Mr Chairman, permit me first of all to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon Chief Whip of Parliament on his birthday.

Hear, hear!

We wish him many years of happiness in future. We know him as a formidable opponent. Nevertheless he is a just man. We know each other. We help each other. We also offer him our help in ensuring the smooth functioning of Parliament.

We also wish to place on record our thanks and appreciation to Mr De Villiers, Mr Rossouw and all the other officials of Parliament and of this House, who consistently assist all parties objectively and impartially and are at all times at our disposal.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, since I do not have much time at my disposal, I am only going to show you the parliamentary news once, and not a second and third time! [Interjections.]

In the newspapers of 22 August this year we read that the traditions of Westminster were thrown overboard in Harare on Friday, 21 August. That was the day when the Bill was passed in terms of which White seats in Parliament were abolished in Zimbabwe. Followed by other women, a female member of the Cabinet leapt up and led the singing of a revolutionary song. Then there was dancing and singing while Mr Mugabe beamed and clapped his hands. One female member prostrated herself before Mr Mugabe.

Here the farewell to the sovereign White Parliament is being dealt with in a more refined way. Last Wednesday, 26 August, the gold mace, symbol of the Speaker’s authority as Speaker of a sovereign White Parliament, was handed over and will now be kept behind glass. A replica was presented to the Chairman of the House in this House. In passing, I just want to say that that original mace is the property of this House of Assembly. [Interjections.] We lay claim to it on behalf of the CP as something belonging to the White Parliament, that it should keep.

See how Sakkie Blanché is laughing about that!

This presentation of the mace took place amid applause. Thus the sun sets on White sovereignty in our fatherland, while the spectators clap.

Few hon members on the Government side probably understood or appreciated the symbolism of the ceremony of surrender. The disintegration of the White House of Assembly is manifesting itself further every day in this House. Sixteen of the 18 White Ministers of the Cabinet are hon members who represent seats in this House. There are 14 Deputy Ministers and three members of the Ministers’ Council. They are all elected members of this House. Day after day, however, there is a large open space in the Ministers’ and Deputy Ministers’ benches. Apart from the Minister or Deputy Minister who is dealing with a Bill or whose vote is under discussion, there is at most one other Minister present in this House.

However, if the hon the State President happens to be here—mirabile dictu!—then the vast majority of hon Ministers of this House are present. It is understandable that some hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers have to appear in other Houses, but at most one or two at a time. After all, they represent constituencies in this House, as I said.

Moreover, we do not know what the task of each hon Minister, Deputy Minister and ministerial representative is. We do not know where Education and Development Aid stops and Foreign Affairs begins. We do not know where Public Works stops and Land Affairs begins.

You know perfectly well.

We do not know what the precise functions of the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and of Constitutional Planning in the Office of the State President are—or is his main task merely to “afstoffel”? [Interjections.]

This is part of the undermining process, but what is more, it is part of the Government’s contempt of this House. It is part of the shifting of power from this emasculated House to the executive, and more specifically to one person who is increasingly assuming the aspect of a dictator. It is striking and significant that a chief journalist of one of the newspapers that supports the NP yesterday made the significant admission that section 6 of the Constitution is not entrenched. This is the section that sets out the powers of the State President. This clothing of himself with dictatorial powers is taking place at a time when the new dispensation is encountering opposition. Consensus, the magic word, is part of the baby that has been thrown out with the bathwater. Even with its coalition partners the NP now finds itself in the midst of confrontation politics. The Labour Party is currently using this type of politics in the standing committees and at this stage is paralysing the operation of the standing committees. The Rev Hendrickse is no longer cloistered in a Cabinet—a Cabinet in which he consistently compromised his party. He can and will now flex his muscles. He is demanding a quid pro quo before his party will consent to the postponement of the election for the House of Assembly. The chickens are slowly but steadily coming home to roost.

How colourfully the hon member for Barberton predicted, when we were debating this Constitution, that the Government would chain itself to the Coloureds and the Indians, and throw away the key! Time and again we warned the Government that it was painting itself into a comer and limiting its options. In its frustration—while blows were being dealt out to Riaan Eksteen—the Government admitted what we had always maintained was the case, namely that the SABC is manipulated by the Government. We had really never imagined, however, that it could even be done during the course of a news bulletin! [Interjections.] what is very interesting, is that the Rev Hendrickse did move much closer to the CP in the process. He gave up his place in the general affairs Cabinet—where he was Minister without Portfolio and had to accept what was decided—and can now decide for himself and deal with his own affairs. The difference is that we offer him far more.

He is laughing at you.

We offer him a full say in respect of all aspects of government. [Interjections.]

Order!

We now want to know from the hon the Leader of the House how he is going to deal with the confrontation politics in the Cabinet, on the standing committee and in Parliament? Is he going to plead and beg like the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? Is he going to make concessions, and if so, which concessions? Is he going to huff and puff at the left in order to appease the right and then undermine or shoot down the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act? Or is he going to devote his energies to the restoration of a sovereign White Parliament?

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition for his kind words. It is difficult to believe that the same person can say such nice things and then, the next moment, be so bitter.

You are giving us an example.

If I succeed in holding the attention of the hon member for Soutpansberg, then I shall really have achieved something today. [Interjections.]

Because I do not often speak in this House, I want to do something that I also, in fact, want to warn against, and that is to waste time and speak at unnecessary length, because the rules of this House provide that the Committee Stage of the Budget may last for 80 hours. In the time I take I do not want to react to what the hon member said, since to a large extent he addressed his speech to the hon the Leader of the House, and he will react to it.

I should much rather the Parliament Vote since, unlike the other votes, it is, after all, our own vote, the one which most intimately affects us and the milieu in which we live here.

It goes without saying that after 21 years of uninterrupted service, one may surely claim the right to speak with far greater possessiveness about this wonderful institution that is called Parliament.

Each of us has a special responsibility to Parliament, since we collectively project the image of Parliament. When one hon member makes a hash of things, it reflects on all hon members. Therefore a camaraderie has developed in this place over the years. If an hon member falls by the wayside, we shall close ranks around him, whatever the party affiliation of that hon member. Therefore I want to express the wish that although political divisions have grown so deep nowadays, we shall not abandon that old tradition in this process.

I need not say that the on slaught on Parliament as an institution is tremendous. It is growing by the day, with the addition of innumerable extra parliamentary actions and organisations. I am not one of those who suffers from a five-minutes-to-midnight syndrome, but the hour is really late enough for there to be a need for all of us to contribute towards promoting the image of this Parliament. It is self-destructive to revel in every occurrence which seems as though it may harm the system.

It is astonishing what some European parliaments spend to bring Parliament closer to the people and inform the people about their activities. I just want to mention one example, that of the Bundestag in West Germany, where 20% of the parliamentary budget is devoted to that very purpose. On the other hand, a small regional government such as that of Bavaria also spends an enormous sum on keeping their parliament in the public eye.

Members of Parliament even enjoy the privilege of bringing a number of leaders from their constituencies to Parliament every year, at parliamentary expense. Many facilities are made available to inform and counsel people. Today, therefore, I wish to make a very earnest plea that we provide audio-visual facilities and exhibitions somewhere in Parliament where we can provide groups of visitors with information in a proper way before they visit the debating chambers.

In view of the considerable amount of space we are going to have in the public gallery of the Chamber of Parliament, I think we should go out of our way to encourage more such groups of visitors. We shall simply have to devote more attention to attractive and informative publications that a visitor to Parliament can take with him and that can also be made available on request if we want to bring Parliament closer to the public.

There are so many things that can be said about Parliament. How many people know anything about the group of outstanding young hon members who were elected to this House this year? I venture to say that on average, these members are the best ever elected to Parliament. How many people know how Parliament really functions and what key role the whips, that are sitting around me here, play in the course of that functioning? How many people know—I am mentioning something personal about Parliament—that there is a parliamentary prayer group that meets regularly across party and colour lines?

The Israelis attach so much value to information about their Parliament that they only use highly professional guides to assist visitors to the Knesset. Those guides are not only trained to answer questions about the constitution of the country or the rules and procedures of their parliament; they can also interpret the symbolism of their enormous wall tapestries.

When construction of the Chamber of Parliament is complete, we shall really have something unique in which to accommodate a unique parliamentary system. We shall have to utilise it not only nationally, but also internationally, in order to market Parliament as an institution. I am convinced that Mr Speaker will react positively to this.

While I am referring to Mr Speaker, I want to point out that it is often said that the office of Speaker is a lonely one. Let me hasten to say that this Speaker has not allowed that to happen to him, because he is totally involved. Not only does he throw his full weight into the office of Speaker, but he also actively promotes the image of Parliament from day to day, even in the outside world.

It was my special privilege to witness with pride his demeanour at some of the European parliaments we visited during the winter recess, and the way he opened doors for our Parliament. I really believe that we shall in future reap the benefits of the contact that he personally brought about. I therefore trust that he will keep on in that way.

It is to be hoped that next year, after a few years of standstill, we shall resume parliamentary missions abroad. That is why we so urgently need contact. I think it is of the utmost importance for every hon member of this Parliament to be able to have contact with other parliaments on the occasion of such visits.

What we were able to learn abroad and what we were able to borrow for the purposes of drawing up the rules for joint debate, will be submitted to this House in the report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Accordingly I do not wish to speculate on that any further at this stage. Suffice it to say that all democratic parliaments are subject to the same enormous pressure for debate in general sitting. All are struggling to find solutions, while here we still devote a relatively large amount of time to general debate. That is why I am particularly excited about the success we have achieved recently—and will, I hope, achieve again today—in drawing up a brief programme of legislation for disposal on a particular day, in consultation with the Government and the opposition parties.

