laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Labour Relations Amendment Bill [B 118—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs).
2. (2) Criminal Law Amendment Bill [B 119—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).
3. (3) Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Bill [B 120—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).

as Chairman, presented—

1. (1) the Report of the Joint Meeting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders (on Rules for Joint Business) [Joint Meeting 1—87]; and
2. (2) the Schedule to the Report of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders (on Rules for Joint Business) [Joint Meeting 1A—87].

Report and Schedule to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, dated 24 September 1987, as follows:

The Committee further resolved that those who wish to submit comments on the subject matter of the Bill be given the opportunity to submit written representations to the Committee in this connection by 30 October 1987.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts, dated 16 September 1987.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 23 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, dated 22 September 1987.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services, dated 21 September 1987, as follows:

1. A. The Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services having considered and examined the papers referred to it and having taken evidence, which it submits herewith, your Committee begs to report as follows:
   1. 1. Resolution 4 of the Report of the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services, 1986
      In its reply to Resolution 4 of the Report of the Standing Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services, 1986, the South African Transport Services indicated that the recommendations contained in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) had already been complied With. In respect of paragraph (b) mention was made that it is the intention of the South African Transport Services to phase out the concessionary loans as soon as possible and that it was therefore not considered necessary for a regulation to be promulgated to cover this arrangement. Furthermore, it was agreed that additional remuneration should rather be granted by means of salary increases than by way of concessionary loans.
      Your Committee noted the replies of the South African Transport Services and, although it agrees therewith, is of the opinion that the phasing out of the concessionary loans, that is the redemption and/or conversion of the loans into advances on non-concessionary terms, should be done as soon as practicable, and that progress in this connection again be reported on in 1988.
      Your Committee recommends accordingly.
   2. 2. Audit queries and observations
      In paragraph 2(3) on pages 1 to 3 of his Report on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services for 1985-86 [RP 45-87], the Auditor-General mentioned various matters raised in audit queries.
      Your Committee, having heard and considered evidence, begs to report as follows:
      1. (a) Work performed for and maintenance services rendered to other airlines—Jan Smuts Airport
         Although the utilization of spare capacity with partial compensation of total costs may, under the particular circumstances, contain benefits for the South African Transport Services, provision for the regular review and adjustment of tariffs ought to be made in all contracts in future and, further, everything possible ought to be done to operate services of this nature on a more economical basis as soon as practicable.
      2. (b) Transmed—internal control
         Notwithstanding the problems experienced by the South African Transport Services in this connection and the steps already taken to eliminate various deficiencies in the computer system as well as unsatisfactory internal control aspects mentioned in the Report, everything possible ought to be done in order to place the matter on a sound basis at the earliest opportunity.
         Your Committee recommends accordingly.
2. 3. Loans: Forward exchange cover
   In paragraph 4 on page 4 of his Report the Auditor-General mentioned, inter alia, that the South African Transport Services follows a policy of active currency risk management in contrast to one of outright cover on all currency transactions. It is further mentioned that surpluses and deficits emanating from forward cover contracts are not being accounted for as financing costs during the currency of a loan, but are brought to account by means of adjustments in the individual loan accounts. It is also mentioned that the deficits that have arisen from forward cover contracts and brought to account against individual loan accounts amounted to R1 209 589 189 at 31 March 1986.
   Your Committee is aware of the fact that, due mainly to the considerable fall in the exchange rate of the rand against foreign currencies in the last couple of years, problems have arisen in this respect and that it is deemed good financial management for the South African Transport Services, as for any other business enterprise, to try to hedge as far as possible against losses resulting from currency fluctuations.
   Your Committee, having heard and considered evidence, must express its serious concern regarding the considerable rand deficits which the South African Transport Services have already accumulated as a result of currency fluctuations, as against its total foreign loan commitments.
   With due regard to the substantial losses incurred, the complicated nature of forward exchange cover contract transactions as well as other related actions in the foreign markets and the fact that neither the Committee nor the Auditor-General has the specialist knowledge to evaluate the actions of the South African Transport Services in the currency markets, your Committee is of the opinion that—
   1. (a) in view of the important implications which substantial deficits and related costs emanating from forward cover contracts and other currency transactions have for the operating results of the South African Transport Services, the Auditor-General’s request be approved that he be authorized to instruct that an independent specialist investigation be conducted as soon as possible, for the account of the South African Transport Services, in order to have the entire matter surrounding the policy of active currency risk management, as practised by the South African Transport Services over the last couple of years and accounted for in its financial statements, together with any related matters, investigated, evaluated and reported upon;
   2. (b) the specialist committee ought to consist of at least one representative from the South African Reserve Bank (as chairman), a competent person from a financial institution and a chartered accountant with knowledge in this field;
   3. (c) a committee consisting of the Chairman of the Standing Committee or his secundus, the Auditor-General and the General Manager of the South African Transport Services should deliberate as soon as possible in order to appoint the members of the specialist committee, and should thereafter consult with the appointed chairman of the specialist committee about the terms of reference of that committee;
   4. (d) the Office of the Auditor-General must provide the secretariat of the specialist committee; and
   5. (e) the specialist committee’s report, together with the comments of the Auditor-General, be submitted to the Standing Committee as soon as practicable.
3. 4. Bursaries
   In paragraph 13 of the Report it is mentioned that an amount of R648 510 was written off in respect of bursaries to 54 bursary holders in engineering whose services could not be utilized productively after completion of their studies, and that they have thus been relieved of their bursary obligations.
   Your Committee, having heard and considered evidence, recommends that, before any bursary holder who cannot be suitably placed is relieved of his bursary obligations, it should first be determined whether any suitable vacancy for such bursary holder exists in the wider public sector and, if so, whether the body concerned will be prepared to take over in full or in part the bursary holder’s bursary obligations. Contract conditions must consequently be adjusted to provide that bursary holders should fulfil their obligations with the South African Transport Services or, in the absence of a suitable vacancy there, with any other body in the wider public sector. After other bodies have been approached and it appears that the bursary holder cannot be accommodated in this way, the matter should be regarded as finalized.
   Your Committee recommends accordingly.
4. 5. General pension matters—expenditure borne by the South African Transport Services
   In paragraph 37(1) of the Report reference is made to the fact that contributions by the South African Transport Services to the Superannuation Fund and the Pension Fund for non-White Employees also include contributions met from Revenue Services in respect of employer as well as employee contributions based on the difference between the full service bonuses on which contributions would normally have been payable, and the reduced bonuses paid to staff during the year under review.
   Your Committee, having heard and considered evidence, is convinced that the gist of the problem lies in the fact that in the South African Transport Services, other than in the central Public Service and most other public sector bodies, the service bonus forms part of the employee’s pensionable emoluments.
   Your Committee is of the opinion that anomalies of this nature should as far as possible be avoided in future and that, compared with other Government sectors, there was no justification for the payment of employees’ contributions by the employer, namely the South African Transport Services.
   Your Committee recommends accordingly.
5. 6. Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund and Railways and Harbours Pension Fund for non-White Employees
   Your Commitee, having heard evidence and having considered the accounts of the Superannuation Fund and the Pension Fund for non-White Employees on pages 19 to 22 of the Financial Statements in the Report, wishes to express its concern that these funds are not being subjected to regular actuarial valuations, and deems it essential that an actuarial valuation of each of the funds be carried out as soon as practicable and be repeated at regular intervals thereafter.
   Your Committee recommends accordingly.
6. 7. Physical training centres for senior officers
   In paragraph 43 of the Report it is mentioned that expenditure amounting to R22 697 was incurred in respect of physical training centres for senior officers. It is also mentioned that grants totalling R35 975 were made from the Institute Fund for the acquisition of equipment for the centres.
   Your Committee, having heard and considered evidence, is of the opinion that although expenditure of this nature probably falls within the legal powers of the South African Transport Services, the utilization of Institute Fund moneys for this purpose appears to be irregular, and that the necessary steps be taken to rectify the matter as soon as practicable.
   Your Committee recommends accordingly.
7. 8. Part payment of leave credit
   In paragraph 44 of the Report the Auditor-General mentioned that the South African Transport Services paid out the cash value of leave to the credit of employees, up to a maximum of 30 days, to all employees who preferred it. Your Committee was further informed that a general instruction came from the Executive, stipulating that in order to curb staff expenditure a curtailment of vacation bonuses had to be effected, also in the case of the South African Transport Services.
   Your Committee, having heard and considered evidence, is perturbed at the fact that despite this instruction the South African Transport Services nevertheless applied for authority from its Board, and received it, to pay out leave credits, to the extent mentioned, in the year under review.
   Your Committee is of the opinion that as a State institution the South African Transport Services must carry out requests and instructions conscientiously when the Government directs such requests and instructions to it in the wider interest of the State, and that it should refrain from any actions which may neutralize or circumvent such requests or instructions.
   Your Committee recommends accordingly.

1. B. Your Committee has no comment to offer on the other paragraphs of the papers examined by it.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Family Court Bill and the Divorce Amendment Bill, dated 9 September 1987, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is, in the first place, to provide protection to South African companies against the enforcement of foreign civil judgments and the execution thereof in the Republic. In practice these actions mainly relate to the mining and processing of asbestos as well as to the distribution and sale of goods manufactured from asbestos. Secondly, the Bill provides for an extension of the existing prohibition on the furnishing of information. In order to achieve these goals, the words judgments, order, direction etc, are supplemented by the words interrogatory, commission rogatoire and request.

Since the Second World War asbestos was widely used for purposes of protective clothing, insulation and shipbuilding. Although producers and researchers in the past considered asbestos to be virtually harmless, it has become known that the inhalation of asbestos fibre contributes to those diseases commonly referred to as asbestosis or lung cancer.

As the Republic has for a considerable period of time been a producer and exporter of asbestos, South African asbestos mining concerns and exporters of asbestos or of manufactured asbestos goods, have become subject to foreign civil actions instituted by persons claiming to have suffered bodily harm as a result of their contact, in one way or another, with asbestos or with manufactured asbestos goods.

These actions have been instituted in the United States of America and due to certain peculiarities of American legal doctrine, for instance those relating to product liability, South African companies are exposed to foreign judgments granted by American courts as well as to the subsequent attachment of their assets or the assets of their subsidiaries. Against this background I should now like to highlight for hon members some aspects of the amending Bill.

In order also to provide for the specific protection of the mining industry, the word “mining” is now being inserted in the existing section 1(3) of the Act. The effect of this amendment is, for example, that the enforcement of a judgment resulting from an injury caused to a person by any matter or material initially mined in the Republic, will henceforth be subject to the permission of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.

However, it is not the Government’s intention by way of the amending Bill to overprotect South African businesses, but rather to create certainty in law, fairness and good relations in regard to international business activities. To achieve this end clause 2 of the Bill inter alia provides that only when an action based on bodily harm caused to a plaintiff could have been instituted in the Republic in accordance with South African law would a judgment, court order, etc, resulting therefrom henceforth be enforced in the Republic.

†A further problem encountered by South African companies which has to be addressed in the Bill, is the ease with which jurisdiction is found in respect of a defendant by the courts of certain foreign countries, especially those of the United States of America. Any effort to contest such finding of jurisdiction is sometimes seen as submitting to the jurisdiction of the court in which such funding of jurisdiction is contested. As a result of this untenable situation, from a South African point of view, the amending Bill provides in clause 3 that for purposes of the enforcement of a judgement etc, certain actions by a South African defendant would not be regarded as submission to the jurisdiction of a particular court in a foreign country. These actions include, among others, steps to contest the jurisdiction of the foreign court concerned and requests to such a court to dismiss the proceedings concerned and to protect property which has been attached, to name only a few. On the other hand, the protection afforded by the Bill is not so wide as to include those cases where a defendant has a permanent place of business in the foreign country, or has conducted a permanent business in that country at the time the cause of action arose.

Another matter of great concern to the South African business community is the possibility that legal action could be instituted in any of the courts of the Republic after a similar legal action, based on the same cause of action, has already been adjudicated in a foreign court. Although such conduct would not be in accordance with South African common law principles, it is uncertain whether a foreign plaintiff would in these circumstances be prohibited by a South African court from instituting such second legal action within the Republic against a South African defendant. Therefore, in order to put the legal position in regard to the institution of such proceedings beyond any doubt, the amending Bill sets out in clause 4 the circumstances under which such actions could be defended successfully.

