Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Leader of the House, I move:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In terms of Standing Order No 47 “a member may give motion on behalf of an absent member, provided he has been authorised to do by such member”. It is quite obvious to me from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s reaction that he has not been so authorised.

Order! That is what the Standing Order provides. Perhaps the hon the Minister will inform me about his instructions.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on this point?

The hon the Minister may do so. When I say that this is the position, I am merely referring to the provisions of the relevant Standing Order.

I accept that, Sir, but Ministers have collective responsibility and I want to submit that written authorisation is not required for moving a motion on behalf of a colleague.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: I was unable to hear what the hon the Minister said, even with a hearing aid. I am therefore unable to respond to what he said.

Order! In this particular case I am of the opinion that it may be accepted that Ministers may accept responsibility on behalf of other Ministers and that the hon the Minister is entitled to state that he is moving a motion on behalf of another hon Minister without having to give proof in this House that he has received such authorisation from his colleague.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I did not hear the hon the Minister’s reply at all. Did the hon the Minister say that he had been specifically authorised to move this motion either verbally or in writing?

Mr Speaker, let me repeat that I submitted—it is not question time now—that Ministers have a collective responsibility and are entitled to move motions on behalf of colleagues without having specific authorisation to do so. You have also ruled that that is in order. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member asked me for a decision. I have given my decision and the hon the Minister has been kind enough to reply to the hon member and to furnish him with the information that he required. I have had a look at the Standing Order, but if the hon member wants us to make doubly sure, the hon Leader of the House is present and I now ask him formally to move the motion. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I confirm that since I was engaged in another House, I authorised my hon colleague to move the motion, and I move:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order that when a Minister has arrived patently too late to move the motion standing in his name he should be allowed to utilise the time in which we objected to another Minister doing so to come to this House and move the motion considerably too late?

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon the Minister was physically present in the House and I asked him to move the motion, which he did. I have given my ruling and the motion has been moved.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: If the moving of the motion by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was in order, how is it possible for a second Minister to move the same motion?

Order! I decided to make doubly sure and that was my decision. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, when we adjourned yesterday evening the hon member for South Coast had only just completed his speech. In his speech he referred among other things to passenger services. As a matter of fact the hon member requested that intercity passenger services be reassessed with a view to upgrading facilities. This, he said, could be done in collaboration with private enterprise.

The fact of the matter is that the SATS did once enter into a joint venture with a private company. That happened not so long ago, as hon members will recall, and related to a fun-train journey between Johannesburg and Durban, which was offered at very reasonable tariffs. Even this venture, after several months of experimentation, proved to be uneconomical. The main reason for this seemed to derive from the cost of time. Since time has become an expensive commodity people have begun to revert to faster and more flexible modes of transport, such as buses and aircraft. I do, nevertheless, agree with the hon member that if anything could be done in this regard we should look at ways and means of maintaining our intercity passenger services. The hon member quite rightly observed that rail travel belongs to a gracious way of life which has unfortunately passed into history. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member. If any suggestions on his part or even on the part of the private sector are forthcoming, we will certainly look into them.

The hon member for South Coast also requested that an investigation be conducted into the availability of all land belonging to the SATS adjacent to Port Shepstone’s beaches. The SATS is al ready in the process of identifying surplus land with a high development potential, and we are aware of the potential of certain properties at Oslo Beach. Illis matter will be dealt with on its economic merits, and it certainly has economic merits. We will dispose of that land according to our standard policies. I thank the hon member for taking part in this debate.

*Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodepoort, and also the hon member for Potgietersrus, referred once more to that relatively unknown word “ontfutseling”. The “ontfutseling” of railway property actually means simply the pilfering of railway property. It seems to me it is simply a more discrete way of describing theft. When somebody is stealing, the word “ontfutsel” is used. This applies, for example, to someone who does not steal a whole case of liquor, but only removes a bottle or two. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Roodepoort went on elaborating on this, insisting that this was the major problem in the SATS. The hon member contended that thefts were taking place and went on to claim that we could not control it. In this debate the hon member presented this as the major problem in the SATS. I want to give the hon member the assurance that the SATS regards the incidence of pilfering on its premises and property in a very serious light.

That is why, in all areas, crime prevention committees have been established to liase on a continuous footing with the SA Police. Regular random cheques are carried out, and when specific patterns are identified, police action is resorted to.

Since the disbanding of the SA Railway Police Force in September 1986, contracts to the value of approximately R12 million have been concluded with private security companies for the furnishing of security services. Hon members may rest assured that the SATS, as a State business undertaking, will not permit its revenue to be eroded by theft or any other means.

The hon member will find it interesting to note that during the period October 1986 to September 1987 a total of 22 000 claims were submitted as a result of thefts and pilfering. One must, however, see this in perspective too. There were 22 000 claims, but 10 million consignments were involved. The amount paid out as a result of the claims was R2,4 million, as the hon member correctly quoted. This represents only 0,02% of the total expenditure of the SATS.

Let us look at what the general practice, the general pattern is. The SATS is a business undertaking, and there are numerous business undertakings apart from the SATS. The majority of them are small undertakings; The SATS is probably the largest business undertaking in the country. Let us compare the SATS’s figure of 0,02% with that of business undertakings other than the SATS. I want to give the hon member the interesting figure—Assocom furnished it—that puts the loss owing to theft and pilfering in the private sector at 2,5% of the turnover.

Does this apply only to business undertakings in the transport industry?

This applies to all shoplifting in the private sector. I said that the losses amounted to 2,5%, but if the control is not what it should be, the figure increases to as much as 6% of the turnover of those business undertakings. That is what happens in practice in the private sector.

I reiterate that although the SATS will always address this problem and do its level best in this regard, one should not review these aspects out of context. Theft can never be eliminated completely, and the hon member probably knows that too.

The hon member also referred to unnecessary expenditure. In that regard he referred to the inaugural function at Richards Bay on 30 November when, according to him, an amount of R40 000 was spent on a reception. Inaugural functions are arranged, on the one hand, to introduce new facilities to clients. It is general practice, and the hon member will probably concede as much. On the other hand such functions are arranged to promote the image of the organisation. I think the hon member will also concede that point. In addition the occasion is also one on which to express gratitude to contractors, consultants and employees, involved in a specific project, for their hard work and for the good job they have done. What is more, an occasion of this nature also has an indirect advertising and publicity function.

This specific function at Richards Bay, to which the hon member referred, was held to take into service 32 cargo-handling facilities with an overall value of R30 million. Apart from the good relations engendered by the function, it also generated free positive publicity to the value of R130 000 in the media. In contrast, the cost of this specific function was only R9 000, not R40 000, as the hon member alleged. The hon member had every right to criticise it, a right I do not want to deny him, but he will agree with me that if all the circumstances are borne in mind, it was actually good business that the SATS did. The hon member for Potgietersrus also referred to this, and this answer therefore applies to him too.

The hon member for Potgietersrus also referred to people who avoided paying fares. I think it would be a good thing if I gave the Committee a slightly broader picture of what we do in this regard. The steps we take range from physical inspections by squad teams on stations and trains, improvements to fencing and access points at stations, improved service at points where tickets are issued, sophisticated automatic train-fare and gate-control systems and the purchasing of machines to make the selling of tickets more streamlined right up to research in regard to portable ticket-machines. These are all ways in which these problems can be combated.

There is something else I want to tell the hon member, thereby also furnishing the Committee with more details. The automatic fare and gatecontrol system was put into operation as a pilot scheme near Germiston with a view to the further development of the technology of ticket control. What is involved here is the fact that these tickets have a magnetic surface and are the only means of gaining access to a platform. It is very effective and, if this project proves successful, the system will also be extended to other places. I want to point out to the hon member, however, that this is not a cheap form of control, but we are in fact investigating it.

The activities of squad teams are scheduled on a daily rotating basis and are chiefly focussed on stations to which there is a large influx of passengers. These teams collect approximately R115 000 per month in the Southern Transvaal region alone. In the case of stations where the squad teams encounter difficulties, the assistance of the SAP is, of course, called in.

The hon member will see that under Head No 49 of the Estimates of Capital Expenditure provision is made for the purchasing of ticketmachines at a total estimated cost of R27 million, and improved tickets would facilitate control. When new lines are constructed, or existing ones are improved, they are designed with a special view to improved control. Numerous Brown book items indicate this.

So I could go on, I think I have given the hon member sufficient proof of the fact that the SATS has its finger right on the pulse as far as all these aspects are concerned.

The hon member for Klip River referred to problems he experienced at the Jan Smuts Airport counter. Those problems arise because we have too little space there. When changes to that airport are brought about, that problem will, of course, be addressed. In the meantime, however, we shall definitely be giving attention to the question of crowding there to see whether we can do something to relieve the situation and to offer more effective services.

The hon member referred to privatisation and specifically asked us not to forget to take the staff along with us in the process. I thank him for his words and give him the assurance that we shall specifically be doing that at all times. We have staff publications such as Esprit de Corps. Umfondiso is another publication which we regularly distribute and in which our staff are informed of various matters. There are video programmes such as Pitkos and Video Indaba and we also speak regularly to the unions about these issues.

Transmed's offices are situated in a very poor quarter owing to the floods that occur from time to time in Ladysmith. We are in the process of negotiating for another building.

The hon member also referred to the empty SATS houses at Ladysmith. We are prepared to sell those houses on public auction or by tender, but the town council notified us that it would probably need the land for road-construction purposes. We have not yet been notified of their final decision in this regard. I also want to thank the hon member for his words of appreciation here.

The hon member for Germiston furnished the SATS with a good testimonial, and I thank him. He advocated the replacement of level crossings by bridges in his area. There is a special committee which is specifically dealing with this aspect and which is looking into the elimination of level crossings throughout the country. Unfortunately we have limited funds; otherwise we would have given attention to this some time ago. Because limited funds are involved, it is also necessary to establish priorities. The committee will also deal with this aspect in the hon member’s case.

The hon member also expressed confidence in the handling of the strike. As the hon member knows, we have already read the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Bill here for the first time. The legislation serves to define the negotiating process, with a specific view to preventing further disputes that cause strikes. The hon member suggested that those who loyally remained at their posts and did the work of those workers who went on strike should be given bonuses. We have, in fact, compensated people who did more than their normal duty. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Welkom advocated that we encourage home-ownership. The hon member supports an idea on which I also take a firm stand. We are doing everything in our power to encourage home-ownership in the SATS. Since the inception of the housing scheme, 110 000 people have been made home-owners.

The hon member referred to Welkom station which, in his opinion, does not accord with the status of Welkom. We have no shortage of facilities in Welkom. The hon member also referred, however, to the untidy grounds which, in his opinion, we could do something about. I am prepared to see whether we cannot tar the surface so as to tidy up the grounds.

The hon member also referred to the SAA and asked whether the airways could not serve Welkom. There is a private service, as the hon member knows. Unfortunately Welkom’s market is not big enough to warrant jet aircraft, but I am in fact prepared to see whether we cannot obtain better co-ordination between the services. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

With reference to the capital supply for 1986-87, the hon member for Middelburg referred to the extensions at the Middelburg station. In the Appropriation for 1986-87 provision has already been made for the reconstruction of that area. This reconstruction has been completed, but as the hon member knows, the work was stopped because of further investigations into new methods for the handling, sorting and transporting of shed goods. Those investigations have not yet been completed. This relates to maize containerisation, a sorting system, etc. That has not yet been completed, but as soon as the investigation has been finalised, a different method will perhaps be adopted, but we shall see how we have to take this matter further.

I should like to thank the hon member for Newton Park sincerely for the words of appreciation and gratitude he expressed here. It does not happen often, and I thank the hon member for it.

Negotiations are in progress between the SATS and the city council of Port Elizabeth into certain very well-situated and valuable land there. I can also inform the hon member that we have just received an offer from the municipality of Port Elizabeth and that we are now considering that offer for both pieces of land.

The hon member asked what had happened to the Burggraaf investigation. As far as that is concerned, I can also inform the hon member that the report of the Burggraaf investigation into the Port Elizabeth harbour that handles tourism will be available round about July. I can also give the hon member the assurance that no precipitate action will be taken to reduce exports to the Port Elizabeth harbour. In any steps taken, proper consideration will be given to Port Elizabeth’s interests. I thank the hon member.

The hon member for Claremont referred to the problem of assaults at the Claremont station in his constituency. The hon member is, of course, worried about that. Nor do I blame him. I can give the hon member the assurance that the regional manager is aware of that. We have also reported recent cases to the police. And we have launched a campaign in the local Press to ask people to report incidents.