Order! I regret to inform the hon Chief Whip of Parliament that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon Chief Whip of Parliament the opportunity of completing his speech.

I thank the hon member for the opportunity to round off my speech.

Sir, I said that all democratic parliaments are subjected to intense pressure as regards time in a general sitting, and everyone is struggling to find solutions, while we are still spending a great deal of time on general debates.

I am particularly grateful for the assistance we are getting from the parties, and in particular, for the assistance we are getting from the opposition parties in drawing up work programmes for finalisation on particular days.

We could go a long way towards refining this process further, but in doing so we are totally dependent on the cooperation of the opposition parties. I reiterate that we are sincerely grateful for the cooperation we are getting in all three Houses in this regard. We can discuss this process further when the Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders submits its report.

The fact remains that members of Parliament—by that I mean all members of Parliament—are simply unable to meet all their commitments in their constituencies if we have to sit—or stand!—and debate here in Cape Town for the greater part of the year. Moreover, standing committees also have to prepare legislation in the latter part of the year.

We shall have to give drastic consideration to several aspects of our current sessional and debating pattern. We shall have to consider ways of utilising the time available to best advantage. Above all, we shall have to accept that the Westminster system is obsolete for the purposes of our parliamentary system, as are a number of the archaic customs to which we cling so fiercely. For those of us who are not afraid of change and the future, a very exciting time certainly lies ahead in the sphere of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament on one point, namely what he said about divisions in this house having become so acute that in fact, little remains of camaraderie. To tell the truth, I had initially intended to start my speech by saying so and saying that it was a pity, but I shall leave it at that.

Since the hon the Chief Whip has now given me the opportunity to refer to it—he referred specifically to the fact that members of Parliament would close ranks to protect one another—I just wish to say to him that he probably does not have in mind the current matter relating to Standerton.

In this Parliament we have a Government that draws up rules and makes laws to suit itself to keep people in Parliament, but is not prepared to do so for other people who find themselves in the same situation. This is something we must say to one another. I want the Government to know now, as every hon member in this parliamentary system must know, that we, when we speak again, are not going to ask the Government for anything. However we must say to one another that there are and were rules in this place. I repeat, there are rules and there were rules, and many of them were unwritten rules.

The greatness of a man in a position of power is measured particularly in terms of how he uses and applies his power, particularly as far as the unwritten rules are concerned. His greatness is also measured in terms of how he changes the unwritten rules when they do not entirely suit him. [Interjections.] In this place the minority groups must know what the rules are, so that they may move within the limits set by those rules without having to humiliate themselves by asking. That is what written and unwritten rules are there for.

I now wish to say to hon members that written rules must be upheld and perpetuated. Unwritten rules should be considered. Last Friday we had an example in this place of how an unwritten rule was flagrantly broken in order to get at a man. I refer to how an hon member who was a young, green backbencher, spoke about things which are not discussed in public in this House.

The hon member blurted out that there had been a visit to the border. One could excuse him that, since he may not have known the background. What is inexcusable, however, is that he was speaking from a piece of paper or something he had been prompted to say. It is astonishing to think that a person who has got somewhere in life in that he has come here, says things that he is prompted to say without knowing what he is saying; one asks oneself what such a man is doing in this place. One is also astonished at the calculated pettiness and meanness of the person who sent that man the message. [Interjections.] In this place certain things should be done on the basis of party allegiance, but certain things ought also to be done on the basis of seniority in this Parliament. They ought to be arranged by the Secretariat. As I say, Sir, I am asking nothing; that must be remembered.

In my opinion, however, it is an abuse of power if the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament arrogates to himself the right—he usurps it, as far as negotiation with Mr Speaker and the secretariat is concerned—to decide how many parking places are allocated to the members of the various parties here. That is a form of petty usurpation.

That is a half-truth! [Interjections.]

I shall leave it at that. I just want to say that that is the kind of thing we are talking about. [Interjections.]

I wish to deal with a further point. [Interjections.] What unwritten rules are these that I am unaware of? The hon member for False Bay does not even know what the rules of this place are. [Interjections.]

Order!

Another matter which I want the Government to take note of, is that as long as there is protocol at functions, that protocol must be maintained. If that is not the case, we shall create embarrassment when we are humiliated by protocol procedures. That is something they simply must know, Sir.

I now wish to discuss something different, namely the appointed members of Parliament. The appointed members of Parliament as well as the indirectly appointed members of Parliament have no status in constituencies. In my opinion a guideline must be laid down by Parliament, or whoever, in regard to the position of appointed or indirectly elected members of Parliament in specific constituencies.

Do you hear that, Sampie?

They must be informed as to what precedence applies in such a case. I say this because one gets appointed members of Parliament who intrude upon themselves in places that should really be filled by the elected members of Parliament. [Interjections.] I do not wish to go into that any further at this stage; I am merely mentioning it. [Interjections.]

The CP is not asking for anything, but it is not going to tolerate anything more either. [Interjections.] To that I want to add that I believe this verges on a breach of privilege. It is this NP system of appointing so-called guardian MP’s for certain constituencies. I want to point out that there is no such thing as a guardian MP and that guardian MP’s must watch their step in future if they interfere in constituencies. These are guardian MP’s that are in reality mere NP agents in certain seats. In any event, I want to say to the hon the Leader of the House and the leader of the NP in Transvaal that wherever he has sent guardian MP’s into CP seats, they have in any event failed in the job they were sent there to do.

I am sorry for the Chief Whip of Parliament, but we must speak bluntly to the NP and the Government about these matters, because the CP does not allow itself to be trampled on, particularly not by the NP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the contributions by both the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Soutpansberg were in sharp contrast to that of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. [Interjections.]

On the part of the NP, through the words of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, love of Parliament as an institution was expressed. On the part of the CP, bitterness and rancour…

You are dreaming!

… was expressed regarding everything that is taking place. It seems to me that the hon member for Soutpansberg has not yet realised that the rest of the hon members of his party are trying to change their style. He has relapsed into the style they adopted when they were still caught in the middle. Today he was guilty of pouring out a stream of aggression towards the hon members of this House regarding truly irrelevant matters. [Interjections.] However, I shall reply to him.

I now want to continue, firstly by telling the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that we listened with great interest to his plea for us to enhance the image of this Parliament, not cosmetically but by making proper information available to the public by audiovisual methods, by means of qualified and effective guided tours, and by means of international liaison. I am sure his speech and the proposals to which he referred, which will soon be submitted to committees of this House, will be very carefully considered.

We greatly appreciate the work he has done concerning the implementation of the new dispensation. [Interjections.] While I also want to congratulate him on his birthday, I express the hope that this Parliament will be allowed to benefit for many years to come not only from his experience, but also from his enthusiasm, his organisational capability and his insight into the vital activities of Parliament. [Interjections.] Without him this dispensation would not be what it is today, and I should like to pay tribute to him. I thank him very much for a fine contribution. If we were to start giving shape to this through decision-making it would indeed mean positive renewal for Parliament as an institution and as an instrument in the effective handling of the affairs of the RSA.

Alex, you are preventing the ship from sinking.

I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the officials very sincerely. We have little opportunity to thank them publicly for their hard work behind the scenes. We see them sitting here now and again. The hard work that is done outside this Chamber to allow everything to run smoothly, members’ privileges to be effectively maintained, and Parliament to function properly, requires enormous sacrifices, effort and dedication from them during a session. We want to thank them most sincerely for this.

The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition began by referring to the abolition of White representation in the Zimbabwean parliament. It is almost as if I could visualise the front page of the next issue of Die Patriot. I thank the hon member for Brakpan very much for the advance knowledge with regard to this matter. We have their propaganda technique to thank for this. After all, it is an old technique of theirs to try to compare what happens in Zimbabwe to what happens in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

When the hon member for Brakpan wants to draw comparisons, he should rather direct his attention to the PFP, because what is taking place in Zimbabwe is what the PFP would like to see taking place in South Africa. [Interjections.] The tokenism that is practised in giving Whites in Zimbabwe special representation without any associated sharing of power, or effective power bases of their own, has after all never been regarded by this side of the House as the effective protection of group rights in Zimbabwe. [Interjections.]

Order!

Nor is it in any way comparable to the dispensation in operation here—in terms of our constitutional system. This is why I say once again that this is simply the kind of propaganda the CP often uses to try to confuse the electorate. Nevertheless, I did expect them to show better judgment than to come and expose themselves here with such ridiculous arguments, where we are all present to reply to them.

Just try to reply to us!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan referred to the mace. I just want to clear up a misunderstanding straight away. There is no question that the Speaker’s mace will fall into disuse. The mace that preceded the Speaker’s procession in this Chamber this afternoon is the original official mace of the Speaker. It will remain in use as a symbol of the authority of the Speaker of Parliament.

A mixed Parliament!

The other three maces symbolise in each case the authority of the Chairman of each individual House. What is to be placed in a glass cabinet—there is a slight misunderstanding regarding this—is a facsimile of the Speaker’s mace. It is not made of gold, and was manufactured by the Mint.

One day the CP will find themselves in a glass cabinet! [Interjections.]

The Speaker’s mace therefore remains in use. Whether the hon members of the CP like it or not, they are part of a parliament. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. They are part of a Parliament that is defined in a Constitution which is supported by two thirds of the electorate of this House of Assembly; by 66%…

Oh, we have heard that all before!