Finally, the operation of clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the amending Bill would henceforth be applicable to any judgment, order, etc, granted or issued prior or subsequent to the coming into operation of this amending Bill.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the purpose of this legislation is to protect South African businesses from harassment from overseas and unnecessary expense incurred by legal actions against them.

We on this side of the House would like to thank the hon the Minister for the speed with which he and his department have acted in presenting this legislation, having identified what could have become a very serious problem. What a pity that the Government did not act with the same alacrity in coming up with legislation to counteract the effects of the enforcement of the Sullivan principles upon numerous American-owned businesses in South Africa! We on this side believe that had this been done we would have seen far fewer American businesses leave this country because they left as a result of having to meet those ridiculous demands and finding that by meeting those demands it was impossible to make a profit. Therefore it became far easier for them to submit to the pressures and to pack up and leave South Africa.

As this legislation is in the national interest and is designed to protect South African businesses we on this side of the House have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I want to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for supporting this Bill. The Bill deals primarily with protection in respect of the enforcement in South Africa of the verdicts and judgements of foreign courts. It also seeks to ensure that in taking certain actions, defendants are not deemed to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. In this regard one thinks particularly of certain forestalling measures which are taken in order to nip a matter in the bud, which the court could subsequently interpret as being a recognition of the jurisdiction of that court. Furthermore, the enforcement of judgements relates only to certain kinds of actions, namely those in which compensation is claimed and in which this would not be enforceable in terms of the South African legal system. This brings matters into line with what the position would be in South Africa.

Clause 4, which seeks to insert section 1F, deals with the defence a defendant could advance in South Africa, namely that a conclusive judgement in regard to that matter has already been given by a foreign court. In a certain sense this entails a codification of the common law insofar as this specific form of protection is concerned and it does not afford defendants an opportunity to enjoy an abnormal or even an inordinate amount of protection, but merely the same protection as they would have been able to obtain in accordance with the South African legal system. A further interesting aspect in this regard is that it also prevents one from having what is known in this connection as a proliferation of actions. Since the American system is geared towards compensation on a contingency basis, this undoubtedly sometimes leads to a proliferation of actions. The more defendants one can muster, the greater the compensation will be and the larger the remuneration for the legal representative as well. That is why one finds this wonderful, ingenious ability in certain countries to expand and proliferate cases and to institute larger actions.

All things considered, I think this legislation is essential, and one is grateful for the support of the CP.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis has a way of making one feel very uncomfortable to be on the same side as he, no matter how innocuous the piece of legislation may be. When he motivates his support for this Bill in terms of its being a little too late and that we should have had it years ago to protect us from what he calls the ridiculous Sullivan principles, one quite honestly feels a sense of a rising disgust and one feels uncomfortable being on the same side as he. [Interjections.] Well, hon members can laugh but they are also on the same side today because we are all supporting this Bill. [Interjections.]

In spite of what the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis had to say, we shall be supporting this Bill, but with some reservations that need to be-expressed. We accept the general principle of providing protection against potentially excessive actions in foreign countries under foreign laws. We have the peculiarity, particularly in the United States, of their anti-trust legislation and their convention of attorneys being able to act on a percentage basis. This leads in some cases to astronomical claims which could simply wipe out South African businesses which, in American terms, are capitalised on a small scale. The principle in terms of which an attorney has a personal interest in the quantum of a claim being made raises serious dangers for South African companies which might fall foul of such claims. The example of the asbestos industry has been given by the hon the Minister. One reads of mind-boggling claims being made under the general heading of asbestos court cases, and one would want our South African companies who have acted in good faith to be protected from such excessive claims.

However, one must not take protection too far in the other direction. Before I come to that, let me also say that we accept that, in an era of sanctions, there is also justification for protecting South African businesses by preventing sensitive information from having to be handed over to foreign enquirers or commissions on an unrestricted basis. However, there again one does not want to go too far.

This Bill will place us in a position where no information may leave this country and no foreign judgement be implemented against a South African firm without the Minister’s permission. That really is an enormously far-reaching provision to put into our law. There are many instances where there is no problem about releasing information because it is a spreading of good news. By being too heavy-handed in restricting information we can raise suspicions of trying to cover up bad news. That is not helpful in our present international circumstances.

However, we did say in 1978, when we supported the original Bill, that we accepted the general principles involved, and we do so again. For the record, though, I would like to note on this occasion that this legislation has attracted some weighty legal criticism. I would like to refer in particular to a publication by Forsyth and Bennet, entitled SA Private International Law, in which they make the same accusation, namely that there has seldom been a clearer example of legislative overkill. They describe the ambit of the legislation as being very wide, and say:

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he is able to give us any examples of blanket permissions being granted or indeed of any permissions being granted in favour of foreign judgements, because there must be many cases where a judgement is appropriate in terms of South African law.

These authors conclude this section by stating the following:

I would be grateful if the hon the Minister would respond to that criticism which, I think, is a weighty criticism.

With that we will support the Bill, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for supporting the Bill. I also want to thank those hon members who served on the standing committee for the work they have done in interpreting this Bill, which is highly technical and not easy for someone who does not have any legal training to understand.

The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis thanked us for our swift action. The legislation and the swift action were, to a degree, prompted by publications in South African legal journals in connection with the American legislation on product liability. The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis also said the legislation was in the national interest. That is a fact, and I should like to thank him for that.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth North is a legal man and he gave the House some further clarification on this relatively complex legislation. I thank him for his support as well.

I want to tell the hon member for Constantia that I personally have been charged with the administration of this legislation. This is a complex matter and in many instances we receive advice on a confidential basis from legal people in our department and possibly from outside it as well. Our decisions in this regard are not taken lightly.

The hon member said he supported the Bill with certain provisos and pointed out that certain legal principles held force in the USA, for example, which were unusual in relation to our own statute books. He referred to the problem of asbestos and to the fact that in earlier years researchers and scientists had not realised that the inhaling of asbestos fibres could lead to cancer. Upon reflection it was realised that asbestos fibres were dangerous and now the danger exists that American courts could enforce judgements on people in South Africa years after this problem became apparent, in which case the hon the Minister must use his discretion.

The hon member advocated a balanced approach so that too much protection would not be afforded, and asked whether there had been any instances in which the Minister had allowed the judgements of foreign courts to be enforced here. I have just received the information from our legal man. Apparently we have not yet dealt with such a case, but I shall take a closer look at the matter and also provide the hon member with more facts in writing. I personally have never dealt with such a matter. All the cases that have come before me, were from companies asking whether they might divulge certain information at the request of foreign subsidiaries, for example. The information involved was entirely innocent, and in all those instances I did, in fact, approve the divulging of that information. However, I personally have not as yet dealt with an instance in which the judgement of a foreign court was to be enforced here. I shall furnish the hon member with the information in this regard in writing.

I want to thank hon members once again for supporting this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill before us is very brief but nonetheless important. In fact it only contains one substantive provision that provides that certain pensions which were payable in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973, are to be increased by 10% from 1 October 1987.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, although the CP will not oppose this amending Bill, we cannot help expressing our deep disappointment at it.

We feel it is a disgrace that these scraps which the Government has allowed to fall from its table, are to be given to these people. When one analyses the legislation, one finds that all those who were certified before 1973 are to receive an increase of 10%. Every year for the past few years these people have been awarded a 10% increase in benefits. When one examines the inflation rate, one finds that these people have probably become approximately 40% poorer over the past few years. The biggest disgrace of all is that in terms of the current legislation those people who were certified after 1973 will not receive an increase this year. [Interjections.] I should just like to know from the hon member who made that interjection what he is going to tell those people employed in mines and works in explaining to them why they will not receive an increase this year.

We all know that the mining industry is the backbone of the country’s economy. Nevertheless, this is the way the Government treats these people. The reason for this is quite simply that employers in the mining industry have opposed an increase this year and have instructed the Government, as it were, not to grant an increase this year to those people who have been certified as suffering from an occupational disease.

They are hiding behind the report of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission in the hope that certain recommendations will be made which will simply cause the mineworker to be even further trodden underfoot. We feel it is utterly disgraceful—I want to repeat this—that these people, who are in poor health and who have given up their lives to the mining industry, will not receive an increase this year.

Two years ago the compensation payable to those suffering from diseases in the first degree was not increased either. Those people who suffer from tuberculosis have been saddled with the same one-sum compensation for the past two years. Take, for example, the man who can never work on the mines again and who has been declared 50% disabled. It is this man who suffers when he is certified in this way. He is already a walking corpse. When one approaches the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases one must be as good as dead before one is certified. Now these people must suffer an even greater shock, namely that there is to be no increase this year in the benefits to which they are entitled.

Let us take a look at the recent salary increase. The Ministers received tremendous increases but these people, who have to keep the country’s economy going, are being entirely neglected. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister not to allow himself to be prescribed to by employers, in the sense that he should not listen to them whenever they are not amenable to granting an increase. He must realise once and for all that it is the workers of South Africa who have the voting power and not the employers. We shall have to stop pandering to their whims.

Mr Chairman, one always finds it very difficult to reply to the hon member for Carletonville. When one introduces positive legislation, when one has the intention of helping people, as we are doing here, by giving them an increase—hon members also objected to this in the standing committee—one finds these objections of theirs incomprehensible. If one were to say that 10%, as is provided for here, is not high enough, one could discuss the matter and see if one could get more than the 10%. To adopt such a negative attitude, however, and to speak of mineworkers who have been trodden underfoot, is far-fetched. The hon member says—if my notes are correct—and I quote him:

I am aware of parliamentary language, and I am aware of the fact that one cannot simply say someone is lying, but I am telling the hon member that it is not at all true that a man has to be as good as dead before he gets compensation. Surely that is not true at all! It is scientifically untrue. According to the definition it is not true, and that hon member knows it is not true.

Recently I sent the same hon member some of our old correspondence, and there is a great deal that I can quote to him from that. We have been discussing this matter for a long time now, and hon members on this side of the House and I do not disagree at all with that hon member about the fact that we must do our best for the mineworkers, that we must do our utmost for them. We do not disagree with one another on that point.

Will the hon member admit that they are walking corpses?

Mr Chairman, I admit that some of those people are practically walking corpses, but if the hon member wants to make the assertion that they all have to reach the stage of being described as walking corpses before they can get compensation, then I say to the hon member that he is just not telling the truth and that that is really far-fetched. It is simply not true! I represented a mineworkers constituency in this House, and I had hundreds of patients. For many years I acted as locum every December and January at Carletonville, and I saw many of these people. I want to state frankly that the hon member is not telling the truth. What he is saying is not at all true. I dare say here are such people, but they do not represent the average, and it is not at all necessary to reach that stage. If one can prove histologically that there is a lesion on a man’s lung, while there is physiologically nothing wrong with him, he will be certified in terms of our legislation. Even if he can do all sorts of exercises, he is certified if, for example, a lesion is found on his lung during an operation. This is the only legislation in the world that is implemented in this way.

The gap between the compensation in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act and the compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is so great that it was one of the problems the Nieuwenhuizen commission had to contend with. We are still wrestling with the problem of how to bring the provisions of those two Acts closer to one another.

I do not want to speak for too long today, but I can quote what that hon member himself said when that commission drew up the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act in 1973. I have before me the explanatory memorandum on the subject. I do not have that hon member’s precise words here at the moment, but he will remember them. At that time he was a member of that commission and he said that the mineworkers had achieved a utopian situation with that legislation. Now he is suddenly expressing negative points of view today. I really feel one should have more knowledge and should have considered the subject properly before having made such statements.

This legislation deals very specifically with the period prior to 1973, because since 1973 one-sum benefits and so forth have been paid. I want to quote to hon members what the explanatory memorandum has to say about the principle of the matter. I shall quote from paragraph 17, on page 7 of the memorandum.

Oor die jare het voordele vir pneumokoniose onder die pneumokoniosewetgewing weggebreek van die regsbeginsel van “vergoeding vir gelyde skade” en het dit afgewater geraak totdat dit tans eintlik niks meer of niks minder as maatskaplike pensioene is nie.