The hon member asked us perhaps to put up notices that will encourage people to report assaults. I think that is something we can take a look at. We could perhaps put up such notices in subways, notices in which we asked people to report any crimes. Perhaps we could furnish a telephone number or something of that nature. I can also tell the hon member that the subway has since been very well illuminated.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens made a point concerning the add-on fare from Cape Town to London. The position is that the international rule provides that airfares are determined by the shortest direct distance between cities. That is the international rule according to which we handle these matters. That rule obtains irrespective of the actual route followed by the aircraft. The distance between London and Johannesburg is shorter than between Cape Town and London, and that is why there is a tariff differentiation. The direct flight between London and Johannesburg is, in fact, shorter than between London and Cape Town.

The hon member also referred to block bookings not leaving sufficient room for individual passengers. I can give the hon member the assurance that block bookings are not an automatic process.

This is done with due consideration to the availability of seats, also for the other passengers. The hon member also suggested that, if there were lata rules restricting us, we should privatise our foreign services to London. However, I must explain to him that we must also be very careful to retain a reliable service with the world abroad.

Safety on trains was another aspect that the hon member raised here. I have already to a certain degree replied to that, but I can mention to him that we have also arranged with the SAP for them to travel free of charge on the commuter trains. That certainly has an effect as far as safety on the trains is concerned.

I thank the hon member for his contribution. He made mention of the importance of tourism, and I agree entirely with him.

*The hon member for East London North referred to two Brown book items. The East London harbour project still requires a reasonable degree of physical planning which makes it difficult to expedite matters. It is nevertheless the intention to complete that project in 1989-90. He also referred to the electrification of the Springfontein—East London line. The intention is to have this project put into service in the course of this year. I thank the hon member for his contribution, and I also thank all other hon members for their contributions to the Committee Stage.

Schedule, clauses and title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, we are now approaching the end of the debate on the SATS Budget.

I want to begin by making a single observation. I find it significant that at the moment there are only 48 members of the governing party in this House. This is something that also struck us during the course of this debate. There appears to be a total lack of interest on the part of the Government in this particular department. [Interjections]

This is a suitable moment to refer to a few important matters that we again want to convey to the hon the Minister.

I am referring to proposals which were made on 5 June last year by the hon member for Soutpansberg and which were reported in Hansard, col 866. The hon member proposed that a firm of private consultants be appointed to determine the needs of clients of the SATS in order to ensure that the SATS was run along business lines. The hon member also proposed —I am referring hon members to the same edition of Hansard, col 868—that a fluctuation in tariffs be considered and that out-of-season discounts be given for passenger journeys.

The hon the Minister has repeatedly stated that the goal of the SATS is to manage different aspects of the SATS as enterprises, and I want to support these proposals of the hon member for Soutpansberg and bring them to the attention of the hon the Minister once again.

This is also a suitable point at which to dwell on several observations made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs in this debate. I see that unfortunately he is not here today either. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister attacked certain private firms which, according to him, made a 300% profit from one financial year to the next. He appealed to such firms to cooperate with the Government’s anti-inflation programme. It was a significant observation. We are saying that with that observation he probably pointed out one of the major dangers inherent in the privatisation of essential services such as the SATS. In our opinion the Government, through the statements of the hon the State President and others, regards privatisation too much as merely a means of obtaining capital with which to pay off public debt. In this way the responsibility for the administration of privatised business undertakings is being shifted to the private sector. As the hon the State President stated, as far as the Government is concerned, the aim is to convert services such as the SATS into profit-making enterprises that can pay tax. This premise suits the Government in that it enables them to get rid of the responsibility of administering the services profitably and at the same time to obtain the proverbial pound of flesh by way of taxation.

The question we are asking is what is going to happen to the person who makes use of these services. The hon the Deputy Minister spoke about profits of up to 300% in the private sector. How is the Government going to prevent excessive tariff increases if the SATS is privatised? If it will then be necessary for the Government to intervene at a later stage, by means of regulation, why must privatisation take place in the first place? If the advantage of cross-subsidisation, which the Government is employing at the moment, falls away with the proposed subdivision and privatisation of the SATS, what is the Government going to do to help maintain essential services, if such a regulated private enterprise can no longer stand on its own feet?

It is not good enough to argue that the CP government will simply have to solve the problem after it has come to power. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister said that the SATS was not in a position to provide employment on a large scale, but that the private sector was. By way of an example he mentioned the taxis. In the first instance there is no comparison whatsoever between the taxis and the railways in this regard. In fact, it is partly as a result of the increase in taxis that certain train services are suffering losses. The increase in the provision of employment in the taxi business is resulting in the danger that employees in the diminishing train services will become redundant.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that a salary increase was impossible this year because it would result in a tariff increase. With that he repeated the hon the Minister’s argument, which was also apparent from a report in a recent edition of Rapport to which I have already referred during this debate. We are saying that it is tragic that there is such a complete lack of initiative on the part of the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, when it comes to ensuring that the SATS themselves are able to finance salary increases by means of improved management.

The hon the Deputy Minister also said that the NP had received a mandate to fight inflation in the election last year. That reminds one of the remarks made by other NP speakers about receiving a mandate to maintain security in that election. We continue to find it shocking that the Government maintains that it needs a special mandate from the voters before it can fight inflation and maintain security. [Interjections.] No wonder the voters no longer have confidence in the NP.

The hon the Minister expressed his disappointment about the fact that the CP and the PFP were not appealing to the private sector to co-operate in the fight against inflation. The CP’s point of view about everyone in South Africa contributing towards curbing inflation is only too well known. However, we are now concerned with the Transport Services Appropriation Bill in which the Government’s control of the SATS is under scrutiny.

The hon the Minister also complained that we were not giving the Government enough credit for the steps it had announced to try to curb inflation. If we thought the Government deserved to be congratulated we would have said so. However, we are of the opinion that the Government itself, as a result of its political ineptitude and irresponsibility towards the financing of the country, should carry a large part of the blame for our financial problems. We were not just making empty accusations, but also presented practical examples. We also want to warn the Government that we are going to watch it like a hawk in the days and months ahead. We are going to see whether it can tackle the problems pinpointed in a responsible way.

The hon the Minister alleged that we had not yet read the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation or that we did not understand it, because we asked certain questions about privatisation and expressed specific points of criticism. In reality the problem is that the hon the Minister did not give sufficient details of specific proposed privatisation projects in advance. We indicated that the proposed privatisation of Alusaf was, inter alia, taking place by extremely secretive means. When I asked for details, on the standing committee, about the total length of branch lines that were being considered for privatisation and wanted to know what the total estimated value was, I was not given the details. I still do not have them. This time I am asking the hon the Minister for them.

No, you said we were now discussing the SATS.

I thought railway lines were a part of the SATS. It seems that this hon Minister does not think so.

That train is off the rails.

We also want to know which specific branch lines are involved in the investigation into privatisation at this stage. I read in Die Burger of 24 February 1988, for example, that a group of businessmen in Cape Town were interested in buying the railway line between Knysna and George. According to this article, that section is not being run economically at present. According to the article, a spokesman for the businessmen said that privately the line could be run very economically, as thousands of holiday-makers undertook journeys on this train every year. That is a disturbing remark.

At this stage we again want to ask how it is possible that the private sector continues to see this line as a profitable enterprise while the SATS are saying that they are unable to run it economically. With regard to lines such as the one I have just mentioned and the services involved, we want to know, for example, with regard to the question of privatisation, whether the privatisation of the line concerned is, in fact, being considered. Why cannot the SATS themselves run it economically? What services are normally provided by the line, and are any of them services which are essential to the surrounding community? What are the full price implications of privatisation for the client? Are the potential contractors and the private sector going to be given an equal chance to obtain an interest in the service from the Government? How is the proposed privatisation going to be advertised and implemented? Is the service and/or the line going to be sold, operated in partnership or leased? Are certain aspects going to be privatised by being given out on contract? Are certain services going to be stopped completely and, if so, which ones? What is going to take their place and when is it going to happen? How is the Government going to protect the employees? These are aspects on which we require information to enable us to have a meaningful discussion of privatisation with the Government.

The White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation merely contains a number of guidelines that the Government proposed and discussed with specific representatives of the private sector. It is the Government’s view of privatisation, and regardless of whether the opposition agrees with it or not, the Government itself must accept responsibility for it.

If specific cases crop up, we shall consider them critically in the light of available information, and then we shall form an opinion about them and convey it to the Government.

I asked the Government to furnish us with details. To facilitate a meaningful debate, we also need details about other aspects. In this regard I am thinking of the De Villiers report, if such a thing really exists. It appears that the Government decided to place the entire public sector in the hands of Dr De Villiers for privatisation and deregulation, without informing Parliament of its basic plan for this process.

The same uncertainty prevails over the White Paper on the National Transport Policy. I assume that the hon member for Primrose spoke on behalf of the Government last year when he requested a debate on this matter. The CP supported the idea of a full debate. Is it going to take place, Sir? If it is, when, and if not, why not?

Another aspect: The hon the Minister has not yet indicated what his eventual aim is with regard to the abolition of separate amenities on railway stations. In this regard I am again referring briefly to another part of the speech made by the hon the Minister on 9 June last year in the House of Representatives. I quote (Hansard: House of Representatives, 1987, col 660):

After a few interjections, the hon the Minister proceeded:

Sir, we now want to ask the hon the Minister a few questions in this regard. He now has the opportunity, in this debate, to state what the Government’s present policy is and where he stands with regard to the 1985 policy which was spelt out by the then Minister of Transport Affairs. Did the hon the Minister change this policy single-handedly, or was it a Cabinet decision? When was this decision taken, and why were the Whites of South Africa not publicly informed of this change? We also want to give the hon the Minister an opportunity in this House to state where he stands with regard to the practice of the application of this policy of the NP. We want to know what the eventual point is, at this stage, which the NP wants to reach with regard to this matter.

In the past we have come across the NP’s equivocation—speaking as liberals in an area with a liberal electorate, but speaking in different terms elsewhere. Here one can refer to the past election campaign of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, during which he spoke very much as a liberal in the Helderberg constituency, but remained silent on issues of this nature in the Transvaal. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is difficult for me to speak after the hon member for Roodepoort, because he started his speech by saying that there were only 48 NP members in the House. We counted; there were 51. As far as that hon member is concerned, 23 is the same as 123. [Interjections.] For the fourth time that hon member had … [Interjections.] I did not interrupt that hon member when he was speaking; he must just give me an opportunity to make my speech as well.

Oh, are you speaking now! We didn’t even notice!

That hon member rose for the fourth time to make a contribution, and for the fourth time he has failed.

He made no contribution!

Mr Chairman, I should like to get on with what I want to say. Firstly, at this late stage of the debate I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon Minister very sincerely and to thank him for a very positive budget.

However, I would also be shirking my duty if I did not, on this occasion, also refer to a very serious accident which occurred in my constituency in December. I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to Mr Johan Uys—the Regional Manager of the Free State—and his senior personnel for the tremendous effort they made on the occasion of that accident.

Not only were they on the scene within a few hours after the accident, but Mr Uys himself went personally to visit each of the families who had lost a family member in the accident. By nine o’clock the same evening there was a cheque for leave not taken in each of those widows’ hands, as well as a cheque to cover the funeral costs of those killed in the accident.

Moreover, Sir, Mr Uys and his senior personnel were on the scene of the accident for three days, night and day, to ensure that that section was re-opened as soon as possible. I should like to thank Mr Johan Uys and his team very sincerely for the wonderful work they did there.

This budget has already been discussed very thoroughly in this House, and hon members referred to the various aspects which they considered to be important. Hon members of the opposition party were, as usual, merely negative, and did not make any contribution. Nor could they succeed in pointing out any weak spots in the budget. Their main contributions concerned so-called pilfering and, inter alia, the cover of the Flying Springbok. Nonetheless, I want to tell those hon members they must not think that they themselves are so invulnerable. Once they start waving photographs around in this House, all I can say is that I have a photograph in which one of their chief leaders is embracing two Blacks. I shall not, however, sink to that same low level by making use of propaganda methods of that kind in order to score a few political points.

How could those Black people endure it?

On the other hand, Sir, there were good, positive contributions from members on this side of the House. Thus it was possible to do justice to this very good budget, especially when seen against the background of the times in which we are living, and in view of the appeal the hon the State President made to each one of us to make a positive contribution in combating inflation and in restoring our economy.

Perhaps the hon member for Primrose, who is also the Chairman of the Standing Committee, and in addition a very well-known expert in the field of transport economy, put it most succinctly by referring to the budget speech as the watershed in our transport history. I should very much like to associate myself with the hon member for Primrose by acknowledging the implications, the challenges and the example embodied in the hon the Minister’s budget speech and the budget itself, firstly as regards the people of the country, and also as regards the SATS and its workers, as well as the business community.