I know we have heard it all before, but the hon member has to be reminded of it now and then because he makes it sound as though his party’s support adds up to more than one third. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Brakpan complained about the presence of Ministers here in the House. I have made a few calculations. While he was making that complaint, 54% of the hon members of the CP were present in the House.

That is untrue! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, 12 of the 22 hon members of the CP were present here when the hon member for Brakpan began to speak. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then the hon member for Lichtenburg came in. There then were 13 of them. Thirteen is 59%.

We are not governing the country! You are! [Interjections.]

Order!

Thirteen is 59%. [Interjections.]

The CP cannot count!

Order!

Yes, hon members of the Official Opposition may as well neglect their duty, Sir. They are harming only themselves. We are governing the country. This is why the executive authority is engaged in all kinds of other obligations. Nevertheless, attendance by NP members of the House—excluding Ministers—was 77%. With all the Ministers included, it was 57,8%. Hon members of the Official Opposition should therefore not try to exert pressure. Hon Ministers who are not present here are working. They do not go and cause trouble in the rest of the country, as those hon members of the CP that are absent are doing. [Interjections.]

As hard at work as Louis Nel!

Koos, you cannot count! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Brakpan asked how the NP was going to deal with confrontation politics. This is a question each of us has to answer for himself. No population group in South Africa will derive any benefit from confrontation politics. Everything we are debating examines in depth—if we really are serious—the question of how, by means of negotiation politics, we can eliminate or completely avoid confrontation as far as is humanly possible. Each member of Parliament, and each member of this House, too, should hold himself accountable—since we are members of an institution for which we have made ourselves available—on the question of whether we want to disable this very institution which should be an instrument of renewal and change in South Africa, by encouraging unnecessary confrontation. The hon members of the Official Opposition have this responsibility too. The same applies to us on this side, as well as to all other hon members, including those in the other Houses.

It has never been a requirement for the successful operation of the system, as embodied in the Constitution, that the leaders of the majority parties sit together in the Cabinet. It was envisaged from the beginning that this would possibly not be the case, so the resignation of one of the leaders of one of the Houses from the Cabinet does not necessarily place the entire system in jeopardy.

Not necessarily, but still!

Upholding the system depends on the positive attitude and the responsibility with which we want to make this system work, in order to bring about in South Africa—because we are still engaged in a process—a situation in which everyone can be safe and self-determination can come into its own, but in which co-operation on matters of common concern can take place in a meaningful way, without our having to fear one another once again, and without one group dominating another.

The absurdity of the announcement of a White sovereign parliament… [Interjections.]… if one says at the same time that that White sovereign parliament should be sovereign in a state in which the Whites are in the minority, we shall be exposed because hon members on the other side are selling a dream to the electorate if they tell them they will ever be able to uphold such a system. [Interjections.]

The realities of South Africa confront us with the inexorable demand of finding a way to bring everyone living within the same borders together in a context of co-operation while offering each participating group complete and permanent security. The NP will continue with this and we shall not allow ourselves to be deterred by the strong-arm tactics of the CP in this regard. They, with their strong-arm tactics, want to lead the Whites along a path on which they will come to grief in the face of a polarised situation in which all divisions in South Africa will be based purely on race. They represent the danger to the security of the Whites, not this side of the House, and not this new Constitution, either.

The hon member for Soutpansberg referred bitterly to the steps the NP took regarding the hon member for Standerton. I do not want to go into the matter; he knows it is sub judice. However, allow me to tell him this.

My remark is not sub judice.

Candidates on this side did indeed bear the Constitution in mind before nomination day, and put themselves at a disadvantage by relinquishing their posts which would have brought them into conflict with that section of the Constitution. [Interjections.]

I therefore want to say in connection with comparable posts such as these that it would be unreasonable for hon members of the Official Opposition to be allowed to deal with the same situation in a way that would be to their advantage, whereas our members on this side would be at a disadvantage.

We are going to give you a hiding.

This is therefore not a trivial matter; it is concerned with the implementation of the Constitution as it stands. We may as well fight this matter out in Standerton; I am not going to take it further here. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg made a great fuss about the unwritten rules we have to uphold—and the very next moment he broke an unwritten rule! After all, there has never been a rule providing for the allocation of privileges such as parking facilities not to take place on a party basis. [Interjections.]

Order! There is a great deal of discussion about breaking unwritten rules. I would appreciate it if hon members would keep to the written rules! The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

Mr Chairman, there has never been a rule that provided for parking facilities to be allocated purely on the basis of seniority. Similar facilities have always been dealt with, taking into account the number of members representing a party in Parliament. So why does he not uphold his own unwritten rules?

Since when have unwritten rules…

This has always been the case. The hon member has never been a Whip; he may as well ask the old Whips in their ranks.

The hon member is also making another very important error of reasoning. After all, the H F Verwoerd Building does not fall under the Parliament Vote.

Then let the DPW know.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg has had his turn to speak.

It falls under the DPW. The hon member should be raising the matter during the discussion of the Public Works Vote. There has been a reasonable allocation and the hon member, who is not a Whip, is now meddling in a matter the Whips and I are at present discussing. I do not know whether the hon member’s Chief Whip has not informed him properly or whether he cannot control him. [Interjections.] This matter is being discussed and at the previous meeting I gave certain undertakings to have certain discussions, and the Whips are awaiting my answer.

We therefore co-operate with the Official Opposition when they point out problems to us and they find this side of the House obliging when it comes to trying to solve those problems. We do not need the hon member for Soutpansberg to come and put a spoke in that wheel. He has not done his party a favour with his acrimonious attack today. [Interjections.]

Order!

Lastly, the hon member for Soutpansberg, who is restraining himself with difficulty today, attacked a system that has nothing whatsoever to do with the House of Assembly. The NP strategy of rendering a service to NP supporters who are not satisfied with the quality of the CP MPs, is obviously upsetting the hon member. We offer a service to NP supporters in opposition constituencies who refuse to accept support from CP MPs because they have absolutely no confidence in them. [Interjections.] We shall continue that system of rendering a personal service to our people.

Scheming about State boundaries and land.

I want to assure the hon member that if attended a function in my constituency, and had good reason to be there, we would indeed take into account his position as regards protocol.

You do not even invite us. [Interjections.]

Order!

It seems to me that the hon member for Overvaal has some difficulty regarding acceptance in the Vaal Triangle. He should be talking to the community leaders there, not to me.

You invite a Black mayor, but you do not invite me.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must contain himself.

The fact that the PFP did not participate in the debate gives me the impression that they are relatively satisfied with the way parliamentary matters are being dealt with, as well as with the Budget.

I would not assume too much if I were you.

I want to thank them for their silent support of the Vote.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he does not realise that because of the lack of time that we have available for debate we have chosen not to participate in the discussion of this particular Vote.

I am sure it was a choice that was made without any compulsion from any quarter whatsoever because, if the PFP had any criticism, that criticism, in terms of their own list of priorities, could not have been very important to them; otherwise they would have made use of the available time.

I raise it at the Whips’ meetings.

If the hon member does, he is obviously satisfied with the good service he gets at the Whips’ meetings.

*In conclusion I should like to tell the hon members of the Official Opposition that the time has come for them to accept that a new Constitution is in operation in South Africa.

We are still going to destroy it.

There is no point in their kicking against the pricks. They will simply have to try within the system to obtain a majority in this House. [Interjections.] However, if in their efforts they cause Parliament as an institution to be jeopardised, as they indeed did this afternoon, they are not doing South Africa a favour.

You are talking rubbish, man.

If we want to maintain orderly government in South Africa, it will be this Parliament within the framework of the Constitution that will have to take the following steps to lead South Africa to total freedom for all its people. We can differ as to how this should be achieved, but let us not jeopardise the instrument we have to use, namely Parliament, in the way the Official Opposition did this afternoon.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Tweefontein Timber Company Ltd was founded in terms of the Tweefontein Timber Company act, Act No 22 of 1981, with the aim of promoting the processing and reprocessing of timber. The State and the Hans Merensky Foundation each have a 50% share in the company, the joint approved share capital of which amounts to R8,5 million.

In recent times the company has shown a negative cash flow because of the poor demand for softwood products as a result of certain economic factors. The production capacity of the sawmill was accordingly adjusted to deliver a lower production.

It is envisaged to bring about certain improvements to the Weza sawmill at Harding and to modernise the outdated hardwood sawmill at Sabie in order to increase its production capacity since the demand for hardwood products is favourable at present.

Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill provide for the increase in share capital and the method by which the share capital is to be taken up by the shareholders. It is merely a technical adjustment.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the Official Opposition supports this amending Bill because it is simply a factual situation that has to be resolved. The fact is that the cash flow of the Tweefontein Timber Company has deteriorated to such an extent that further capital will have to be found. The reason for this poor cash flow is of course the poor state of the economy in general, and the Government was instrumental in bringing about this situation. The company also needs capital for the modernisation of some of the sawmills in order to increase production capacity.

The directors decided that an extra R6,5 million in share capital would be the best way to resolve the situation, and we accept this.

In the light of the Government’s privatisation policy it is of course ironic that it still retains a half share in this company and, what is more, wants to invest a further R3,25 million in capital in it—in other words, it wants to increase its interest. We understand, however, that the Government’s involvement in this company is at present being reconsidered. When this interest is relinquished, and any interests are transferred to the private sector, one would of course have to ensure that the taxpayer received a reasonable return on his investment, and that the interest of the State was not transferred to one of the existing large companies, but to as many small businessmen, be they individuals or smaller companies, as possible.