That was the position prior to 1973. The explanatory memorandum goes on to state:

In a further paragraph it states that the express purpose of the legislation is to rectify the legal principles.

The legislation now being dealt with is an amendment of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act of 1973. To say at this stage that it allows the mineworkers to be trampled even further underfoot is really cheap politicking on the part of the hon member for Carletonville, and it is not worthy of even the CP. [Interjections.]

We have similar legislation before to us practically every year, and since 1973 there have been only three years in which no similar legislation has been submitted. In those days, in fact pensions were divided into three parts, namely a pension for the mine-worker himself, a pension in respect of his wife, and a pension in respect of every one of his dependent children under the age of 18 years. When it was found, at that time, that all was not as it should have been, everything was put right. The only remaining group of people are those from the period before the new dispensation of 1973. They are the ones with whom this amending Bill is dealing.

If the hon member had proposed that one increased the pension from 10% to 12,5%, I would have seconded that, provided we could have obtained the money to do so. We would have been able to do it if he had said, for example, that we ought to increase taxes. The argument that is valid for mineworkers is the same one that is valid for the police, nurses, and even doctors. One could continue endlessly in this vein. It is not a unique situation applying to one group of people only. This is not really a social pension; it is compensation.

As far as social pensions are concerned we can make out a very good case for giving people more. At the moment they get approximately R200 per month. What can one really do with R200? That would not even pay to have one’s car serviced.

Therefore we are all in favour of increasing these amounts by as much as possible, but let us now keep this debate on a proper, scientific footing. Let us say not only that we are going to give them more, but also where it is coming from.

I take my hat off to these mineworkers and even their wives who are still receiving pensions for the work done by their husbands, in whose suffering they shared. We are very glad to be able to give them a 10% increase, and if it were possible in future, we would very much like to give them more. I shall ask the hon Minister to reconsider that.

We can safely give them more, because in any event they are a diminishing group, just as the military pensioners of the Anglo-Boer and the 1914-1918 wars are a diminishing and aging group. This sort of situation tends to become progressively worse and eventually results in a situation in which, as the hon member has said, people are practically walking corpses. On these grounds I advocate that in future we try to do more for them if the treasury can in any way bear the burden.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he will concede that this category of mineworkers has suffered an extreme degree of impoverishment during the past few years, if one bears the inflation rate in mind?

Unfortunately the hon member is not a member of my caucus. I have long lists of figures which one can consult to see that there are groups of people in our country who have really come down in the world as a result of all kinds of circumstances. Even people who pay tax and who work, have fallen on evil times due to certain circumstances. I concede that it is so, and therefore I think that a strong case can be made out for our saying that we are going to do our best for these people.

Let us also say, however, where the money is going to come from, what we should do, to whom we shall have to give less and where we should ask for more money to make this possible. I have no objection to an hon member advocating that we should do more for these people. Neither have I any objection if the hon member says that their condition has actually become worse. Let us then argue logically and not come along with stories about their being trodden underfoot to such an extent that one has to be half-dead before one can get anything, and all that sort of nonsense. Let us do it properly, and then we would be helping even more and seeing what we could do about the problem.

Mr Chairman, where there are mines, one finds dust; dust results in dust-related diseases; and dust-related diseases result in chronic lung conditions. On account of these facts these diseases occur in South Africa and people have to be certified when they contract these diseases.

I was very amazed to hear the statement by the hon member for Carletonville about the difficulties related to certification. I want to follow on the hon member for Langlaagte. Modern medical developments and new tests have made it much easier to determine the stage of a lung condition. We now have sophisticated respiratory function tests whereby, by studying the gases of the lung, we can define exactly the extent of lung damage. We can now under anaesthetic insert a needle into the chest and remove a microscopically small piece of lung and have it analysed if we want to define, as the hon member for Langlaagte said, the presence or the extent of the dust-related lung disease. When the hon member for Carletonville therefore talks about people who are “half dood”, then I think that we should look into this matter to find out how the tests are being done. We must see to it that patients with queries about dust-related lung diseases come forward so that the proper tests can be done and so that the certification and the staging of the disease can be done properly. I really do not foresee any problem if that is done.

I was also amazed by the fact that he attacked the increase in the allowance of 10%. I must tell him that I have all the sympathy in the world with people with chronic lung diseases such as tuberculosis and malignant endothelioma. I agree with the hon member for Langlaagte that, if it is at all possible, we are in favour of a higher percentage increase. However, I wonder whether the hon member for Carletonville will also support me when I say that Black old-age pensioners also need a higher pension to enable them to keep body and soul together. Does he not agree with me that the pensions they receive are totally inadequate to enable them to keep body and soul together? I believe that we must look very carefully at the pensions paid today to people in South Africa, and even in the rest of the world. However, the necessary money must be available to enable us to increase pensions. That is what the hon member for Langlaagte said. He said that such people should come to us, tell us what they think and that we, together with the hon the Minister, will support them if the money can be found. In that case, however, I would expect the hon member for Carletonville and the CP to support me when I ask for higher old-age pensions as well as increased pensions for nurses, doctors and other people whose pensions are also deteriorating when measured against the cost of living in South Africa.

We on this side of the House have a tremendous amount of sympathy for people with occupational diseases. We understand the problem. We think that these people should be properly identified and the tests carefully carried out. We would also like to see that their problem is better understood and accepted. We support the increase of 10% and we in the PFP also support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I find it regrettable that the hon member for Carletonville should have used some fairly unbridled language here this afternoon. The Government is doing all it can, within its financial means, to look after the people working in this industry. I wonder whether the hon member for Carletonville has ever read this Bill. [Interjections.] I do not think he has, because had he read it he would have seen in clause 2 that certain benefits were increased in terms of, inter alia, “the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1986 (Act No 106 of 1986) Therefore, the pensions of all those who received a pension up to 1986 are now to be increased by a further 10%. The hon member, however, attempted to delude the House into believing that those people would not receive an increase. I think that what the hon member for Langlaagte said was true—the hon member for Carletonville did not make a thorough enough study of this Bill. [Interjections.] He also attacked the Government in a very unrestrained manner. [Interjections.] I want to make it clear that I have no doubt whatsoever that inflation is impoverishing all those who receive a pension.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister tell us whether those people who are certified in terms of the new legislation will receive an increase, yes or no?

May I ask the hon member—I do not want to waste the House’s time—simply to read clause 2. That will answer his question.

A further point I wish to make, is that inflation poses the greatest threat to pensioners, whether they be White or Black…

I want to ask the hon the Minister once again…

He is wasting my time.

Order! The hon the Minister has already answered the question. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I think the hon member for Carletonville is wasting my time.

The important point in this regard is that no government in the world is able to dole out pensions as it wishes. That is an important point. One would like to give more, but it is traditionally linked to the 10% increase in social pensions.

Something else which is very important, and I want to tell the House something to which the hon member for Langlaagte also referred—I thank him for his very good elucidation—is that we are in the process of rewriting the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, Act No 78 of 1973.

Once we have rewritten that Act, it will no longer be necessary for us to come to Parliament to effect those annual increases. We shall rewrite the Act in such a way that the increases may be effected to the best of the Government’s ability without our having to make any amendments to the Act.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon member for Langlaagte once again for his valuable contribution to the standing committee, as well as for his contributions in the House this afternoon.

The hon member for Parktown gave us a very good explanation of the physiopathology of lung apparatus, as well as the new diagnostic methods. He remarked quite rightly that everyone was suffering under inflation but that our pensioners were enduring the greatest suffering. Let there be no doubt about it. No one cares more about our workers than we on this side of the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to express the support of this side of the House for the report as printed on page 193 of the Minutes of Proceedings of this House. The committee investigated quite a number of cases. I think the committee has arrived at some good decisions without creating any precedents for potentially similar cases. In my view the two instances in which an improvement in pensions is being recommended really are deserving cases. We are satisfied that this represents a fair increase in the pensions concerned. With those words we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to concur briefly with the hon member for Pietersburg. It is not easy for me to do so, but I want to express my appreciation to him. I must say that this is a committee which works well as a team. The chairman made it clear at the outset that a great deal of hard work would be done in the committee; there is no doubt that there was. One sympathises with the majority of these requests, but merit is the overriding criterion. If judgments are made solely on the basis of merit, the task of this committee becomes far easier. I think we succeeded in doing this under the leadership of the hon member for Wellington. The two instances in which increases in pension benefits are being recommended, are very special cases which may be defended on the ground of merit. I think it is only fitting that the PFP should thank the chairman for the capable manner in which he chaired this committee.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Pietersburg and Parktown most sincerely for their support, and I also want to thank the hon member for Parktown for his kind words.

What we are dealing with here is merit on the one hand and compassion on the other. One tries to combine these two elements, but in the final analysis the real issue is that of merit. I thank the hon members for their support. I am pleased to support the adoption of the report.

Mr Chairman, permit me to thank the hon member for Pietersburg for his complimentary words. The names of the members of this committee appear on page 193 of the report. I want to thank those members of the committee for their hard work. In that committee, Mr Chairman, we find a glowing example of the best traditions of Parliament in terms of which any member of the public may submit a petition to Parliament if he feels that he has been hard done by with regard to any pension matter.

I think this Select Committee on Pensions, under the chairmanship of the hon member for Wellington, has done some particularly good work this year. I am aware of the fact that this committee dealt with some very difficult matters. I am also aware of the fact that they dealt with one particular matter which was exceptionally difficult; one in which a single day made all the difference to the decision that was ultimately taken. The committee nonetheless dealt with it in the best parliamentary tradition. I therefore want to thank them for their efforts and to associate myself with the hon member for Parktown’s complimentary words to the hon member for Wellington.

I truly believe that this committee is one of those Parliamentary select committees which proves to the general public that Parliament does not exist merely to pass laws, but also to play a compassionate role in serving the interests of the people of South Africa. Once again, I thank the chairman of the committee and all its members for those cases to which they devoted their attention and, of course, for those cases in which they saw their way clear to rendering assistance. Thank you very much.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Second Reading

Introductory Speech as delivered in House of Delegates on 24 September, and tabled in House of Assembly.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill simply gives effect to the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions which has just been adopted by the House.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House, I rise merely to support the Bill before us since it gives legal effect to the report we have just adopted.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of hon members on this side of the House I want to convey our sincere gratitude to hon members of the Official Opposition for their support for the legislation before us, as expressed by the hon member for Pietersburg.

Mr Chairman, of course we in these benches also support the Bill before us. Aside from that, the name of a specific person whom we all know very well—I am not going to reveal his identity here—is mentioned in the Bill. It is truly wonderful to see his name appear in this measure today. I just want to express my appreciation for this in the House. The aforementioned person is one of the best people in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members for Pietersburg, Wellington and Parktown for supporting the measure before the House.

I should like to tell the hon member for Parktown that I agree with him.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The provisions of the South African Transport Services Amendment Bill entail amendments to three Acts which are applicable to the SATS. I shall confine myself only to the important aspects of the proposed amendments.

Hon members will recall that I announced in my Budget Speech earlier this year that it had been decided to implement measures to achieve parity in the service conditions of all SATS employees, with the exception of medical benefits and travelling facilities. To give effect to this and to create one set of service conditions for all personnel, various amendments to existing legislation are necessary. The most important of these is the proposed insertion of section 32A in Act 16 of 1983 which will bring about equal status for all employees, especially in respect of appointments, service contracts and adjudication in cases of possible injustice.

In addition, section 16 of Act 43 of 1974, which provides for non-Whites to buy back non-pensionable service, ie casual service, until the age of 18 years, is repealed and provision will be made in pension regulations for Coloured, Indian and Black personnel, as in the case of Whites, henceforth to buy back non-railway service up to and including their sixteenth birthday.

Parity in salaries was introduced with effect from the July 1987 pay-month. I am convinced that parity in service conditions will, to a large extent, contribute towards bringing about job satisfaction in the ranks of employees and towards combating labour unrest. The amending Bill also addresses labour unrest.

As a result of experience gained from the recent strike by South African Transport Service employees, it is necessary for certain amendments to existing legislation to be made to enable the SATS to handle illegal strikes and labour unrest—also in so far as personnel in permanent employment are concerned—more appropriately, more quickly and more fairly.