I hope hon members on the opposition side will also be able to understand when we indicate what advantages are contained in this budget for all of us. We are thankful that since the second half of last year very positive signs of an upswing in the South African economy have been discernible and that this phase will not only continue in the present financial year, but will also improve.

There is, however, an inhibiting factor which has to be subjected to very close and serious scrutiny. I am referring to the high internal inflation rate. The hon the State President therefore decided, quite rightly, that Government expenditure and tariffs should be kept in check. You will agree with me, Sir, that we can congratulate the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs on having taken the lead with an anti-inflationary budget and thank you for having done so. The fact that no tariff or salary increases have been announced, is truly a courageous step, which can serve as an example to the other departments and entrepreneurs, in the private sector as well. I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Communications on the budget be presented yesterday, in which he did not announce any increases either.

The private sector should nonetheless realise that it is also part of the national economy; that it is also part of the economy of this country, and therefore has an important role to play in the recovery of the economy as well as in combating inflation. It must realise it is not only the responsibility of the State, but also of every entrepreneur and every individual in this country.

Were trade and industry not to approach price increases in a responsible way, they would put pressure on the cost of living of consumers and on the cost of living of SATS workers, and therefore to compensate for this they would quite rightly be able to claim an increase in salary, salary increases which the SATS could only afford by raising tariffs.

I know the hon member for Roodepoort said that resources would have to be found. He said, furthermore, that the Government did not have the initiative to grant salary increases without increasing tariffs, and that is where he stops, instead of spelling out to us exactly what has to be done.

Another field in which the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs took the lead, and to which various hon members on this side of the House referred, was privatisation. Unfortunately hon members of the opposition do not seem to understand the concept of privatisation at all, referring continually to the auctioning off of State property. The hon member has just referred to it again as a method of acquiring capital in order to pay debts.

That is what the hon the State President said.

Perhaps they should take another look at the preamble to the Constitution in which reference is clearly made to this and in which, in fact, the following is stated: “To further private initiative and effective competition.” That is stated very clearly in the preamble to the Constitution.

As I have already said, the SATS also took the lead in the field of privatisation, not only by privatising the Harding branch line—the CP did not adopt a standpoint opposing it on the Standing Committee—but also by instructing Dr Wim de Villiers, quite some while ago, to investigate the financial and organisational structures of the SATS with specific emphasis on it’s privatisation.

This attests to vision, and a few days after the opening address of the hon the State President, the hon the Minister referred fully and authoritatively to privatisation.

Privatisation in the SATS embodies tremendous opportunities and challenges for the businessmen of South Africa when it comes to involvement in strategic services as well, and hon members of the CP who do not understand that, would do well to go and read in Hansard the speech the hon member for Umhlatuzana made during the Second Reading debate. In a very good speech the hon member quite rightly said that privatisation generated wealth.

One of the services which has been described by the SATS as an essential service, and which is responsible for large deficits, is commuter services. This year a further deficit of R53 million is being budgeted for. I trust that the hon the Minister of Finance will find the necessary funds so that the SATS will be able to run the commuter services for the account of the State, or for the regional services councils. This will be a tremendous shot in the arm for the SATS’s privatisation initiatives.

The economic and privatisation facets of the budget speech are not the only ones of importance to South Africa. The implications of the Conditions of Service Bill for the South African Transport Services, a matter to which the hon the Minister referred and which will soon be debated in this House, once again contain important ones as far as South Africa is concerned. Hon members know that the SATS traditionally enjoys peaceful labour conditions. Last year, however, the autumn strike occurred, and I do not have to refresh the House’s memory as to the loss of life and the disruption that it caused.

Transport is a very important part of the infrastructure which the economy cannot do without, and as such the unimpaired provision of transport is of cardinal importance. The Bill to which I have just referred, is specifically aimed at prohibiting the disruption of the satisfactory daily conveyance of people and goods. The hon the Minister and the management of the SATS deserve praise for the fact that within the period of one year after the autumn strikes they have already made preparation to prevent similar strikes from happening in future.

There was a further very clear conclusion to be drawn from the hon the Minister’s budget speech, and that was that it was a paving of the way to deregulation and, as I have already said, privatisation. Since June 1987, the SATS has been engaged in bringing about a separation of its business units and in equipping itself to meet the most important criterion for a successful business enterprise, namely a return on investment.

In a deregulated transport market, all reciprocal benefits between the State and the SATS will be lifted and the SATS will have to pay tax like any other company. Its financial system will therefore be exemplary and correct, and in accordance with private sector norms, and accusations of unfair favouritism will no longer be possible.

This policy will stimulate financial responsibility within the SATS, and all conduct will be directed towards profit and returns on investments. With these unqualified business principles, it will be possible to manage the SATS as a profit-making economic unit, and therefore I also want to direct a warning to the transport sector today. They must beware of steel wheels running on a steel track; they will find out that it is the cheapest form of transport and that the SATS is a force which will have to be reckoned with.

I do, however, want to endorse the appeal made by my colleague, the hon member for Primrose, that deregulation must first take place, and then privatisation. Furthermore, I believe the prerequisites for deregulation, as noted in the study, must be followed before further deregulation takes place. Partial deregulation already exists because of the introduction of exempted areas within a radius of 300 kilometres around cities, while disparities in terms of competition have not yet been completely removed.

Most of the merchants and manufacturers have, by this time, drawn up their 1988-89 budgets according to which they determine their price policy. I also believe that they have incorporated, into their cost structure, an amount which is at least equal to that of the inflation rate, in expectation of increased transport and post office tariffs. They now therefore have an ideal opportunity, after these two budgets, for scaling down their prices again.

Similarly the hon the Minister set a guideline for the private sector in terms of salary increases. I hope they will also follow that. I do, however, believe that there are semantic differences in this regard, and the business sector will have to realise that their decision not to grant any salary increases also implies that annual salary adjustments in line with the inflation rate will not be possible.

Privatisation is accompanied by a climate of optimism, which in turn will stimulate the growth phase of the trade cycle. The participants in privatisation are therefore not the only ones who win. Every businessman benefits indirectly from privatisation initiatives.

I should like to discuss the SATS workers for a moment. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it does not surprise me at all that the hon member for Bethlehem was full of praises for hon members on his side of the Committee and said that nothing positive had come from this side. Debates of this nature tend, as far as the NP is concerned, to be paeans of praise for both the Budget and the hon the Minister, and when one dares to submit any criticism, one is often slapped down.

In his reply to the Committee Stage debate yesterday, the hon the Minister accused me of asking too many questions and suggested that I should submit my queries to him in writing. I regret to have to tell him that this is simply not acceptable. I shall continue to put questions because I was elected to Parliament for exactly that purpose. [Interjections.] It is my duty to raise matters of public concern, and it is the hon the Minister’s duty to reply. That is the essence of Parliament and the real reason why we are all sitting here.

I realise that time limitations have reached the stage where adequate debate is being strangled and Ministers’ replies are getting less and less satisfactory, but I will continue to put questions and hope for replies, although I regret to say that one is frequently disappointed because replies are either not forthcoming at all or are totally inadequate.

I want to return to matters I raised a little earlier in the debate, and I refer to the hon the Minister’s comments on the whole question of the tariffs payable by coal exporters on the Richards Bay line.

I shall content myself merely by saying that I cannot accept that the whole matter has been settled. A compromise has been arrived at, yes, but the coal exporters were faced with a situation where the SATS more or less said to them: “Either we kill you completely or we will cut off your legs; take your pick.” Both alternatives are very unpleasant, but who can blame the coal exporters for saying that they would rather be partially crippled than totally dead?

I can only warn that difficult marketing conditions could arise where even the compromise that has been arrived at, will not suit the situation. In that event I hope that the hon the Minister will react with some realism rather than dogmatic rigidity.

I want to come back now to the question I posed yesterday on airway safety. The hon the Minister commented that SAA complies in every way with all the safety regulations as laid down by international standards, the Federation of Airline Aviation of the United States of America and the Department of Civil Aviation. I accept this totally but that did not answer the questions I asked. I am now going to be more specific in putting these questions and I will confine myself to only the most important of them.

In view of the costly search for the so-called black boxes, are batteries tested regularly and does any possibility exist that aircraft could have taken off without these batteries being charged or tested for, say, a period of two months?

Secondly, what is the availability of crew members who can speak foreign languages sufficiently well to deal with an emergency situation where there are many passengers who do not speak English or Afrikaans? Does SAA have crew members who can speak Mandarin Chinese and Japanese on routes to the Far East, for example?

Finally, and most important of all, do crew members have access to the hold during long distance flights and is smoking allowed there?

I believe it is in the public interest for the hon the Minister to reply to these three questions and, should the answers reveal an unsatisfactory situation, I would like to know what action is contemplated for the future.

I want to raise another matter of considerable importance. I refer to an article published in the Financial Mail dated 26 February 1988. This article is headed “The Secret Service” and I would like to quote from it, as follows:

I ask the hon the Minister just how much truth is there in this accusation? The article claims that a SATS spokesman has confirmed the existence of more than 300 so-called secret contracts which are below published rates. The article quotes the spokesman as saying:

Now, Sir, I think that we should all agree that the SATS is a business and should be run along business lines. In addition, I think we would agree that a certain latitude, when necessary, should be allowed in special situations. If, on the other hand, this is being done on a vast scale, and the Financial Mail is correct when it says that many contracts are fixed for up to three and a half years, why do we go through the farce of agreeing or disagreeing with tariff adjustments which are submitted by the hon the Minister to Parliament each year? Why do we bother? It seems that these tariff adjustments are meaningless and that the SATS goes along in its own sweet way.

We in all seriousness sit in Parliament and discuss tariffs being raised or not raised when in hundreds of cases the SATS just charge what they feel like charging. The issue is not whether or not the demands of running a business necessitate such actions by the SATS management. The issue is whether or not we are wasting our time and deluding the public by discussing these tariffs in Parliament.

Details of one contract which the Financial Mail apparently has had sight of show a special rate of R52,60 a ton faa for a period from 1 June 1987 right through to 31 May 1990. There seem to be no escalation clauses written in and that there are no volumetric conditions. The contract allows the company to freight any goods by rail for the sum mentioned, including, “such things as motor kits”, for which the published tariff is R212 per ton. That means that the special price is about a quarter of that figure.

The Financial Mail quotes a freight forwarder of many years experience as saying: “Such a contract is virtually a license to print money just for filling in a form in triplicate.” This means a company could offer heavily cut rates and make an enormous profit—and again I quote: “So SATS is losing a fortune.” This gentlemen estimates that at a rate of R52,60 per ton for a three year period, a company could make a profit of at least R3 million and that the SATS would lose at least treble that.

I would add that in this instance it seems that the agreement was signed by the SATS Regional Manager in Durban. Many other contracts have also been signed by regional managers and it is claimed that this contravenes section 8(2) of the South African Transport Services Act.

This article appears to me to be authoritative. I must ask the hon the Minister what exactly is going on. Is there truth in the story? If there is, the ramifications are enormous. I do not think it is necessary to say how much this sort of thing is open to abuse and corruption. This is clearly the case. It goes far beyond that, however. If the Railways were a private enterprise operation they could charge what they like. In the final analysis, however, the bottom line—the line between profit and loss—marks the success or otherwise of marketing policies in the light of competition from other modes of transport. This is not so in the case of the SATS. If losses are incurred, the public is always there to make up the shortfall. Also, it is very important that a public utility company controlled by the State treats all its customers equally and fairly. It is totally wrong to give special treatment to selected customers or to special pals.

The whole situation is ridiculous and I must ask the hon the Minister to throw some light onto what is going on because I think these affairs should be the subject of an inquiry. I look forward to hearing the answers from the hon the Minister.

I have one final question that I would like to ask the hon the Minister. I am going back to coal transport. Taking Broodsnyersplaas as a base, how much does it cost to rail a ton of coal to Richards Bay, and how much does it cost to rail a ton of coal to Cape Town from the same station?

I think a comparison of the answer will be very interesting indeed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston put more technical questions to the hon the Minister regarding the tariffs for coal exporters, the security measures—I assume he was referring to the Helderberg accident—as well as the secret tariffs. I am afraid I cannot give him replies to these questions and the hon the Minister will have to do so.

We have reached the end of the discussion on the Budget of the SATS. From the discussion it became apparent that this year’s Budget was a practicable and good one. There were no alternatives, forthcoming from the ranks of the opposition, which could have put the SATS in a better financial position.

A big challenge awaits the hon the Minister, his management team and his staff in the coming year in facing the challenge of the future and functioning within the limitations of the Budget.