We support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member for Potgietersrus for his support.

The Tweefontein Timber Company Limited was probably the first example of privatisation in which the State went into partnership with the private sector. The company is being run by a very skilled management team, and this is reflected in its consolidated balance sheet for 31 March 1986. According to this it is clear that the share capital of R8 500 has increased by almost 50% because the undistributed profits were kept as reserves of the company.

The amending Bill will make it possible, particularly at the Sabie mills, to improve the seasoning process so that it will no longer be necessary to rely on the conventional methods; it will be possible to use steam seasoning. The capacity, particularly as far as the production of hardwood is concerned, could therefore be almost doubled, since there is a very heavy demand at present. One of the associated benefits will be that the process of decentralisation and job creation will be promoted, particularly in a case such as that of a sawmill where decentralisation benefits are not available because it is a territorially oriented industry. I want to suggest that this is a far better method of assistance than simply granting subsidies on a decentralised basis.

Increasing the share capital is also the best method of financing because it establishes the company on a far sounder base than would be the case if only loan capital were increased.

I therefore take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Speaker, during November last year the environmental group visited these sawmills where we saw the need for this amending Bill, and we of the PFP would therefore like to support it. I think you are aware, Sir, that I know more about the sawing up of human beings than the sawing up of wood, and I shall therefore conclude my speech.

One of your better contributions!

Order! It is surprising how sensible an hon member can occasionally be! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon members for Potgietersrus, Nelspruit and Parktown for their support.

I should like to begin with the hon member for Parktown. This is a case of seeing is believing. It is perhaps a good idea, before one submits a Bill to Parliament, first to take the men to have a look. I thank him for his support.

The hon member for Nelspruit referred to privatisation. He said this was an example of privatisation. This is true because this partial—if I may call it that—privatisation of the timber industry started as long ago as 1981.

To react immediately to the hon member for Potgietersrus, who also referred to this, I want to say that the Government’s policy of privatisation should not be misunderstood. Privatisation should take place only if it is in the country’s interests. In my opinion this is the norm that should be laid down throughout. When we decide it will be in the interests of the industry and of the country to privatise this particular company completely—it is now 50% privatised—we shall indeed do so.

I thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The National Parks Act provides that only the chairman of the board may be remunerated. It is, however, customary that members of the various statutory boards be compensated for their services, and the present inconsistency is difficult to justify. The Bill provides that remuneration and allowances may now be paid to board members as well as the chairman.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill constitute technical corrections.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the Official Opposition is happy to support this Bill. It makes provision for members of the National Parks Board of Trustees to receive remuneration for their services. Members of other statutory boards are remunerated for their services, and this is actually a form of discrimination against the members of the National Parks Board of Trustees, which is indefensible and untenable. Up till now the chairman of the board has received remuneration, but the hon members have not.

It is even more indefensible because this board was the first statutory board to be established in South Africa. The board meeting took place as long ago as 16 September 1926, and the board has already had at least eight chairmen and 85 members. These members, basically out of love of their cause and for the sake of preserving our natural heritage, have served for many years and we believe it is right that they indeed receive remuneration now, too.

The National Parks Board today controls 16 conservation areas, 14 national parks, and two national lake areas—a total of 3 million hectares in surface area. Its budget amounts to R50 million per year and it already generates two thirds of that budget itself.

It is therefore only right that all the members of the National Parks Board of Trustees receive remuneration for their dedication and service to a great task.

Mr Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon member for Potgietersrus for his party’s support of this Bill.

South Africa has always been known as a sunny country, a country with beautiful game reserves, nature reserves and wilderness areas. When we look at the surface area of these game and nature reserves and compare this with the surface area of the country, we find that during the past few decades we have not achieved even half of what we should have achieved. When we look at the surface area of the national parks, which the hon member has just mentioned, we find it comprises 3 042 145 ha. If we add the surface area under the control of the Natal Parks Board, which covers 300 000 ha, and the land under the control of the Forestry Department, we get a further 1 114 958 ha. That gives us a total area of 4 457 103 ha. If we compare that with the surface area of South Africa, we arrive at a percentage of 3,968% or 4% of the total surface area of the country. If we exclude the area under the control of the Forestry Department, this percentage drops to 2,976%, which is very low.

It is internationally accepted that approximately 10% of a country’s total surface area should be devoted to nature conservation. If we want to include private game reserves and nature reserves in this, we find, I believe that the surface area of this land amounts to approximately 1%. If we add all this together, therefore, the total surface area of the country which is devoted to nature conservation gives us a percentage of approximately 5% of South Africa’s surface area.

†That does not mean, however, that we must just grab any piece of land and say it must be a nature conservation area or reserve. I believe we have good managements in our reserves and that we should plan for the future protection of our indigenous forests—which are most important—our wetlands, swamps, estuaries and our lagoons, to mention just a few areas.

At this stage, however, I would like to congratulate and thank the department for the wonderful work they have done in the past, for acquiring more land for our Parks Board areas. I believe that we should also identify suitable areas and draw up a list of these areas in terms of priority, according to which the State should purchase those areas.

I would like to give an example. There is the Richtersveld which was identified some 15 years ago. It is a district of Namaqualand, situated within a large loop of the Orange River near to where it enters the sea at Alexander Bay. That is an incredibly interesting area. It comprises just over half a million hectares. Its northern section is almost inhospitable and very mountainous. Plants such as the quiver tree and the famous elephant trunk are found there. One also finds the carrion-flower and a multitude of succulents there. This is certainly a most interesting area which, I believe, we should try to acquire as soon as possible.

I should also like to pay tribute to the hon the Minister, the director and his personnel for establishing the natural heritage programme a few years ago. I believe that this was a far-sighted programme established by the department to encourage not only companies but also individuals who have large tracts of land to apply to the department to be accommodated in the programme. There are, for example, people who have areas of land where special plant communities are to be found; where good aquatic habitats are to be found; where there are sensitive catchment areas; where there are habitats for threatened species and other outstanding natural features as well. If we embarked on a programme to advertise this energetically among the general public I am sure they would give us their assistance. It can only be to the advantage of the department and South Africa to acquire more valuable land for posterity.

Mr Speaker, this Bill allows for the payment of members of the National Parks Board of Trustees. I suppose that this is probably justified in view of the fact that board members have to spend considerable time on National Parks affairs. Because of this it is quite reasonable to compensate them for this time spent, in addition to travelling and subsistence allowances.

I believe that the time has come to take a good look at the composition of the board in view of the fact that members are to be paid. For example, I wonder why it is necessary for the Administrators of the four provinces to be board members when they do not necessarily have any expertise in conservation matters. Surely a strong case could be made out for the inclusion of the top men in the provincial conservation departments to be members of the board rather than the Administrators as they would certainly know what they were talking about and would be able to make a very positive contribution.

Consideration should be given to avoiding at all costs the impression that appointment to the Parks Board is a “jobs-for-pals” operation and part of the NP gravy-train.

I do not believe we should have political appointees on the board. Up to this time it has been an honour to belong to the board—an honour which, regrettably, often went to political chums. I believe all this should change. Members of the board should be there because of recognisable expertise. The National Parks Act, for example, provides for the chairman of the Wildlife Society of South Africa to be there, and this is admirable. Moreover, it would be correct for all sections of the community to be represented, and the board should be totally non-racial like the Natal Parks Board, for example. It is up to the hon the Minister to bring this about and I should like to hear his reaction to my suggestion.

I should just like to make one small point whilst discussing the National Parks Act. I believe it is time we removed the last vestige of racialism written into the Act. In the definition in the Act the word “officer” is defined as “The Nature Conservator or any European appointed by the Board as a ranger”. I do not believe there is any room for this kind of provision in the Act and I would request of the hon the Minister that this be amended at the earliest opportunity.

Somewhat reluctantly, because we in these benches are nervous of any possible extension of the Government’s gravy-train, we will support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, once again I want to thank all hon members who took part in the debate for their support.

†I should like to reply briefly to the hon member for Bryanston. He asked that we look at the composition of the board, especially at the Administrator’s position on the board. He posed the question as to whether it was really necessary to have the Administrator serving on the board. Well, Sir, it is a fact that the four provincial administrations have very strong departments looking after nature conservation. In Natal we have the Natal Parks Board, which has a great deal of autonomy, in the Cape Province we have the Department of Nature Conservation, and likewise in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. I think, therefore, that the Administrator, being the overall provincial authority, has a function to perform on the board, not necessarily because of his expert knowledge of conservation as such, but for his expert knowledge of the broader administration of the various departments of nature conservation. That is what is important, and that is why we want them there.

The hon member also said that there should be no “jobs for pals” and that there should be no political appointments. The position is, of course, that we did away with political appointments a few years ago. The hon member may have noticed that there are no more members of Parliament serving on the Board.

What about the ex-Minister?

That is possible, of course, because of his special knowledge of the particular subject. I have taken note of the point…

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not think there was a vacuum after the withdrawal of members of Parliament from the National Parks Board of Trustees.

Mr Speaker, the answer can probably be “yes” and “no”.

That is a very political answer.

That may be. I myself was a member of the Parks Board while I was still an MP. As such one had a specific function in respect of the region or province once represented, because in the past the various provinces were represented by members of the House of Assembly. It was thought, however, that the distribution of representation could be broad enough without necessarily having politicians on the board. The fact that we have the Administrators of the four provinces there, to a very great extent obviates the vacuum that may have developed there. I think there are very few hon members in this House who would not be willing to serve on the Parks Board.

