. In the first place, the clause concerning the conversion of a nursing school into a nursing college at Medunsa has been mentioned by some speakers. I think that it is very important just to emphasise here that the training of nurses in the Black community makes a major contribution to establishing an important leadership element in this community. Anyone acquainted with Black community life knows what an exceptionally valuable role is played there by nursing sisters and other trained nurses, as well as in other spheres such as education, the business world and so on.

In the second place, the meaning of postschool education is a very important matter which is dealt with here. Several hon members referred to this, and the hon member for Stellenbosch made an exceptionally knowledgeable contribution in this regard. This includes occupationally oriented as well as adult education aimed at general cultural moulding and community skills provided in particular by the technical colleges and technikons. This is not being introduced for the first time now, but is being given a proper legal foundation by means of the insertions in the legislation relating to post-school education in those two types of institution.

This is a matter of the utmost importance because it coincides with the fundamental restructuring currently taking place in Black education through our educational leaders but also under the guidance of the Government; a fundamental restructuring which from the first school year, from the first substandard, is moving away from the onesided emphasis on the academic-theoretical syllabuses to the increased recognition of skills, techniques and occupationally oriented training.

I believe that seldom in the history of South Africa has such an important new initiative been launched on such a broad front with such a degree of skilled planning and so much success in its implementation as this very restructuring with a view to achieving greater occupational orientation from the first year of school right through to the final year of school in Black education.

I want to answer the negative criticism levelled by hon members of the PFP by inviting them to pay a visit to the headquarters of the Department of Education and Training to see what creative initiatives have been undertaken and are being developed in this regard. [Interjections.]

Another very important matter affected by this legislation which was dealt with in full by my hon colleague, the Deputy Minister, during the debate on the Vote, is the extension of the department’s functions to undertake a type of education for which the welfare departments responsible for Black communities were previously responsible, namely the provision of reform schools and schools of industry. This is an important new breakthrough.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens asked whether I could give him some indication of what was happening at present in regard to youthful offenders appearing before the courts until such time as provision could be made by the department for such new training institutions. The answer is twofold. In the first place there are a number of reform schools and schools of industry in certain self-governing territories and in the independent states to which they can be referred, but this is insufficient. There must be more.

Secondly, those who cannot at present be referred in this way are being dealt with in the existing present system by way of an exceptionally sophisticated educational rehabilitation programme. My colleague and I recently paid a visit to the Leeukop Prison, and I must say that this is a model that could be shown to the entire world—the educationally based rehabilitation work offered there to youthful prisoners of between 16 and 21 years. It is so good that even an education department would probably not be able to emulate it.

However, we hope that by providing these reform schools and schools of industry the options available to a presiding officer or a court or childrens’ court will be extended so that instead of simply having to refer youthful offenders that have been found guilty, to a prison, they can now also be referred to reform schools, and the welfare system can make provision to ensure that before youths become criminals, they can be declared in need of care and referred to a school of industry. I believe that this will render a most important remedial and supplementary service.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Minister for the information he has given us with regard to Leeukop. He mentioned that youths between the ages of 16 and 21 were being accommodated there. What has been happening in the interim to children between, say 10 and 15 years of age—the younger group?

There are no children between the ages of 10 and 15 there.

*Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members on this side of the House for their support. The hon member for Brentwood referred inter alia to the reinforcement of the professional role of the teaching corps in the school and in the regulation of situations. I think that this is a very important point, and I thank him.

I have already referred to the contribution by the hon member for Stellenbosch concerning the importance of greater emphasis on occupationally-oriented and technical education. He referred with great frankness to the disturbing imbalances that exist in Black education. This is a matter which the department recognises and which they are dealing with with great professional skill. The hon member also dealt very effectively with the bankrupt reaction of a certain militant educational organisation, the name of which I do not even want to mention here, and their comments on this legislation. It was purely a militant political reaction which made no educational contribution whatsoever. By doing so that organisation discredited itself once again and revealed its bankruptcy and the fact that it has nothing to contribute to a meaningful discussion on the promotion of Black education.

The hon member for Walmer made an excellent and knowledgeable contribution, as we have come to expect of him. I want to thank him in particular for the sober way in which he outlined the practical reason why the opening up of teachers’ colleges for all population groups is problematical in contrast to the opening up of other tertiary educational institutions. The point is that teachers’ colleges specifically train teachers for primary schools. Moreover, it is in the primary school that the intimate connection between community life and the cultural background is of the utmost importance. At that level, therefore, one certainly cannot promote sound education by throwing together people of totally different cultures and population groups.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens also discussed this and asked questions about this matter. Let me therefore reply directly to him in this regard. In discussions with Black educators and Black educational leaders they have consistently told us in no uncertain terms that they welcome qualified teachers from White and other population groups, but not at the primary school level, because the first three or four school years are in the first place conducted by way of mother-tongue education, and in most instances this involves African languages. In the second place, the education which builds on that also depends to a large extent on the teacher’s ability to provide supplementary interpretations in the mother tongue, despite the fact that the tuition at that stage takes place in English to a large extent. The Black educational leaders with whom we hold regular consultations also emphasised this aspect.

I want to tell the hon member for Pinetown that we do consult with Black educational leaders. We consult them at the local, the regional and the national level on the Education and Training Board. We also conduct informal discussions with the representatives of the organised teachers’ associations and with representatives of the organised inspectors’ associations. We conduct regular, structured discussions at Ministerial and departmental level. The one thing that they constantly stress in their discussions with us is that they would like to enrich their teachers’ corps with qualified people from other population groups in secondary education, but that this cannot work at the primary education level.

Indeed, it was only after special negotiations with Black educational leaders, that we succeeded recently in appointing White women in a few cases where we could not find suitable teachers for farm schools. These White women are qualified teachers who are also acquainted with Black languages. This happened after considerable negotiation and with the consent of the leaders of the relevant Black communities and of the Black teaching profession.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Kimberley North sincerely for his contribution. He referred here to the provision relating to a three-month deadline for a teacher who—let me call it that—has absconded, during which he can ask for his position to be restored. The hon members of the PFP wanted to know why there was a difference between the 14 days after which the teacher who has stayed away without a valid reason—who has therefore ab sconded—in fact disqualifies himself, and the provision relating to 31 days that applies in the case of White education. The reason for this is that our department is traditionally a central department. The conditions of service of the central departments relating to this aspect differ in general from those of the provinces. The non-education departments at the central level also have a 14-day provision, while the provinces have a 31-day provision. Nevertheless I want to say that I believe that even 14 days is too much to permit a teacher, a person who ought to display responsibility, simply to stay away, and then afterwards to come back and be in a position to ask to be restored to his post. In my opinion we ought not even to make that concession. Instead we ought to give them only two days’ grace before saying to them: “Be gone with you! You have, as it were, disqualified yourself from being a member of the profession.”

I do not believe that we should try to score points off one another about matters of this nature. We should rather clamp down on people in this regard and require from them the professional integrity and responsibility that is really needed.

Sir, I also wish to thank the hon member for Brits who, on behalf of the Official Opposition, pledged his support for this legislation. However he added that the NP was known for not applying the laws and that it was unable to restore order in the schools. I think that one of the greatest achievements of this Government has been that over the past year it has succeeded in restoring order in the schools by means of sensible action and a sound combination of strong, purposeful, even security force-supported action on the one hand, and on the other patient negotiations and tactful recognition of the problems and the pressure often exerted on Black educational leaders in their own communities. I believe that neither the extreme approach of the CP nor the opposite extreme approach of the PFP would have had the slightest success in rectifying this situation.

The hon member for Brits also referred to the fact that he and his party objected to the abolition of the Committee of University Rectors as a separate consultative body for the Black universities. He said that this really provided further evidence that nationally-oriented (volkseie) education at the university level was being undermined by the Government.

Hear, hear!

I think he put his foot in it, and the hon “hear, hear”-er over there has put his foot even deeper in it. [Interjections.] In a previous debate, when we were discussing this matter, I pointed out that the standpoint of the Official Opposition was that there should be nationally-oriented tertiary education throughout. I put these two questions to them. I wanted to know whether this also meant that there should be a rigid separation between Afrikaans and English education at tertiary level. I also asked them whether it was their standpoint that there should be separation, as the hon member for Pietersburg intimated at the time in his remarks about the University of the North, and that nationally-oriented, in the sense of ethnically differentiated, tuition should apply at university level. They said that that was correct; it ought in fact to be so.

I then pointed out to them that the then Deputy Minister of Education and Training introduced legislation in 1979 to suspend the ethnic restrictions that applied to the Black universities at the time so that there could be a freedom of movement among the various Black population groups as far as attendance at the various Black universities was concerned. [Interjections.] I said that that man was none other than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

It is recorded here in this year’s Hansard, col 3250, that the reaction of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was in the following four words: “That is not true.” I want to go back to the Hansard of 1979, to where the Universities for Blacks Amendment Bill was being introduced by a Deputy Minister of Education and Training. If I refer to page iv of that Hansard I see that the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training was a certain Dr the Hon A P Treurnicht, MP. In his Second Reading speech he mentioned that the proposed amendment entailed that, as was already the case at Medunsa, the other universities for Blacks would now also serve all Blacks, and not only specific ethnic units. He pointed out that this principle had already been introduced at the Agriculture Faculty at Fore Hare and with regard to pharmaceutical training at the University of the North, where the courses were open to all Black students.

At this point there is a very interesting sentence, because the then hon Deputy Minister said (Hansard: Assembly, 1979, col 2016):

No longer statutorily-imposed differentiation—

Therefore this is a suspension of the statutory requirement and of specified ethnic and nationally oriented differentiation. In reaction to that, four words were addressed to me: “That is not true.” Either the memory of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition left him in the lurch, so that he was unable to remember what he had done in 1979, or he thought he could get the better of us, that we would not remember, and that he would be able to bluff us in this way. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Sir, I am not going to answer any questions now.

In future the hon member for Brits should rather go and check which of the various standpoints his hon leaders adopted in the past is in line with the standpoints he now wishes to put forward.

Order! Far too many interjections are being made that have nothing to do with the debate. I should prefer not to stop them, but I shall do so if they continue. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I have already referred to the fact that the speakers of the PFP dealt with such a diversity of questions that it would be virtually impossible to respond to all of them in a proper and comprehensive way. I should just like to refer to the fact that the hon member for Stellenbosch has already dealt with the remarks of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens with regard to the NECC.

Let me say that evidence obtained from Black people was not an initiative taken for the first time by the standing committee. It was a process that had already been applied on a broad and extensive basis by the department in the run-up to this legislation. The contribution made by the NECC—which was not invited by the Government but was proposed by the representatives of the PFP on the standing committee—was of no educational value and merely an exercise in futility.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I am not going to answer questions now. It is quite unreasonable to expect that.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has pointed out that certain provisions he referred to which deal specifically with unrest and discipline only apply to Black schools. Surely that is logical. It is a fact that over the past two years serious conditions of unrest have occurred in Black schools in particular. Surely it is only responsible that one should take the necessary steps to counteract that.

What about Coloured schools?

I am not responsible for Coloured schools. They may have introduced similar measures. I do not know what the situation is.

The point made by the hon member is that there is something wrong with our having introduced special measures in our specific circumstances. I want to remind the hon member that in the seventies, when there was serious unrest among Black people in some cities of the USA and serious disturbances took place on certain campuses there, not only ordinary policemen but even the Seventh Airborne Division were called in in the city of Baltimore to restore order. I could mention further such examples of drastic steps taken by a country which is widely recognised as a freedom-loving country, namely the USA. No less a person than Prof Pieter de Lange, after his return from America last year, expressed his consternation at the extent of almost military armament in evidence in “inner-city schools” in various urban areas in the USA in order to maintain law and order owing to the uncontrollability of many of the children. This shows that any sensible government has to take special steps when circumstances demand it.

As regards the remarks by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens about the shortage of teachers, I have already referred to the special circumstances with reference to primary school teachers—because it is in particular the shortage of those teachers that he was referring to.

†There are problems with regard to their ability to use the vernacular as well as problems with regard to their understanding, in general, of the socio-cultural background of those youngsters. I would like to emphasise once again that responsible Black educationists have not been encouraging when the department has come forward with suggestions to introduce primary school teachers from other population groups to supplement shortages at that level.