Reference has been made to the fact that this year’s Budget is a new dispensation, a kind of watershed budget. This is true.

A new era awaits the SATS in the future as a consequence of the De Villiers report. The De Villiers investigation found that the SATS could be run as a profitable economic unit, in the deregulated transport market, by means of the application of sound business principles, which could go hand in hand with lower tariff increases than in the present dispensation. The recommendations provide that the SATS must be run according to business principles. These principles have been accepted and have, as far as possible, already been implemented. At the moment, for example, there are five business undertakings, namely the railways, airlines, harbours, roads and pipelines. A responsibility rests on these undertakings to make their services profitable in the coming years. If these five business undertakings can be run on a profitable basis it can be determined whether they are candidates for privatisation and to what extent they may possibly be privatised in future.

There is, and remains, one big problem for the SATS, namely its intercity passenger services and the commuter services between towns. This is not a trend which only exists in South Africa, but one which occurs throughout the World. It is the duty of the SATS to take steps to keep an eye on this trend and make timely adjustments so that greater losses will not be suffered. In the past, intercity services have been reduced by up to 42%, and commuter services have also been curtailed. It is important for the SATS to keep a close eye on this market and to take the necessary timely steps to restrict its losses.

One highlight in respect of the passenger services was the improvement in occupancy and costcoverage in respect of the Blue Train. We hope that the hon the Minister and his management will never allow the quality of the Blue Train’s service to deteriorate, but that it will always be maintained. On the international tourist market there is no other train which can compare with the Blue Train.

There is also a challenge awaiting the SAA. According to Satour’s figures for the past few months there has been a wonderful increase, particularly in the number of overseas tourists. This is, of course, owing to the fact that at present South Africa is not featuring on overseas television services and in the Press which has, during the past few years, made a fuss about the unrest here. In addition the SAA is prohibited from flying directly to the USA and Australia. In any case, the SAA planned early so that it could provide overseas travellers with the necessary service. In spite of this, owing to high productivity and careful planning, the SAA was able to show a profit of R108,6 million this year. The SAA is known throughout the world for its excellent overseas service. Only by means of unfailing service, and by adjusting to all kinds of circumstances, will the SAA be a sought-after airline on overseas markets.

Any organisation can only provide as good a service as its staff is geared to supply. Whereas in the past the SAA was merely known as a provider of employment—we are grateful for the role it played in the past—times have now changed, and the SATS is ensuring that its staff is trained in modern transport systems. Another example of an essential change in order to adjust to circumstances, is the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Bill, 1988, which has already been considered by the standing committee.

This Bill follows an investigation by the Wiehahn Commission into the SATS body negotiating …

Order!

Hon members must lower their voices. There is too much noise in the House. The hon member may proceed.

If the speaker would only talk more clearly!

If that hon member would stop sitting on his ears he might understand what I am saying.

Order!

This Bill followed that investigation by the Wiehahn Commission into the SATS body negotiating salaries and conditions of service. If the Bill is passed by Parliament, provision will be made for a new labour dispensation for the SATS through the establishment of a labour board.

The staff of the SATS covers of a wide spectrum, and more than half are people of colour. Through this Bill an attempt is being made to make the possibility of reconciliation and arbitration more meaningful.

The SATS has also been hard hit by floods during the past year, first in Natal and now in the Free State and the Northern Cape. It will cost the SATS millions of rand to repair this damage. Manpower and apparatus have also been taken out of the normal run of business.

We hope that this year will be a successful one for the SATS and that it will be ready for the economic revival which is predicted. We should like to wish the hon the Minister, the management and the staff of the SATS everything of the best for the new year.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I would like to apologise to the hon member for Alberton for not following upon his line of thought, as I have very limited time.

I want to thank the hon member for Bryanston for giving me some of his valuable time in this debate in order to raise a question as a result of an answer I received yesterday. That question was related to the losses in regard to commuter services in the four metropolitan areas of South Africa. These commuter services made enormous losses—hon members know that—but it is interesting to note where these losses took place. In the first place, in the Johannesburg/Pretoria area commuter services lost R374 million. In the Cape Town Peninsula area they lost R167 million. In the Durban/Pinetown area they lost R138 million. In the fourth metropolitan area—the one which I am fortunate enough to represent—the loss was R9 million. This brings two things to mind. The first is, of course, that there is no commuter service operated by the SATS worth talking about in the Port Elizabeth area. I think that with the establishment of the new township of Motherwell the opportunities exist for a far more effective and efficient commuter service from that area into the central parts of Port Elizabeth. The line virtually goes straight past that new township.

The second thing that it brings to mind is that the taxpayer in Port Elizabeth has actually to pay for the losses in the other regional areas. This is what it boils down to. The enormous losses made in the other metropolitan areas have to be shared, in the amount that the Government gives to the SATS by the taxpayers of this country. From the funds that we in Port Elizabeth pay to the Treasury only R9 million is spent on commuter services. I think the sooner the regions themselves are responsible for the losses on their commuter services in their own areas, the sooner we will have a more equitable situation.

I want to ask two quick questions while I am on my feet. I hear that a wall is being built around Port Elizabeth harbour. I do not know whether this is true or not, but I would like to know whether it is. If we are going to turn this area into some kind of recreational facility for Port Elizabeth and develop the harbour along private enterprise lines, then I cannot believe that a wall around it will be an advantage.

Finally, another question I want to raise with the hon the Minister, is the over-flights of SAA in Port Elizabeth. Once again, last year Port Elizabeth’s overflights amounted to more than the rest of them put together with 56 overflights of SAA in the Port Elizabeth area. We know that a new instrument landing system is being or has been provided. I believe it is meant to be operative. That is my question, because only last week a number of flights again overflew Port Elizabeth for a considerable number of hours. I want to know if the instrument landing system is operating, if it is operating effectively and, if not, why not.

Mr Chairman, at this late stage of the debate I should like to discuss a matter which has not yet been raised by hon members and which thus far has not received the attention of the hon the Minister either.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will pardon me for not following his speech due to the lack of time.

*When I am going to fly and have fastened my seatbelt, I always say a quick prayer for the cabin crew responsible for getting their passengers safely to their destination.

Today I should like to give attention to the training of this profession and the controversy surrounding this prestigious group, our pilots. In the first place I want to say that the SAA has the most modern training facilities in the world available for its pilots. This is proved by the fact that overseas airlines are still making use of some of our facilities at their own request.

I have here in my hand very interesting data in connection with this group of people, data which I should like to quote to the House. For every type of aircraft operated by the SAA, there is a flight simulator equipped with the most modern visibility and maneuverability system. These simulators are an exact replica of a cockpit in a real aircraft, and therefore allow the SAA to simulate any emergency situation and provide training in this regard. Airport information is also conveyed by means of the geographic lay-out of a simulated airport.

With this information as background, I should also like to outline to the hon members the employment procedure and also the high-quality training of pilots in the SAA.

In the first place an applicant must have a thousand flying hours with a commercial license and instrument grading before he comes into consideration for selection. Then successful candidates attend technical and other applicable training courses before they are placed on SAA’s international flights as third pilots. After approximately one year as third pilot, and after a further change-over course, these candidates are included in the SAA’s Boeing 737 pool as first officers. As the pilots progress and are transferred from one type of aircraft to another, for example from a Boeing 737 to an Airbus, they again attend a complete technical course, and a period of 55 hours is spent in the simulator, after which physical in-flight training takes place under the supervision of an instructor.

After this period of training a pilot is placed on the service roster, but for a time he still flies under the watchful eye of a control captain.

The SAA, in co-operation with private airlines in the RSA and the Commercial Aviation Association of Southern Africa, is at present also in the process of planning to establish a joint organisation which will be responsible for the selection and training of pilots, with the exclusive purpose of providing professional services for the various airlines in South Africa. This training scheme which is being planned, will also be of direct benefit to the SAA, because it can be seen as a source of supply which it will also make a tremendous contribution towards meeting the aviation needs of the RSA.

I should also like to tell hon members about the SAA's policy with regard to the flying hours and rest-periods of pilots.

The period of flight-service—ground duties as well as undertaking a flight—are determined scientifically, and differ depending on the number of sectors being flown, when the pilot reports for duty and how many crew members are on board. A crew consisting, for example, of two pilots and one flight engineer, which has to fly four sectors and in which each person must perform eight hours of flight-service, must report for duty between 10 o'clock in the evening and 6 o’clock in the morning, whereas the same crew’s service period totals 13 hours if they report for duty between 8 o’clock in the morning and 3 o’clock in the afternoon. In the first case the fatigue factor is higher, because they are flying at night. Service hours are also lengthened to a maximum of 18 hours in the case of four pilots and two flight technicians being on board and a flight being undertaken during the day.

The rest period in the case of a typical domestic flight is 12 hours, but is increased to 16 hours if the rest time does not include a full night. On long international flights the rest period is equal to double the total flying time, plus one hour for every 15 degrees longitude crossed in this and the previous flight.

Today the SAA has only 496 highly trained pilots, who are annually responsible for 31 045 flights. This represents 97 283 take-offs and landings. I am quoting these statistics to indicate to what extent the SAA dedicates itself to continuous training in order to ensure the safety of its passengers.

However, I also want to dwell for a moment on the much-discussed problems surrounding this profession. Recently the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs informed the Pilots’ Association that a committee was to be appointed to investigate the salary structures and working conditions of this group of people. I am therefore happy to be able to report that the discussion between the management of the SAA and the Pilots’ Association started as early 19 February, that there were discussions yesterday and that there will be further discussions tomorrow.

It is possible—note I am saying that it is possible—that in the process of privatisation, consideration may be given to privatising the pilots’ profession, and that the SAA will then have to hire a pilot or an entire cabin crew for every flight on the basis of a contract. I do not know how the pilots will feel about this, but I am of the opinion—I am now speaking as a passenger—that we should rather keep this prestige group under the control and the auspices of the SAA. I am thinking of the unimpeachable loyalty expected of these people, and the great responsibility involved in handling our expensive aircraft and valuable freight safely.

I was glad to hear about the discussions with the Pilots’ Association, but my request to the hon the Minister is to negotiate the very best conditions of service for them, in the process, so that they will not even consider offers from other airlines. The quality of these people must be of the very best, because they are really a very important group to us. I do not think that these people are candidates for a trade union in the ordinary sense of the word, but they deserve to have a strong staff association, even though their numbers are small. Such an association can, as is the case at present, negotiate what is best for them, and I have no doubt that the hon the Minister and the management will, within their capabilities, have a sympathetic ear for our pilots.

Let us keep these people under the control and safely within the family of the Transport Services.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few specific remarks with reference to the speeches of hon members, and then perhaps close my speech with a few general remarks.

The hon member for Roodepoort linked up with the hon member for Soutpansberg and asked that we investigate the needs of consumers in order to determine where our best market was and how that market could best be utilised. He also referred to out-of-season discounts. I want to point out to the hon member that in the SATS we have marketing experts at our disposal—great expertise as far as I am concerned. Nor do we hesitate to make use of experts from the private sector for this purpose. We do this specifically in this regard. The relevant information he wants researched is therefore within our grasp and at our disposal. That is why the SATS is faring so well. It is because we make use of modem methods.

Of course I know it is the function of the hon member to criticise. I know he considers it his function to criticise. However, in his heart of hearts he knows that our results are good.

The hon member for Roodepoort also referred again to privatisation as a means of obtaining capital. The hon member should go and read what the hon the State President said. In his speech he said that one should not privatise simply for the sake of privatising; one must have a specific objective in mind. That objective was also spelt out in the White Paper. Although these are guidelines which cannot ever deal specifically with every possible aspect which can be privatised, in reading that White Paper one can form an opinion on what the Government envisages. I can also give the hon member the assurance that when something is privatised, and when any particular matter receives attention, the public will always be fully informed before we take the final steps.

The hon member has now asked that particulars be given in this regard. I want to refer him again to what I said in my Budget speech in connection with privatisation. I think the hon member, and other hon members, are making the mistake of coming to the conclusion that we are suddenly going to auction off State assets. I have expressly said—the hon member should please remember this—that after the restructuring of the SATS the respective undertakings will be subjected to the criteria which have been laid down in the White Paper on privatisation in order to determine whether privatisation is feasible. This does not mean to say that privatisation will be feasible in all cases.

When that hon member therefore becomes impatient about finding out how, where and when there is going to be privatisation, let me ask him to read what I said in my Budget speech. Of course these are not matters which one undertakes precipitately. Nor does the Government have any reason whatsoever to want to do so.