I should like to refer to the hon member for Durban Point who supported this Bill. The hon member mentioned important statistics which indicate that the percentage of land used for national parks in South Africa at present is not in line with the norm accepted internationally. Unfortunately there is still a shortage of funds when we have to purchase identified land.

†I want to tell the hon member that we have a priority list in respect of areas which are worthy of conservation. The hon member can be sure of that. This department and the provincial administrations will in due course attempt to acquire these areas provided we have the necessary funds.

*That is why I should also like to thank those companies, individuals and organisations which contribute from time to time to the fund which we utilise in purchasing land. I think the public is more aware of conservation today than in the past.

The hon member for Potgietersrus, who introduced the debate, mentioned a number of interesting historic facts, for example that the Parks Board was the first statutory board. I want to thank the hon member for sharing this interesting history with us, for the appreciation he expressed to the House and for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In view of the need to preserve the environment in its totality, to ensure that a pleasant and meaningful human living environment is created and maintained and owing to the growing conservation consciousness on the part of the public, it has become necessary to bring about certain amendments to the Environment Conservation Act.

Apart from a few technical amendments which were necessary, the time has come to adjust the maximum penalties for contraventions. The Bill provides for this.

Clause 3 of the Bill aims at empowering the Minister of Environment Affairs to regulate environmental conservation, in general, in a more meaningful manner than the Act at present provides for.

The provisions of section 18 of the Act result in the objects and the purpose of Act, with regard to environmental conservation, not being easily achieved because the environmental conservation policy is subject to other legislation, the provisions of which hamper significant conservation efforts.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the repeal of the existing section 18 of the Act.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition supports this amending Bill. The maximum penalties for contraventions are being adjusted. This has to take place from time to time, and in this case it is appropriate.

Other amendments are also being effected to the principal Act. Most important is that this amending Bill recognises the greater awareness of conservation among members of the public. In terms of clause 3 the Minister of Environment Affairs is empowered to impose conservation regulations across a broader spectrum and more comprehensively over the environment as a whole. More facets of the environment can now be protected than in the past. We are not in principle in favour of government by regulation, but under these circumstances this is in order.

I should like to refer to the extension of the Minister’s powers in terms of clause 3, which enables him to control more facets of the environment, and to recognise this greater conservation awareness in the public. I refer to (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 3. The Minister may now make regulations so as to—

1. (a) prevent any form of disfigurement, poisoning or mutilation of the environment by waste products of any nature;
2. (b) prohibit or restrict pollution or disturbance by noise;
3. (c) prohibit or restrict any act which, in the opinion of the Minister, results or will probably result in unreasonable damage to the environment or the loss of important elements of the environment, and to repair and compensate such damage or loss;
4. (d) ensure and further the rational utilisation and the effective protection of the environment

Section 18 of the principal Act is accordingly repealed by clause 4. The old section 18 read:

The old section 18 was not compatible with the new, broader awareness of conservation and the control and conservation of the environment as envisaged by the essential amendments of this amending Bill, and it is therefore right that it should be repealed.

It is also right, in terms of clause 3, that the hon the Minister is expected to consult any local government or department of State that may be affected by the above-mentioned regulations.

We support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, in support of the amendments to the Environment Conservation Act, 1982, I should like to make a few comments. I should also like to thank the hon member for Potgietersrus for his support of this Bill.

The Republic has been blessed with probably the finest natural environment in the world. I think Satour’s advertising slogan, “See the World in your own Country”, is a very true one. One only has to pause and think of this incredibly beautiful land of ours. There is the Western Cape with its rugged mountains, nature areas and one of the floral kingdoms of the world. A few hours’ drive from Cape Town we have the spectacular West Coast and Namaqualand with its special beauty. At this time of the year the veld is a kaleidoscope of colour. We think of the beauty of the Eastern Cape, Natal and the Free State, the Transvaal areas and the Bushveld. We think of our spectacular 3 000 km coastline, with beautiful bays and estuaries. This is a heritage that must be cherished and preserved.

It is a sad reflection on modern society that we have to increase penalties to R10 000 or five years in prison or both to protect this heritage of ours. Unfortunately, effluent disposal is a very expensive business. It is so much easier to discharge directly into rivers and the sea. This practice has had a serious effect on our ecology, and this Bill will enable the Minister and local authorities to be far more strict and to prosecute transgressors more successfully.

Today one can travel to the remotest areas and find an abundance of modern plastic junk. I feel that this pressure on our environment requires that our manufacturers and marketers must consider using new types of wrappings and containers.

The provinces all have environmental awareness programmes and I think the schools must teach our children to be conservationists from a very early age. A small country like Japan with 120 million people is absolutely spotless because the children are taught, virtually from the time they leave the cradle, not to litter or damage their environment.

We must also encourage and assist local authorities and schools to run and promote their own anti-litter campaigns. I believe if we can educate all our young people so that they understand the long-term benefits of conservation, we will eventually achieve our goals when everybody will work together on this most important project.

Finally, I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the tremendous work they have done in the field of environment conservation and I am sure that this Bill will assist them in this most exciting project.

Mr Speaker, I must say it is a great pleasure to be able to stand up in this House following two speeches with which I totally agree coming from parties as diverse in their attitudes as the NP on the one hand and the CP on the other.

The growth of technology, together with the tremendous population explosion that we have had in this country, has resulted in a tremendous strain being placed on our environment. Because our quality of life is severely affected by the environment in which we live, it is vitally necessary that development that takes place be supervised to ensure that that development does not adversely affect our quality of life.

We are faced with tremendous environmental problems at the present time, as the hon the Minister knows. Development schemes that could have an impact on the environment have to be monitored extremely carefully to make sure that we do not allow irreparable damage to be done to our natural resources, the ecological balance and the general living environment. For this reason we too will be giving this Bill our support.

In terms of this Bill the Minister may regulate to prevent any forms of disfigurement, poisoning or mutilation of the environment by waste products of any nature. He may prohibit or restrict pollution or disturbances by noise. He may prohibit or restrict any act which will or could result in unreasonable damage to the environment or the loss of important elements of the environment and to repair and compensate such damage or loss.

At last, with this Bill, the Department of Environment Affairs has been given some teeth to stop damaging development. It has been given teeth to stop pollution, be it chemical or noise pollution. It has been given power to ensure that our quality of life is protected. The penalties for the contravention of the Act are also being raised to a level where they become a real deterrent.

Of course, a lot will now depend on how the hon the Minister and the department use their new powers. Having been given the right to regulate, I hope that they are going to do so actively because to an extent we have been fighting a rearguard battle as more and more encroachment has taken place. It might sound a little dramatic, but I think it is quite fair to say that the quality of life of future generations could well depend on the ability of the hon the Minister to use his powers energetically and wisely.

At this stage it might be apposite to talk about the department and its new head. I wish him well in his new job. He is now officiating during the first Bill of his new regime. I wish strength to his arm, too, in a very taxing job.

The growth of technology has in many ways improved our lives, but when it begins to damage our environment it becomes a technology which is really not worth having.

I would say to the hon the Minister that the whole principle of insisting that environmental impact assessments be made before any major development takes place, is a principle that I hope the hon the Minister will uphold. Every day we see projects going ahead which will undoubtedly destroy or at least damage parts of the environment that are worth conserving and preserving. It is only when Government insists on regulating against unplanned development that there is any real hope that we will stop the sort of development that benefits only the few and is not in the public interest.

It remains to be seen what will happen now that the hon the Minister is being given these powers to act. I wish him well in this challenge that faces him.

We support this piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Bryanston. What he said this afternoon was right up my avenue. I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said, especially as far as the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill is concerned.

Mr Speaker, we have only one world, a world which does not belong to us. Nevertheless it is our responsibility to conserve it for the generations that come after us. They can lose everything if the environment is not conserved. Prof Jerzy Wojchowski, head of the department of philosophy at the University of Ottawa, expressed his opinion very firmly on this point. I quote what he said:

To a great extent this is what the hon member for Bryanston said.

Hopefully the Environment Conservation Act—Act No 100 of 1982—will be revised next year. Inputs have been requested from all interested parties in our country so that this Act can be considered in a meaningful way. The period for further inputs has been lengthened, and we hope that people will respond well to this. They argued that there had not been sufficient time or proper notice for them to make their inputs in respect of this very important piece of legislation. With legislation of this nature, it is important that new inputs be made constantly, and that amendments be made from time to time as well.

The amendment of this piece of environmental legislation, which we are going to pass here this afternoon, is important. It is an interim measure to give the Minister greater powers, as has been indicated by the hon member for Potgietersrus. Proclaimed nature areas are involved here too. In the case of private properties in the relevant nature areas, the owners of these properties are taken to task in order to ensure that future development there can be in accordance with developments that are envisaged in the nature areas themselves. It is also true that section 18 of the principal Act is being repealed so that existing legislation cannot duplicate the amendment under discussion. The increase in the prescribed fines is also very important. This definitely gives the legislation more muscle, in order to protect our nature areas.

Despite the fact that the public has become more aware of environment conservation, abuse still takes place. Despite education programmes, our people still mess and litter. I know the present Act does not provide for the imposition of fines to people who litter. Hopefully clearer provision will be made for this in the revised legislation. I think we have educated our people for long enough. The hon member for Simonstown spoke about Japan which is so beautifully clean. They have almost achieved the impossible in Japan. No one there can dare even to drop a cigarette butt without being prosecuted.