I also want to give the hon member a very clear and categoric assurance with regard to suspicions that he mentioned existed at certain teacher training colleges about new systems of selection. The system for the selection of candidates for teacher training in the colleges of the Department of Education and Training has been improved. It was improved at the insistence of Black education leaders because they felt that there was an inequality in the standards of selection which applied at various centres, because problems were experienced with students who applied at different centres and that academic standards in particular were not sufficiently entertained. They also felt that in view of the increasing number of secondary school pupils completing their matric successfully, we should raise the standards required in terms of academic proficiency in the selection of students for teacher training. I want to give the hon member the assurance that there is no question of prejudicing people because of reasons other than academic. If, however, a person is a declared activist, I can assure the hon member it would be highly irresponsible of me not only in the eyes of my own supporters but also in the eyes of the Black community leaders with whom I work, to select such a person for teacher training in the Black community.

The hon member for Durban North referred to the De Lange Report with regard to the need for a single education Ministry which was again emphasised in the amendment moved by his party.

There is a lot of misinterpretation of what the De Lange Report actually stated.

The De Lange Report clearly identified four areas which would qualify for central, common legislation and executive control with regard to education, namely: The norms and standards for financing, the standards for appointment of personnel, their emoluments and their conditions of service; the standards applied and the methods of registering the professional status of teachers; and the defining of standards of the content of teaching programmes, syllabuses, certification and examinations.

These are in fact the four points that in legislation passed by Parliament are the responsibility of the central Ministry of National Education under the control of the hon the Minister of National Education.

I have no final say with regard to the finances of my department. They have to be negotiated together with my other colleagues under the leadership of the hon the Minister of National Education. It is the same with all four of these other matters.

It is a misinterpretation of what the De Lange report says to misrepresent him as if he wanted a completely comprehensive executive central department. It is also a misrepresentation of what the Government has in fact done to pretend that no progress has been made toward a central department for general affairs in education.

The De Lange option for the decentralisation of education was also an option spelt out in terms of two alternatives, namely a geographic basis or a demographic basis; in other words, one based on geographic areas of operation and the other on population groups. The Government opted for the alternative which was in accordance with its policy, namely the demographic basis.

I have dealt briefly with some of the remarks of the hon member for Pinetown. He asked a great many questions and I must say that, as usual, his questions are well informed. I should, however, like to reply to him in more detail to give him the benefit of my understanding of the matter and thereby make a useful contribution.

He made a remark about the low percentage of graduation of Black students at Black universities in the minimum time. He said this performance was reinforced by the divided system. I should like to assure him that if those students had gone to a predominantly White university, they would have done worse. [Interjections.] The universities where they go, provide certain remedial and bridging courses which assist them and which are effective and useful.

It is understandable that students coming from a developing community where people are in transition between a traditional and a modern urbanised society, and where many of them are first generation educated children, will experience problems of adjustment. One has to accept this and should assist and support them. This is what is being done in the universities of my department which have a special responsibility in this regard.

If we were to throw them all together in one melting pot, I can assure the hon member that the overall drop-out figure of such students would be worse than it is at present.

*As regards the hon member for Claremont, who has in fact already declared himself to be a representative of the UDF in this House, I have already dealt with his appeals relating to the opposition of the NECC. The quality of the opposition of the NECC to this legislation is so uneducational, so unfounded, so superficial and so politicised that it really does not require serious consideration by any responsible body. In the second place, as regards his statement that the parents have no say in the suspension of schools, I want to say that that is simply untrue. He went on to say that this legislation prevents the community from becoming involved in education. This just shows that he is not acquainted with what appears in our legislation. In our legislation, which consists not only of laws, but also of regulations, due provision has been made for an entire structure of democratically-elected school committees and school control bodies—organisations that those NECC friends of his try to undermine every day, and which, at their congress in March last year…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, I am dealing with him now. He must sit down now. [Interjections.] I am going to give him a hard time.

As far back as March last year his friends indicated that the parents should not cooperate. Why not? Specifically because these are democratically elected structures, and not structures which power cliques—his little friends—get each other into to exercise control at a place where they have no significant influence. From there parental representation is built up to regional level and from regional level to a central Council of Education and Training where the necessary advice is provided and consultation takes place, often and repeatedly.

The community plays an extremely important role in education, including education for Blacks. Before any disciplinary steps are taken at a school during a state of disorder, repeated discussions are held—I am tempted to say that discussions are sometimes repeated ad nauseam—with the parental community, religious and other leaders in the community.

In an effort to achieve communication and a sound relationship in handling the polarised situation at Langa High School, the hon the Deputy Minister has conducted almost 20 discussions this year. It is physically virtually impossible for any department to continue holding discussions of this scope, but it is expected of us and we do it. [Interjections.]

I do not know how the officials of the department still manage to do their ordinary educational work. Indeed, I think it forms part of the strategy of the friends of that hon member to undermine, by way of these very actions, the effectiveness of the officials and to draw their attention away from their educational work and the improvement of education by engaging them in crisis management and crisis strategies. [Interjections.]

It is as well to listen to a man now and again, so that we can realise afresh the attitude and approach adopted by the opponents of this Government and which it must face in its effort to establish an orderly, responsible educational system. It should motivate us to fight them even harder and to leave them with an even bloodier nose.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—115: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Beyers, J M; Blanché, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosnian, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; Delport, J T; Derby-Lewis, C J; Dilley, LHM; Du Plessis, PTC; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heunis, J C; Hunter, J E L; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, TAP; Langley, T; Le Roux, DET;Le Roux, F J; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E vd M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nolte, D G H; Odendaal, W A; Oosthuizen, G C; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, C B; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Snyman, W J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Uys, C; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, J A; Van Wyk. W J D; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Thompson, A G.

Noes—16: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Olivier, N J J; Schwarz, H H; Swart, RAF; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a second time.

The CP will be supporting the report and has no further comment to make on it.

Mr Chairman, I should merely like to thank the hon members of the standing committee most sincerely for their co-operation, and that is all that we on this side of the Committee want to say about the matter.

Mr Chairman, as the Minister involved, I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Turffontein, as well as all the other hon members of the standing committee for the work they did in this connection and for the speed with which they set this matter in motion.

Recommendations agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr Chairman, the consideration of the report of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services appeared on the Order Paper for the first time on 25 September. At that stage, evidence given in the standing committee was not available, and I therefore moved in the other two Houses that the report be referred to the Government in order that properly formulated replies could be tabled for consideration by Parliament. Accordingly, I therefore now move:

I shall be much obliged if you would allow me a few words of elucidation in this regard.

It now appears that such a motion could have a delaying effect, especially with regard to the motion of the standing select committee concerning the appointment of a committee of experts to investigate currency transactions. It is by no means the intention to create any delay or blocking effect as a result of that motion.

In order to prevent that, I should like to announce that I have decided, after consultation with the chairman of the standing committee, the Auditor-General and the General Manager of the SATS, to appoint such a committee in accordance with the guidelines of the standing committee.

The proposed committee will report to the Auditor-General and myself. It will therefore be possible for the standing committee to report fully to Parliament via the Auditor-General.

Mr Chairman, although we have not been caught napping, I have only just received the hon the Minister’s motion, and I was still reading it when he sat down.

I think we have two different points here, which I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister. In the first place I had only the motion that had been introduced in the other two Chambers, and it appears that the wording of that motion is not quite the same as that of the motion moved by the hon the Minister now. Perhaps he can assist me in this connection.

It is exactly the same.

Oh, it is exactly the same. This means that the report is being referred to the Government in order that properly formulated replies can be tabled for consideration by Parliament.

My problem is that the SATS as a department or a kind of department—whether it is self-accounting or whatever does not matter—is a subdivision of the Government, and the hon the Minister is the political head of the SATS and also a member of the Government. The standing committee monitors the activities of that department on behalf of Parliament, and, as far as finance is concerned, the Auditor-General annually submits a report about the finances of the specific department, and I am putting the word “department” in quotation marks. In other words, as far as I am concerned, the Government really has to report to the standing committee in respect of the “department”.

I believe that the answers given before the standing committee should have been final answers. I understand the problems of the hon the Minister in that apparently, as a result of the complete overburdening of the staff, these matters were not ready to be discussed here. I do not think it is correct, however, to draw a full circle and then go some way past the end again, in that once the matter has been before the standing committee, one once again refers it to the Government for the formulation of replies. I have understanding for the situation, and that is why I am making a general remark about this matter.

I am pleased the hon the Minister has given us the assurance that this will not cause any delay. As far as I am concerned there is a very serious matter in the report, concerning the exchange risk management of the SATS. The SATS informed us as follows in paragraph 3 of the report—

According to the information made available to the standing committee by the General Manager, the deficit, as a result of exchange fluctuations for the 1984-85 financial year, amounted to R172 million, and R278 million for the 1985-86 financial year. That amounts to a total of R450 million for the two years.

In reply to further questioning the General Manager of the SATS indicated—he said this in a footnote and it also appears in the report—that there were in fact unrealised losses of R2 700 million. These are being spread over a period of between six and 10 years because, as he put it, that “makes it bearable”. As a result of the exchange risk management and the collapse of the rand value on the international money market, the SATS has an unrealised deficit of R2 700 million at this stage which they want to work off over a period of six to 10 years.

I think that is terrible. The General Manager of the SATS said the following in his evidence before the standing committee:

It is at 0,88 German marks at the moment. One gets 88 German pfennigs for a rand. There was a further decrease of 20%, therefore. I think the situation can get even worse as regards the rand value in respect of the German mark.

We do not want to make a great political fuss about this matter at this stage of the session. The problem, however, is that during that period in 1985 to which I think the General Manager was referring, when the rand was worth 81 American cents, there had already been a decline, because we had been involved in reform in South Africa for two years by then. Reform in South Africa put the rand on a sliding scale to the bottom. Even at that stage we were in the region of approximately 30 cents under what I shall call the “normal value” of the rand. The rand was always worth approximately 1,14 or 1,20 American dollars. We had gone even further by then, and the SATS was still persisting in this exchange risk management.

There was a warning light even then, and that is what bothers me. I think the General Manager was basing this estimated unrealised deficit on a rand value of approximately 50 American cents, but if the condition were to worsen, that deficit might be far more than the R2,7 billion or R2 700 million when it is realised. This is a very serious situation.

That is why I welcome the hon the Minister’s assurance that the appointment of this committee that the standing committee agreed upon, will not be delayed if the report is not accepted or not dealt with today. I merely want to say that we must consider this exchange risk management situation. I do not know whether or not the international loans can be repaid earlier, but I think that at the moment the SATS is between the devil and the deep blue sea, because if they were to redeem those loans now and there was an improvement in the rand value, they would be losing. If they do not redeem the loans, however, and there is a weakening in the value of the rand, they will be losing as well. My feeling is that in all probability the SATS is in any case, because of a lack of capital, not capable of redeeming the loans they still have to redeem.

As a patriot I have a great deal of sympathy with the dilemma of the hon the Minister and the SATS in this situation. For that reason I trust that those independent experts who have to be appointed by the chairman of the standing committee and the Auditor-General and the General Manager of the SATS will form a committee which will really be able to help the hon the Minister and his officials out of this dilemma.

I am not going to refer to other aspects in this connection, because we really need to have the answers in front of us before we can conduct a truly meaningful debate on the matter.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Soutpansberg. I think I am in the same position he is in in that the report we drew up—it is a consensus report which was sent to the three Houses without dissent—took a different course from the course we originally thought it would take. I think the motion moved by the hon the Minister at the beginning of this debate is taking us back to the original motion of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of the SATS.

I do not think we need discuss this report any further. Nor do I think we need to discuss the report of the Auditor-General, because at the moment it is really out of our hands. As the hon the Minister says, he is referring that report to the Government, and that gives the report a new dimension.

Nevertheless I want to dwell for a moment on a few aspects of the hon the Minister’s announcement. The hon the Minister did say we would proceed with the appointment. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give instructions within the guidelines of the report that we do so as soon as possible. In “us” I am including myself as chairman of the standing select committee, the Auditor-General and the General Manager of the SATS.

Since the hon the Minister said we were following the guidelines, I also want to ask whether we cannot instruct this committee of experts to report as soon as possible, but no later than 31 January 1988, so that we can come back to this matter. There will be little sense in any discussion until (a) we have got the first part back and have tabled the properly formulated replies, and (b) we have tabled the reply of the committee of experts. I want to say that merely to begin with.

In addition I want to express my thanks to my committee members—in more than one respect this was a difficult report—for their patience and co-operation which extended over many hours and many days. I want to convey my personal thanks as chairman to each and every one, irrespective of the House or party he belongs to, for the co-operation that has brought us to the point we have reached today.