The hon member then went on to refer to the Harding branch-line again and asked about other branch-lines. He then put quite any number of questions concerning this aspect.

I want to inform the hon member that consideration is not being given to privatising other branch-lines at the moment. When this is at issue the public will again be informed about it.

The hon member referred to the De Villiers report. I also said in my Budget speech that this report would be tabled as soon as we had addressed the control structure. It will then be available for hon members to study and consider.

As regards the White Paper on Transport, to which the hon member referred, we can discuss it properly in due course during the debate on my Transport Vote. I think this will also be a good topic to discuss then, and I also invite the hon member to take that opportunity to do so.

In conclusion the hon member referred to separate facilities at stations. If I remember correctly I said in this Chamber that the entire matter of discrimination was monitored from time to time and adjustments made accordingly. It is the policy of the Government to eliminate humiliating discrimination based solely on colour. In the world in which we live there is no place for humiliating discrimination based on colour.

Having told the hon member this, I want to add that all these things can only be done if stability, standards and order are maintained. This is the way in which the SATS does these things and gives attention to these aspects, and that is why there is order in the SATS, as the hon member said here.

The hon member for Bethlehem made an excellent contribution. He made a well-balanced speech in which he referred to all the key points in connection with transport and this Budget. In the first place he referred to that serious accident in his constituency. He thanked the regional manager and his staff for their actions and their humane attitude, and I will gladly convey these words of thanks and appreciation to those staff members.

The hon member referred to inflation, and I shall link up with him on that score in a moment. He referred to the financial problems we have with commuter services. It is a fact that we cannot even think of privatisation until we have properly tackled those financial aspects, as I did in my Budget speech, and tried to ascertain how we intend addressing them. This will have to receive priority.

As the hon member said, the SATS is indeed one of the important elements, or perhaps the most important element in the economic substructure of a country, and that is why it is important—I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member—for the manpower of the SATS to rest on a stable foundation. That is why we give a great deal of attention to this, and with the legislation which will hopefully appear on the Statute Book soon, we shall give further attention to it.

I want to agree with the hon member that the SATS is an undertaking which will have to be taken very thoroughly into account in the future. This does not mean we want to prejudice other business undertakings, but along with all other business undertakings of this kind, we are at the service of South Africa, and together we must develop the economy of this country. I again thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Bryanston said it was his duty to ask questions. I grant him that. If he asks meaningful questions, he can go ahead and ask a great many questions. As regards our argument of yesterday, however, I intimated that he was actually prejudicing the persons he professed to benefit by means of his questions. The hon member knew that.

The hon member accepts the arrangement with regard to the tariffs for coal. Did the hon member only get to hear about this after I had spoken to him, or did he know about it? The hon member is not answering me now. I would be the last person to tell the hon member that this is a final solution. Of course we know it is not a final solution; it is an on-going process. The coal producers are highly valued clients of the SATS. We also view them as such. Of course we will look with the utmost sympathy and sensitivity at everything we can do in this connection. I think that message has got through to the producers.

†The hon member referred to safety matters again. He referred to the so-called black box batteries and asked whether they are checked and charged regularly. The reply is that the batteries are of a non-chargeable kind and are replaced regularly on a predetermined schedule.

The hon member also asked whether crew members have access to the upper deck cargo compartment. The answer is that they do but that they cannot spend their free time there because crew rest areas are provided for that purpose. They are also only allowed to smoke in the smoking areas of passenger compartments only. These rules are strictly applied.

The hon member asked a third question about the presence of crew members who speak foreign languages fluently aboard aircraft. The reply is that normally this is the case but, as the hon member will know, it is totally impossible to have people who speak all languages.

*The hon member also referred to the so-called secret tariffs which he read about in that article in the Financial Mail. In actual fact these are contract tariffs which the SATS is entitled to enter into with clients. If the confidentiality of a contract tariff is a secret, then it is a secret. It is, however, a secret which that client of the SATS can reveal at any time. The onus is on us not to reveal confidential tariffs which we enter into with our clients, and that is what we do. And we are entitled to enter into those contract tariffs. After all, the hon member knows that the SATS also had a 10-year contract tariff with the coal producers. In other words, this is quite legal and confidential.

I can also give the hon member the assurance that in future these contract tariffs—because we are going to make use of them to an ever-increasing extent —and I actually said so indirectly in my Budget speech—will be the same for everyone for the same goods and under the same conditions.

If those three requirements are present, it will be the same.

The principle that we allow “freight all goods” in that carriage is the same principle we already apply in respect of containerisation. It is therefore nothing new.

The hon member said the public had to pay for our mistakes. The hon member is a very senior and a very informed member as regards the SATS. He knows that the SATS is legally obliged to balance its own books. Those are the facts.

The hon member for Alberton referred to the five business units. He gave this his seal of approval. I thank him for that.

He asked that the quality of the Blue Train not be lowered. I give him that assurance.

The hon member made a point which many hon members did not notice, namely that the SAA has not had a tariff increase for two years. If there is a single hon member in this House who can tell me of a business undertaking which renders as fine a service as the SAA and which has not had a tariff increase for two years, I would like to hear of it. I am glad the hon member underlined this.

The hon member also referred to the negotiating body which we hope will be embodied in legislation soon. This will also enable us to handle labour matters more sensitively. I thank the hon member for his good wishes.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central delivered a plea for a commuter service for the Motherwell area in Port Elizabeth. This commuter service is on the agenda of the Interdepartmental Committee on Commuter Services. They have not made a final decision on this scheme as yet.

The hon member referred to 56 overflights, and to the rumour about a wall around the harbour at Port Elizabeth. I have no direct information available for him now, but I shall certainly let him have it. I shall go into this matter and let him have an answer.

*The hon member for Queenstown gave us a very interesting and detailed review of the SAA. I thank him specially for referring to the fact that the training facilities at the SAA are amongst the best in the world. This is also a reassuring fact he has underlined here, and that is why there is also such a great demand for our South African pilots throughout the world, namely the fact that they are well-trained and because the facilities are among the very best.

The hon member also made an appeal for our pilots here. The hon member actually referred to arrangements we had made to try to meet them half way and have their case properly investigated. I can assure the hon member that I shall pursue this. I thank him for his good contribution.

Hon members conceded that we had actually reached a watershed as regards the SATS. Anyone who has experienced past Budget speeches, and then listened to this Budget speech, would know that it was a watershed. In actual fact I said that the most important part of the new course we were adopting lay ahead of us, namely preparing ourselves properly to address the question of what we wanted to do to make the SATS a profit-orientated undertaking.

I referred to management, and if we have to prepare ourselves to make a profit, there is a further aspect we must deal with, namely whether or not it must become a corporate body. We shall also have to deal with political control as well as parliamentary control—whether direct or indirect. These are all aspects which I am asking hon members to bear in mind because they are aspects we must tackle.

Several hon members congratulated me on the Budget. There were other hon members who felt that this Budget did not come up to expectations. I want to give these hon members a bit of a perspective. In the first place, how is it possible that we did not need to increase tariffs? In the second place, what are the economic consequences of this Budget? At least 65% of the expenditure in this Budget consists of expenditure on items other than salaries. One can therefore not simply assume that tariffs can remain constant if salaries are not increased because, as I have already said, at least 65% of our expenditure is expenditure on items other than salaries. The other expenditure items, such as materials and energy, are all subject to price increases. If we take only those expenditure increases into account, namely those on materials and energy, this already totals R400 million.

Apart from this price increase the expenditure in respect of the increase in traffic must also be taken into account. So the question that arises is how it is possible to keep tariffs constant in spite of these increases in expenditure. The reason is a simple one. This can only be done with increased productivity and efficiency. I am proud of what the SATS has already achieved in this connection.

In June 1982 there were 279 000 staff members. In the 1988-89 Budget, which we are now discussing here, provision is only made for 188 000 employees—a decrease therefore of virtually 33%. The traffic level for 1988-89 is only 2% lower than the figure for 1981-82. However, the most significant figure is in respect of the Railways, where the net ton kilometres per employee in 1982-83 of 380 increased to an expected figure of no less than 650 for 1988-89. This means an increase of 71% in labour productivity and effectiveness over a period of six years. This is an achievement everyone can be proud of. That is the reason why the SATS comes off best if one compares the basic items such as fuel, steel, electricity and transport and sees what their contribution to the consumer price index is.

That is the reason why the SATS then comes off best. This Budget is anti-inflationary, and now we are seeking momentum. The hon member for Bethlehem also referred to the fact that the position of the private sector is in the balance.

This Budget will strengthen the competitive position of the SATS. It can ensure larger volumes for the SATS. What is even more important is that it could mean lower transport costs because there would be more competition at a reasonable price on the market. This applies to the domestic scene.

As regards foreign trade, lower tariffs place our exporters in a better competitive position, particularly as regards mass exports. Increased exports are therefore possible.

If we succeed with what we are initiating in this Budget, which is a direct result of what the hon the State President said in his opening address, everyone in South Africa will be better off. Far more important than that, is that our country will be better off because the status of a country in the international world is determined mainly by its inflation rate. It is certainly worth-while to join battle in this regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the most important amendment to this legislation is that a scientific council is receiving the right to determine its employees’ conditions of service in a framework approved by the Minister in co-operation with the Minister of Finance. Since it is a scientific council, it is our opinion that this is a step forward in giving Mintek an opportunity to compete with other institutions that do the same work.

In addition this amendment seeks to reduce the representation to a minimum of six and a maximum of nine members, which once again gives the Minister an opportunity to appoint more experts to this committee. A further amendment is that the president of this council will now be the accounting officer and will be entrusted with certain duties he has to discharge.

If everything is taken into account, this is an improvement on the existing Act, and it is my privilege to support the proposed legislation on behalf of the CP.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Carletonville supported this amending Bill, and on behalf of this side of the House, I want to thank the Official Opposition for their support.

Section 4 of the principal Act defines the functions of the Council for Mineral Technology, and if one reads that section one will understand how important the functions of this Council for Mineral Technology are. As the principal Act stands at present, the council does not have the necessary autonomy, and I think the whole object of these amendments to the principal Act is to combine greater autonomy of the council with the necessary central management.

There are two important amendments in this Bill, one of which is the amendment of section 9 and the other the amendment of section 13. The hon member for Carletonville mentioned this as well. The amendments in section 9, in particular, provide the council with greater self-determination and autonomy. As the hon member rightly pointed out, the only condition is that this will take place in terms of a system approved by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and the Minister of Finance from time to time.

With this greater autonomy, the council can now compete in the market place, and the scientists who are necessary to perform the functions of the council can receive better remuneration, because the council is being entrusted, inter alia, with the administration, the conditions of service and the remuneration of all its appointments. The council can therefore pay its staff market-related salaries.

The hon member for Carletonville also rightly pointed out that the only other very important amendment was that to section 13 by which the president of the council becomes the accounting officer and will be responsible for proper records of material and equipment as well as an annual report—this is an important amendment—on the activities of the council which will include a balance sheet and statement of income and expenditure which has been audited by the Auditor-General.

This is essential and good legislation, and it is my pleasure to support it.

Mr Chairman, the PFP will be supporting this amending legislation. It was recommended to us by the Mineral Technology Council and I understand that the provisions of the amending legislation, which primarily affects the employees, are totally acceptable to the personnel who will be affected. There is therefore no reason to suspect that anybody will be prejudiced by any of the provisions. It is also in line with the system of remuneration and conditions of service which apply to the CSIR and the Human Sciences Research Council. It would seem that the system works well in those two bodies and serves the purpose of allowing them to compete more freely in the open market in the field of employing scientists and technicians.

I think something we should bear in mind, is that the reason for this legislation relates specifically to the fact that we have a shortage of these types of skilled people in this country. The fact that the Mineral Technology Council, the CSIR and the HSRC are having difficulty in competing on the open market, relates directly to the fact that there is in fact a shortage of scientists, technologists and technicians in South Africa, and we should ask ourselves why this is the case, because it is of particular concern to the PFP that we are experiencing this sort of problem.

I think we should take a very careful look at what is happening, not only to scientists who are trained in this country, but also in the potential field of scientists who could possibly come to this country. We need to look at the reason why there is such a marked increase in the emigration of highly skilled, trained people from the country. We have to look at why there has been a fall-off in the immigration of people in the skilled fields. We have to look at the effect of military conscription on the availability of young men to enter these particular fields. We also have to look at the effect which the South African Citizenship Act has on prospective scientists and technologists.