What is wrong with us then? Can we not attain the same objective? Every morning when I walk down here to Parliament, I am intensely aware of how beautifully clean Cape Town’s streets are. While you and I sleep at night, Mr Speaker, the sanitary department of the Cape Town City Council is doing its work. The streets are swept and scrubbed. Can we imagine, however, what these very same streets would look like if this work was not done? Do we ever think of the millions of rands spent annually on keeping our roads and streets clean? That is money that could be used much more meaningfully, for education and housing in particular.

The importance of open spaces in our urban areas cannot be over-emphasised. Fortunately our developers are beginning to realise that the quality of life is promoted when people make contact with nature. Mining and urbanisation have occupied our most valuable agricultural land in the past. We shall have to guard against this more and more. Only R37 million was allocated for environment conservation in the Budget for Environment Affairs. Of this amount, the hon the Minister of Finance has allocated R250 000 specifically for the Keep South Africa Clean Organisation. I really want to congratulate these people this afternoon on the valuable work they do, particularly along our White local authorities. I think it is high time that this work that is done for these people was also extended to the other population groups. A greater degree of Government support should definitely be considered for these people. If one takes into account that it costs R1 000 to buy one minute’s advertising time on television, whereas a video of 20 minutes costs R75 000, one realises that this money will not last very long or go very far.

The idea is, however, that the private sector will assist here too, but the extent to which these people can grant assistance is limited. My request today is that we should keep these people in mind and consider how we can strengthen their hand to a greater extent in future.

As far as I am concerned, the Environment Affairs Vote is one of the most important Votes debated in this House, because in my opinion the concern is survival. We shall have to make the correct decisions when we decide between needs and available means. The natural resources in South Africa are not unlimited. There are too many people who make too many demands too quickly on too few resources. As a result of the availability of raw materials and manpower in our country, our industries are growing faster than the world standard, and the demands we make in respect of our standards of living, our expectations of life and our whole life style, mean that the importance of conservation is often overlooked. It was rightly said:

It is a great privilege to give this Bill my wholehearted support.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Edenvale and I support what she said. She raised an interesting subject, but did not pursue it. I supported what she said and I would have liked her to continue. She complained about the cigarette butts that one sees littering the pavements. I should very much have liked her to go on and say that those butts should never even come between people’s lips, because then they would not end up by littering the pavement. I hope, therefore, that the hon member will support us in our struggle against the smoking habit.

†Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House believe strongly in, firstly, the protection of our environment, and secondly, the ideal of public participation in this protection. I think that the hon the Minister will agree with me when I say that it is obviously also the belief of the hon Minister and his department as well as the Government that it is desirable to protect our environment and introduce public participation to a greater extent.

We all know that defects in our legislation and an unwillingness to allow the public due access to planning at the formative stages at lower levels nullified these excellent intentions in the past. We have many examples of this. In my own constituency of Parktown in Johannesburg, the Johannesburg General Hospital on that ridge and the roads cutting through the constituency are all monuments to the destruction of our environment. I believe this was due to bad planning and lack of participation on the part of the public. This sort of thing must not be repeated.

This side of the House therefore takes pleasure in supporting this Bill, since I believe that this Bill will and must give the hon the Minister the power to prevent repetitions of the destruction of our environment by bad planning and through not allowing the public also to make an input into this planning for our future.

We know that millions of people in this country are going to become urbanised, and I think that planning for the future will have to be done by experts in consultation with the hon the Minister and his department. Therefore clause 3 allows the Minister to consult with the council and with any department of State as well as with local authorities. We see the need for this; we think it is correct. However we believe that there should be additional special committees appointed by the Council for the Environment, made up of appropriately qualified members, with the task of judging what is to happen as far as development is concerned and how the planning will develop in future.

Such committees should call for submissions and in public establish an environmental planning policy. We believe that this will ensure public participation and avoid the hon the Minister receiving—as unfortunately happened in the past—only one-sided advice from local authorities and others who sometimes have a bee in their bonnet and force a new development without proper environmental planning.

When we study clause 3 (2), especially paragraphs (c) and (d), it becomes clear that it is at last being recognised by the hon the Minister that many actions by authorities and developers in the past have had a detrimental impact on the environment. This clause will unfortunately greatly increase the workload of the hon the Minister and his department but I believe it will prevent other authorities sitting in judgment upon their own planning which is wrong in principle. I want the hon the Minister to assure this House that in future an assessment of any report—for example an environmental impact assessment report which the hon member for Bryanston mentioned—will not be delegated to an authority already involved in the planning either as an initiator or a decision-maker.

*One body cannot do everything. It cannot investigate the matter and draw up the plan and exercise full control over it.

†Such an impact assessment should be based on evidence submitted at a public hearing.

Clause 3 (2) (c) refers to a prohibition or restriction of any act by the Minister. I want the hon the Minister to tell us how he will know about proposed actions. What kind of investigation will his department be able to carry out beforehand? Because it is no good if the hon the Minister learns about a plan when it has already been decided upon and cannot be changed any more. We have seen many examples of plans which, in our opinion, involved environmental destruction but which it was too late to change.

Our environment is precious and unique. The destruction of the past must not be repeated. I believe this Bill will assist the hon the Minister and his department to protect our environment and I hope it will also be used to ensure total public participation.

Mr Chairman, I think the debate that took place here this afternoon will be a source of encouragement to people interested in the environment. I believe the public will be very pleased that this House is unanimous in its view of environmental conservation.

The amendment we are introducing gives the Act a great deal more muscle and enables us to exercise better control over our environmental conservation plans.

All the hon members who took part in the debate supported the amending Bill, and I want to thank them. I am pleased the hon member for Potgietersrus remarked that section 18 is not consistent with the spirit of the Act and that is why we had to get rid of section 18. In the process we are increasing the authority at our disposal. I thank the hon member.

†The hon member for Simon’s Town gave his support to the Bill. It is certainly true that the Republic is blessed with a most wonderful environment. He took us on a quick world-in-one-country tour pointing out all the various areas where we have an environment which must be protected. The hon member emphasized the importance of strict control and I am in full agreement with what he said about control over waste disposal. There is a great need for environmental education and I hope we shall receive every support in that respect in future.

*It has come to my attention that the control over solid waste or the handling of solid waste has become an enormous industry in a country such as the USA. I am told that their solid waste disposal industry is worth R5 billion. In certain cases it has even become an export industry in the USA. The most industrialised countries are seeking dumping sites outside their national boundaries these days.

Perhaps hon members will remember that we in this country have also had an offer to deal with solid waste from other countries. This could be quite an attractive proposal to many of the Third World countries. I hope we in South Africa will never experience a financial predicament that will force us to buy other people’s waste to our financial advantage. I shall oppose that in any case.

†The hon member for Bryanston said that the quality of life depends to a large extent on how well we can manage our environment. He says that development schemes must be monitored.

I agree with the hon member to a large extent. One cannot do without the proper monitoring of the development schemes. When dealing with environmental impact assessment, one must, however, always realise that this is a two-edged sword. If one does not wield it carefully, one will be discouraging development completely. One will destroy development in order to save the environment.

*For that reason we must be very careful in dealing with these matters. One must not go too far to one side or another. One must maintain a good balance between development and conservation. Nevertheless I want to assure the hon member that in future we shall give thorough consideration to development before we permit that to happen.

The hon member for Edenvale made a very good speech. She spoke in a responsible way about our responsibility to conserve. I am in complete agreement with her.

She referred to the revision of the Act next year or the year after. In our judgement it would be better to give the public more time to make their inputs with reference to this environment conservation legislation, so that we can have much better legislation on the table when we reach that point.

She also made a plea for the Keep South Africa Clean Organisation. I want to support her wholeheartedly. I recently had the privilege of opening the annual meeting of this fine organisation up there in the north. I became aware of the degree of enthusiasm with which these people approach their task. Even if one is very grateful those firms, entrepreneurs and individuals who granted their support to the Keep South Africa Clean campaign, I think there is a lot of room for others who have not yet made their contribution, to do so. I am pleased that the hon member broached this matter. I think this is one of the organisations that deserves the support of each one of us.

†The hon member for Parktown also supported the Bill. He made a plea that we involve the public, that we give the public an opportunity to air their views, especially on development projects.

*We have had to make quite a few new appointments in the Council for the Environment, which is a very wide-ranging council. For the information of the House I want to say that I have appointed the retiring Director-General, Mr Otto, who has a great deal of experience, to the Council for the Environment. We shall not be deprived of his expertise, therefore.

We have also made many other appointments to the council to get as broad a representation as possible. By means of the Council for the Environment as well as the Council for the Habitat, which represent an enormous spectrum of organisations in society, I think the public is well represented by these organisations in our future planning.

I want to thank all the hon members once again for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Land Titles Adjustment Act, 1979, makes provision for a procedure which may be followed to give transfer to persons who claim ownership of land but who cannot obtain transport of that land in the normal manner. The procedure constitutes, inter alia, the establishment of land division committees to investigate claims and thereafter to allocate and transfer undivided shares in, or defined portions of, the land to persons who are entitled to that land.

Before a land division committee can investigate any such claim, it must ensure that notices are published in the Gazette and local newspapers, calling on persons who claim to have acquired a right in respect of the relevant land to submit to the committee, within a defined period, a written application for the allocation and transfer of undivided shares in, or defined portions of, that land. The Principal Act does not allow the committee to consider any application received after the expiry of such a period. If any person, for any reason whatsoever, fails to submit his application in the due time, he has in fact abandoned his right to the relevant land.