The proposed amendment to section 26 of Act 16 of 1983 will authorise the General Manager to decide, after employees have been given a fair opportunity to explain their participation in a strike, whether or not to terminate their services. I believe that this is a very reasonable approach.

Section 9 of Act 65 of 1981 is being amended to enable the SATS to establish companies or to acquire interests in companies in the Republic of South Africa or elsewhere. I wish to assure hon members that this amendment is not directed at extending the SATS’ activities beyond the sphere of its normal business operations. Any information required by the Auditor-General in connection with the establishment, management or acquisition of interests in such companies will be submitted to him by the SATS for incorporation in his report to Parliament.

The objectives of the amendment of this section of the Act are twofold. On the one hand the amendment is aimed at handling possible privatisation in specific circumstances, and on the other hand at arranging business transactions in a more appropriate manner. The latter will enable us to compete on a more neutral basis at a time when extraordinary demands are being made, not only on South Africa, but also on the SATS.

The amendment to section 9 will provide the South African Transport Services with authority similar to that already vested in other semi-State institutions.

I am convinced that the passing of this Bill will enable the South African Transport Services to function more effectively, especially in so far as its business activities and its commitments towards its employees are concerned.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, at the outset I wish to point out that I have one problem with the Bill under discussion. It is a fact that a problem has arisen on account of the new system. The hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, which was delivered in one of the other Houses, did not find its way to our desks until the commencement of today’s sitting. As a result, because we did not have the opportunity of listening to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech being delivered, one might now be in the position of not having had the chance to study the speech properly while sitting in one’s bench here in the House.

Fortunately there was time in this case to read the hon the Minister’s speech. I also acquainted myself with the contents of the principal Act. The situation could arise, however, in which one would have to rise to react to such a speech immediately after the reading of Prayers. I feel this matter should really receive serious attention. I think arrangements should be made for all Second Reading speeches to be made available to hon members as soon as they have been read in a particular House.

This Bill deals chiefly with labour matters, but also with the establishment or take-over of certain companies. I have a problem in this regard. There are certain provisions in this Bill which we would like to support. However, it is actually a kind of SA Transport Services omnibus Bill. The hon the Minister himself said in his Second Reading speech that it involved the amendment of three Acts applicable to the SA Transport Services. This being the situation, it might unfortunately, because we wish to express strong opposition to one clause in particular, be necessary for us to oppose this Bill and to vote against it. If these specific clauses, or the provisions they contain, had been embodied in three short, separate Bills, we might well have been able to support one or two of them.

As the hon the Minister also said in his Second Reading speech, the most important provision in this Bill is the one dealing with parity or, as he terms it elsewhere, equalisation of salaries and conditions of service, and equal status for all workers.

In principle, we have no objection to equalisation or parity. When we are governing, we shall address these problems in a different way. [Interjections.] Bearing in mind the situation which the Government has to deal with, we do not have any problems with equal payment or equal status, but then this should apply to persons occupying the same positions, and only if coupled to equal productivity and equal quality.

I work while you sleep.

Yes, Sir, that is so, but when I sleep, I do more work than that hon member does while he is awake. [Interjections.] I think that I am more capable of certain things asleep than he is when awake. [Interjections.]

Regarding equal productivity and quality, we find ourselves confronted by another important problem, namely the question of the norm of quality and productivity. In the early days of the communist regime in Russia, one of their workers was a fellow by the name, if I remember correctly—I am now recalling something from my early youth—of Kaganovitch. Within a certain period of working time he moved a certain tonnage of coal with a spade. In order to urge their workers on, they then referred to the Kaganovitch achievement. Every Russian worker was expected to equal that Kaganovitch achievement. That was the norm set. It is the incorrect approach to set a norm at either one or the other extreme, but when one deals with parity, one must have a norm. The question is what that norm is going to be.

If parity is going to contribute to the raising of standards—in respect of labour matters I think we in South Africa must discuss very seriously our attitude towards quality and standards—it is an outstanding thing. However, if it is going to have the opposite effect, it is, of course, highly undesirable and will be totally counterproductive. In fact, it will also have an effect on costs and prices, with which we are already experiencing many problems.

In fact, there is a lesson to be learned in this respect from the recent strike, and I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to it. It has not yet been mentioned by the administration, but we know that during the strike clerks at certain places got stuck in to get the work done. I know of a case in which three clerks did their own work as well as well as that of 12 labourers in less time and far more efficiently. We have not given those men any recognition yet—at least, not in public. We know that in certain sections, especially in the hauliers section, a drop of 80% in the claims for compensation was experienced during the strike.

When we discuss parity, however, and want to enforce it because we think we can achieve other benefits as a result, we must also emphasise quality and productivity. When we talk about parity in regard to rights, privileges and conditions of service, we must include parity in regard to obligations in the discussion. We know the Government is in a quandary and I do not want to blame the hon the Minister for it, because he is part of a system. However, there are other factors besides parity which we have to include in the equation aimed at achieving the end result. If we do not do so, we shall have disparity, or parity in reverse. Then there is discrimination against the other side. [Interjections.] One must then examine the benefits already being received by those to whom parity is now being granted, such as transport subsidies, the condoning of the non-payment of electricity accounts, medical services, the prices of houses and rent. One must then ask oneself whether those two men, who now receive the same salary because they occupy the same position, go home with the same amount of cash in their pockets after discharging their monthly obligations. If this is not the case, one is discriminating against the people who provide one with the best service.

There is also another factor that one must bear in mind as far as parity is concerned. It is that one is dealing with citizens of other states—one does not know how long this is still going to be the case.

Are you referring to the TBVC countries?

Yes.

When one pays the salaries of those citizens in South Africa, and they are far higher that the salaries received by their fellow citizens in their national states, one must ask oneself what effect this will have on the economy and the industries of those national-states (volkstate). We must examine that problem as well. I told the hon the Minister that I wanted to make this contribution in respect of this matter, because we would seriously have considered supporting this aspect in isolation. There are, however, problems here which must be looked at and which need attention. This process of bringing about equal status must receive proper attention, otherwise it is going to lead to another kind of unequal status.

That brings me to the matter of strikes. In that regard, I cannot support the hon the Minister at all. In fact, it is this that compels us to vote against the Bill. As far as we are concerned, the effect of this clause is to legalise strikes in the Transport Services, which are still illegal at this stage. There is, in fact, a clause in the existing legislation which forbids strikes. The effect of this provision, however, will be that a worker may legally be on strike for three days or longer. He may be on strike for longer until the General Manager, by means of a notice, requests him to disclose his reasons. Then he has another three days to furnish his reasons before the General Manager may terminate his services. I see the hon the Minister is shaking his head. Fortunately I did not hear him shaking his head, but I saw it.

You will not hear if I shake it.

The hon the Minister says I will not hear. I do not know if his skull is too thick, but in any case I do not mean it in that sense of the word.

The hon the Minister can tell me that the provision in the law regarding an illegal strike will remain as it is. The hon the Minister and I know, however, that as the provision stands, it will be virtually impossible for him to end a strike unless all the procedures have been followed.

That is not what I want to discuss. Until the hon the Minister has given the notice which is referred to in clause 5, that strike is legal. I think we in South Africa are on the verge of a period of industrial unrest. The miners’ strike which was in progress at that stage was mentioned in Finance Week of 3 September. I do not think that what gave rise to one strike will differ greatly from what gives rise to others. I do not think what is being planned in one part of the labour sphere is not also being planned for another.

In the article headed “The strike continues” it was reported that Cyril Ramaphosa had said that the 1987 strike was “a ‘dress rehearsal’ for 1988”. A little further on in the report, the following is said:

A little further on in the article it is stated that: “A few NUM members, even officials, will sanction murder for the ‘liberation cause’”, but I shall not take that aspect any further.

The fact of the matter is that we in South Africa are facing an era of industrial unrest. That is why, in this respect, someone has tried to be too clever. I would have thought the hon the Minister would have wanted to change or amend the present law and the specific section in such a way that he could dismiss strikers out of hand. I think that is what he would have wanted to do. We are telling the hon the Minister that this is what he ought to do. We recommend to him that the law be amended in such a way that illegal strikers may be dismissed out of hand.

I think the hon the Minister has a problem in this regard, and his problem is that he would not succeed in having such a Bill passed by the South African Parliament. That is his problem. That is why this provision has now—those of us who were on the standing committee can testify that it was done with great difficulty—in fact been accepted by all three Houses as part of a package deal.

Actually it is also ironic that we have arrived at a stage at which we have to brace ourselves for industrial unrest, since what happened this year, as Ramaphosa said, was merely a full dress rehearsal for what is to come in 1988, while in the rest of the West the trend is apparently a movement away from trade unions and this kind of industrial bargaining. I wish to refer to a publication which I have here. Apparently we all receive it, and one can presumably have one’s suspicions about the source of its funds. Perhaps we should ask the hon the Deputy Minister entrusted with Information a question about that. However, as we do not know, I simply want to say that this publication, which enjoys fairly broad financial support, is also sent to all members of Parliament. It might also be a good thing for the hon the Minister and his department to look at what is written in these publications.

I am now referring to what is said under the headline “Union Power: Time for Reassessment” in Freedom Bulletin, No 8 of 1987:

Then there is a smaller headline, “Bucking the Global Labour Trend”, and under this the writer outlines the ironic aspect of the situation that pertains in South Africa:

We predict that the hon the Minister will have to prepare himself to deal with strikes again in the year ahead. We would like to support a Bill which would make provision for the summary dismissal of illegal strikers. The hon the Minister is part of a system which has created a parliamentary Frankenstein, and in that system he cannot submit such legislation. Negotiation politics ultimately meant that he had to go on his knees to have this clause included. As far as we are concerned, this clause legalises strikes.

I know the hon the Minister is going to say that what I now intend to suggest cannot possibly happen. I predict that if he gives strikers notice to provide him within three days with the reasons for their strike, they might stop striking on the second day. One day later he will have to make the same request. I know what his reply on that point is going to be. He is going to say that this clause makes provision for a strike currently in progress or for one which is already over. With the expert advice available to the unions, they are going to circumvent the provision he has tried to include there.

Anyway, we just hope that the hon the Minister will be in a position, with these powers, to clamp down on the strikers next year, but we have our doubts about that.

Mr Chairman, right at the beginning I want to express my thanks to all members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications who contributed to our reaching consensus on this legislation.

I think the hon member for Soutpansberg was putting it a little strongly when he said we had begged. We did negotiate and we approached the matter from all angles. Worst of all is that the people whom we had to negotiate with were the hon member for Soutpansberg and the CP. It was not merely Whites against people of other races, therefore, as the hon member was trying to maintain, but also Whites against the CP. At one stage one of the parties in one of the other Houses also had to negotiate with the CP to get this measure this far.

I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that there is no point in being peeved or bitter. That is the system, and this legislation is an example of how we spoke and reached consensus. It required long discussions and a great deal of additional information to get this Bill to this stage of debating. This specific Bill is an example of consensus that has worked.

The hon member had a great deal to say against parity and what is associated with parity. I want to rectify two or three possible impressions he left us with. I do not want to accuse the hon member of having done this deliberately, but I do want to indicate that when it comes to transport, the transport workers, irrespective of whether they are Coloured or White, have the same benefits. They do not get extra benefits as far as transport is concerned.

The second part, concerning the purchase of housing, is also true. The interest on the loan that is granted is the same, depending on when the money was borrowed. I think that interest rate varies between 4% and 5% at the moment. It is not a fixed interest rate, therefore, but it varies between certain percentages.

As far as parity in respect of the workers of the SATS is concerned, their benefits are more or less the same. The hon the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, however, that parity still has to be achieved in respect of travel facilities and the medical fund for the non-White workers.

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the hon the Minister, because we have reached the stage at which the unhappiness about the problem in the SA Transport Services, viz parity, can now be defused to a certain extent. I do not think we shall have any more problems in that respect.

The only thing I can add to that, is that we are taking further steps to increase the productivity of every worker in the SA Transport Services, irrespective of his colour. The work-force has been reduced so that at this stage approximately 200 000 people are employed to do the same work that was done by 282 000 people a few years ago. Productivity is being achieved, therefore. I should like to tell the hon the Minister that the SA Transport Services should continue to promote productivity.