It is clear that when we consider all these factors, we will see that all of them relate directly to the policies of the NP Government, more specifically their race policies. The fact that …

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I will certainly do so, but I am trying to make the point that the need for the amending legislation before the House has been brought about specifically by this keen competition in the fields of science and technology. The keenness of the competition has been heightened to a considerable degree by the fact that people are leaving this country. Young men and young women who are trained in this country in these skilled fields of science and technology see fit to leave the country because of what this Government is doing. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is going beyond the provisions of the Bill and he must now come back to it.

Mr Chairman, I will leave that point then and simply say that while we do support this legislation we are, however, very concerned about the underlying factors which have made this legislation necessary.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Carletonville, Kuruman and Groote Schuur for their support of this Bill. I think they set out the reasons for the proposed amendments very clearly, and therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat anything.

It is a pity that the hon member for Groote Schuur has again sought reasons that we are all concerned about. I do not think there is anyone in this House who is not concerned about the shortage of skilled labour in South Africa, especially in certain fields, but I think my colleagues who work with this are closely involved in order to ensure that we create a climate in which we shall have sufficient people to fulfill this important task for us in South Africa.

I should like to take up the cudgels for this research council, as we generally refer to it. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the results of the council’s research are implemented very successfully in practice. This council has a history of great successes in its research, especially with reference to extraction technology and extraction techniques, by means of which our minerals are processed into the metals we need so badly in our economic dispensation.

I shall probably elaborate on this during the discussion of my Vote. I think that this year we shall have to pay some attention to the results that this research institution is implementing so successfully in practice. We must pay tribute to them. I thank hon members for their support of the measure under discussion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the objects of this amending legislation include firstly the extension of the Minister’s authority to limit the disclosure of information by the substitution for the words “for the security of the Republic” of the words “in the public interest”; secondly, to regulate the extraterritorial application of the above provision; and thirdly, to provide that any court before which a person is brought for contravening the above stipulations shall have the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon that matter.

We on this side of the House support this amending Bill, although I once again wish to repeat the reservations which my colleague and I expressed in the standing committee. I am not here referring in particular to this hon Minister. I am thinking, however, in terms of possible future developments when we could have the hon member for East London City, who is not in the House at the moment, or the hon member for Langlaagte or—heaven forbid!—even the hon member for Boksburg as the responsible Minister. The extent to which the powers of the Minister are being increased present me with a problem, and I should like to have the hon the Minister’s motivation for this, or even an explanation as to how they can regard the security of the Republic as being less important than the public interest. I cannot see anything more important than the security of the Republic.

I also wish to refer to the extraterritorial application of this provision. I believe it is very necessary in view of the fact that people attack us from outside using outside persons or bodies with which to attack us. I should like to see that we have a close look at all of our laws in order to decide whether this type of amendment is not necessary there as well. I think specifically of the situation which we have in one of the other Houses, where a convicted murderer can sit in those benches merely because the law does not prevent someone who has committed a crime outside the country from being treated as a legal persona in South Africa.

Apart from these reservations, Sir, we regard this to be a good measure, and we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. I also appreciate the fact that he and his party support this amending Bill. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis pointed out that in the standing committee his party had objected to the fact that the powers of the Minister were being extended in the legislation under discussion. Nevertheless, they supported this legislation unconditionally in the standing committee. Their problem was not so serious then. They have raked it up again merely for the sake of scoring a few political points.

The amending legislation under discussion is not drastic legislation. In the first place it is aimed essentially at extending the Minister’s authority with reference to the disclosure of information. This is being done by extending the scope of section 8B of the principal Act by replacing the words “for the security of the Republic” by the words “in the public interest”; by making this provision enforceable extra-territorially, as the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis indicated, and by regulating the jurisdiction of the court with reference to a contravention of the amended provision so that each court in which the accused is tried will have the necessary jurisdiction.

In our country the situation in respect of the procurement of supplies, some of which are essential supplies, and in respect of our relations with some of our international trade partners, is a very sensitive one. I want to emphasise that this is an extremely sensitive situation. Those who trade with us are experiencing increasing pressure in a milieu of boycotts and sanctions. Things are being made more and more difficult for them, often as a result of information that is made known internally. In order to give them greater protection, it has become necessary to empower the Minister to prohibit the disclosure of information with reference to goods and services, as well as under circumstances which are not necessarily directly linked to the security of the RSA. I mention that specifically, because I believe it answers the relative question put by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis.

The fact that the scope of the existing legislation is being extended is in the public interest. It is to the advantage of every inhabitant of this country, and does not prejudice anyone. I should like to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the PFP has had two problems with this Bill in its present form, and we expressed those objections in the standing committee. We received assurances which satisfied us to the extent that we will be supporting this Bill, but I would like to place on record the problems we raised and the assurances we received. We too were concerned about the substitution for the words “for the security of the Republic” of the phrase “in the public interest”. We share the opinion that the security of the Republic is presumably the highest criterion that can be applied when establishing the necessity to restrict information, and we therefore considered “in the public interest” an unnecessarily ambiguous substitution.

Quite frankly, our concern was that the “public interest” could also be interpreted so widely that the measure might be used to prevent the publication of information which was not damaging to the security of the Republic but perhaps merely embarrassing to a department or to the Government as such. To cover up a situation the revelation of which would be embarrassing, but not a threat to the security of the Republic, would in fact be contrary to the public interest.

It is actually a classic dilemma involving two sound objectives. We in the PFP in no way want to harm the national security interests of the country. We do not wish to harm the national interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] At the same time we want to protect the flow of information and the public’s right to know how their money is being spent. Those are the two principles which come into conflict in this Bill.

It was of great concern to us that the question of what is or is not in the national interest might be very difficult to test by any judicial procedure. It might in fact be difficult for the Minister himself to test when he applies the regulations which will flow from this Bill. We expressed that concern, as did others in the standing committee, and we received the assurance that the public interest was definable. Apparently there are adequate legal definitions contained in court rulings on the matter, and something that is purely an embarrassment can be revealed if proper steps are taken. We must accept that assurance at face value, and on that basis we will go along with this proposal.

The question of the public’s right to know, however, is a matter of great concern to us. There is a generally tightening net in this country, preventing all manner of information from being disclosed. To a certain extent it strikes us as almost a paranoid state of trying to suppress information—even the most innocuous information—from becoming public.

I say that against the background of the evidence given in the standing committee. One particular example, which I will not repeat in public, was given to us as an example that one could accept as being a valid case in which one would not have wanted the information to be made public.

One can, however, think of examples where the publication of information is not going to harm the interests of the Republic. Overseas critics and people who are hostile to us have access to a vast amount of information anyway. So, Sir, we have this dilemma. We do not want to give the Government power indefinitely to be able to inhibit the flow of information and undermine the public’s right to know things if that power could be abused. At the same time we recognise that we are in a very difficult situation, and that we must resist the efforts of people trying to apply sanctions against the Republic or trying to undermine the economic well-being of the Republic by their ill-advised sanctions campaign. We recognise that, in the end, we must accept and support this Bill with the reservations that I have expressed.

We will support it with a note to our friends in the outside world who are sympathetic to where we stand that this kind of Bill—the inhibition of the free flow of information—is a direct consequence of the efforts of the people proposing sanctions. Be it on their heads that this legislative step is now being taken in response.

Another point of concern to the PFP, in view of the extensive power now granted to the hon the Minister here, is the need for a judicial procedure to test the validity and the justice of some of the rulings which might be made under this Bill. At the moment there is no mechanism to appeal against a notice published in the Gazette, and this problem will become more onerous when, in terms of this Bill, the hon the Minister will be empowered merely to issue a notice to the individual concerned and not to publish it in the Gazette.

It will be more difficult to challenge the instructions issued under this Bill and more difficult to apply any kind of mechanism of appeal other than the ability of seeking an injunction in the Supreme Court. That is a difficult procedure for an ordinary man who may be subjected to a notice from the hon the Minister. The right of appeal is a problem that needs to be addressed in order to prevent any miscarriage of justice in the application of this Bill. With those reservations we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Constantia for their support. I will come back to the points they raised.

*The hon member Mr Hattingh supported the legislation unconditionally, and I thank him for his explanation.

In general the objections and criticism of the opposition parties concern the possible abuse of powers, the definition of public interest and the right of appeal.

As far as the abuse of powers is concerned, hon members must realise that this is enabling legislation that we hope not to have to use too often. We feel we need the legislation in this time of sanctions. We are not living in normal times as far as the country’s interests in respect of the outside world are concerned. This is really a matter of trade information. We want the power to institute measures, if necessary, aimed at preventing the disclosure of statistics and other trade information concerning the volume and direction of the flow of trade with a certain part of the world or a certain country. That is what it is all about.

Of course the concept “public interest” includes the concept of the security of the Republic. It is merely a broader concept. As the hon member for Constantia rightly argued, there are guidelines in court findings. One would therefore be able to test a Minister’s measures in a court. He mentioned that it was not all that easy for a small man to go to court, but the mere fact that one has a right of appeal to a court makes a Minister act very carefully when he chooses to promulgate such a notice, whether such notice is published in the Gazette or is a personal notice. The mechanism of the personal notice that is being included is merely to draw the attention of a specific person to the fact that he must not disclose certain information because we do not want to draw too much public attention to a particular matter.

Naturally any provision of the Minister, whether by notice to a person or by way of regulation in the form of a notice in the Gazette can be tested in court because it is subordinate legislation.

With regard to the public’s right to know, I must point out, with all due respect, that I do not think that is relevant here. If it is in the public interest not to disclose trade information in respect of a certain part of the world, I do not think the public’s right to know is relevant. If a specific South African exporter or industrialist wants information, which we are not making public, about the parties with which certain trade is taking place, I want to give the hon member the assurance that he is welcome to approach us. We shall examine his bona fides, and if we accept that he is a bona fide dealer, we shall make all the information available to him on a personal basis. I should like to have that on record.

I think I have covered everything mentioned here. In conclusion I want to thank hon members for their support. I appreciate their support in this connection.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr. Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for us on this side of the House to support this legislation. It is legislation which is going to regularise an existing situation, making it imperative to obtain the consent of the Minister of Agriculture to conduct a share block scheme on agricultural land.

The new section 8A inserted by clause 2 will compel a share block developer to furnish a guarantee to a purchaser with regard to costs, where such developer indicates that he intends opening a sectional title register. This will have the effect of protecting buyers who have bought there in the belief that the development will eventually be converted.

The amendment to section 11B in clause 3 is to afford aged persons whose income does not exceed a certain amount the right to continue their occupation of controlled premises where such premises are to be incorporated in a share block scheme and are being sold to third persons.

I envisage one problem with this. This problem already exists in terms of sectional title conversions. Protected tenants have been intimidated out of their flats in some way or another, not necessarily legally, but also not necessarily in such an illegal manner that the authorities can act against these people. Whilst this protection is necessary, I do not think it is going to prevent the callous and money-grubbing developer from resorting to any method whatsoever to get rid of these protected tenants.

The amendment of section 19 of the Act in clause 4 will result in holding only the directors of a share block company responsible for damages suffered as a result of their failure to insure a particular building. This makes sense to us.

I think that with that I have explained why we on this side of the House have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

However, one problem I believe has not been addressed in this legislation is the protection of buyers’ deposits. I would like to ask the hon the Minister to have a look at this. I believe representations have been made by Sapoa in this regard. I think an amendment of that kind needs quite urgent attention.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for the Official Opposition’s support of this Bill. He dealt fully with all the various sections that are being amended and with the reasons for their amendment. It is not necessary for me, therefore, to repeat anything. It is a great pleasure to support the meaningful changes.

Mr Chairman, we take note that these amendments flow from the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law and therefore the amendments come with a great deal of weight behind them. We welcome the provisions that have been put forward.

With regard to the first substantive amendment to the effect that time-sharing in respect of agricultural land will have to be monitored in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, I would just like to make the point that there is a great deal of farmland subdivided to a small degree that is not being used. One thinks of farmland in many places here in the Western Cape which is not being used because it is too small to be economically viable and is being invaded by alien vegetation. To an extent shareblock schemes provide for syndicates to take up small parcels of agricultural land to use them for holiday retreats of some kind. A syndicate will then be responsible for the maintenance of that land, and the prevention of the incursion of alien vegetation would be a positive thing. So I trust the application of this provision will not be too onerous and will take conservation interests into account.

We particularly welcome the provision that protects protected tenants but at the same time protects the interests of investors. That has been clearly set out in the hon the Minister’s introductory speech. We accept the motivation accordingly. On that basis we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, once again I thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Constantia for supporting this measure.