I want to say something about that committee. The committee was proposed by the Auditor-General because he felt he did not have the necessary experts in his department. The standing committee supported him, because we felt we did not have the knowledge to address this problem either. Let us forget about the size (ordegrootte) of the figure for a moment. The only thing I want to say is that very large figures are involved in this. As I said, we endorsed this and felt we wanted to proceed with the proposal of the Auditor-General and obtain knowledge from people who were experts in this field. We also specified which fields they should cover.

I hope that the committee we are going to appoint will come forward with what is necessary as soon as possible, because this is a dilemma. Many companies apart from the SATS are involved in that dilemma as well. I do not want to mention names here, but members can imagine who they are. Some people have also profited from this exchange problem. One of my benchmates has profited. He was one of the fortunate people who could read things better than others, and could use this information. This has not only been a matter of heart-rending stories, therefore. There are people who have made money out of this, and I am pleased for my hon benchmate’s sake that he could do so.

Can he give some to the SATS?

No, he did not make enough.

I want to place the reasonableness of the hon the Minister on record. I think his motion solves the problems we are struggling with to a reasonable extent. We—that is the Auditor-General, the General Manager and I—shall try to enable the committee as soon as possible to submit a report to this House and the other two Houses, or to Parliament as such, in which we shall address the problem and hopefully also make recommendations about how to deal with it.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion I want to say that on the basis of the motion the hon the Minister has submitted, I think we should leave this aspect until we have all the answers. Then we can debate it.

I want to tell all hon members of my standing committee that I undertake, once the committee of experts which is going to advise the hon the Minister has been appointed, and once their terms of reference have been spelt out, to inform each of them in writing who the members are and what their terms of reference are.

Mr Chairman, I think that is a very fair offer by the hon member for Primrose. We would certainly appreciate that communication.

The first thing I want to react to is the proposal that was made out of the blue by the hon the Minister here this evening. It was put on my bench while he was in fact making the proposal.

When one looks at the select committee system, particularly in relation to Public Accounts and SATS accounts, one sees that this is something that happened in the Westminster parliamentary system whereby Parliament became the watchdog over the funds of the taxpayer. The job of the select committee on these accounts was to ensure that the money voted by Parliament was spent properly. To that end they appointed an auditor-general whose job was to report to the select committee and, in the House of Commons, the chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is in fact always a member of the opposition. This then ensured that due consideration was given to the spending of the taxpayers’ money by Parliament.

I think the hon the Minister is short-circuiting that here this evening because we have had a report from the Auditor-General, and it was a good report. We have had a number of meetings to discuss that report, and they were good meetings. We came out with a report from the select committee and it was, and still is, a good report. The whole matter has been subverted by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and he is now going to appoint the committee that is to investigate the problem. I do not actually think this is right. I believe it is a denigration of the rights and duties of Parliament—this institution of which we are all members—because this institution has to deal with the problems created in the spending of taxpayers’ money by Government. Then to have the Government itself saying that the select committee cannot recommend this and that they will be appointing the appropriate committee, neatly removes the onus from Parliament and places it in the hands of the Government.

I do not think that is right. I do not think that is the way it should happen and I would have far more confidence in the report of the committee to be appointed if it were made directly to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Auditor-General. I do not believe that there should be a government go-between, because it is basically Government actions that we are investigating. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give us the undertaking that the report of the committee that he appoints will not be confidential in any way—no section or portion of it—and that the whole report, verbatim, will be submitted to the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services. I want that undertaking from him and I hope that when he replies in this debate he will give us that undertaking, because we are now talking about the rights of this House which, heaven knows, have over a number of years been truncated to an extent which the opposition finds very difficult to live with. It is again happening in this particular instance, and I do not believe that it should happen. I think we came forward with a perfectly good report from the standing committee. As the hon member for Primrose said, it was a unanimous report. What has happened, however? The Government has stepped in with its big feet and I do not know why they are doing this.

They are avoiding their responsibility.

I want some reassurances from the hon the Minister.

There are three things in relation to the report that I want to discuss this evening. Before I do so, I want to congratulate the chairman of the select committee, the hon member for Primrose, who I think did a very good job in the committee, resulting in what I believe is the toughest report from this committee that has come out in the nine years that I have been in Parliament, and for most of those years I was a member of that committee. I think it is an excellent report; I think it is a tough report. I think that not only is the chairman of the committee to be congratulated on it, but I think all the members of the committee are to be congratulated also.

This is not a cover-up committee. We welcome that. I think the committee performed well. I think there were penetrating questions from all sides, resulting in the report that we have in front of this House today. I do not know how many members here present have actually read that report in the Minutes, but I would recommend it to them. It is a long report, it contains a number of items, and very few of those items will be discussed in this House this evening.

I intend, as I have said, to deal with three of them. One relates to a question that I asked in this House a little while ago, which I believe was wrongly answered by the then Minister; I do not think it was the hon the Minister we are dealing with here. The second, of course, relates to the pensions, and the third relates to the enormous Forex losses.

Firstly, I want to draw the attention of this House to a question which I asked on 11 March 1986 (Hansard, col 455), viz:

1. (1) whether the SATS introduced a central computerised accounting system for the invoicing and payment of goods traffic; if so, when was it introduced;
2. (2) whether this system was introduced as a result of a project known as Marius;
3. (3) whether any money has been lost as a result of the implementation of this accounting system; if so, what is the estimated loss;
4. (4) whether this system is to be replaced or upgraded; if not, why not; if so when?

To this question I got a simple reply. As far as (1) was concerned the answer was “no”, and paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) then fell away.

Imagine then, Sir, my interest when I found the following interesting passage on page 16, under Item 18. (6), of the report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services for the financial year 1985-86, viz:

R27 million, Sir!

When I asked the question of the then Minister in this House the answer was no. [Interjections.]

He lied!

Further in relation to this matter, Sir…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member of the PFP allowed to say that the reply furnished by the hon the Minister was a lie?

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter? I did not say anything about this hon Minister. It was made clear that it was his predecessor I was referring to. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

He nevertheless said that it was a lie, Sir.

May I continue now, Mr Chairman? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

He has just said it again, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! Let me make this very clear. As I understand it, the reference to him having told a lie, relates to the previous Minister, who is no longer a member of this House. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I then asked whether the computer itself had been out of commission or whether the programme used for calculating railage had been defective, thus necessitating alterations. To this question Dr Grové replied that he thought both applied. He said there had unfortunately been errors in the programme as was usually the case, but that another difficulty had been the connecting of two items. It would therefore appear to me from these answers given in the standing committee that they directly contradict the answers given to me in this House by the Minister of Transport Affairs. Furthermore, Sir, I believe that that Minister’s successor, the present hon Minister, should investigate this matter further, and if on consideration he should find that this House has been misinformed, I believe he should be man enough to stand up and admit the error and apologise to this House for having misinformed it.

Secondly, Sir, I want to deal with the situation in relation to pensions. We all know that as a result of a book written by Dr Andries Wassenaar pensions have been very much in the public eye during the past month or two, and the pension funds of the SA Transport Services are no exception in this instance, because basically they follow the same pattern as the State Pension Fund. They too—I make this statement categorically, Sir—are seriously in deficit in relation to payments to pensioners as compared with the standing of the fund. There were various questions asked during the meeting of the standing committee, and I just want to highlight these by quoting certain answers we received from the General Manager of the SA Transport Services in the committee. I quote these replies because I believe they will be of interest to hon members of this House. I quote, Sir:

Sir, if the pension funds of South Africa operate on that basis, then we are indeed in dire straits. [Interjections.] Questions were then asked in relation to who in fact conducted any evaluation into the pensions of the SA Transport Services, and to this the General Manager replied:

Strange answer! He went on to say:

I dispute that, Sir. I dispute that seriously indeed. He then said:

I dispute that also, Sir. He stated further:

And I dispute that, too, Mr Chairman. He says finally:

Now, I actually think that this demonstrates the problem that we have in regard to these pension funds. I believe that there is a total lack of understanding of commitments and principles, that this is dangerous and is costing the State enormous sums of money. I believe that it is also costing the SATS a lot of money which ultimately, of course, has to be obtained from the user of the SATS or the consumer in South Africa. This is extremely dangerous.

An actuarial valuation into the SATS pension funds was last carried out in 1979. At that stage the estimated shortage ran into millions of rand and, since that date, no actuarial valuation has been done. I tried without success to lay my hands on that actuarial report, and again I would query that, since I believe it should have been tabled in Parliament but I understand that it has not been. In any event, there was a shortage then, and I would suggest that the shortage now is probably enormous.

The hon the Minister has said in answer to a question from me in this House that he is going to appoint an actuary. First of all I want to ask whether this will be in respect of both the funds—the one for the Whites and the one for the Blacks. Secondly, which actuary has he appointed? Who has been appointed to do this job? Thirdly, will that actuary’s report be made available in full to the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the SATS and to Parliament? I believe that those reports, whether there be two or one, should be tabled in this Parliament, because this is the public’s money that we are dealing with, and I believe we have a very serious situation in this regard.

What we need is a total revamp of the pension scheme. I have no doubt in my own mind about that. In the SATS one can still buy back one’s service to the age of 16, where the State has now altered it to 18—and that is an inadequate provision; the buying back of pensions should in fact be wiped out altogether, unless service has been rendered. One should be able to buy back service that one has rendered in the past, but to buy back service which one has not rendered is a principle which we find abhorrent. I want to ask the hon the Minister to react to that specific point. Will he give consideration to doing away with the buying back of pensions to the age of 16?

The second thing is that pensioners get paid according to their salary in their last month. This is most unusual. The third thing is the enormous tax-free payout that pensioners enjoy. I believe the hon the Minister needs to introduce legislation in this House to reinstitute a system of regular actuarial evaluations of the SATS Pension Fund and their Superannuation Fund, and I would ask him to react to that when he replies to this debate—namely, altering the legislation to ensure regular actuarial evaluations.

Finally, in order to give this House some idea of the extent of these evaluations, I want to deal with some calculations I have made in relation to the topmost pension and gratuity that can be received, which is obviously that of the General Manager. In doing so, I have no wish to impute any sort of problem to the General Manager, since if I were the general manager and this was made available to me, I would take it—I make no bones about it, Sir! I say this because the deal that he gets—which I do not believe is a deal that he set up; it applied to his predecessor and probably the General Manager before him—is such that no sensible man would retire and say that he was not going to take that pension benefit. Therefore I want the General Manager to understand that in quoting these figures I am not in any way attempting to denigrate him as a person.

I have been unable to establish exactly what the General Manager receives in salary but from questions which an hon colleague has asked the hon the Minister of Communications and other Ministers it would appear that the counterparts of the General Manager of the SATS receive a salary of R131 000 per annum. If he were a Director-General he would receive R119 000. The hon the Minister of Transport Services refused to answer the question of the hon member for Pinetown in relation to what the General Manager of the SATS earns so we are working somewhat in the dark here.

Every other department did.

Every other department did, as the hon member for Pinetown says. If the General Manager receives the same salary as the Postmaster-General then his salary would be R131 000 per annum. If he has bought back service and he is paid a gratuity on the same basis as in the public service then he would get 49 years × R131 000 × 6,72%. That would amount to a tax-free gratuity of R430 000. [Interjections.] Then, as far as pension is concerned—assuming again that he had bought back service—he would receive a pension amounting to 49 over 55 times R131 000 which would give him an annual pension of R116 709.

If he were to receive a gratuity on the same basis as a Director-General of a State Department his tax-free gratuity on these calculations would amount to R390 000 and his pension to R106 000.

I am giving ballpark figures and I do not claim that they are absolutely accurate. Based on the information that I have, however, I believe that is as close as I can get. That is not the end of the story, however, because in the SATS, over a number of years, one is entitled to accumulate leave which one gets paid out for at the end of one’s service. One could get up to one year’s leave on full pay. That, on the basis of R131 000 per annum would obviously amount to R131 000 and then, in addition, the General Manager’s predecessor, we were informed in the standing committee—the same will apply to the present General Manager—received a gold card which entitles him to free transport on the SATS for the rest of his life. In addition he receives three overseas return trips per annum—also, I understand, for the rest of his life.

It is after all, the user of transport who has to pay for most of this. The pension fund pays for the original pension but as that pension is escalated—in other words, let us say one retires today on a pension of R1 000 a month and, with escalation of pension, in 10 years’ time one receives R2 000 a month—the extra amount a month that one gets over and above one’s original retirement pension is debited directly to the SATS, not to the pension fund. In other words we are recounting for inflationary pensions, according to the evidence we received in the standing committee, on a basis whereby the pension escalation as a result of inflation is paid for directly out of the accounts of the SATS and thus increases the expense, increases the possibility of loss within those services and therefore increases the amount that the user of the SATS has to pay for those services and therefore increases the cost to the consumer.