I think the hon member was being rather unfair when he said this legislation would not work. We did not have legislation about this before, and this year we resolved a strike which was relatively serious.

When we look at the relevant clause, we see that this legislation is better than when these measures were contained in the regulations. This legislation complies with the principle of fairness to a greater extent than when all these aspects were contained in the regulations. I am pleased that the hon the Minister is establishing legislation about this so that both we and the trade unions will know exactly how these measures are going to be applied in future. I think it strengthens the hand of the hon the Minister and the SA Transport Services’ management in dealing with strikes in an orderly way and reaching a stage at which such strikes can be ended.

I want to dwell on the question of parity for a moment longer. The fact that the SA Transport Services is employing a smaller work force at present, which quite probably will gradually become even smaller until they will be employing fewer than 200 000 people, provides an opportunity to make the best of the remaining work force, by making use either of training or of better techniques. That is why it is essential to continue to modernise the SA Transport Services, to effect maximum productivity. I have spoken about training and what is associated with it.

In addition I want to dwell on clause 5 of the Bill in particular. As we have said, provision is being made here for the amendment of conditions of service. I think the hon member on this side of the House who will speak after me will enter into the question of strikes more comprehensively, once the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has spoken. We want to hear his standpoint first, because he rejects this clause as a whole.

I want to discuss the clause added to the legislation by the hon the Minister to make provision for the establishment of companies. I do not want us to say too much about companies here in public, but I do want to encourage the principle contained in this by saying I think it is the right time to take that step. We are on the eve of deregulation. The purpose of deregulation is to effect greater and more competition. I am convinced that the SA Transport Services should also be placed in a position in which they can compete with the private sector. The best way of doing this is to let them function on the same level; that is, they must play the game according to the same rules and everyone must have the same referee.

The amendment that is proposed in clause 4, which amends section 9, is particularly important in that it points out that the SA Transport Services is moving closer to the rules of the private sector. I hope they will make use of the opportunity Parliament is giving them in passing this legislation, and clause 4 in particular, and that the legislation will make it possible for them to compete to greater effect in future.

In addition I want to point out that the measure contained in clause 4 also makes it easier to privatise. This is an aspect of the SA Transport Services which has been the subject of much discussion in South Africa. People so easily say: “Let us privatise the SA Airways.” I do not know how we are going to do so, because it is a monopoly, and if we privatise it, it will be a monopoly once again. If I had to choose, I would rather choose a monopoly in the hands of the Government than one in the hands of private enterprise.

I am not sure that you are right there.

I think it is much better for a monopoly to be in the hands of the Government so that the Auditor-General, who audits the books of that monopoly make reports to us, rather than that it be in private hands.

In my opinion this legislation provides for opportunities of privatisation that will arise in the SA Transport Services. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to give particular attention to the idea that people who work in the SA Transport Services can make a “management buy-out”. These management buy-outs create an important opportunity for these people to continue to participate in the field they know. The relevant clause gives the Minister the opportunity, where the possibility exists once deregulation has taken place, to permit people who see their way clear to doing so and are prepared to use their own savings for this purpose, to buy a service from the SA Transport Services, to privatise it, to make a management buy-out and to continue to offer this service.

I hope this is what will happen to many services in the SA Transport Services—that they will not simply be sold to other people or be sold in competition, but that people in the SA Transport Services will be encouraged to make use of this opportunity. I hope that such people will come forward to participate in the process of moving from the Government sector to the private sector.

A further very interesting point is that this legislation very clearly defines that the part played by the Auditor-General is a very big one. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister gave us the assurance that the objective of this amendment was not that the SA Transport Services should compete in an improper way. I want to thank the hon the Minister very much for that assurance, because I do not think that would be in line with our position in the transport world at present as far as deregulation in the first place and privatisation in the second are concerned. I want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely once again for that assurance. I should like to point out that we shall have to ensure that sections 2 and 9 of the SA Transport Services Act, Act 65 of 1981, are adhered to strictly so that the SA Transport Services applies these aspects according to the directive as contained in those sections.

We want to mention that this is no new thing in transport affairs. We find such companies in the Netherlands, for example, where the Netherlands railways formed a company with a very large road transport company, Van Gendt and Loos which takes care of all the road transport. There are examples in Canada, Britain and Japan as well. I think it is high time for the SA Transport Services also to come into line with this worldwide trend so that the opportunity for the SA Transport Services to offer an effective and more competitive service at a more realistic price can be created.

I want to mention a further point concerning the Auditor-General. I think the Auditor-General has a very important function to fulfil. We must make that very clear, and I think the Auditor-General and his office realise that they have a very important function to fulfil, since they are the watchdogs who will have to keep an eye on two aspects. In the first place there is the appropriation of the funds and secondly—I hope this is also part of their mandate—they will have to ensure that the SA Transport Services remain within the traditional bounds of the Transport Services in terms of Act 65 of 1981, and do not extend beyond them.

I hope no one will see this as an opportunity to start insurance companies in the SA Transport Services, for example, or to start building houses or doing anything similar. That is beyond the bounds. That is why I want to appeal to the Auditor-General’s office to be the watchdog in this respect in particular, to ensure that the SA Transport Services remain within the traditional bounds.

There are two important matters ensuing from this that I want to discuss briefly. The first is that the hon the Minister is getting the right to determine the Transport Services Commissioners’ total conditions of service package. I think that removing work, which can be done just as well by the Minister of Transport Affairs, from the Office of the State President, is a step in the right direction. I think it is very important to rationalise this within the scheme of modern transport affairs.

I want to refer to one more important aspect of this legislation. I hope that if we agree to this amending Bill at the end of the day and institute parity, we shall be making a contribution in that people will be able to see that there is goodwill on the part of the hon the Minister and the top management of the SATS. One hopes that this will to some extent reduce strikes and the development of strikes into political onslaughts. If we handle this legislation in the proper way, we shall have the opportunity of success in that sphere. It is a pleasure to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that handled this Bill. I would like to thank and congratulate the hon member on the way in which he handled the committee. I think we achieved a degree of consensus on many of the items that we discussed in that particular committee and I believe we owe a certain amount to the hon member for that consensus.

We have heard that the hon member for Soutpansberg on behalf of his party has rejected this Bill. I am not surprised because as this House is aware the Bill brings about parity between Whites and Blacks. I think that is the predominant reason why the Official Opposition is opposing this Bill. They do not want parity.

You did not listen to what I had to say!

I listened very carefully to his speech. It was rather involved and skirted the point but when one boils it down the hon member was saying that because we are now giving parity to people who are not White we will have a lowering of norms and probably a lowering of productivity as well. He warned us against all these things simply because the people who were obtaining parity were not White. In my view that is a totally racist outlook and I deplore it. I believe it should have no place in this House. [Interjections.]

I can recall the time that I spoke in this House—it was probably 10 years ago—about an experience that I had had in the early 1970s when I had travelled by SA Railways from Port Elizabeth to Bulawayo and by Rhodesian Railways from Bulawayo to Victoria Falls. I got into a great deal of trouble with the NP over that speech because in it I said that my experience had been that the Black stewards on Rhodesian Railways in the early 1970s had given me better service than I had had from the stewards in the SA Railways. That was the situation as I saw it.

I believe that the obtaining of parity can actually help to bring about an improvement. The Black stewards on the Rhodesian Railways were smart, well-trained and proud of their jobs and they did their best to give excellent service.

I think since the early 1970s the SA Railways have improved enormously. I think the service that one gets today is a vast improvement on what it was in the 1970s. The point that I am making is that simply because Blacks are given parity and more important jobs does not mean the automatic lowering of productivity.

I think all of us use the SA Airways quite frequently. As we are aware there are both ground hostesses and air hostesses who are not White. I believe there should be many more of them and I welcome the fact that they are now getting parity. To have two hostesses on the same aircraft giving the same service—and I want to say that I have never had an occasion to complain about any of the air hostesses who are not White—but to find at the end of the day that the hostess who is not White received fewer privileges as an employee than her White colleague who does the same job is a scandalous state of affairs. We in these benches, and I personally, have for many years been fighting to get parity in the employment practices of the SATS. Therefore we welcome the provisions of this Bill which could help to create that situation. It is a step away from an apartheid system. It is without doubt an improvement and as such we welcome it very strongly.

I only wish that we could have the same situation in regard to the SATS passenger services. However, there are still apartheid provisions that I do not find acceptable on our trains. When one considers the tremendous impact it had on Mahatma Gandhi when he was thrown off a South African train simply because he was not White, and the consequences that it had for all of us, I think that one cannot underestimate the damage and the harm it does to group relationships. Blacks wanting to use the suburban services in Cape Town have to walk past the first four coaches because they have signs on them saying that they are for Whites only. I find that situation to be totally unacceptable and I hope that the hon the Minister will move in the direction of a totally apartheid-free SATS in the future.

The Bill consists of a number of clauses. Firstly, there are the parity clauses which, as I have said, I welcome. Secondly, there is the clause relating to the commissioners and the fact that the Minister, instead of the State President, will have the right to determine their salaries. I have no problem with that, but I would just like to appeal to the hon the Minister that in fixing the salaries, and in particular in fixing the other service conditions, he should not look upon the commissioners as part of the executive structure of the SATS who should get the same fringe benefits and privileges as the staff of the SATS. I want to refer particularly to the low-interest loans which the commissioners received a short time ago. I do not think that was correct and I said so at the time. I hope that the hon the Minister will ensure that that type of action does not happen in the future.

I also want to deal briefly with parity and pensions. Obviously we welcome the fact that there will be parity in pensions. However, we are concerned, because of the tremendous privileges of all the SATS workers in relation to their pensions. I refer in particular to the fact that, as in the Public Service, the SATS worker can buy his pensionable service back to the age of 16. I see that the hon the Minister actually mentioned it specifically in his Second Reading speech.

The situation is now going to develop where probably something of the order of 100 000 people are suddenly going to be put into the position where they can purchase their pension back to the age of 16. Such a situation could be very costly for the pension fund. I do not actually believe that the pension fund can afford it, neither do I believe that the pension fund will be able to continue to provide that privilege for the White employees. I think that being able to buy back service, whether one gave that service or not, to the age of 16 is going much too far. I wonder if the hon the Minister is aware that at the very moment he is giving all the SATS employees the right to buy back their pension to the age of 16, in the past few days it has been announced that one can no longer do that in the Public Service. In the Public Service one can now only buy it back to the age of 18, which does not make an enormous difference.

However, here we have a situation where the one hand does not know what the other is doing. On Tuesday the hon the Minister’s colleague announced that pensions could only be bought back to the age of 18 years, but today this hon Minister asks that all the workers of the SATS be granted the right to buy their pensions back to the age of 16. I would suggest that it would be more apt if from now on all employees of the SATS only had the right to buy their pensions back to the age of 18. Quite honestly I think that that should be reconsidered because that privilege should not be given to anybody, whether in the public or private sector. I have no problem with the principle of buying back service if one has actually rendered that service, but to buy back service which one has not rendered I find very expensive. It can also create many problems in the future.

There is also the provision whereby the SATS will be able to establish or acquire an interest in companies. We approve of this but we are a little concerned about it. We hope that it will not be abused. We are aware of the degree to which the SATS has created problems for the private sector, particularly as far as road transport is concerned, over a long period of time—the Railways Police confiscating trucks and taking similar action. We are therefore naturally very suspicious when it comes to the SATS being in competition with the private sector. I very much hope that in the application of this particular clause great care will be taken and strict control exercised to ensure that we do not have excessive interference in the private sector by these companies on an unfair basis. This can unfortunately happen very easily.

I purposefully left clause 5, which relates to strikes, to the end because we want to vote against this clause. Because the Bill as a whole brings about parity we certainly will support it and we do not want to vote against it. However, we do wish to vote against clause 5 which is why I have an amendment to negative clause 5 on the Order Paper. I hope therefore that immediately after we have finished the Second Reading debate we will have the debate, which should not delay us for long, as to whether or not there should be a Committee Stage.