*I also want to express my thanks to the hon member for Sunnyside for his concise and good speech in support of this Bill.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis raised the matter of the possible intimidation of protected tenants. As the hon member for Constantia said, what we have here is legislation that was recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. It is a formidable committee which gives us very good advice. I shall submit the specific point mentioned by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis to them for possible consideration in future to see how we can prevent the intimidation of old people or less developed people, for example. This is actually a matter of consumer protection, and I want to assure the hon member that we shall attend to it.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis also mentioned the problem of buyers’ deposits. I think we should refer this matter to the Standing Advisory Committee for consideration together with other aspects they are investigating at present. The House can then deal with it next year.

The hon member for Constantia referred to small pieces of uneconomical agricultural land near urban areas. I do not think there is any impediment. When land is classified as agricultural land, however, the approval of the Minister of Agriculture has to be obtained in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act for the use of that land in a share-block scheme, but if the implementation of this measure leads to any problems, we shall attend to the matter.

I shall follow the example of the hon member for Sunnyside and be concise in ending off my speech now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we on this side once again have pleasure in supporting this amendment to the legislation which provides for the re-insurance with the Government of loans which have been made available by banks and other financial institutions to exporters in order to enable these exporters to execute export orders, particularly where these exporters do not have the necessary financial muscle with which to finance the costs necessary for the execution of these orders which they have successfully gained. This will lead to an increase in industrial production with the accompanying benefit of increased employment. We on this side therefore have great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I thank the Official Opposition for supporting this Bill.

The challenge facing the South African economy is to produce the prosperity which will satisfy the expectations of all the people of this country. Natural resources are limited, so it is important that the most effective growth policy be developed. The possibilities of economic growth through exports—the key to the wonder economies of the Far East—are emphasised every month when the South African foreign trade figures are issued. Few people realise that exports are the lifeblood of South Africa; 40% of the gross national product is contributed by exports. The opportunities are there and are now being expanded, among other things by this amending Bill. All that remains to be done is for the opportunities to be used.

A precondition for economic prosperity in South Africa is that foreign markets should be exploited by every possible means. Import replacement and internal industrialisation can encourage short-term growth, but this will not enable South Africa to compete with its trading partners in the longer term. The solution to growth definitely lies in exports, but the success of any growth policy will of course also depend on the degree of success South Africa achieves in curbing the high inflation rate—in spite of efforts by the Official Opposition. Let there be no doubt about the commitment of this side of the House in this regard.

The percentage of South African exporters who have remained dedicated to their foreign markets through thick and thin, amid sanctions and threats of sanctions, is steadily growing. South African exporters of manufactured products are not faring as badly as is frequently assumed. South African exports have increased by 25% in the 10 years since 1975, which represents an average rise of 2% per annum. During this period gold production declined spontaneously as the dollar price of gold increased. The non-gold portion of South Africa’s export volume therefore grew by more than 25% during that period. In addition the production of manufactured goods rose worldwide by less than 25% during that time.

The challenge facing us is to increase the number of our exporters and to find more exporters in industries in which South Africa is not traditionally strong. Exporters or potential exporters who do not have sufficient capital or are unable to furnish banks or financial institutions with the necessary security to be able to borrow sufficient money to carry out export orders, find themselves in the position of being unable to do so. Consequently export opportunities go to waste.

This problem is now being dealt with by this amending Bill, the object of which is therefore to amend the Export Credit and Foreign Investments Re-insurance Act to provide for the reinsurance by the Government of insurance contracts serving as guarantees to established banks or financial institutions for loans to exporters or potential exporters.

Similar facilities are at the disposal of exporters in some other countries such as Australia, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The Kleu Committee has now recommended that those facilities be placed at the disposal of exporters in South Africa.

As the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology announced in the House of Assembly on 8 February 1988, existing category A and B export incentive measures will, in due course, be replaced by a variety of new measures such as schemes providing assistance in regard to input costs, increased productivity, small business development and special industrial development programmes. Existing category C and D export incentives will also be replaced by a scheme for export market development aid.

I wish to express the hope that the proposed measures, as well as this amending legislation, will provide the necessary support to increase the number of dedicated exporters. The costs involved in export promotion should not be regarded as expenditure on a luxury, but rather as an essential insurance premium to expand growth and employment and, in so doing, ensuring social and political peace in the country. I take pleasure in wholeheartedly supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House also support this legislation, the clear intention of which is to promote exports. I need not repeat what has been said by the previous speaker or stress to hon members of the House how absolutely crucial exports are to the economy of this country.

We welcome this legislation as it basically meets a very real need of an enterprising, efficient businessman who develops a product which is marketable overseas. He is able to market the product as such, but then finds that he is in fact unable to finance the transaction because of the very large quantities which are very often involved in export markets. This legislation meets that need and therefore we believe it should be supported.

The whole question of foreign trade is of fundamental importance to this country, but we must nevertheless recognise that the position is deteriorating quite dramatically. Any assistance that can be given to enterprising exporters needs to be supported. In today’s newspaper we read that trade with the USA declined by 44% in the first nine months of last year. That is an enormous reduction in trade and it is no doubt largely due to sanctions legislation. The report goes on to say that despite the drop-off in trade with the USA, we were able to replace it with trade with other countries including, no doubt, the East. One then reads further in recent reports that Japan, the largest trading partner of this country, is also reconsidering its trading position with us with regard to sanctions and is in fact finding itself in an embarrassing situation. So the future of our exports is not looking all that bright.

Sanctions are starting to bite, and it is absolutely imperative that we assist the exporters wherever possible in order to meet the shortfalls that we are likely to experience.

One aspect of the legislation which I would like to deal with, and which was dealt with in the standing committee, is that the exporters who will be assisted in terms of this legislation will be those who, off their own bat, would not be able to obtain funding for their export activities. They will be those who will not be regarded by the banking sector as being sufficiently creditworthy to be entitled to the funding they require. Therefore, of necessity, the type of business we are talking about here involves, in purely financial terms, a somewhat greater risk than would normally be the case. We want to say—and we were given the assurance in the standing committee—that when evaluating applications for this form of assistance, we need to look very carefully at the business concerned so that we do not finance men of straw but men with viable businesses who are just not sufficiently financially strong to warrant the sort of funding they require. With that proviso, we believe that this is a healthy measure, and we support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis and also the hon member for Pinelands who supported this legislation.

*The hon member for Umbilo also illustrated certain points with which I agree and do not want to repeat.

Hon members referred to the importance of exports with a view to our economic growth. We have here a measure for promoting our exports; we have a measure which should also be seen as one that will support the small man’s entry to the economy. Our object is to strengthen the broad base of exporters. We have to establish an export tradition in this country and our people have to develop an orientation towards the outside world.

The hon member for Umbilo referred to import replacement which we have always considered to be very important. We estimate that imports of manufactured products to the value of approximately R4 000 million can still be replaced by products of domestic manufacture on an economic basis.

He also referred to internal industrialisation which could give rise to economic growth. The work of the Kleu Committee, to which he referred, has been included in a report of the Board of Trade and Industry, a report which is at present being considered by the Government, the findings of which will soon be submitted to the Cabinet for a final decision on the new system of export promotion measures and the guidelines according to which it will be developed. This also includes the restructuring of our industries with a view to export-orientation.

The hon member for Pinelands referred to the changing international trade pattern. It is important to mention here that South Africa does not believe in sanctions, that we will not participate in sanctions and that we will trade with anyone who can pay for our products.

He also referred to the risk in regard to evaluation. I merely want to explain the procedure here when an exporter requires money to finance his pre-shipping and post-shipping costs. He goes to a financial institution which investigates his case and, if such an institution is satisfied with the project he wishes to tackle, this institution may supply him with the funds and then resorts to an insurer to insure against the risk. This insurer may in turn approach the State to re-insure his risk. The condition we stipulate is that we will not insure more than 90% of the financial institution’s risk. Ultimately this institution therefore has to bear 10% of the risk in regard to nonpayment. Consequently there are three steps in the selection process—firstly by the financial institution, then by the insurer and lastly by the re-insurer according to guidelines which are currently being developed and will be approved by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.

We live in a period of perestroika, sanctions, dumping and disruptive competition and one should merely note that we should give our exporters this type of assistance. The type of assistance I am referring to today is provided internationally by other countries; we should also provide our exporters with that type of aid.

Mr Chairman, in these few words I thank hon members again for their support and Understanding.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the amending Bill before us comprises only two clauses. The first clause amends section 1 of the Diamonds Act, 1986, by the substitution of “Economic Affairs and Technology” for “Mineral and Energy Affairs” where it relates to the Minister.

Clause 2 amends section 5 of the principal Act by the substitution for the words “one member of the management board of the Diamond Producers’ Association, other than a member in the service of the State or appointed by it, nominated by such Association” of the words “two persons who are either producers or in the opinion of the Minister are capable of representing the producers” and by omitting paragraph (f) of subsection (1).

The CP supports this statutory amendment.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to speak after the hon member for Carletonville and express my thanks to the Official Opposition for its support of the measure under discussion.

As the hon member for Roodepoort took a head-count a while ago, I should like to observe that there are only nine hon members of the CP present in the House at the moment. [Interjections.] I am merely saying this in passing, Sir.

I have nothing further to say concerning the provisions of the Bill under discussion. The hon member for Carletonville pointed out all the amendments involved. [Interjections.]

Order! It seems to me we have a very, very lively participation by other hon members in the hon member for Bloemfontein North’s speech.

All that remains for me to say, Sir, is that we on this side of the House are very pleased to support the measure concerned.

Mr Chairman, the PFP will be supporting this Bill. It is clear that the only amendment of any significance is purely a consequential amendment in view of the disbanding of the Diamond Producers’ Association. They clearly cannot appoint a member if they are disbanded, and the provision that the Minister should now appoint two persons instead of one, as previously provided for—two persons representative of the diamond industry—must clearly carry the approval of the entire House. For this reason we in the PFP will support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the three hon members who have expressed support for this measure. As all have said, it is really a very minor measure as far as the provisions contained in this Bill are concerned. I do think, however, it does indicate that the Diamond Board has now been well established and is performing its duties as we had all hoped it would at the time the Diamond Act was debated some years ago.

As hon members have said, the Bill as amended will widen the scope with regard to whom the Minister can appoint to the board, and I think that is a good thing. Let me add that the disbandment of the Diamond Producers’ Association—in fact this has happened because the board is operating so well—does not necessarily mean that the producers are not co-operating or basing with one another, but simply that this now takes place on a very informal basis.

I would like to thank the hon members who contributed to this debate and also the members of the standing committee, for the efficient way in which they dealt with this Bill. I thank them for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

I am not the architect of this system and therefore I am privileged to criticise it. One of the weaknesses of the system is that we operate in three chambers and therefore the availability of Ministers makes life almost impossible for us. It has become almost intolerable. For how long we can continue like this I do not know.

With the completion of the new wing of the parliamentary building I see the potential of a system in which we can operate in one chamber with all the facilities at our disposal.

* We came to Parliament knowing that there were certain inherent weaknesses in the system.

†Because we are conscious of the weaknesses of the system it is our duty to improve on them. My objective is something which is not strange to you, Sir, because you would have heard it before from me and from other hon members in this House. We foresee a South African Government that is truly representative of all the people and which will operate in a single chamber of Parliament. It is possible; and indeed, those of us who are here in Parliament at the moment and who are “qualified” to represent the various communities under one system must be seen to be operating in and to be governing the country from that single chamber. I am tired of making excuses for the weaknesses of the system. I, as Leader of this House, will be criticised for moving this motion that we do not sit tomorrow, because it creates the impression that there is no work. You and I know, however, that there is a great amount of work. There are numerous Bills that have passed the standing committee stage and which have to be debated in this Chamber. Unfortunately, however, the Ministers cannot be here. I understand the problems that Ministers are faced with. They can only be in one place at a given time. So they cannot be here and we cannot deal with the business of the people.

I make this earnest appeal to those who are in an executive position, who are in a position to make the necessary changes, to give serious consideration to implementing a system of one single chamber in this present session of Parliament. I shall go no further than making this plea.

It should be done in the interests of the country, so that the people outside can realise that we are serious about the whole reform process. This would be the simplest form of showing our sincerity about the reform programme that is aimed at bringing about change in this country. It would also give visible meaning to this whole policy of reform that the Nationalist Government has engaged itself in.

*This will require the least sacrifice and yield the best results.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

According to the present Constitution, which is not accepted by the Labour Party but is used only as a point of departure, agriculture is identified as an own affair in the case of Coloured farmers. I should like to quote as follows from the speech made by Rev Hendrickse, the leader of the LP, on 4 January 1983 during the historic 17th annual congress of the LP which was held in the Northern Natal town of Eshowe:

The reform process will have to take place in the agricultural industry, since a sound agricultural industry assures the continued existence of man. The LP will leave no stone unturned in striving for the development of a political dispensation in this country in which all South African citizens will be treated on a just and equal basis. We want a strong, prosperous and united South Africa. That is why it is of cardinal importance to us that all restrictive measures that inhibit the Coloured farmers and even the progress of South Africa, should be repealed.