Where else must it come from?

Do you know about the Stabilisation Account? [Interjections.]

Order! If an hon member wants to ask a question, there is a correct way of doing so. The hon member may continue.

Then we come to the question of the foreign exchange loans which the hon member for Soutpansberg has dealt with to quite a large extent. I want to reiterate what he said. What we are looking at here are losses to the extent of approximately R4 billion. It could be more than that over the next few years if the value of the rand drops. It could be less if the value of the rand increases.

The Auditor-General says that SATS were warned about their policies in relation to foreign exchange. I understand they were warned on two occasions and it was suggested that the Treasury should be brought into this situation. That advice was, however, ignored and as a result we have these losses. SATS were warned, yet they went ahead regardless.

There are a number of points I want to make in this regard. First of all, this was not a one-off occasion; it was an ongoing situation. These losses relate to a number of years.

Secondly, why was it not reported at the time when it became known? Or was it reported to the hon the Minister? If it was reported to the hon the Minister, why did he not take action? Why did he wait until the standing committee on the SATS accounts come up with an adverse report before he appointed the committee?

I believe the political head of the SATS, which is the hon the Minister, and probably his predecessor—I am not talking about the person but the office—should have known that this was happening. He should have investigated this situation probably three years ago in 1984 and then taken steps to see that it was not continued.

I want to know from the hon the Minister when the SATS reported these losses to him, or the prospect of these losses, and why he did not then refer the matter to the Reserve Bank for expert advice. I also want to know who was in charge of the SATS in relation to these foreign exchange loans and what expertise they had.

Accountants and economists are not trained in pension funds; one needs actuaries. It is a long and difficult training to become an actuary. There are not many of them in South Africa and throughout the world. They, however, have the expertise.

In carrying out these functions, they should at least have used a Treasury expert. They did not do so, whereas in large companies which have large foreign exchange exposures overseas, it is the practice to employ such foreign exchange experts.

In summary in regard to this matter, I think we should ask firstly, was the report inadequate? Secondly, were the procedures adequate? Thirdly, why was outside expertise not used in this situation?

What we should do in this instance is to revert to the pre-1979 situation, because pre-1979 the foreign exchange loans were handled by the Treasury. The SATS did not have the right to conduct this sort of business.

In the interim, the fact that they had this right, has been very, very expensive and is a proven failure. I do not want to try to conflict with the committee that will be reporting but I believe they should seriously consider ensuring that loans of this nature are made by the foreign exchange experts in the Treasury and in the Reserve Bank.

In conclusion, what we know from this report is that transport costs have been increased heavily as a result of these two particular issues. Firstly, the pension escalations that are funded out of current expenses of the SATS increase costs, railage and transport targets. Secondly, the foreign exchange losses which in the financial year we are considering amounted to, I think, R350 million which also have to be covered by the user of the SATS.

Ultimately, the person who pays is the consumer. The cost of transport is built into the cost of every article which we buy off the shelves in the supermarket and everywhere else.

Once again the taxpayer has had to pay for the excesses of the Government, for the lack of expertise and for the lack of information. This has cost the transport user, and ultimately the consumer at large. We pay and pay and pay!

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the hon members who took part in this debate. Then I should like to make a few general remarks to put this whole matter in a better perspective.

The hon member for Soutpansberg adopted a very reasonable standpoint. I agree with the hon member that a much more meaningful debate can be conducted once we have received replies to certain questions from the management and have at least had a committee of experts to report on the exchange matters.

The hon member also said, however, that we should give final replies in the standing committee. I do not think that is always possible, and the case before the House at the moment attests to this, because the proposal that we establish a committee of experts ensued from the replies given in the standing committee. I want to put it on record that that proposal was made by the general manager of the SATS—in other words, we are not trying to shy away from any disclosure of information.

The hon member referred only very briefly to political issues. He did not turn this into a political debate, and I am not going to do so either. If I understood him correctly, he said this drastic decline had more or less coincided with a political incident. I concede that. That drastic decline did have something to do with politics, but not the politics the hon member was referring to. That drastic decline in the value of the rand was the result of a political measure employed by foreign countries as a punishment for South Africa, because South Africa did not want to comply with the demands of those countries. [Interjections.]

It was the Rubicon speech; that is what it was.

Precisely. The fact is that this was a punitive measure because this Government did not want to comply with the absurd demands made by foreign countries. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that if this happened to the NP, he can imagine what would happen to his party. [Interjections.]

The hon member said the Transport Services was between the devil and the deep blue sea as a result of this matter. I want to tell him that with exchange transactions in an uncertain world, one is always between the devil and the deep blue sea, as I shall try to indicate in a moment. I thank the hon member, however, for the reasonable standpoint he adopted in this debate.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question that is actually related to the question put by the hon member for Primrose on the committee of experts? Initially the standing committee requested that that committee report back by 30 January 1988. In view of the fact that he has taken over the matter, can the hon the Minister give us the assurance that he will comply with that request?

Mr Chairman, I have already indicated that I shall act in close co-operation with the Auditor-General and the Chairman of the standing committee. Naturally I shall request the committee that I am going to appoint to report back before that particular date if it is at all possible. The hon member will understand, however, that it is impossible for me to lay down fixed rules for that committee to comply with now, but we shall request that that report be published with the least possible delay as far as this is in any way possible.

I want to thank the hon member for Primrose for his participation and his leadership as chairman of the standing committee. I want to thank him for the work he does in that connection. I should also like to thank the Auditor-General on this occasion for the co-operation I receive from him. In the same spirit in which the hon member for Primrose said this, I want to say that we shall have to have further co-operation in order to address this matter successfully and properly, because there is no reason whatsoever why we should not make all the information known in this House. That committee will therefore be appointed as soon as possible. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said something to the effect that with my proposal I am taking away the authority of Parliament. That is utter nonsense. [Interjections.] The standing committee made a proposal to Parliament and I am honouring that proposal. How can the hon member argue that by doing just what the standing committee of Parliament proposed, I am tampering with the authority of Parliament? [Interjections.]

The hon member asked me for an undertaking that all matters will be reported openly to Parliament. In my opening remarks I said that this committee of experts would in fact report to the Auditor-General. In other words, he is casting a slur on the Auditor-General.

That was not my intention at all.

Whatever information is given to this House will come from the Auditor-General through the standing committee. I think that should satisfy the hon member.

The hon member also referred to a question that he asked here in Parliament to which my predecessor gave him a certain reply. Unfortunately, I cannot reply to that particular allegation, but if the hon member is not satisfied, now that he has received additional information, that that reply was correct, he has the right to put another question. The hon member is entitled to exercise that right.

Will you not go into it and come back to me?

No, the hon member may put that question to me.

I have! [Interjections.]

He may put the question to me in writing and I shall furnish him with a reply. [Interjections.] The hon member may either Table the question or send it to my office and I shall furnish him with a reply.

It is in Hansard.

I will give the hon member a reply.

Thank you—from Hansard.

Mr Chairman, the hon member had a great deal to say about the pension funds. I have already informed the hon member that I have asked for an actuarial report to be furnished to me. Once that report has been furnished I shall, of course, decide what steps should be taken. At that stage I shall decide what to do.

Whether or not to hide it! [Interjections.]

The hon member’s references to the remuneration of the General Manager were in very bad taste indeed!

Why? [Interjections.]

I think it was in bad taste. [Interjections.] In any event, there was no need to raise that matter in this particular debate. It has nothing to do with the report of the standing committee. [Interjections.] Furthermore, the hon member could easily have argued all those points during the Budget Debate.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he could explain to me why it is in bad taste to raise this matter now when it would have been in good taste to do so during the Budget Debate? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I did not say that I thought it would have been in good taste to raise it during the Budget Debate, but raising it here and now constitutes both bad taste and a poor choice of occasion on which to do so. [Interjections.]

*The hon member referred to the exchange losses, and immediately put this at R4 billion, well knowing that there was a difference of opinion in the standing committee of which he is a member about that amount of approximately R1 200 million. I shall refer to that again in a moment.

He asked whether experts would be consulted. Why must we first appoint this committee? I want to tell the hon member that in the first place, this is a committee that has been recommended by the standing committee and I commit myself to doing what has been recommended by the standing committee.

I think the fact that there were exchange losses was generally known. I do not think it was news even to the hon member that such losses were suffered. [Interjections.] Despite that he asked: “Was the reporting adequate?” I do not think it is worth wasting our time on all these matters. After all, we have agreed to establish a committee of experts to report on all these matters, and then we can debate them meaningfully.

One of the most important reasons for the recommendation of the standing committee that a committee of experts be appointed is that amount of R1 209 million which was indicated by the Auditor-General as being accumulated deficits from forward cover contracts as at 31 March 1986, and these are generally interpreted as losses. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central interpreted this in the same way. He said that that R1 209 million was a loss. The SATS management pointed out that the loans from which this amount ensued were fully covered against exchange losses. According to the management the said amount therefore represented loans on which an amount of R698 million had been repaid during 1985-86, which did not affect the profit and loss position of the SATS.

Forward exchange contract transactions are complicated, as the standing committee said in its report, and in addition one must remember that loans are concluded for a period of 10 years, whereas one has cover for only one year at a time. In other words, one virtually has 10 different cover transactions over that period of 10 years, and there will be currency fluctuations during that period. In other words, this causes complicated bookkeeping and a difference in point of view is possible. That is why the General Manager himself proposed in his evidence before the standing committee that experts should give a decision on this matter.

The SATS consistently covered its loans until December 1979, and on 1 January 1980 the Reserve Bank terminated cover of inter alia loans of the Swiss frank and the German mark. Approximately 80% of the SATS’s loans were concluded in these two monetary units. As a result, the price of cover increased dramatically.

The SATS has experts in exchange transactions at its disposal, just like numerous other enterprises which also have such experts yet have also suffered large losses. The reason is that an economic view was taken of the value of the rand, but as I said, the drastic drop in mainly 1984-85 and 1985-86, was caused by foreign political motives which had very little to do with the economic value of the rand, and it seems to me the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central agrees with me.

If the value of one country’s monetary unit drops drastically against the value of the monetary unit of another country, with which or through which it does a lot of business, the first-mentioned country has serious problems.

That is because of the difference in inflation rates.

There is very little that can be done internally to prevent the country from being detrimentally affected.

One must fight inflation.

The Reserve Bank provided cover which resulted in losses of billions of rands for the Treasury and the taxpayers. Private banks were not even prepared to provide full cover at all times. The price of cover is the factor that determines which part of the community will sustain the loss.

No country can evade such a loss; one simply devolves it from one part of the community to another. Whether it is the Reserve Bank, commercial banks, the Transport Services or any of the other enterprises does not matter. When a country’s monetary unit has dropped drastically, that country has problems if it has to do business with or through the country against whose monetary unit its monetary unit has dropped.

Of course I am sorry that it is the SATS in this case, but the taxpayer as such is not being affected. The SATS has to repay this money from earnings, and in that respect the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is correct. We must pay this from earnings which will be obtained in competition with the private sector in future. This does not merely mean an increase of tariffs, because then we would be leaving the market.

I think it is also important to say what the SATS has to say about this, viz that they admit that on 31 March 1986 there was a potential—I emphasize the word “potential”—exchange rate loss of approximately R2 700 million.

It is not peanuts!

The hon member will forgive me if I say that I was not insinuating that at all. I also want to tell him, however, that that amount was calculated at an exchange rate of 45 American cents against the rand. That amount is no longer the same, because today the exchange rate is 48 American cents against the rand. That is already a considerable difference, which reduces that amount.

This matter must be put in clear perspective. In the first place the loans were spread over a period of 10 years up to the 1996-97 financial year, which is almost at the turn of the century.

What will the rand be worth then? [Interjections.]

Yes, that hon member sees no light for the future, and I need not even ask him how he thinks the rand will react. [Interjections.]

If we say that ultimately the loss is R2 700 million, which I am not conceding, it would mean approximately R270 million per year over 10 years. We must put these matters into perspective. That represents approximately 2,7% of the SATS’s annual income. [Interjections.] In addition one must subtract from that amount the amount resulting from the extent to which loans can be “rolled out” and extended so as to ease the impact this has over the period of repayment. One must also subtract the amount in respect of forward cover from that amount, which one would have had to pay in any case, because after all, one does not get that kind of thing for nothing. One would have had to pay forward cover to get that cover in any case.

But one pays that in any case; surely one loses that in any case. [Interjections.]

What one is losing now, would have been an expense that one had covered, and therefore one must deduct it. If one does that, one can get a possible impact of approximately 2% per annum.