At the present moment there are several land division committees in operation, and cases have come to light in which, for whatever reason whatsoever, bona fide claimants, did not submit their applications within the prescribed period of time. The committees may not consider a late application, and this has not only led to dissatisfaction but may even cause hardship. The Bill now under consideration therefore provides that land division committees may now consider late applications. The reasons why an application was not submitted in due time will naturally have to be submitted to the committee.

The investigations into applications received from claimants sometimes take months to complete. It has happened that a claimant has died before an allocation could be done. This naturally creates problems for his heirs, since the committee is not empowered to give transfer in such a case. Provision is now being made for this shortcoming to be eliminated and the committees would, in the future, be able to deal with an application as if the heir or successor in title had submitted it.

The principal Act has enabled numerous owners of undivided shares in land to obtain registered title to that land. The amendments proposed in this Bill will make the application of the Act even more effective.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition supports this amending Bill. I thank the hon the Deputy Minister for explaining the reasons for the two amendments in question, but I think it is fitting, on this occasion, to pay tribute to those who drafted the original Act. The fact of the matter is that complex problems, such as those which arose here, were initially dealt with by way of a special Act relating to Schoemanhoek in the Oudtshoorn district, and then by way of the special Act, the Land Titles (Division of George) Adjustment Act in 1972, followed by the 1979 Act, which we envisage amending today, and the fact that over all these years, after the implementation of the legislation, it has only been necessary to introduce these two amendments, which are essentially only of a procedural nature, to those who initially drafted the Act.

If the two amendments had not been introduced, this would have caused hardship to those who have for understandable reasons caused applications to be submitted. In many cases the people have to be brought together, not only from all over the country, but from all over the world.

Secondly this gave rise to unnecessary problems in the sense that the heirs of someone who had already made an application, and to whom the allocation would probably have been made, could simply be prevented by that person’s death from obtaining an allocation.

We should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Potgietersrus for his support. In many cases in which this legislation has thus far been implemented in order to give claimants to undivided shares in land their title deeds, it was possible to dispose of the matter relatively quickly.

In the case of the Tesslaarsdal farm in the Caledon district, where approximately 120 claimants applied for rights, the process has taken approximately three years. Briefly, the delays have been caused by initial ignorance on the part of the claimants, the extraordinary volume of survey work involved and disputes between various claimants.

In the meantime certain claimants have died, and the land division committee cannot allocate the land because the Act does not make provision for land to be allocated to anyone other than the claimants themselves. That is the reason for the amendment of the existing Act. Certain claimants or rightful owners have, owing to ignorance, neglected to apply within the prescribed period. The legislation does not make provision for late applications. An amendment to allow late applications will assist the land division committee in finalising the allocations and will also save the late applicants the cost of applying to the Supreme Court.

My colleague, the hon member for Caledon, took the initiative in regard to this statutory amendment, and I am sure his constituency will greatly appreciate the fact.

I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the speeches of the hon members for Nelspruit and Potgietersrus, it appears that we have a degree of unanimity in this House which is quite unusual. This is a technical bill with two procedural provisions.

The first enables the land division committee to receive and consider late applications if such an application is considered reasonable and justified. The second enables the committee to effect the allocation or transfer of land to the heirs or successors even though the claimant dies in the interim.

We have no objection to either of these provisions and will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members who support this legislation. I associate myself with the hon member for Potgietersrus’s tribute to the legal draftsmen who left such minor discrepancies in the original Act that it needs only a few minor changes to virtually perfect this Act.

The hon member pointed to the hardship suffered by some people as a result of late applications. I merely want to point out that the applications are not necessarily late as a result of wilfulness on the part of the people concerned. They were sometimes late because the people concerned were not aware of such available land to which they were, in effect, entitled.

The hon member for Nelspruit referred to the that if people who have a right to such land were to die, the land should be given to their heirs.

†I should also like to thank the hon member for Bryanston for his support.

*I thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Deeds Registries Act, 1937, is the cornerstone of our excellent deeds registration system. It is, however, necessary to amend this Act from time to time to make provision for changing circumstances. The amendments proposed in the Bill are necessitated mainly as a result of the new matrimonial property system introduced by the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984. That Act amended the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, in so far as it pertains to the registration of immovable property which forms part of a joint estate. Those amendments also brought to light certain practical problems regarding the application of the Deeds Registries Act.

Before 1 November 1984 immovable property which upon registration formed an asset in a joint estate was registered in the name of the husband only and he could deal with it without the consent of his wife. Since 1 November 1984 all immovable property, with the exception of agricultural land, which upon registration forms an asset in a joint estate must be registered in the names of both spouses, irrespective of whether the marriage took place before or after 1 November 1984. The exception made in respect of agricultural land creates problems where, for example, agricultural land and urban land must be transferred to a joint estate. In the case of agricultural land it has to be registered in the husband’s name while in the case of an urban property, registration in the name of both the husband and wife is required. Normally only one deed would have been necessary, but in cases like these two deeds are required. This causes unnecessary paperwork and extra costs and the Bill therefore provides that in future agricultural land, too, shall be registered in the names of both spouses. The Bill further provides that such a registration of agricultural land shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision in contravention of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970.

The Act requires that a woman who is married out of community of property be assisted by her husband in executing any deed or document to be registered in a deeds office, unless of course the husband’s marital power is excluded. Where a marriage has been entered into in a foreign country, however, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to establish whether the husband’s assistance is necessary. The proposed amendment simplifies the matter and will ensure legal certainty and eliminate delays in dealing with such cases.

Another aspect dealt with in this Bill is the endorsement of deeds of immovable property where there is a change in the marital status of a registered owner. The Act already makes provision for the endorsement of deeds where a marriage in community of property is terminated by death or divorce. Provision is, however, not made for cases where property has been registered in the names of both spouses since 1 November 1984 or where a court, in terms of the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984, has changed the matrimonial property system. The Bill rectifies these deficiencies and the text of that section of the principal Act dealing with endorsements in cases of divorce is also being brought into line.

In terms of the mining laws, an owner of land on which certain mining activities are carried out is entitled to receive claim and stand licence moneys. On township establishment prior to 1937, a township developer could reserve these rights for himself when he transferred lots in the township, without taking out a separate title for those rights. This reservation was inserted as a condition in the title deeds of all the lots in such a township. The disadvantage of this procedure is that if the holder of such rights wishes to sell or mortgage them, he must first take out a certificate of real rights in respect of those rights. In order to accomplish this he must obtain the title deeds of the owners of all of the erven in the township and submit them to the registrar of deeds for the necessary endorsements. To make it easier for the holder of these rights, provision is now made that he may take out a certificate of real rights in respect of the claim and stand licence moneys without submitting the title deeds of the individual lots in the township. In most cases hundreds of title deeds are involved and it is a virtually impossible task to obtain all of them. On submission of the title deed of any lot to the Registrar of Deeds at a later stage for any dealings in connection with that deed, the registrar will endorse such title to indicate that a certificate of real rights has been issued in respect of the rights reserved in such title. This will bring the position in regard to claim and stand licence moneys in line with an arrangement which has been in operation for many years in respect of mineral rights.

In closing I should like to explain why an amendment of the definition of “owner” is necessary. The Principal Act provides that only the registered owner of immovable property or his representative may deal with such property. However, the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984, provides that a spouse in a community of property marriage must have the written consent of the other spouse before immovable property in the joint estate may be dealt with.

The latter Act also amended the Deeds Registries Act to the effect that all immovable property which forms part of a joint estate must be registered in the name of both the husband and wife. The question arose whether a husband who married in community of property prior to 1 November 1984—ie the date on which the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984, came into operation—required the consent of his wife before dealing with immovable property in the joint estate which is registered in both their names. Under common law the husband is the administrator of the joint estate and does not need his wife’s written consent to deal with such immovable property. However, the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984, altered the common law in so far as it pertains to marriages in community of property entered into after 31 October 1984. The same applies to marriages entered into before 1 November 1984 if the parties had requested that the provisions of that Act be made applicable to their marriage. It is undesirable to have legal uncertainty in connection with this matter and the proposed new definition of “owner” will place the matter beyond any doubt.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation on behalf of the CP. It is a pleasure for me because, as an ex-conveyancer, I have also had a great deal to do with deeds. I am merely mentioning this aspect in order to give the hon member for Springs an opportunity to bring my biography up to date here, since he apparently has a great deal of interest in it. [Interjections.]

At least he is not a “stinkafrikaner”! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Minister said, this legislation is mainly of a technical nature and is aimed at bringing certain matters into line with what is envisaged in the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984. What this amounts to is that immovable property which forms part of a joint estate must now be registered in the name of both the husband and the wife, something which has in fact afforded greater protection to the wife who was the joint owner of the immovable property but whose name never appeared in the deeds office, thus not affording her the protection that normally accrues to a person in whose name property is registered in the deeds office.

The hon the Deputy Minister paid tribute to the deeds office. That is an office geared to keeping comprehensive records of people to whom property—immovable property—in the Republic belongs and also to keeping a record of servitudes, antenuptial contracts and other notarial contracts and concomitant real rights.