The reason for our objection to clause 5 is very simple. The labour practices of the SATS are archaic. I am aware that a committee has reported on these labour practices and that the hon the Minister, perhaps with his colleagues, is currently considering a change in the law to bring them more up to date and put them on a more equal footing with private sector labour practices. I would like the hon the Minister to give an indication when he replies to this debate as to when that is likely to happen. I would hope that it will be during the session next year. Until that happens we are totally opposed to this clause.

Here we have a situation where for many, many years the SATS employees have not been able to be fired except only for a few specific reasons such as theft, fraud and matters of that nature. The non-White workers were entitled to be fired as we in fact found out when 18 000 or 19 000 workers were fired during the last strike. The minute they achieve parity—these provisions will bring that about—the hon the Minister will not be able to fire the workers under the present law, just as he cannot fire the White workers at this stage. That patently is not acceptable to the hon Minister and to the SATS and therefore they are seeking in this Bill the right to be able to fire their workers.

I do not actually have a problem if the whole situation is handled on a proper basis. However, I do not think that is currently the case. As I have said I think the labour laws relating to the SATS are archaic and therefore we strongly object to this clause being passed. I think we are actually taking a right away from the White workers—perhaps someone from the CP will speak about this. Because of parity the right that the White worker had not to be fired if he went on strike has now been taken away from him because he is being treated on the same basis as everybody else.

I believe we should oppose that and I do not intend to elaborate on it in the debate which I hope we shall shortly be conducting in relation to having a Committee Stage. We wanted to find a mechanism whereby we could vote against that clause and register our objections and a Committee Stage will give us that opportunity.

In closing we say to the hon the Minister that anything he can do to bring about parity both in the employment practices and in the running of the SATS for the public, will be welcomed and supported by this party.

Mr Chairman, I too would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in which he paid tribute to the chairman of the Standing Committee who showed a large amount of patience and a lot of tolerance, which I think augurs well for the consensus approach.

I would like to come back to the hon member for Soutpansberg who tied parity to quality and productivity. I would like to suggest to him that he is not being altogether fair to the management of the SATS because I am quite sure that before they took this step it was well motivated in relation to quality as well as production. I would put it to him, therefore, that he has no confidence in the management of the SATS.

The hon member also made the point that those members of the SATS who did more than their share during the strike action to keep the wheels moving, were not thanked publicly. That is untrue because the hon the Minister made a specific point of thanking those workers of SATS who did more than their share to keep the wheels turning during the strike period.

I also want to thank the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central very much for his partial support of the Bill. He said, however, there was a certain degree of consensus. I would say we reached consensus and that the hon member was the only uncertainty.

What about the CP?

The hon member was not even there when we voted on the provisions of the Bill. The hon member had already left! Therefore consensus must mean consensus. The hon member was not even there! [Interjections.]

As I have said, I thank the hon member for his partial support even though he says he is going to vote against clause 5. I fail to understand the hon member. Although he admits that the present procedures of handling strikes are archaic, now that we are trying to modernise them and make things easier all around, the hon member wants to vote against it. I do not understand his reasoning.

What I found rather surprising was that for a change the hon member said that the right of the White workers had been removed. That is an unusual situation for him to find himself in. I would suggest he leave that to the hon members of the CP. Let us be quite frank—it is unusual for the hon member to fight for the Whites.

I would like to come back to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech and I quote:

The proposed amendment to section 26 of Act 16 of 1983 will authorise the General Manager to decide, after employees have been given a fair opportunity to explain their participation in a strike, whether or not to terminate their services.

This is what this whole thing is about and I think that revolves around the whole of clause 5.

What is the position as it stands today before this legislation is enacted? In terms of section 26 of the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Act, 1983, participation in strikes is prohibited and an offence. If the amendment is accepted the parity provision will mean that employees who previously stood in a more contractual relationship to the SATS will then stand in a more statutory relationship to the SATS in the capacity of permanent or temporary employees.

Section 7 (2) of the existing Act stipulates that an employee in permanent employment can only be dismissed for a reason provided for in this Act.

Let us, however, consider the present provisions and the reasons why we are asking for this change. At the present time the following procedures are adopted when an infringement is brought to the notice of management. Firstly, an explanation as well as the testimony of witnesses is called for. After having studied the reports, the recommending officer will, if necessary, make a recommendation to the disciplinary officer who will decide whether a charge of a disciplinary infringement will be brought against the servant. If a servant is charged he is allowed five working days to reply to the charge. A servant can then admit or deny charges or give an explanation. He can also request that a disciplinary investigation be held, or the officer concerned can himself decide that such an investigation or enquiry be held so that a servant charged can call for witnesses and cross-examine them. The enquiry is open. It must be held within two months and, when disposed of, a report has to be submitted. If a person is found guilty the necessary suitable punishment will be imposed.

Once a servant has received written notice of his punishment and he is not satisfied, he has the right of appeal. He can appeal, in the first instance, to the disciplinary board, the General Manager or the SATS Board. This whole procedure, from start to finish, can take up to a year. In all sincerity I want to ask the hon members of the PFP who are objecting to this particular clause whether they can honestly say to me that the present modus operandi should be allowed to continue when one considers what happened during the recent strikes. I do not believe they honestly can. I am sorry that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is not here now, because I would have liked to ask him a question. I think the experience gained during the recent large strikes by the SATS employees made it clear that we had to have a speedy amendment of the Act so that there were alternative procedures for the handling of dismissals as provided for in the Act.

Attention is directed to the fact that previously, that is to say before statutory parity, the personnel regulations laid down a comparable alternative procedure for the dismissal of employees not employed in a permanent or a temporary capacity. Clause 5 of this Bill now provides for a procedure whereby dismissal in a strike situation can be handled. I refer to the wording of clause 5. In clause 5, which amends section 26 of the Conditions of Employment (SATS) Act, it is stated:

I want to repeat that:

Therefore I refute the allegation of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that this will be used in an incorrect manner. I am sorry but I cannot buy that at all.

I want to go further. It is important to point out that the aforementioned procedures take the place of normal disciplinary action. I want to repeat to him—I am glad he is here now—that it will not serve as a substitute, and I think this is the point that is worrying that hon member. I do not think, however, that he has taken the trouble to read the Bill properly, or alternatively, he may be playing a little bit of politics in this regard.

I would also like to say that it is important to point out that there must be absolute certainty that the employees concerned were in fact striking. Consequently, employees who are in hospitals, detention, etc cannot be validly dismissed because it was not possible for them to render their services. Such employees cannot therefore be regarded as strikers. I say again to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that there is more than adequate protection in clause 5, and I would like to suggest to him that he withdraws his objection to clause 5.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the proposed procedure for dismissal, if necessary, of strikers is generally in accordance with the basic legal principles which are applicable in South Africa. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast referred to various matters, and I shall also refer to some of them during the course of my speech.

A great deal has been said about the accomplishment by this amending Bill of so-called parity in conditions of service for employees of the SA Transport Services. The hon the Minister even said in his Second Reading speech that he was convinced that parity in conditions of service would contribute a great deal to bringing about job satisfaction among employees. Obviously the PFP agrees wholeheartedly with the Government on this point.

The question is whether true parity is being achieved, because in reality there are certain disparities which the Government and their stable-companion, the PFP, appear not to have taken into account or maybe they do not want to take them into account at this point. I am referring to the glaring disparities between White employees on the one hand and Black employees on the other in respect of the cost of housing, the cost of medical care and hospitalisation, and the cost of transport, to mention only a few items.

It is true, after all, that Black employees can obtain a suitable plot with a house on it for roughly R1 000, and in certain cases for only a few hundred rands, whereas it costs a White employee at least R50 000 for the same kind of plot with a house on it. I think one can say that in general White housing can cost an average of 50 times more than comparable Black housing. [Interjections.]

Surely it is true that Blacks pay a maximum of 10% of what Whites would have paid to rent accommodation. In practical terms this means that a Black employee may need two or three months’ salary to purchase a plot with a house on it, whereas a White employee pays a considerable percentage of his monthly income month after month for a period of at least 20 years for his plot and house. As far as medical care and hospitalisation are concerned, the White employee pays far more than his Black counterpart does.

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

No, Sir, I am not going to reply to questions. If this hon Whip tells his fellow hon Whip to stop pulling faces at me while I am making my speech, I shall consider it. [Interjections.]

The argument that Whites and Blacks do not use the same facilities, which is given as justification for the fact that Whites have to pay quite a few times more than their Black counterparts, is not valid for the simple reason that in determining the contributions to a medical fund and in determining tariffs for medical care and hospitalisation, there is not such a big distinction between Whites who use different facilities as between Whites and Blacks. Black transport is heavily subsidised whereas White workers do not get nearly the same benefits.

The fact of the matter—whether the Government and the PFP and we like it or not—is that in reality a White shunter goes home with a few hundred rands per month less than his Black counterpart. This does not apply only to shunters.

Despite these realities, for some or other reason the Government feels driven to aggravate the existing disparities by means of this measure. The question is: What is forcing the Government to ignore the realities of the day? It is the Government’s obsession to apply liberalism’s false dogma of equality at any cost, irrespective of the realities, in South Africa. [Interjections.] What the Government calls parity is in fact disparity and discrimination against the Whites. The Government does not take into account the inequalities as far as the population growth and the birth rate are concerned. The Government does not take the infrastructure in the Black communities into account. Nor does the Government take the solvency of our Black neighbouring countries, including the TBVC countries and the Black self-governing territories, into account.

If one wants to see a government that is suffering from a former century’s dogma and which is blind to the realities facing it, one has only to look at the present coalition government of the NP, the Labour Party and the National Peoples Party. [Interjections.]

When the CP comes into power, it will acknowledge the realities, deal with them and restore true parity. The CP will ensure that the Whites take their rightful place once again. [Interjections.]

Sir, I now want to refer to the new proposed section 26 (5) which deals with strikes. May I repeat the CP’s standpoint right at the outset: The legislation is correct insofar as striking is an offence and that striking by employees of the Transport Services is forbidden, but in addition, Sir, it is our standpoint that the apparent problem with the legislation during the recent strike was that the Transport Services was not capable of taking immediate and summary action against striking workers. If, therefore, the hon the Minister had introduced amending legislation to enable the administration of the Transport Services to take immediate and summary action against striking workers, we would have supported it. But that is not what the hon the Minister brought to this House, and that is why we cannot support it.

The attempt to replace the normal disciplinary procedure or action by giving a striker, an illegal striker, notice that he must give a written explanation within three days of why he is not fulfilling his normal duties is not going to have the desired effect of enabling the hon the Minister to deal effectively with workers who are striking illegally. In fact, Sir, this three-day notice means that the illegality of the strike is being condoned for that period mentioned in the notice. In other words, in effect this measure is giving legitimacy to an illegal strike for the period the worker has to provide an explanation for his conduct in terms of the notice. [Interjections.]

Sir, when one recollects the recent strike which it took the Government a month once the strike was in full swing to arrive at an ultimatum, one knows what is going to happen if the Government starts handing out notices. One knows what will happen.

I think the hon the Minister knows these things. I think it is justified to accuse the Government of knowing this as well. But the Government is not taking the correct course; the Government is not coming to this House with the correct measures, Sir, because it has created a constitutional prison for itself and it cannot escape from the chains holding it. The Government’s conduct proves, Sir, that it does not have the will to recover. Our warning to the Government, Sir, is that strong and stronger measures are necessary to deal with workers who deliberately commit an offence by striking.

As was the case during the recent strike, Cosatu will continue in future to challenge, torment and taunt the administration and the management of the Transport Services in order to develop a strategy that will effectively paralyse our Transport Services when the ANC and the Communist Party give the command. We know that, Sir. Surely, it is an open secret, to put it like that. Cosatu accepted the Freedom Charter at its congress in Johannesburg. The Freedom Charter of the ANC is an official policy document of Cosatu. It already has a membership of at least 760 000 members. At that congress messages of support for Cosatu were received from the ANC, the Communist Party of South Africa, the labour wing of the ANC, Sactu, and the Soviet Union itself. Openly, Sir, defiantly, in Johannesburg, amid this Government’s thunderous silence! There was not a word from the Government about the matter. Because the Government, Sir, and that is the point, is very eager for the ANC to denounce violence so that it can begin to participate in the negotiation processes. Just like the UDF, Cosatu is a front of the ANC, and that is why the Government must not be too firm in its action.