If you carry on you will show a profit! [Interjections.]

I shall give that hon member another good answer. The exchange rate could also swing in our favour. Yes, it could swing in our favour. [Interjections.] The exchange rate drop at the expense of the rand did not have an absolutely negative effect only on this country; we also did a lot of business as a result. The SATS itself did a whole lot of business after the rand’s value had dropped. [Interjections.] Our exports blossomed, and that meant more transport business. When one decides whether or not one should get cover, the price at which cover can be obtained is of the utmost importance.

Yes, the price of cover is high these days.

Let us take the report as an example, before we deal with 1985-86. The tariff for cover for that year was 7% as far as the dollar was concerned. In respect of the German mark it was 10,6% per annum and in respect of the Swiss frank 11,5% per annum. This means that if there is an average rate of 10% per annum and one has a 10-year loan, one has to repay double that loan in any case if that rate does not change.

Those were not the costs the Reserve Bank was requesting. Those were not the Reserve Bank’s costs.

They were not, but the Reserve Bank…

They were not the Reserve Bank’s costs! [Interjections.]

The hon member did not speak, but all of a sudden he is very clever. He is always clever once something has happened and then he pretends to have known everything, but one never hears a peep out of him beforehand.

You are misleading the House!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon member say that another hon member is misleading the House?

Order! The hon member may not say that. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! I should appreciate it if the hon member for Yeoville would occasionally ask the Chair for a turn to speak when he needs one. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, permit me to tell the hon member that he was not listening when I told him that the Reserve Bank had withdrawn the cover on 1 January 1980. It did not grant further cover on the two monetary units in which the SATS has 80% of its loans. [Interjections.]

I am not diminishing the SATS’s problem in any way, but to throw one’s hands in the air and imply that the SATS’s world has come to an end will not get us anywhere.

Hendrik messed everything up. [Interjections.]

The only thing that will happen, is that the SATS will have to work even harder and be even more productive.

[Inaudible.]

If the committee of experts find that the SATS has acted unfairly or irresponsibly, the SATS will have to take its hiding. Let us refrain, however, from being judgmental until that happens.

Question put.

Mr Chairman, may I ask what question you are putting? Is it the question on the Order Paper that the report be adopted? To that question the hon the Minister has moved, I assume, an amending motion.

I am in favour of the report of the Standing Select Committee on the accounts of the South African Transport Services and I do not wish to vote against it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member would like to know what the motion is.

The hon the Minister moved:

I therefore put the question as moved by the hon the Minister.

Question agreed to (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move:

The maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, 1979, is an instrument which empowers the Minister to take steps to combat harmful economic concentrations. Such steps can be taken irrespective of whether a particular harmful economic concentration is the result of an acquisition or is due to existing economic power structures. The ability to take action against a harmful economic concentration is a cardinal feature of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, 1979.

The need for a competition policy enabling such action to be taken was in fact strongly emphasised by the commission of inquiry into the former Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act of 1955. The Maintenance and Promotion of Competitions Act of 1979 applies in particular to economic concentration through acquisitions of control. Such acquisitions usually occur locally, which then renders them subject to the provisions of the said Act. However, it is occurring with increasing frequency that a local company obtains control of another local company by means of an interest in a foreign company.

What is happening is that, for example, a South African company “A” intends acquiring control over another South African company “B”. “A” controls a foreign company “B”, and a second foreign company “C” in turn controls the South African company “D”. To complete the chain of control from “A” to “D”, a transaction is concluded overseas in terms of which “B” acquires control over “C”. This overseas transaction falls outside the scope of the Act. The chain of control can only be broken in two ways, as is envisaged in the amending Bill.

On the one hand the membership in company “D” of a member of company “C” could be terminated. On the other hand any right to vote attached to the holding of a share in company “D” could be prohibited. Either action would in the normal manner remain subject to appeal to a special court as is already provided for in the Act.

I should point out that action of the proposed nature is less drastic than the legal remedies which are already provided for, such as, for example, complete dissolution of a takeover. Furthermore, I wish to emphasize that there is no question of a change in competition policy in regard to harmful economic concentrations. The Bill is merely aimed at eliminating the evasion of the existing policy. The nature of the type of transaction at issue necessitates the implementation of the relevant amendment with retroactive effect. Cases such as those which I have described already occur, and they hold serious implications for the South African economy. The Government would fail in its duty should no effective measures be introduced.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House welcome this legislation before us, and we express the sincere hope that the NP Government is going to have the courage to apply this legislation fearlessly, particularly in view of the muttering from the direction of big business regarding the detrimental effect which they say this legislation will have on the economy.

The barons of big business, on the other hand, have maintained a stony silence on the concentration of power in our economy, in particular on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. That is something we have been opposing for years, and our opposition has, in fact, earned us the contempt of some hon members on that side of the House—the hon the Minister, of course, being an exception in this regard.

As I say, Sir, I hope the Government will apply this legislation fearlessly and wherever necessary. A situation should not arise, for example, such as that which has arisen in respect of the Group Areas Act. The non-application of that Act penalises Whites by devaluing their properties and lays non-Whites wide open to gross exploitation by unscrupulous landlords. [Interjections.] The Government cannot pass laws and not apply them, because nobody is fooled by this behaviour.

I was asked recently by a prominent Black extra-parliamentary activist what had happened to the honest Afrikaners in politics. They are already getting the message, and if the NP, as a party, fails to be straightforward in applying the laws it passes…

Order!

The hon member will now return to the Bill under consideration.

I am motivating it, Sir.

Order! If the hon member continues in that vein, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. I want to know on which clause he is now speaking.

I am speaking on section 14 of the Act. Sir.

Order! In what respect is the Group Areas Act germane to this Bill?

Sir, I am motivating my argument by expressing the hope that this legislation is not going to be treated in the same way as the Group Areas Act.

Order! That is not acceptable. The hon member will now return to the Bill.

I shall carry on, Sir.

Mr Chairman, when I talk in this House about matters as serious as the stranglehold that the Anglo American Corporation is tightening on our economy, hon members on that side say I am talking nonsense. [Interjections.] I am glad to see that the hon the Minister does not allow himself to be influenced by their prattle, and I am glad to see that in anticipation of this legislation the big grabber, the main monopolist, the home of monopoly capitalism, Anglo American, has already taken note of this legislation and also the joint opposition to its activities by the hon the Minister and his department and this side of the House, and have decided against a further concentration-oriented move at this stage.

*Here I refer to an article in Finansies en Tegniek of 25 September, under the heading “Nuwe Wet was klip in Anglo se pad”. I quote:

What has been avoided here, therefore, is a possibility that Anglo American, who already is responsible for an estimated 40% of our total gold production, be enabled to obtain control over Goldfields of SA. It is estimated that after that the two could be responsible for as much as 75% of South Africa’s gold production.

†Sir, even academics from liberal institutions such as the University of Cape Town have talked about South Africa’s economic life being dominated by fewer firms. I refer here to a report in Business Day of 23 September under the heading “Fewer people have finger in pie”. They quote from an article in the latest edition of the Industrial Relations Journal of South Africa, written by UCT Prof Michael Savage, in which he expresses concern at the economic domination which is falling into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This article refers to the situation in 1982. Even in 1982, according to a report by Mr J A Lombard. Anglo American, Sanlam, Barlow Rand, SA Mutual and Volkskas controlled 54% of the total assets of companies on the stock exchange. If they update their figures by referring to the report produced by Mr Robin McGregor called Who owns Whom, they will discover that the Anglo American Corporation today controls more than 62% of all of the companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. I am sure even the hon members on the other side of the House will agree with me that that is an extremely serious situation.

We are grateful for the fact that a police investigation has been launched into the activities of companies suspected of market collusion. We thank the hon the Minister and the chairman of the Competition Board for this and assure them of our full support in these actions.

In supporting this Bill I should like to draw certain matters to the attention of the hon the Minister which I believe require his urgent attention. I refer first of all to the envisaged take-over of the Putco Bus Service by the SABTA—the South African Black Taxi Owners Association.

When we discussed the legislation before us today in the standing committee, the chairman of the Competition Board was kind enough to outline the functions of the Competition Board. I was very impressed with the powers embodied in the legislation relating to the Competition Board. I then expressed concern at the fact—and I am sure I had the agreement of even the members of the Houses of Representatives and Delegates in this regard—that although we were all agreed that the take-over would lay us open to a form of economic bribery or extortion totally unacceptable to all of us, the Competition Board was not prepared to act. The chairman’s reply was that this was a politically sensitive matter. If that is the case I should like to appeal to the hon Minister who is a politician to take the bull by the horns and act now before we land ourselves in a situation from which we cannot recover.

I should also like to refer the hon the Minister to what I consider to be another very serious cartel, and that is the margarine cartel. This has already effected increases on the price of margarine averaging 65% per annum for the past nine years, giving a total increase over that period of 584%, which is more than 400% higher than the inflation rate.

I can also refer to the brick monopoly. When times are good this monopoly can as a result of its monopolistic position demand cash in advance for its products, thereby gaining access to money at no cost to themselves while the consumer loses interest on his funds which indirectly results in additional costs to him.

We can talk about the banking cartel which I think is extremely serious. Hon members on the other side of the House talk lightly of the farmers who land themselves in financial difficulties, and say they should become better managers and be more professional in their approach. I should like them to tell me how anyone but a wizard can be more professional in his approach when faced with a 32% interest rate on overdrafts at the bank. I think that is a serious situation.

There are numerous other examples, which I shall not go into, that indicate that time is rapidly running out for our economy. I therefore confirm on this side of the House our strong support for urgent action against this extreme form of financial tyranny. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House are very grateful for the support of this Bill, but I wonder when we shall ever be in a position in which a legislative measure in this House is discussed purely in terms of to the merit of that specific piece of legislation.

Why don’t you do it!

I cannot understand why all kinds of other things always have to be dragged in.

Tell us something about Die Transvaler!

Mr Chairman, I shall confine myself to the legislation under discussion according to the rules of the House and shall not allow myself to be tempted by ridiculous remarks at this time of the evening. [Interjections.] Everything is dragged in.

†It reminds me of the proverb: It is better to meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs than some fool with a crazy scheme.

You have not got to the legislation yet!

Koos, you do not even know where the legislation is.

A measure, which is a sound measure to ensure that sound business principles are maintained and that there is competition, is being used for a blatant attack on capitalism as such, and a number of other matters which should be dealt with under other sections of the Act…

Order! There are hon members who have had their say already. There are hon members who, if they want to say something, must request an opportunity to do so. We cannot continue in this way. The hon member may proceed.

Heap the coals, Piet! Heap the coals!

Mr Chairman, the point is that there are other measures in the Act which are not being addressed in this Bill. The matters mentioned by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis really have nothing to do with these measures, but these matters are also being dragged into the discussion of this Bill.

This Bill has reference to the amendment of only two sections of the principal Act. The first of these is a purely technical arrangement to rectify the designation of the responsible Minister. Clause 2 forms the nucleus of this Bill, and is aimed at eliminating apparent loopholes in the principal Act. The intention of section 14 of the principal Act, which is being amended by clause 2 of this Bill, is very clear. The intention of that section is to empower the Minister to declare restrictive economic practices, acquisitions or monopoly situations illegal and to take steps to clear up such situations.

Well done, Piet! Well done!

It has appeared in practice that the intention of the principal Act is being circumvented in that foreign channels are being used to effect these acquisitions.

Who wrote your speech?

I did. The proposed amendment in clause 2… I can write.

Can you read?

The proposed amendment in clause 2 of the Bill…

Order! The hon the Chief Whip of the CP must help me so that we can maintain order in the House. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The proposed amendment in clause 2 of the Bill is aimed merely at ensuring the implementation of the intention of the principal Act. The Bill is not introducing any new principle, therefore. One may not, however, permit South African legislation to be effectively undone because of the degree to which international business is interwoven.

There is one other aspect in the Act which in my opinion deserves to be addressed, and that is the fact that the legislation is retrospective. It is never desirable to make legislation retrospective. The fact of the matter, however, is that this circumvention has been taking place for some time. When this loophole was used the intention of the principal Act was already known, and that is why I do not think it is unfair to make it retrospective. In the first place the people deliberately took those steps as far as the intention of the principal Act was concerned, and secondly, this created conditions that have to be addressed because they could be to the detriment of the South African economy. That is why it is important that this measure be made retrospective. It is a pleasure, therefore, to support the legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springs has set out the motivation as it stands in the explanatory memorandum and has re-emphasised the motivation given by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech which was delivered in another House. I have some reservations, Sir, but before I express them let me say that I am supportive of what the Competition Board has been set up to do and of what it has indeed tried to do. I set this out in some detail during last year’s debate on this department’s Vote. That was on 1 May last year.