I think we can all still remember—and we probably come across it these days too—that at times it is said that there is a three-weeks backlog of work at the deeds office because the staff cannot keep abreast of the work. We should like to pay tribute to those examiners who, with a fine toothcomb, carefully check for any spelling mistakes and other errors and carefully scrutinise every transfer of title and every stipulation of transfer to ensure that such stipulations are correct in the deed to which they are transferred. It is hard, laborious work, but work which they do with great thoroughness, and we pay tribute to them for the hard work they are doing, for the thoroughness with which they do it and for the great deal of overtime they devote to this.

As far as other aspects are concerned, such as endorsements, which could be made if the court were to change the matrimonial property dispensation, this is merely in line with the endorsements that could be made to a title deed, in the case of divorce or even death, with a view to facilitating transfer and making it cheaper to effect, whereas previously this has had to be done by the elaborate title deed method.

With regard to the question of endorsements or permission aimed at creating legal certainty in regard to marriages concluded abroad, whereas previously it was necessary to examine every country’s matrimonial property laws in order to determine whether marital power was excluded and whether the couple were married in or out of community of property, this legislation facilitates the procedure with a view to creating legal certainty.

It is therefore a pleasure for the CP to support this legislation. We think that it will contribute towards expediting deeds registration and promote the smoother functioning of the process.

Mr Chairman, it is with pleasure that I follow up on the speech made by the hon member for Bethal, and I also want to associate myself with the tribute he paid to the examiners and staff of the deeds office.

The fact of the matter is that we have an excellent system, as the hon the Deputy Minister said, as far as the registration of deeds is concerned. It is a reflection of the sophistication of our legal system. That is why people can rely completely on the information in our deeds office, and it is for that reason that this side of the House gladly supports this legislation which is of an extremely technical nature and is actually the result of amendments to the matrimonial property law.

The amendments being introduced here today have been introduced in consultation with and at the request of the legal professions which have also made their contributions. The standing committee also unanimously endorsed them.

There is a local matter I want to broach with the hon the Deputy Minister, a matter which is, in fact, related to the principal Act. I am referring here to the projected deeds office for the Eastern Province. To my amazement I heard, in recent news reports, that a recommendation had been made by the regional development committee for the establishment of a deeds office in Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape.

I should merely like to tell the hon the Minister that that would be a very big mistake. [Interjections.] This matter should be given very urgent and serious consideration, because such a decision would add to the costs of conveyancing. The majority of deeds come from the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage metropole. That is where the people should be served, and if it will increase costs and be inconvenient for people in that area, who generate most of the work involving deeds, such a step would not be a reflection of good government. At present the registrations in Black residential areas are also done in Port Elizabeth, and it would also be a mistake to take that work elsewhere.

The hon member for Albany is not present at the moment, but I think he would also point out the good points relating to his constituency, but that cannot in any way detract from the fact that it would be wrong to locate the deeds office in Grahamstown and not in Port Elizabeth.

In support of my claim, I merely want to state that next year very large-scale developments to the Supreme Court complex in Port Elizabeth are to commence, and that is proof of the fact that the legal work is centred around Port Elizabeth. It is therefore logical for the deeds office to be established in Port Elizabeth.

This is a technical Bill providing certain changes to the way in which title deeds are endorsed by the deeds registry offices. The Matrimonial Property Act provides that the property of spouses who contracted marriages after 1 November 1984, as well as spouses married out of community of property before that date who contracted to make the accrual system operative in their marriage, is jointly owned by both spouses. However, until now it was impossible to register agricultural land in the name of more than one person as doing so would have constituted a subdivision of agricultural land in contravention of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act. This Bill rectifies this situation.

The next provision is covered by clause 1 (c) which seeks to regulate the competence of women who are married by the laws of any other country by presuming that such marriages are in community of property. This makes sense in that the deeds registry office will not have to scrutinise individual marriage contracts in the light of laws of other countries which can sometimes be extremely difficult. Now, in such cases, uniform procedures will apply.

Clause 2 deals with the endorsement on deeds where marriages are dissolved by divorce. Provision was not made in the event of a court making an order on the matrimonial property system. This clause empowers the registrar to endorse the title deeds of property to the effect that a particular spouse who has documentation to prove sole ownership may deal with the property in question as if he or she has taken formal transfer.

The next provision has to do with mining rights and enables the registrar to issue certificates recording those real rights to persons entitled to receive claim and stand licence moneys and rents.

The final provision contained in clause 4 has come about to clarify the question as to whether the husband in a marriage of community of property entered into before the commencement of the Matrimonial Property Act requires the consent of the wife before he deals with immovable property in the joint estate which is registered in both their names. This clause makes clear that he does not need his wife’s written consent.

Frequently one finds that in domestic matters one certainly needs one’s wife’s spoken consent, not necessarily her written consent—certainly not in my marriage up to now! [Interjections.]

All these provisions are technical. We have no objection to any of them and will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to thank hon members once more for their support of this legislation.

The hon member for Witbank again referred to the thoroughness with which the deeds office processes deeds. Another important point that he mentioned was that of the use of endorsements instead of transfers. That is a very important amendment because of the saving in time and costs involved in the process. This would also eliminate having to make a study of overseas matrimonial legislation.

The hon member for Uitenhage referred specifically to the deeds office. Apparently a committee was appointed last year to investigate the possibility of a deeds office in the Port Elizabeth area. At the moment the committee is still engaged in its task and we could perhaps again ascertain what progress has been made. I shall inform the hon member of the progress that has been made.

†I should like to thank the hon member for Bryanston for his support. He referred to all the various improvements to the Act and the beneficial effects they will have.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The amendments contained in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are of a technical nature. I therefore want to explain them briefly. Section 25 of the Natural Scientists’ Act, 1982, was amended by section 12 of the Natural Scientists’ Amendment Act, 1985, by, inter alia, the alteration of paragraph numbers.

The paragraph numbers concerned were, however, not adjusted in section 22. This is now being done by the amendment in clause 1.

The Schedule to the Natural Scientists’ Amendment Act, 1985, was meant to be a schedule to the principal Act. This is, however, not apparent from the amending Act of 1985. The matter is now put beyond all doubt by clause 2.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports this legislation which, as the hon the Minister has just said, is merely of a technical nature.

In 1985 the Natural Scientists’ Act, 1982, was amended—and this also, amongst other things, included section 25 of that Act. On that occasion the content of the relevant section was also renumbered. At the time, unfortunately, attention was not given to section 22 which contained a reference to section 25. All that is now happening is that this statutory amendment is correcting that oversight so that the correct provision in section 25 will be referred to, ie that contained in section 25 (1) (d).

Secondly this statutory amendment aims at removing all possible doubt about the fact that the schedule to the relevant Act, which contains a list of natural science professions, is part of the principal Act. Legal experts maintain that the impression is created that the schedule forms part of the 1985 amending Act, but not part of the principal Act. The 1987 amendment to the Act will eliminate that uncertainty and place it beyond any doubt that the schedule, with the list of natural science professions, forms part of the 1982 principal Act.

It is therefore a pleasure for me to support this statutory amendment on behalf of the CP.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits gave the support of his party, the Official Opposition, to this Bill, and I should like to thank him for that on behalf of this side of the House.

The purpose of this amending Bill, as the hon the Minister has indicated, is to amend the original Act in three respects. It is interesting to note that the original intention with the Act was to make provision for the establishment of a South African Council for Natural Scientists. In terms of this Act this council is empowered, amongst other things, to deal with the registration of natural scientists and natural scientists in training; also to advise the Minister on matters relating to the natural scientific profession; and in conclusion, to recommend to the Minister what type of work, in connection with projects, undertakings or services of a natural scientific nature, should be reserved for natural scientists.

Clause 1 of the amending Bill now before the House amends section 22 of the principal Act. That Act was also amended in 1985, as the hon member for Brits has indicated. The proposed amendment relates to section 25 (e), but it should have been section 25 (1) (d). Section 25 (1) (d) embodies the corresponding provision of section 25 in its amended form. It is actually an editorial amendment that does not affect the content of the Act in any way.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the schedule to the Natural Scientists’ Amendment Act, 1985, be added as a schedule to the principal Act. The schedule contains a comprehensive list of natural scientific professions. In my opinion it is a very interesting list which indicates which natural scientific professions are recognised as such in terms of that Act. In my opinion it goes without saying that that schedule should, for the sake of completeness, be added to the principal Act and should form part of it. Again this is a clause which does not change the contents of the Act. It is actually an improvement in that a list of natural scientific professions is now being included.

It is interesting to examine the list of natural scientific professions. In the schedule 10 professions are singled out for recognition as natural scientific professions in terms of the Act. I think it fitting, on this occasion today, for us to convey the thanks of this House to the natural scientists of our country and to pay tribute to them for having served our country in various fields by way of their dedicated research and their labours. That is, of course, a field in which our country will probably never have enough experts. In my opinion it is therefore a good thing for us to support the efforts that are made to encourage students to choose the field of the natural sciences as a field of study, but in particular as a career to. Our country sorely needs every possible natural scientist it can get.

In conclusion clause 3 provides for the commencement of the Act. The Natural Scientists’ Amendment Act, 1985, came into operation on 1 September 1985, and the amendments contained in the Bill before the House should therefore also be applicable from that same date.

To sum up, let me say that this is a Bill that makes meaningful amendments to the principal Act, and this side of the House has pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of hon members in these benches let me say that we shall be supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members very sincerely for their support, and the hon member for Bloemfontein East, in particular, for his fine and comprehensive underlying motivation. We greatly appreciate the co-operation in this regard. This is a purely technical matter, and I do not think that we have focused on any matters that need my further elucidation. I thank hon members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.