Sir, the proposed new section 26 (5) is not strong enough; it is counterproductive and symptomatic of a poor Government, which cannot, will not and does not want to survive the demands of the times we are living in.

Mr Chairman, once again I am virtually stunned…

You will also be stunned in Standerton.

That hon member has said so many things in this House which only just skirt the bounds of the truth that I think he should consider keeping his remarks to himself. Let us wait and see what the results are. [Interjections.]

If I may look for a moment at the opposition’s objection to the Bill before us, I must say that it represents the most uninspired objection to a Bill I have ever come across in this House. [Interjections.] The opposition asserts that the Government is caught up in a dilemma regarding this Bill, whereas precisely the opposite is true. They do not know where they are headed. They want to shoot the strikers because the AWB is telling them that they should do so. [Interjections.] However, we also have to contend with the Progs, who are also unwilling to support this Bill, because they want us to make use of only the normal legal procedures in dealing with the strikers.

The dilemma in which the official opposition finds itself, however, is that they cannot partition or segregate the SATS.

You are going to denationalise them.

They make such a song and dance about how firm a stand they are taking for the Whites, but they should remember what Confucius said: It is no good taking such a firm stand that one cannot get one’s trousers on. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Potgietersrus, who always makes such dramatic speeches in this House but who, in reality, simply uses the House as a vehicle through which to address his newspapers, whether he thinks the strikes would end, as the Official Opposition is so wont to suggest, if his party were to come to power.

Yes, they would!

Is it true? [Interjections.] They say it is true! Therefore, they are saying that the strikes will end when they come to power one day. [Interjections.]

How long are you still going to be busy?

I should like the hon member for Potgietersrus who, by his own account, is an authority on Black housing and Black employee benefits, to impart some of his knowledge to us. He went even further and made certain statements regarding the unequal treatment of White and Black employees. I know that at the time of the election the CP went around saying that Black employees did not pay as much income tax as their White counterparts in the SATS. I should like to have proof of that. I give them my word that if they can furnish me with some proof of their statements, I shall do something about it.

It is a privilege for me to be able to thank the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs for his kind co-operation.

I accept that certain arguments could be advanced as to why it may not be possible to classify some of the activities of the SATS as being of a strategic nature. In my view these activities could only encompass smaller subdivisions of its activities which would, in fact, amount to supportive services. No one would accept that the transportation of cargo, the operation of the Airways, oil pipelines and the harbour services, to mention only the principal services, are not, in reality, of a strategic nature. A full investigation into this matter will be required before a generalisation may be made regarding the non-strategic activities of the South African Transport Services.

Because the SATS have always been one of the largest business undertakings in the Western world, it would be foolish to render this particular organisation vulnerable by labelling some of its activities as non-strategic. This would have some negative consequences.

Let us take a look at the negotiation mechanism open to employees of the SATS. Section 7(2) of the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Act, Act No 16 of 1983, affords permanent employees a large measure of job security. The prescribed procedure in respect of employee negotiation affords permanent employees of the SATS complete protection in order to indemnify them against discriminatory and biased actions by their employers.

I associate myself with the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. One of the most important objects of this amending Bill is, in fact, to establish harmonious labour relations within the South African Transport Services. In the previous portion of my speech I referred to the strategic importance of the services rendered to South Africa by the SATS, although in a more physical sense. Of equally great strategic importance to the country, however, is the necessity for harmonious labour relations within the SATS. Labour unrest is like a rotten apple in a barrel. If one does not remove it, it spoils all the other apples in the barrel.

In September 1987 the South African Transport Services had 19 270 employees of all race groups in its employ. I can hardly imagine a more attractive and more strategic target for the ANC, as the protagonist in the first phase of an envisaged revolution, in its attempts to destabilise the country and make it ungovernable through labour unrest.

Since the SATS experienced a reasonable degree of labour peace prior to April 1987, it is surely logical to deduce that the negotiation mechanisms contained in the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Act, Act No 16 of 1983 were sufficient to deal with the normal labour unrest which may arise in any organisation from time to time. Certain speakers on this side of the House have fully explained this aspect to hon members. However, it is necessary to indicate that the proposed amendment of section 26 of the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Act, 1983, through the insertion of subsection (5), is supplementary to section 7(2) of the same Act. In fact, section 7(2) deals with job security and cannot be set aside in normal disciplinary cases. However, the amendment provides that collective efforts and actions aimed at strikes and incitement to strike may be dealt with by means of a dismissal mechanism. That is what clause 5 provides.

Furthermore, with a view to harmonious labour relations and the right to negotiation, it must be stated very clearly that the Board of the SATS may step in as the final arbitrator in those cases in which an employee is not satisfied with the decision of the general management. This applies to normal disciplinary steps. In this way normal labour dissatisfaction and the rights of the individual are fully catered for. It is also the function of the Board of the SATS to devote attention to substantial changes in the salary scales and working hours of SATS employees.

The object of the amending Bill is to afford the general management of the SATS the necessary legal power to enable it to perform its allotted task of good management. It therefore places certain instruments in the hands of management. Without these instruments there would be a high price to pay, particularly in the radical political climate that is being stirred up in the country at present. That price would entail inefficiency, low productivity, unnecessary risks of strikes as a result of intimidation, boycotts and unnecessary additional labour risks.

It is a privilege for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to thank hon members who participated in this debate. I think all speakers raised very positive aspects, but unfortunately there was also the negative part.

Initially the hon member for Soutpansberg said that he would have liked to have received the Second Reading speech earlier, and that it should be available when it is delivered, in the other Houses as well. If this is a procedural measure which can be interpreted in this way and which can be rectified, I, personally, have no objection to it.

The hon member and his party were primarily opposed to two clauses dealing with the question of parity and the way in which the strike was dealt with. As far as parity is concerned, the hon member said that in principle he had no objection to it. This was an important admission to make, but then the hon member asked what about productivity and what about quality. Then the hon member is not even prepared to make provision for exceptions. He was merely speaking in general. Now I want to ask the hon member whether he was trying to imply that simply because a man was not White, he must be less productive and of a lower standard.

I never said that.

The hon member never said it; he is quite right. However, he was talking in general, and in his speech he made no provision, not even for exceptions.

I said you must keep an eye on that aspect.

Of course there are norms when one is talking about productivity. Surely we all know that. Knowledge is a norm, and surely it is tested. Training is a norm, experience is a norm, standard of work is a norm and the volume of production one delivers is also a norm. These are all norms according to which people can be properly assessed. This administration is thoroughly aware that these are factors which must be taken into account, and in our entire negotiation process the point is in fact that emphasis must be placed on the same norms.

Why did you not say so during the Second Reading speech; why did I have to ask that question?

Surely the hon member stated his party’s standpoint and surely he knows the circumstances in South Africa. If he offers his party as an alternative government, surely he must state his standpoint, and his standpoint is that a person of colour—I inferred this from what the hon member said—must be inferior. [Interjections.] The hon member must get away from that standpoint. It is not in the interests of South Africa for him to walk around with a philosophy of that nature on his conscience.

It is in the interests of the truth that you do not tell a lie about our policy. [Interjections.]

Parity in general is not something which has suddenly descended on us. In this country there are many industries that already have parity. This aspect was the last part of the achievement of parity, which extended over years, and which we are rectifying here today. In other words, the principle of parity is one which has applied in the private sector for a very long time, and I can give the hon member the assurance—perhaps he may also know of a few examples—that it works very well indeed. It is a factor which could lead to greater harmony being maintained in this country. [Interjections.]

However, there are still two outstanding issues, namely medical benefits and travelling facilities, on which we have reached agreement with the trade unions. We shall make these adjustments as it becomes possible and as our means allow us to.

The hon member then referred to the State. Before I discuss that matter, I want to say it is interesting that the hon member referred to the standing committee and its functioning and almost tried to imply that the hon NP members had had to beg for consensus there. Yet it is significant that in this connection the Government, despite the fact that at present there is a lack of agreement among the Houses…

Is that so?

Yes, surely we know about that, and the hon CP members also know about it. [Interjections.] Of course there is a lack of agreement. Nevertheless we were able to reach an agreement with both the other Houses, while we were not able to reach agreement with our White brothers in either of the opposition parties. [Interjections.] Now that hon member refers to the Whites as though they were such a unified element that always stuck together. The important point is that the opposition parties do not want to reach an agreement with us, and each of them is tugging in a completely different direction.

The one into the wilderness, and the other into the desert! [Interjections.]

The hon member, as a lawyer, made a very strange allegation. He said we were legitimising a strike by means of the clause with which we wanted to deal with a strike. Section 26 of the Conditions of Service (South African Transport Services) Act makes strikes illegal.

The hon member must pardon me for saying this, but to me it is an absolute absurdity to say that the moment when one inserts a measure into the Statute Book in order to deal with an unlawful action in terms of a law, one is in that way legitimising that illegality.

For three days it is being legitimised.

One is not legitimising it at all. It is a measure for dealing with an illegality in a fair way. It is the aspect of fairness.

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

Mr Chairman, my time is very limited, but I shall nevertheless try to answer the hon member’s question.

The hon Minister said that he was not legalising that illegal conduct, but is he able in any way to take action or steps against them before the three days have elapsed?

Surely the Act states that written representations have to be made within three days, and if the striker does not satisfy the Transport Services, they are dismissed.

Then he has been on strike for three days.

Then we dismiss him! That is the principle of fairness which we are including there, but the problem with that party’s philosophy is that there may not be any fairness, because the AWB dictates to that party. [Interjections.] The AWB dictates to that party with the big stick. [Interjections.]

As in Nazi Germany!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether it is not true that while those three days are passing and the questions are then put to the Minister, the Minister can give consideration to that, but that those workers may return to work during those three days, while the Minister is considering the matter?

The hon member for Boksburg is quite correct. Those workers can come back at any time. [Interjections.] The problem with that party, and also with the hon member—I am sorry to say this—is that they have chosen a path of unfairness, and also a path of dealing with matters with an unreasonable amount of force.

As you have been doing for 40 years!

It is therefore not possible to come to that party with a reasonable argument.

That is an old United Party (Sap) argument.

The hon member is referring to the United Party (Sappe) now.

It is our United Party (Sappe).

But their party is full of them! [Interjections.]

I should like to thank the hon member for Primrose very sincerely for the very effective way in which he, as chairman of the standing committee, dealt with this matter so that we could dispose of this legislation here today within such a limited time. I thank him for that, and I also thank him for his ability and for his diplomacy which he displayed during this entire matter, but also in his other work which he is doing in that capacity. He underlined the principle of fairness and referred to a smaller work force which would be more productive and better trained.

This is a business principle which we are seeking to apply, and will apply, particularly in this process in which we are becoming more business-orientated, and also in the deregulation of the transport market.

The hon member also referred to the interests which the SATS may possibly acquire in companies. I want to repeat here that the SATS is not interested in operating outside its ordinary sphere of business in that way. Privatisation can be promoted in that way, and it is important that the SATS should also compete in a more neutral market. There is great prejudice and hostility to South Africa in the world.

The hon member also referred to what he called management buy-outs. I want to give him the assurance that in our privatisation activities that possibility is being looked into. To tell the truth, there are at present certain inter-city services in which we have invited officials of the SATS to organise themselves into a company and possibly take over that task. I give the hon member that assurance.

The hon member referred specially to the importance of the functions of the Auditor-General. I endorse that wholeheartedly. The Auditor-General does indeed have an important function to fulfil in this entire matter of shareholding in companies.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the improved services of the SATS and I thank him for his acknowledgement in that respect. His plea was for more people of other races to be appointed in certain positions. I want to say that thanks to the efforts of this Government and the coming into being of this Parliament people of other races can now plead for themselves. It is no longer necessary therefore for the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central to plead for them.

I am appealing for myself because I want to see them there.

I have just come from the other Houses where they debated this Bill and its benefits. We have come a long way indeed and the hon member can thank this Government for it.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he acknowledges that we are all South Africans appealing for the same thing regardless of our colour?