In reply to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis I must say I believe he is a little off the mark in concentrating only on structures when he criticises restrictive practices. I think the Competition Board is correct to focus in the first instance on restrictive behaviour rather than merely on structure. Having said that, however, and having said, too, that I am supportive of what the Competition Board is trying to do, and while I also confirm that I support the motivation given for introducing this Bill because it attempts to close a loophole by means of which a local firm can use a foreign conduit to take over another local firm and hence restrict the competitiveness of the local market, there is a difficulty in the practical application of that principle as expressed in this Bill.

We have some difficulties, Sir, which, I believe, mean that the standing committee should reconsider the wording of this Bill in greater detail. This measure was brought before the standing committee at somewhat short notice, and I believe it is an issue which merits closer attention before being adopted by this House.

There are five points that I want to make in this regard. The first is that since that standing committee met it has come to my attention that this Bill was published in the Government Gazette some months ago. In fact this Bill was published for comment in the Government Gazette of 29 May this year. I believe it was Government Gazette No 10752. I want to know what comments were received in connection with this Bill. I understand some comments were put forward. If so, what were those comments, from what sources did they originate and why was the standing committee not made privy to the information contained in those submissions?

When did you pick it up?

I have picked it up now and I am putting it to the hon members who are members of the standing committee.

You should have picked it up.

Does that hon member, as a member of the standing committee, know about that publication in the Government Gazette before we discussed this Bill in that committee?

What was the good of you knowing about it?

I am asking the hon member for King William’s Town whether he was aware of the notice published in the Government Gazette, and does he know whether any comment has been received?

Do you mean to tell me you do not read the Government Gazette? [Interjections.]

The hon member for King William’s Town is very silent in relation to this matter. I believe that as members of that standing committee we should have been given whatever comments were received in connection with the Bill as published in the Government Gazette. [Interjections.]

Order! It seems as though there is a meeting of the Competition Board in progress in this House at the moment. Every hon member seems to be competing with the hon member for Constantia for an opportunity to speak. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I believe the standing committee should have insight into whatever comments were received in this regard.

The second point I want to make is that the actual amendment put forward in this Bill is not restricted only to foreign transactions. The Bill provides for measures that are applicable to South African firms just as much as to foreign firms. There is no distinction drawn, and therefore there is no direct connection between the motivation, which we support, and the practical measure as contained in the Bill. We are giving the hon the Minister powers over South African companies, not just over foreign entities. That, Sir, is a very important distinction, and I wonder why the amendment was not restricted simply to the foreign aspects, which, we were told, was the intention.

The third issue regards the question of the actual powers given. There is the power given to the Minister to terminate the membership of any member of a body corporate. The wording reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, that is a very, very wide power to grant to the hon the Minister. Any person holding shares can have his membership of a company terminated in terms of this measure. One might ask how one terminates the membership of somebody who has purchased shares, perhaps in good faith, but certainly perfectly legally. How does one terminate that man’s membership? If one terminates his membership and his ownership of shares, what happens to those shares? What compensation does one pay? At what rate does one pay such compensation? There are certainly some very important issues connected with that, and it is not a power that I believe one can grant lightly, without going into the matter.

The fourth question which gives us some difficulty is the question of the voting rights that are applicable to the owner of those shares. This Bill makes provision in the same clause for the prohibition—

The Companies Act sets out quite clearly what rights attach to shares. The hon the Minister is now not being restricted to applying a prohibition to the use of voting rights relative to the restriction of competition; he may prohibit any voting rights relating to those shares. That, too, is a very wide-ranging measure, and one would want to look at the implications of what is being asked for in that regard.

The final question, that of retrospectivity, has very serious consequences for any bona fide purchasers in bona fide transactions who acted in good faith, in that they could suddenly have these transactions undone by the hon the Minister. The hon member for Springs seems to be very comfortable with the concept that one can backdate transactions concluded in good faith, in full legality. We are not comfortable with that and we would like to examine the implications.

The memorandum refers, in support of the retrospectivity aspect, to cases which already exist which could have serious implications for the South African economy. The hon the Minister refers in his Second Reading speech to cases such as those I have described which have already occurred and which have serious implications for the South African economy. I think that this House, and certainly the standing committee, should have insight into what specific transactions the hon the Minister has in mind. If there are certain specific transactions to which he wishes to apply this retrospectivity, let it be a matter of public debate and public record. It is a different thing to ask for a blanket power to apply retrospective measures, as this Bill provides.

In the light of these reservations, I believe the standing committee should have insight into the answers to these questions, and I therefore move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, before I react to the hon member for Constantia, allow me to congratulate the Chairman of the Competition Board on his appointment as the new Director General. I notice that he is not in the officials’ bay of the House tonight. Nevertheless, I should like to extend to him the good wishes of this side of the House, and we wish him a very successful and fruitful future.

I want to come back to the hon member for Constantia who really amazed me with the speech he made in this House this evening. He is a member of the standing committee which dealt with this amending Bill. There was plenty of opportunity to react and to make an input on that standing committee, but the hon member just sat there without saying anything—not a word! But today he is not prepared to support the legislation before this House.

Tell him, Chris! Tell him!

Since then something happened, but one cannot find out what it is. He will know what it is, but I think somebody else calls the tune.

Anglo American!

What is this amending Bill dealing with? The hon member for Springs correctly remarked that it deals with the elimination of a deficiency in the existing legislation. That deficiency is that local companies can gain control over other local companies by making use of foreign control companies. Wherever such foreign companies fall outside the jurisdiction of the existing Act the harmful concentrations which develop in this manner cannot be addressed at present. Certain companies saw this deficiency in the Act and availed themselves of the opportunity to create such concentrations. The object of this amending Bill is to bring this practice within the ambit of existing legislation.

The hon member for Springs correctly pointed out that the Act will come into force with retrospective effect to enable the Competition Board to investigate such cases and to advise the Minister in that respect.

It is also important, however, to point out that this Bill does not vest the Minister with authoritarian powers. In terms of section 15 of the Act a company has the right to appeal against the decisions of the Minister. For this purpose the Act provides for a special court under the chairmanship of a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The provisions of section 15 are not affected by these proposed amendments.

The hon member Mr C J Derby-Lewis launched an attack on large companies in South Africa. Because of the historical patterns of development it so happens that the composition of the South African economy is to a large degree of a unique nature. Over the years the formation of large company groups has taken place and has contributed largely to bringing about economic development. In this respect they are still playing an essential role in our national economy. I should like to ask the hon member Mr C J Derby-Lewis where the South African economy would have been today without the large companies such as Anglo American and Sanlam. Where? He does not answer. Co-operation per se is not necessarily detrimental. I can think of various cases in our country where company groups worked together to muster capital in order to launch projects which have not only created employment opportunities on a large scale, but have also rendered us more independent and competitive internationally. In that regard our present shipbuilding and maintenance industry is a good example. There are also other cases where excessive fragmentation could leave our economy vulnerable.

The application of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act sometimes requires subtle distinction between when a concentration is indeed detrimental and when it is not. In this respect the Competition Board has indeed acted with great circumspection in the past. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to express my thanks to the hon the Minister as well as to the Competition Board for the responsible and balanced way in which this Act is being administered and applied in practice. I should like to support the Second Reading of this Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Hattingh asked why the hon member for Constantia moved the amendment when he had not raised this issue in the standing committee.

The question which remains unanswered and which I believe the hon the Minister has to answer is, I think, the key to this problem. That question is: Were representations in fact made pursuant to the notice which appeared in the Gazette? If so, what were those representations and why were they not put before the standing committee?

They were.

An hon member interjects and says they were. I am informed otherwise and I ask any hon member other than the interjector, whoever he may have been, to say that representations were in fact put before that committee. According to what I am told the only information put before that committee was an address by the chairman of the board when he explained the Bill to the members of the committee.

If I am wrong, I am prepared to be corrected as I am not a member of that committee. The reality is, however, that whoever interjected—I do not know who it was, as it was behind my back—is either telling an untruth or he is recklessly making a statement without any regard for the truth. Alternatively, he must now get up and say what those representations were. [Interjections.]

There is another matter which I would like to deal with and that concerns the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. We seem to be specialising in indirectly elected members in this debate this evening. Mr Chairman, I must tell the hon member that he must be very careful not to go back to the days of 1948 when there was the campaign against the Hochenheimers. Now the hon member is coupling that campaign to what has happened to the honest Afrikaner. I think the hon member is doing his own party and South Africa no good by trying to cast doubt upon the integrity of any section of this community whether it be the Afrikaans-speaking community or the English-speaking community or whether it be people who happen to have the name “heimer” as a second part of their surnames. If one starts this game in South Africa, in these times, then one is playing with very real fire.

In the second place he referred to the question of Consolidated Goldfields. I am not happy talking about an individual company in this House. I think it is unfair. However, I want to ask a simple question, and that is whether the hon member and his party would prefer to see Goldfields under the control of elements hostile to South Africa overseas or would he prefer that it be controlled by a South African company.

This is a very important question. When the hon member talks in this way, I do not think he has thought it through. Let us look back for example to the days of Union Corporation and the competition for the control of Union Corporation. Was it in the interests of South Africa that General Mining took over Union Corporation or would it have been in the interests of South Africa for some hostile overseas corporation to have taken over that major interest in South Africa?

When we start talking about these things, let us look at them in reality. Let us look at the realistic position in South Africa. My party and I are opposed to undue power concentration. We are opposed to the abuse of power. We are opposed to monopolies which seek to exploit consumers and which seek to corner markets. We are opposed to that kind of activity in South Africa. That is one of the reasons why we support the whole concept of there being legislation in order to ensure that there is not this abuse of power in South Africa.

At the same time let us also understand that if one wants the private sector in South Africa to start big projects, one has to have big corporations in the private sector to be able to finance them. The mere fact that a corporation is a big corporation, does not mean it is bad. Big does not necessarily mean bad and neither does small necessarily mean good. One finds both bad and good in either and we have to see it in the correct perspective.

Another statement was made about the banking cartel and the fact that 32% was charged in respect of overdrafts.

That is correct.

The hon member says that is correct. Now I ask him to report that to the correct source, which is the Registrar of Financial Institutions or the Reserve Bank, and either of them will take action, because it is usurious to charge 32% interest on a bank overdraft. This is a criminal offence.

It is happening in South Africa.

If it is happening in South Africa, I ask the hon member to take the example, lay the charge and take it through to the people who are concerned with the Usury Act. The whole banking sector should not be smeared by the reckless allegation that they are supposed to be charging 32% on an overdraft. I do not happen to know of any bank that is charging 32% on an overdraft. If the hon member knows something, let him lay the charge, but do not let him smear the whole banking sector.

As I understand it, the banking cartel has been abolished and it is illegal to have the arrangements which previously existed. Therefore, if these do exist, there is a remedy and we should deal with it. If the hon member has the evidence he now actually has a duty to lay that charge. If he does not lay that charge, he will have to explain to the House why he made the allegation. [Interjections.] That is what I want to say to the hon member here.

I am not afraid to lay a charge.

No, I encourage the hon member, because if it is true, they should be prosecuted. If it is not true, the hon member should not have said it here.

There are really three aspects to this Bill. There are only three clauses, but I think each one of them has a different aspect. The first clause deals with the question of the change of name, so that “Minister” means Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. The hon the Minister knows that I am unhappy about this designation. I am unhappy about the fact that he is not a Minister of Consumer Affairs. I am unhappy about the fact that consumer affairs are not regarded as important enough to be included in the title, because what South Africa really needs is a Minister of Consumer Affairs. The consumer, without doubt, is being exploited in South Africa. There is no doubt that a Ministry of Consumer Affairs is needed and there is no doubt that the present situation in regard to the consumer is an extremely unhappy one.

We can take the simple example of the question of contracts given to consumers on a take it or leave it basis, where one receives printed documents which one either takes as they are given to one, or leaves them. Let us take the credit card as an example. If one wants a credit card, one binds oneself to the conditions which are laid down; one has no bargaining power. If one wants an insurance policy, one binds oneself to the conditions which are laid down; one has no bargaining power. There are a hundred and one examples where the consumer has no bargaining power whatsoever. It is a take it or leave it situation, where the provisions of the document are such that they are always in favour of the supplier and there is never a fair deal for the consumer.

I can give dozens of examples of where the consumer is getting a raw deal in South Africa today. I believe the case for a Minister of Consumer Affairs is an unanswerable one; it is one which will be echoed, not only by every housewife in South Africa, but also by anyone who finds himself in a position of having to contract from a position of disadvantage in this country. Therefore I am unhappy about the designation; I am unhappy because there is not a Ministry of Consumer Affairs; and I believe that we should have it in South Africa.

When I look at the second part of this measure, having read the Bill, the explanatory memorandum and the speech the hon the Minister delivered in another House, I find myself in a state where I see nothing but contradiction. The intention is to deal with the situation where, by means of using a foreign company, control is obtained over a local company. A somewhat extenuated example is given in the hon the Minister’s printed speech, but there is nothing in the Bill which deals with this very situation.

Let me ask the hon the Minister to deal with a very simple situation. It is said that it is becoming increasingly so that South African companies are acquiring control over foreign companies and that by using one or perhaps even two foreign companies control of a South African company is obtained. As I understand the exchange control laws and regulations in South Africa it is not possible for a South African company to obtain control over a foreign company without exchange control approval. If this mechanism is therefore being used, it is the Government that is giving permission for its use. Why is that happening? Why is exchange control permission being given to acquire a foreign company on the one hand, while on the other hand this hon Minister says foreign companies are being used in order to acquire control over South African companies? Except for existing foreign companies which have a local connection, to my mind there is no reason why exchange control permission should not be preceded by an investigation to ascertain whether this situation may occur.

I am not saying that no exchange control permission should be given to acquire any foreign business, but certainly not permission of this nature that can be abused in this manner. What is really happening here is that on the one hand the permission is being granted and on the other hand it is said to be a bad thing. I think we need to be given some explanation as to how this can come about.

I make the forecast that this particular provision will be amended within a relatively short time. To my mind its wording leaves much to be desired.

I want to put the following propositions and ask the hon the Minister to react to them. This provision enables the hon the Minister after an investigation has taken place—I shall refer to that again in a moment—to require a person who is involved in a practice or a situation, to take action—this is the new part of it—either to terminate his membership of a body corporate or to be prohibited by the Minister to exercise the right to vote.

I first want to deal with the question of the termination of membership and I ask the hon the Minister to tell us what they have in mind in this regard. Will the shares be deemed to be cancelled or will there be a forced disposal of shares? Termination can have a variety of meanings and there is nothing here to indicate what is in fact intended by the termination of membership of a body corporate.

In the United States, for example, the provision exists that someone can be compelled to dispose of shares within a fixed period of time. If that is what the hon the Minister has in mind, the wording is completely different to what is really the intention of these words. To my mind the words “termination of the membership” result in a serious problem in regard to the interpretation and the application of this particular measure.

I want to deal with the question of voting rights. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he is not really concerned about a restriction on voting rights rather than a prohibition in respect thereof. Let us take an example. Restricting the right to vote in order to exercise control is something completely different to restricting the right to vote in order to achieve the declaration of a dividend. The question of restriction as opposed to prohibition is therefore a further problem which arises from this measure.

One of the problems with regard to the application of this provision is that the power already exists, not only in respect of so-called foreign control, but also in respect of local control, to hand over the control of a business. One can prohibit the exercise of the voting power and thereby hand over control of a company to a minority, which may also be an undesirable situation in a particular set of circumstances. To my mind, this clause needs very substantial re-examination.

We then come to the third problem, namely the fact that this legislation is to take effect retrospectively. It can be asked why the Bill is retrospective at all, and also why it is retrospective to 1 January 1987. When we look at the principal Act as a whole, in which context this proposed provision must be examined, we see that the Minister cannot act in terms of the proposed provision until a report has been prepared, submitted to him and advertised.

If, therefore, there is any need for retrospectivity, and if it is correct that the practice in question has been in use since 1 January, then we should be told in what respects the provision is going to be employed, because the relevant investigations should already have taken place, and the report should be in the possession of the hon the Minister and ready to be advertised. If that is so, then we should be allowed to know what we are actually dealing with.

If we are to sign a blank cheque by passing retrospective legislation, and especially if it is retrospective to a defined date, namely the beginning of this year, an explanation is required. That explanation was not given in the hon the Minister’s speech, the memorandum or the speeches of the two hon members who spoke on behalf of the Government. I therefore ask the hon the Minister to tell us in respect of what matters he intends to apply this retrospectivity.

Unless there are satisfactory answers to this question, there is no argument against the contention of the hon member for Constantia that this Bill should go back to the committee to be re-examined. If this measure is passed in its present form, I have no doubt that, because it is inadequately worded, we will have to amend it again relatively soon. It will not achieve its intended object. While we oppose the abuse of power and support the concepts which clearly lie behind this Bill, we cannot be party to passing legislation which, in our opinion, does not achieve that object.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for supporting this measure and the principle underlying it. I should like very briefly to react to his comments on the practical application of this legislation. I think I should remind him of the fact that it is this Government and this party that are proposing this amendment, and we are not bringing it to Parliament with the intention of not acting on it. We intend to apply this measure whenever a harmful practice or acquisition is brought to our notice and investigated.

*I wish to tell the hon member I listened very closely to the examples he quoted here. I want to make only two comments on them and let that suffice. The first is that the hon member need have no doubt that, when any action or activity or take-over is envisaged or has already taken place which will have a very restrictive or adverse effect on the South African economy, the Competition Board will not hesitate in any way to take action.

I think the information the hon member already has regarding investigations in progress shows that the Competition Board is determined to clamp down on and curb this practice which will have a harmful effect on the South African economy in the short or long term. That is the first comment I wish to make.

The second remark is that I think it most unfair of the hon member—I believe the hon member for Yeoville went into this in great detail—simply to draw a blanket of suspicion over all institutions. I regard that as wrong. I think one cannot make any progress in the curbing of harmful actions and conduct if one casts general suspicion on all sizeable activities. I consider that unfair.

What do you want to cover with the blanket?

In discussing this type of matter, I do not think one should generalise in this way; one should be very specific in such a case. The investigations of the Competition Board were conducted specifically. Hon members will recall that since 2 May last year virtually all harmful economic concentrations have been forbidden. I therefore wish to repeat the point made by the hon member for Yeoville. If any hon member of this House has knowledge of any such offences or malpractices, I think it is his bounden duty to bring it to the attention of either the department or the Competition Board or the body dealing with the offence concerned, because I do not think the banking sector has anything to do with the Competition Board as regards the point the hon member raised. It should be reported to the authority concerned and I believe it is the duty of every hon member of this House to bring any such offence of which he becomes aware to the attention of the organisations concerned without delay. I wish to give the assurance that, if the Competition Board or this department is involved, it will receive immediate attention and investigations will be conducted.

I wish to thank the hon member for Springs very sincerely. There are certain aspects mentioned by the hon member which we shall re-examine. I shall pay certain of those aspects which fall within our jurisdiction the attention required and, if necessary, get back to the hon member with the specific cases to which he referred and then give him the necessary comment. As usual, the contribution of the hon member for Springs was relevant and frank and he explained the objectives of this legislation very lucidly to the House.

†In dealing with the matters raised by the hon member for Constantia I will also at the same time be dealing with the matters raised by the hon member for Yeoville, because they really spoke about the same reservations.

The indecisiveness of the PFP is quite amazing. They supported this measure in the standing committee and now all of a sudden it is quite clear that in the meantime they have been convinced that they should not support it.

*I should now like to know from the hon members who spoke to them to convince them that they should not support this legislation. [Interjections.]

It is very clear that the reservations hon members have regarding this legislation and the wording of this clause actually affect a different aspect than the wording. I do not even want to comment on the name Economic Affairs and Technology of the department. I do not think it is the name of a department that protects consumers but the actions of that department.

Who does the hon the Minister think asked me to do this?

The hon member now has a guitar on which he is strumming one tune and that is the protection of the consumer. If the hon member is aware of malpractices, I want to give him a dose of his own medicine: He must come and tell us and then our department will…

I have done that already.

No, Mr Chairman, the hon member has never been in my office.

He has never invited me. [Interjections.]

If I have not invited him, I am inviting him now to come to my office and indicate specific malpractices to me. Then we shall immediately be able to pay the necessary attention to them. I invite him now.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to reply to any questions now.

I wrote him letters and he knows it.

The hon member has nothing to say, but now he comes along and creates his usual fuss in Parliament for the sake of publicity. He accused the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis of having information which he was not conveying, but I now accuse him of not reporting information officially to the department. Although he may have been to see my predecessors, he has never been to see me.

Look in your own files.

I invite him now to visit me…

You are telling an untruth!

I want to invite him officially now…

Order! The hon member for Yeoville would assist me if he made fewer interjections.

Mr Chairman, I wish to invite him officially now to visit my office and to bring any specific objections he has to my attention. We shall investigate them immediately and report back to him.

He has done that already!

Let us examine the reservations the hon member had. They think enormous powers have been vested in the Minister but the powers granted to a Minister by the amendment of a clause are far less drastic than those he already has in terms of the existing legislation. They are far less drastic. They are also making a terrible fuss about the retrospective effect of the legislation. They say it is unfair.

The legislation now empowers the Minister to take steps against any existing practice which may be harmful to the economy. Whether it came into being yesterday or five years ago is totally irrelevant. I therefore cannot understand the argument of those hon members at all.

Now let us examine hon members’ fear that I will limit their shareholding. Surely it is very clear that hon members did not even attempt to read the legislation. However, the hon member for Yeoville did refer to it. The Act lays down very clearly that the Minister’s instructions have to be preceded by an investigation by the Competition Board which then has to issue a report to which the Minister has to give attention. I want hon members to read section 11 of the Act which lays down what is to be done with that report. It says that action need not necessarily be taken immediately but that there may be negotiation with the parties involved to change or correct the practice. It is stated very clearly in the Act that the Minister cannot take action or issue an instruction before he has had an investigation carried out and before there have been negotiations and a report. The Minister can act only after such negotiations and after the Competition Board has furnished the Minister with the report, but still subject to certain restrictions. The Act makes this crystal clear.

There is a further aspect which hon members do not even take into consideration and this deals with the Minister’s powers. In the first place the Minister’s powers are intended to declare a specific take-over or a specific action illegal. That is all he does. His second function is that he is able to issue instructions to an individual or corporation to see that the necessary action is complied with. The Minister will therefore not terminate membership. The Minister will give instructions that people with membership will have to see to it themselves that they relinquish such membership. Once that instruction has been given, people whose membership is at issue have to deal with their shares in terms of the provisions of company legislation. This is so clear although at the moment there is a lack of clarity among those affected by company legislation on what is to happen regarding those shares. I concede that there is some obscurity but the fact remains that membership is terminated under that legislation. This has to be done by members themselves and not by the Minister. The Act refers very clearly to the “existing” powers of the Minister.

As regards voting rights, the hon member now has an incredibly semantic approach to “restriction” and “prohibition”. This amazes me because there was a standing committee which had to give an opinion on every word of this amendment.

He does not trust his own members on the standing committee.

They sat on that committee to do this and now they suddenly have terrible misgivings. [Interjections.] I think someone spoke to the hon members and they decided subsequently not to agree to this.

I immediately wish to concede the first point made by the hon member for Constantia. This clause ranges further than I stated in my explanatory memorandum. That is the main objective.

I now want to make the final point. The hon member Mr Hattingh made it very clear, and I thank him for his contribution and for his support of the legislation. Any person against whom action is taken in consequence of the Minister’s instructions, has the right to appeal. The legislation makes provision for an appeal, which is presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court.

As far as I am concerned these hon members have really not made out a case as to why this clause cannot go through as it is because the methods of control and investigation have been incorporated into the existing legislation. I think the hon members should first tell me why they have suddenly changed their minds and decided not to support this legislation. Something has happened to them and, before they tell me what it is, I cannot in any way accept their amendment under these circumstances. I am not prepared to accept it.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply to a question.

What do you think you are being paid for? [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon member Mr Hattingh very sincerely for the clear explanation by means of which he actually replied to hon members’ questions as well.

What about the representations?

I wish to thank other hon members very sincerely again.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the ineffectiveness of the present parliamentary or constitutional system has seldom if ever been as clearly displayed as it was recently when the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning met in an attempt to reach consensus on these three legislative measures.

What happened there was that shortly after Rev Allan Hendrickse’s resignation from the Cabinet, there was a complete change in attitude—a very noticeable change in attitude—among the members of the standing committee who are people of colour. They simply blocked the legislative measures. This is why the House has a report before it tonight which indicates that consensus could not be reached and that the House of Assembly now has to try to get these legislative measures through on its own.