The South Africans in the other two Houses have the right to plead for themselves. This is exactly what they have been doing and are doing, and it is possible because of what this Government has done. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to certain benefits of commissioners and executives. He also referred to a certain loan transaction with them. I can assure the hon member that was a one-time incident. The hon member also referred to the cost of buying back pensions from the age of 16 years. He will recall that I announced that an investigation was being conducted at this moment into our pension scheme by an actuary. Once that is in my possession, we will look at this matter afresh.

In relation to clause 5 the hon member said that the labour practices of the SATS were archaic and totally out of date. I do not agree with the hon member. The SATS is one of the industries in this country which have a history of negotiation with unions. That is why as far as the SATS is concerned we have had labour peace in this country for so many years.

The hon member is evidently opposed to clause 5 as he indicated in his speech. I will therefore not go into that matter any further now because we will get the opportunity to discuss that in a moment.

The hon member for South Coast rightly said that in the case of a strike the procedure is now more reasonable. It is a fact that we are creating a better situation by means of this legislation.

He also referred to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and said he was of the opinion that that hon member was trying to make politics out of this. I think the hon member for South Coast is correct. [Interjections.] The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central always takes the part of the more radical elements. We will see what he says when he comes forward with his arguments just now!

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

Mr Chairman, I have no more time. My time is nearly up.

*The hon member for Potgietersrus advanced more or less the same arguments as the hon member for Soutpansberg. Consequently I can leave them at that.

The hon member for De Aar made an important point. He said the SATS was a very convenient and important target for radicals and revolutionaries. This is true and that is why it is necessary that we modernise our methods of dealing with those matters. Consequently it was a wise decision of this Parliament to make strikes within Transport Services unlawful. I thank the hon members who participated in this debate.

Question put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—109: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Barnard, M S; Bartlett, G S; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Burrows, R M; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Dalling, D J; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Gastrow, P H P; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Lorimer, R J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malcomess, D J N; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, JHW; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, N J J; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Swart, RAF; Terblanche, A JWPS; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Walsh, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

Noes—16: Beyers, J M; Coetzee, H J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Treurnicht, A P; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Langley, T; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

It is not my intention to take up too much of the time of this House on this particular point. We have requested a Committee Stage because we wish to have the opportunity of voting against clause 5 of this particular Bill. We did not have such an opportunity at the Second Reading because we wished to approve the Bill. Our feelings on clause 5 are strong, however, and for that reason we want to record our opposition to it. I gave the reasons as to why we wish to vote against it in my speech during the Second Reading debate and therefore I now request that a Committee Stage be taken.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accede to the request of the hon member. The SATS will be placed in an impossible position because the present disciplinary procedures are individually directed and designed for normal circumstances. In the event of collective labour action such as a strike like the one we had, the disciplinary procedures may not only be paralysed but may also be used to cause up even greater emotion and disruption. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept the hon member’s motion.

Can the hon the Minister tell us whether the department intends to respond to the report which was apparently submitted by Prof Wiehahn and which suggested adjustments to the department’s labour practices? Secondly, can the hon the Minister tell us when his department is likely to finalise its views and when these are likely to be formulated into legislation?

Mr Chairman, I apologise to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I thought we would have a broader discussion in the Committee Stage on this particular issue, because he also raised it. The reply to that is that we are indeed considering recommendations made by the Wiehahn Commission for a new labour dispensation.

When?

We are considering it. We will naturally not bind ourselves to a time scale. But we are considering it at this very moment. [Interjections.]

Question negatived (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition has no objection to the report and the recommendations contained in it.

Recommendations agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In terms of section 54 of the Forest Act, 1984, all administrative and clerical work of the Forestry Council is performed by officials of the Department of Environment Affairs. The Act does, however, provide that the accounting services of the council be performed by persons or bodies other than the department.

Taking into consideration the Government’s policy with regard to privatisation and the fact that the Forestry Council functions independently of the State, it is deemed practicable that the secretariat of the council be privatised.

Officials of the Department of Environment Affairs will, however, as is the case with other statutory bodies functioning under the auspices of the department, still perform a certain amount of administrative and clerical work in an overseeing capacity for the council.

Remuneration for the execution of the secretarial duties will be paid out of the Forestry Industry Fund.

It is therefore necessary to amend section 54 of the Forest Act, 1984 to enable the council to assign the said work to the private sector.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I have read the Second Reading speech delivered by the hon the Minister in his own House, and we are agreed that the object of this Forest Second Amendment Bill is to privatise the secretariat of the Forestry Council.

The question is what precisely is included in this secretariat. I notice that the hon the Deputy Minister refers in his speech only to the administrative and clerical work of the Forestry Council, but that the memorandum on the objectives of the amending Bill also refers to the accounting services of the Forestry Industry Fund. Our interpretation of this apparent inconsistency is that it is not a real one, because the administrative and clerical work may also include accounting work.

Alternatively the existing section 54 (2) (b) makes provision, in any case, for the privatisation of the accounting services of the Forestry Industry Fund, which are furnished by the secretariat of the Forestry Council. If our interpretation is not acceptable to the hon the Minister, we would like to hear his views on this.

In view of the fact that officials of the old Department of Forestry, and at a later date the Department of Environment Affairs, administered the secretariat of the Forestry Council for many years, it is fitting that we should express our thanks and appreciation to them for the excellent way in which they have done so. I am thinking, for example, of two people with whom I worked very closely at that time, Mr Potgieter, the then Deputy Secretary of Forestry, and now Chairman of the Forestry Council, and Mr Hennie Marais, at the time parliamentary official of the Department of Forestry for many years, and now, among other things, deputy chairman of the Forestry Council—a person who was always friendly, thorough and helpful.

In view of the fact that the Forestry Council, as a statutory body, is intended to function autonomously and independently of the State, it is correct in principle for its secretariat to be privatised. However, the Department of Environment Affairs and the Forestry Council overlap in that certain officials of the department serve on the council as full-fledged members, for example the chairman and deputy chairman of the council—the two gentlemen to whom I have just referred.

Certain duties must be carried out by the chairman in that capacity, inter alia with regard to the preparation of the agenda of a meeting of the council, the annual report of the council, and in general the leadership role he must play as chairman. In order to carry out these duties, he needs administrative and clerical support, and I accept—the hon the Minister must please indicate if it is not so—that the privatised secretariat would not be able to provide this support.

I have two reasons for saying that. Firstly the nature of private secretarial service certainly does not need a permanently available official or officials; it is a professional secretarial business service, if one could call it that, that can arrange meetings, send out notices, take and draw up minutes and so on when requested to do so. Therefore the chairman still needs certain administrative, clerical and even secretarial support, in particular from the department itself, because he himself is an official of the department.

The second reason is that the chairman occupies two positions, also being a senior official of the department. He is Chief Director: Administration in the Department of Environment Affairs, and in that capacity he advises the Minister of Environment Affairs on matters concerning the Forestry Council. He also informs the Minister on recommendations of the council, because it is an advisory body. Last but not least, he must also advise the Minister on advice given by the council concerning the adoption or rejection of recommendations and, in the case of their adoption, on the implementation of recommendations adopted. As chairman, and at the same time as an official of the department, he also needs administrative support in carrying out these duties.

In essence, the same applies in the case of the deputy chairman of the council, who is also an official of the department. Consequently there are certain administrative, clerical or secretarial functions that cannot, in practice, be privatised. We request the hon the Minister to give an explanation of what can and what cannot, in practice, be privatised. This request is important, for a consideration over and above the one I have already mentioned, the reason being, as the hon the Deputy Minister stated in his Second Reading speech, that the department will continue to perform a certain amount of the clerical and administrative work of the council in an overseeing capacity. It is not clear to me what is meant by “overseeing capacity”. If it is a matter of the responsibility of the department and of the Minister of Environment Affairs to ensure that the Forestry Council functions properly and on an orderly basis, that is not an activity of the council but of the department itself, acting independently of the council. For that reason, inter alia, there are officials of the department serving as members of the council. That particular term cannot, therefore, refer to this aspect, that of supervision. It is not clear to me what this refers to, and we should like to ask the hon the Minister about that.

Further, let me refer to the fact that the privatised secretariat, and also that section of the secretariat which cannot be privatised in practice, will be financed by the Forestry Industry Fund.

We support the Bill in principle, because both the private and the public sector contribute towards this fund and, Sir, the aim of the Forestry Council is to promote the timber industry in an advisory capacity. The funds of the Forestry Industry Fund are intended for the financing of research, operational training and planning in the forestry industry; in brief the promotion of the timber industry—the aim is the same as that of the Forestry Council.

In terms of the Forest Act of 1968, the old Forest Act, the secretariat of the Forestry Council is provided free of charge by the department, but in terms of the Forest Act of 1984 the Forestry Industry Fund had to pay the department for these services. Because the Act of 1984 only came into operation on 27 March last year, apparently figures are not yet available concerning the cost for the past financial year for which the department will have to be reimbursed. I am of the opinion, Sir, that both the department and the Forestry Council as a statutory body, will have to pay strict attention to how the cost of the secretariat, imposed by the department, is going to compare in future with the cost imposed by a private concern, plus the cost imposed by the department for that section of the secretariat which it will not be possible to privatise.

Inevitably, Sir, an important consideration when privatising, is that cost-effectiveness should be promoted, and we should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister whether he intends to monitor these aspects or to have them monitored, and if so, how he is going to go about it.

Lastly, Mr Chairman, it is one of the declared objects of the Government to bring about a smaller and more effective Public Service by means of privatisation. Now the question is what the department intends to do with the surplus manpower arising from this privatisation of the secretariat of the Forestry Council. Precisely what is the amount of surplus manpower in terms of man-hours, persons or whatever? It would surely not make sense to privatise, without at the same time establishing a smaller and more effective Public Service.

The Official Opposition supports this amending Bill, but we should like to be given the replies to the questions we have put. We are of the opinion that they are important and reasonable questions that deserve to be answered, and I appeal to the hon the Minister not to do what the hon the Deputy Minister did in the budget discussion of his Vote when he asked for written questions, but to reply to us because this is the suitable forum in which to put these questions, and surely the hon the Minister who deals with this legislation has the necessary information.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Potgietersrus for his support. This amending Bill contains a minor amendment which does not really change the existing position.

Section 54 (1) clearly defines the functions of the council. It must keep a record of money received and payments made, and it must also draw up a balance sheet. The situation is simply that in the past this work was performed by officials of the department. Previously the existing sections even provided that, with the approval of the Minister and concurrence of the Treasury, the records referred to in subsection (1) could be kept by any other person.

The amendment merely ensures that there is no confusion, that the Minister may impose conditions, and that the work and services referred to in paragraph (a)—that is the duty imposed on the Forestry Council, in terms of section 54 (1) to keep records and to draw up balance sheets—may be performed by another body. It is therefore merely a better definition of the powers that the Minister and the council had at their disposal in any case. It is also a limited secretarial embodying of the duties of the council in terms of section 54 (1). Therefore this does not contain any radical functional shift away from the council. I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the PFP supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support of this legislation. It is true that this amendment to the Act is an enabling amendment. Hon members will notice that the amendment to section 54 of the Forest Act, 1984, reads as follows:

Hon members must note that the words “the council may” are used. We are not acting prescriptively. We are not telling the Forestry Council to have any particular service performed by the private sector. We are telling the Forestry Council that if it so chooses, it may have this work performed by the private sector. We have already told the council that it may contract out its accounting services, and now we are telling the Forestry Council that other secretarial services may also be contracted out.

Again the hon member for Potgietersrus is probably reading this as a directive to the Forestry Council, which it is not. The hon member has asked what section of the secretarial services still remain. At this stage I cannot tell the hon member, because I have to wait until the Forestry Council has asked me, and told me what section of its secretarial services it wants to contract out. When that has taken place I will be able to tell the hon member what section remains, but at present I cannot do so. The hon member also asks what is to be done with the surplus manpower. He ought to know that posts in most Government departments have, to a large extent, been frozen. Should there be any so-called “superfluous” officials, there would certainly be other work available for them, because there is a shortage of staff, particularly in our own department. Secretarial services are difficult to quantify, as they comprise part of the general and ordinary duties of the department. Other statutory councils are also allowed to have their secretarial services done by private persons. Therefore we are now merely bringing the Forestry Council into line with what applies in the case of other statutory councils.

I thank hon members once again for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 17h53.