We warned against this very situation that has now developed. If the Government has not learnt from this process which has now been played out on the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, they are so stubborn they deserve to be abandoned by the voters in the next general election. [Interjections.] Even where the NP and the people of colour in the other two Houses are on a path that is actually, on a philosophical-political level, based on the same thing—that is, mixed government which would ultimately become a majority government of people of colour in South Africa—consensus could not be reached. That was very clear. The representatives of the other two Houses stated what their whole plan was. They simply insisted that in every Bill that comes before the standing committee, a clause or clauses be incorporated that would guarantee parity in respect of the various population groups and that would guarantee, by direct statutory decree, that no distinction would be drawn in the appointment, remuneration or service benefits of employees on the grounds of race or colour. Every measure, whether a constitutional measure or not, was subjected to this and this is the reason consensus was not reached.

There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong if you do not reach consensus. [Interjections.]

This process will continue along these lines.

We now want to ask the Government this question: After all, they say they want a constitutional system according to which White domination would be relinquished. [Interjections.] This is the slogan with which the Government went to the voters in this last election. We are now asking the Government how they are going to get out of this kind of situation, this dead-end street, if they have relinquished White domination in the parliamentary system. [Interjections.] That is absolutely ridiculous and they know it! They know it! [Interjections.] They are not going to get out of this kind of situation if they have allowed the power to slip from their grasp, but they still come along and tell that story to the voters of South Africa. Who do they think they are bluffing?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not know whether your attention has been drawn to the noises coming from that side of the House while an hon member of the CP is talking.

Order! I hear many noises coming from all directions. Hon members must give the hon member for Roodepoort a chance. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

As far as the Bill under discussion is concerned, we have had a look at the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill. Although we are in favour of the principle of instituting a body, other than the Minister, to decide on the standards for the remuneration of town clerks, we unfortunately cannot support this Bill for the simple reason that the principal Act is completely at variance with our political principles. It makes provision for including the whole concept of regional services councils in the definition of local authorities. If we were to sanction this amending Bill, we would be sanctioning a mechanism that also makes provision for streamlining the calculation and determination of the remuneration of officials, and this applies to the regional services councils, too. We will not allow this.

As far as pension benefits for councillors are concerned—in the Pension Benefits for Councillors of Local Authorities Bill—we have three main problems.

The first is that in the Bill concerned the Minister is defined as the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, acting with the concurrence of the Minister concerned in the specific House in respect of which the benefits are being negotiated. We are against the principle. This is an admission that the will of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is being made subject to the will of a Minister of the House concerned. We cannot allow this.

Secondly, there has been talk—the hon the chairman of the standing committee will know this better than anyone else—that there has been very strong insistence, particularly by the representatives of the other Houses, that the various race groups be remunerated on an equal basis. The management committees of the other population groups are at issue here, and the representatives of the other two Houses are insisting that the management committees and ordinary councillors of White local authorities be remunerated on the same basis and according to the same rate. The payment of pension benefits will then necessarily be on the same basis, and we object to that as well.

Why?

We can tell hon members why, but now is not the time for that. If this Bill…

Order! The hon member for Benoni is making a lot of interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Yes, he is being silly!

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

If this Bill is debated further, we shall go into it in more detail, but we feel that now is neither the time nor the place for this. We could just mention the basis of our opposition.

As far as the retrospective effect of pension benefits is concerned, which is mentioned in clause 4, we should like to have clarity. At this stage we cannot promise this Bill our support before we are clear on, firstly, whether councillors who are no longer serving on the councils are also eligible for the pension benefits, and secondly, to what extent this is retrospective. As far as the regional services councils are concerned, I have only to mention that the CP will not of course be supporting them.

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer very briefly to the role played by the CP on standing committees. The irrelevance of an Official Opposition has never been as aptly illustrated in history as in this standing committee. The hon members make hardly any contribution to the activities of that standing committee. [Interjections.] They just sit there and do not say anything. All they do is vote against the legislation. [Interjections.] The only contribution received recently ironically enough came from the hon member for Roodepoort. He moved an amendment to a clause, which we accepted, and when we had to vote on it, he voted against his own amendment. [Interjections.] That is exactly what happened.

All the hon members do is sit and laugh, shake their heads and take notes which they sometimes want to use in this House and which they wish to put to further use as gossip in country districts when they hold meetings there. That is all they do. [Interjections.]

No contribution whatsoever is made regarding the problematic aspect of reaching consensus. [Interjections.] I hear that they have three Coloureds…

Order! If hon members wish to be ordered to withdraw from the House at this late stage, some of them should continue to act as they are doing now. I shall not permit it. The hon member for Parow may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I hear that there are three Coloureds who support the policy of hon members of the CP. They are the Mr Booysen we have not yet been able to trace, and then there is a Mr Don’t-Ask-Me and a Mr Please-Don’t-Tell-Me. Hon members will remember who I am referring to.

As regards this seeking of consensus which we are engaged in, I want to ask hon members of the CP this evening how, if they were to come to power and had to negotiate co-operation agreements, they would do this. I hope never to see them in power but, if they were to come to power, I should like to be present to see how they negotiate with Indians, Black people and Coloureds.

Did you read Saturday’s Argus?

I should really like to see how this was done. I should like to see how they would negotiate with these people if, according to their policy, only Coloured group areas as they exist at present… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Benoni must not make any further interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Then I should like to see how they would negotiate on industrial areas, the provision of water and other services which are furnished on a communal basis.

In the time remaining I also want to deal with the PFP. I greatly regret having to say that the role of the PFP in the standing committee I am discussing now is nothing by destructive; there is no positive contribution. The exclusive purpose of its members is to proceed in a way intended to see whether they can scuttle the tricameral Parliament. That is the only role played by the PFP on that standing committee. [Interjections.]

It is actually pathetic to see the method used…

Look at them laughing.

… and the most ludicrous method is the way the PFP attempts to secure the goodwill of the members of the other two Houses.

Order! We are engaged in a discussion of certain reports now but the hon member has not mentioned them once. The hon member must deal specifically with the subject.

I shall do so immediately, Mr Chairman, by referring you to the standpoint of hon members of the PFP on pensions for town councillors. The hon member Prof Olivier’s standpoint is that the PFP is not in favour of paying pensions to town councillors; that is their standpoint. If that is their view, I have no objection, but to bend over backwards to secure the goodwill of people of colour on that committee…

You do it too!

… the hon member said that the proposed amendment providing for payment of equal salaries had merit. Surely one cannot say one rejects the principle of a Bill but, when someone moves an amendment, add that the amendment sounds splendid and acceptable.

Of course.

There are really no contributions on this committee regarding the search for consensus in an attempt to solve a problem in our country.

Mr Chairman, in all honesty I consider it beneath my dignity to react to the hon member for Parow’s statements. I was shocked and surprised by what he said. I want to say immediately that I think my contribution on that standing committee was positive. I wish to add that the hon member for Parow has made the mistake of asserting that I, or anyone else for that matter can prescribe to the coloured members of the committee what they should think. Something like that is nothing but a form of domination. [Interjections.]

I also wish to add immediately that I do not want to go into the merits of the case at this stage. We have the report of a committee before us. This report comprises two parts, the first of which deals with the fact that consensus could not be reached and that the components from the other two Houses could not agree to the desirability of the three Bills concerned. The second part covers the recommendation of the component from this House that the Bills be proceeded with.

As regards the merits of the Bills I want to state at once that I do not believe this evening is the time to discuss them, nor is there adequate time to do so. When these Bills are put tomorrow, we shall certainly be able to discuss them in depth and at length and our standpoints on these Bills will be put thoroughly. The hon member for Parow remarked with justification that we were opposed in principle to the Pension Benefits for Councillors of Local Authorities Bill. We have fundamental objections to the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill which we shall highlight tomorrow.

Mr Chairman, I do however wish to point out to the hon member for Parow as well as the hon member for Roodepoort on this occasion that our failing to reach consensus was not the fault of the chairman of the standing committee. The chairman of this committee went out of his way to permit a free discussion and certainly tried throughout to bring about consensus. It was not his fault that consensus could not finally be achieved. I have to add that even the hon the Minister—on two occasions last week—as well as the hon the Deputy Minister were present in an effort to effect consensus. Unfortunately their contributions did not aid in the achievement of consensus.

Deep-rooted ideological differences certainly underlay the inability to achieve consensus. The chairman of the standing committee stated repeatedly that in the long run it appeared to him that there was not much sense in pursuing the discussions on the committee, especially because of the deep-seated ideological differences. That is the problem we shall have to face in this House. Those ideological differences, Mr Chairman, are not of my making. In spite of what the hon member for Parow tried to insinuate yesterday, I did not create them.

In conclusion—the time for this debate is limited as well—I do want to say…

You are also a confused ideologist! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if there is any confusion, the hon the Minister of National Education is certainly subject to it. [Interjections.] He keeps trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

He does not know whether he is left or right!

Mr Chairman, he therefore has no call to accuse me of ideological confusion.

That is right, FW! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the real challenge facing us and to which we have not found an answer in spite of efforts that were made is the question of how to reach consensus when unbridgeable ideological differences appear to exist and those differences form the basis of the Government’s specific approach. Consequently, Mr Chairman, under these particular circumstances we do not see our way clear to supporting the adoption of the standing committee report.

Mr Chairman, my motion that the report of the standing committee be accepted actually consists of two parts—as the hon member Prof Olivier correctly stated. For the sake of clarity I shall read them as they appear in the report:

That is the first part. The second reads as follows:

The committee recommended that the three Bills involved be proceeded with because it was convinced of the desirability of the measures. The committee was in fact convinced of the necessity of the measures.

I wish to refer to the measures separately, and shall start with the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill. The merits of this Bill are obvious to everyone reading it. In fact, there was no noteworthy objection to the merits of the measure on the standing committee. The reason why its desirability was voted against was that it was contended that the town clerk, as the chief executive officer of his town council, took decisions which affected members of population groups other than the Whites, and that management committees and local affairs committees in the areas involved ought consequently to have a joint say in the appointment of the town clerk. Nevertheless the appointment of town clerks is in no way regulated in this Bill.

In addition, management committees and local affairs committees are advisory bodies and therefore it would not be correct for them to have a joint say in the appointment of town clerks. We were prepared from our side, however, to include a recommendation in the report that management committees and local affairs committees be consulted in advance on the appointment of town clerks so as to enable them to express an opinion, but this was not acceptable to members of the other two Houses. This was the reason for the decision to vote against the desirability of the measure. What was at issue was not the merits of the measure itself but a minor detail they wanted to add.

The same applied to the Pension Benefits for Councillors of Local Authorities Bill. Again the merits of the measure were obvious because there are numerous town councillors who have devoted their lives in selfless service to a community and who are entitled to a pension. Everyone except the hon member Prof Olivier was in favour of this. The members of the other two Houses, however, were not in favour of this measure because they alleged that the allowance paid to members of town councils and of management committees respectively was unequal and the pension would therefore necessarily be unequal too. Again we were prepared from our side to include a recommendation in the report which in substance would mean that the entire question of equality or inequality in the allowances of town councillors as compared to those of members of management and local affairs committees would be investigated by the Administrators of the provinces involved in order to effect equality where it was warranted and there was justification for it. After all, one cannot simply enforce equality regardless of circumstances. That is why we proposed that this matter be investigated in depth. Again this was not acceptable, however.

In conclusion, we were dealing with an ideological clash from the start as regards regional services councils because some members stated very clearly that they could not under any circumstances support legislation based on an unacceptable substructure of separate local authorities. That is why that measure also came to grief.

What I now find surprising in the CP standpoint is that, whereas they agreed with us on the unreasonable nature of the views I have just explained, they are also voting against the measures. The hon member Prof Olivier, in accordance with the policy of his party, was also in agreement with the opinions of the members of the other two Houses regardless of their unreasonableness. One really finds it remarkable that, although the hon member for Roodepoort commented on how unreasonable the members of the other two Houses were, he and his colleagues voted with them against the desirability of the measures.

Merit versus ideology. That is very clear. [Interjections.]

The fact is that these measures were approved by the Cabinet while the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils of the other two Houses were still members of the Cabinet.

Now Boss Hendrickse says no.

The measures were also approved by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs on which communities from all population groups are represented. It was very clear to us that these measures came to grief in the standing committee not because of the measures themselves but for other motives and minor details which basically had nothing to do with the measures. Consequently we recommend that the report be adopted as moved, although consensus was not reached.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—87: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Blanché, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Hattingh, C P; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Odendaal, W A; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Thompson, A G.

Noes—33: Andrew, K M; Beyers, J M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hulley, R R; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Snyman, W J; Swart, RAF; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question agreed to.

Report adopted.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.