In terms of the Group Areas Act, and in particular sections 13, 20 and 21, the occupation and ownership of agricultural land must be controlled, and when it is transferred from one population group to another, a permit is required. It is an enormous problem to acquire such a permit. In the first place one has to be acceptable to the White farmers as a human being. Even if only one of them objects, the permit is refused. There was the case of Pastor Mandean of the AFM church in Oudtshoorn. He bought a smallholding at Volmoed in the Oudtshoorn district from an estate agent.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Development Aid and MP for Oudtshoorn, Mr Piet Badenhorst, is opposed to granting the permit, and therefore he now has to vacate the smallholding. [Interjections.] This incident is deplored even by members of the NP in Oudtshoorn.

The Erika Theron Commission recommended to the Government, which is as deaf as a post, that this discriminatory measure in respect of the occupation or ownership of land, viz the permit system, be removed. We are living in very serious times, and the future of our country, South Africa, is at stake. The Government has lost its way to such an extent, however, that it has also lost touch with its own people. I therefore want to quote to hon members from page 6 of Die Burger of 18 February 1988. The headline was “Laat Bruin boere by George toe, sê LP” and the report read as follows:

[Interjections.] The essence of the matter is that White immigrants and people such as Arrie Paulus, Randall Wicomb and Andries Treurnicht experience no restrictions in purchasing farms in any agricultural area in our country and settling there, whereas we, who are South Africans, are denied the right to farm where we choose.

The White farmers have made a hash of agriculture in South Africa, and it is an undeniable fact that one-man farming can no longer be afforded. We are also well aware that at present the number of farmers in South Africa has dropped to a mere 60 000 whereas during the sixties there were approximately 200 000 White farmers in our country.

Our Coloured farmers can definitely fill the gap that has been left by the reduction in the number of White farmers. Although the population growth in our country is increasing, it is an everyday phenomenon these days that the number of farmers is dropping as a result of the debt burden and incorrect farming practices.

We shall have to save our country, South Africa. We shall have to prevent an Ethopia in this country and produce sufficient food for our growing population. We shall have to repeal all restrictions that hamper the Coloured farmers immediately, because the agricultural industry has become an important industry to us.

The permit system is a restrictive factor in an economic dispensation in which free enterprise and the operation of the market mechanism is promoted among voluntary purchasers.

The permit system discriminates against our people, because it prevents them from entering the agricultural industry. That is why I want to make a serious appeal today that there will only be one department of agriculture to serve all population groups, especially as far as financial assistance to our Coloured farmers is concerned. More than R1 billion is being allocated to White farmers in the present financial year. This amount includes the amount of R400 million allocated to grain-farmers. Our farmers receive financial assistance only within the limits of the Administration: House of Representatives’ little budget. Our Coloured farmers are being prejudiced, because only R20 750 000 is being allocated for agriculture in the present financial year. It is a darned disgrace that of the few pennies…

Order! What did the hon member say?

Sir, I said it was a darned disgrace.

Order! The hon member must please withdraw the word “darned”.

Sir, I withdraw the word “darned” and say it is a hell of a disgrace. It is a disgrace that of the few little pennies …

Order! I said the hon member must withdraw the word “darned”. What word did the hon member use to replace “darned”?

Sir, if I replace that, I will be left with nothing.

Order! I did not hear. The hon member must not …

Sir, I replaced the word with “hell of a”.

Order! No, that is wrong. Will the hon member please withdraw those words?

I withdraw the words, Sir, it is a disgrace that these few little pennies have to provide for the existence and development of 24 rural areas, as well as the training of agricultural students and farm labourers. It is not fair that the development of housing, for example, and the agriculture of the 24 rural areas should be combined in the agricultural budget. It is no wonder that almost all the rural areas in which mainly communal farming is being practised at present lend themselves to a communal culture of poverty. It is an irrefutable fact that development in the rural areas has been seriously hampered during the past few years by the lack of funds. The available machinery and equipment is completely worn out and outdated. I know of rural areas, for example, where no funds were available to replace the machinery that had to be written off. The people in our rural areas have been treated like stepchildren in South Africa for too long.

Sir, the Land Bank, which should be fulfilling the role of providing capital, also discriminates against our Coloured farmers when they apply for loans. The Land Bank grants loans to White farmers much more easily, even to those who are on the threshold of bankruptcy. There is a dark cloud over the South African agricultural industry, and at present the debt burden amounts to more than R14 billion.

As a result of the policy that is being followed, the South African agricultural industry has reached a financial crossroad. Positive steps will have to be taken, therefore, to face up to this crisis.

The practical challenge confronting South Africa is the distribution of landownership and the removal of measures that undermine the pride of the oppressed. Our Coloured farmers will only really come into their own when discrimination in the sphere of agriculture is eradicated. I am convinced that we shall never get the Coloured farmers to leave the land, since farming forms part of their culture.

We are building a new South Africa. That is why we shall have to examine the mistakes of the past and we shall have to remove the yokes. We must never permit the reform process to come to a standstill because of the Government’s fears. The unfair treatment of South Africa’s people of colour cannot be tolerated any longer, because time is running out. [Interjections.] It is the Government’s policy of apartheid which has aroused so much bitterness, mistrust and enmity among our people in South Africa. It is essential, therefore, that the Group Areas Act be abolished, so that fair play and justice can triumph. Discriminatory measures which hamper our Coloured farmers will have to be repealed, because they are racist, unfair, unjust, discriminatory, unchristian, inhuman and indefensible.

There are numerous general affairs laws which have reference to the agricultural industry and the farmers, as well as laws in respect of agriculture as an own affair administered by each of the three Houses of Parliament. In addition the rural areas are affected by various general affairs laws which have the objective of protecting and developing the natural resources. It would be of great benefit to South Africa if agriculture could be made into an integrated unit. Our people must be given the opportunity to develop themselves according to their potential and to utilise opportunities for development. If the Coloured farmers enjoy the same privileges as the White farmers, the crisis agriculture is experiencing at present can be overcome.

Agriculture forms the cornerstone of our economy, and if we have sufficient capital for the purchase of land as well as the cultivation and development of the land, we can rest assured that we shall be able to supply our growing population with sufficient food. In addition our agricultural industry is the largest single employer, in that 1,3 million people have turned to agriculture and between five million and six million make their living from agriculture. It also supplies the necessary foodstuffs.

Sir, it is time we moved ahead with full confidence and purposeful endeavour. We do not hate our fellow South Africans. We do not hate them for what they did to us in the past. We can forgive them, but we cannot forget.

I should like to quote from Totius’ poem, “Vergewe en Vergeet”:

In conclusion, everything that hampers agriculture must be removed so that we can also sing at the tops of our voices, “At thy will to live or perish, Oh South Africa, dear land”.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the motion, but not for the reasons advanced by the hon member for Dysselsdorp. The reason why I do not agree is quite simple. Last year we had the opportunity to discuss Act No 9 of 1987 in this House. Section 3 of that Act endorsed, inter alia, section 4(1) of Act No 24 of 1963. The Rural Coloured Areas Act, No 24 of 1963, was amended several times until only section 4 was left. Section 4 is introduced as follows: “Reservation of land for occupation or ownership of Coloured persons”.

In this section it is stated clearly how Coloured persons can obtain land. I quote:

1. (1) The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette, and subject to such reservations and conditions as he may deem fit, declare any rural area defined in the proclamation—
   1. (a) which consists of State land; or
   2. (b) which has at any time prior to the 28th day of April 1961 been granted transfer or set aside for occupation or ownership of Coloured persons or was on that date a traditional or locally recognised Coloured area, and which is occupied or owned mainly by Coloured persons; or
   3. (c) on which there is a mission station for Coloured persons or on which a community of Coloured persons in the nature of a mission station or settlement is resident,

Now comes the crux, and I quote from subsection (2)—

*It is this clause that pushes our people into the abyss. Last year, when this House passed its own legislation, Act No 9 of 1987, I’ll be hanged if they did not put this piece of legislation into section 3. So last year we helped to push ourselves into the abyss.

You were part of them!

I had no part of it. I voted against you people. Do me a favour and check the records.

That is where hon members did themselves an injury.

†We went along and we endorsed the permit system in an Act of Parliament emanating from the House of Representatives. That is why I cannot agree with the reasons advanced by the hon member for Dysselsdorp. He pleaded the case of Coloured farmers, but a farmer is a farmer.

*What we need in this country is an end to discrimination. It is discriminatory to classify the farmers as Coloured farmers and White farmers. If that were to disappear, this piece of legislation would also have to disappear. Since the Labour Party is the governing party in this House, I want to appeal to hon members: Please, there is still time, this year, to introduce an Act in this House that will do away with Act No 24 of 1963.

†If such a Bill is submitted to this Chamber, we can do away with Act No 24 of 1963. At the same time we can bring about an amendment to section 3 of Act No 9 of 1987. If we do that, we will revoke the permit system.

*After all, the Government draws sustenance from this permit system. I have now had enough of talking to the hon member. I now want to talk to the Government.

†Why does the Government restrict us from acquiring land anywhere in South Africa? Why are we being restricted purely on the basis of our skin colour?

Mr Pallazolo, a Mafia member, came to this country and could buy a farm in Franschhoek for R5 million, using financial help to obtain that property. I was born in this country and by the standards of the Government I am civilized, but why can I not own property in this country? Why am I subjected to a permit system which is outdated and outmoded?

*The hon member for Dysselsdorp indicated how many farmers there were a few years ago. I think he mentioned 200 000. There are only 60 000 left. People are moving from the farms on a daily basis. Is it not time for all the farms which are lying there empty to be redistributed amongst people who are prepared to work those farms? Why must a farmer have a white face? Good farmers are not only people with white faces. There are many people in the country who are competent farmers, but they are denied the right to obtain a farm because they have the wrong skin colour. There are 49 laws—hon members may check on this—applicable to agriculture, and those laws are there for the benefit of the so-called White farmers. In spite of all 49 of these Acts on the Statute Book, they are still going bankrupt, because God is punishing them. First there were the droughts. Now they are being ravaged by floods.

We must come to our senses in this country. It is no use for the hon the Deputy Minister to shake his head; it might fall off. [Interjections.]

Order!

We cannot confirm that God is punishing the people.

There must be a redivision of land in this country so that those people who qualify as farmers can be assisted by the State to work the land.

*What happens in this country? The poorest section of the land is given to the Black people to farm in order to prevent them from coming to the cities. Why does 87% of the population of this country own a mere 13% of the land? Why does 13% of the population own 87% of the land?

†We stated in no uncertain terms in this House that the present Government is motivated by fear and greed. They are motivated by greed in the sense that they used to own all the available land in this country.

*They appropriated all available land for themselves to prevent other people from obtaining land too. In the past it was NP policy to prevent people—all people who were not White—from remaining on farms and making a living. That is why we are restricted to 24 rural areas, and to this very day we cannot obtain propriety rights in those areas. I am talking about the part of the world I know, the part of the world I come from, ie the Kat River valley. That land was given to those people in 1838. It is inherited land that passed from generation to generation. What, however, ultimately happened? That land was incorporated into Ciskei and our people had to clear out. Hundreds of our people are stuck in the Kat River valley, with nowhere to go, without any future, because after all these years the Government has expropriated that land of theirs and given it away without thinking twice about those people. They simply have to perish in their wretchedness.

Thanks to our efforts, and those of the hon member for Fish River, we could accommodate some of those people in Fort Beaufort. Those people were farmers who had worked the land since 1838, until this Government cheerfully took it away from them and had them expropriated. That was hereditary land that was taken away from our people.

In the same way hereditary land is being taken away from our people throughout the country. The hon the Minister is free to shake his head; it might fall off, but the truth is still the truth. No one can dispute the fact that that land was taken away from our people in the Kat River valley. The compensation they received was inadequate. That land was transferred from generation to generation, and at this time people own a one hundred and twentieth part of that land. The piece of land is hardly bigger than a matchbox. Where are those people going to obtain land once more with the compensation they received there? They were given next to nothing for their land. They worked that land on behalf of their families who came there on holiday each year. As a result of the little money they received as compensation, they could no longer make a living or purchase a farm. All those farmers are now lost to South Africa.

There is a great deal of land which has allegedly been abandoned on the northern borders by farmers of that area. That is CP land. The Government must also allow our people to go farming there. It must sell those farms to us without permits. These Acts which provide that our people must obtain permits, must be repealed, because they, in fact, are the iniquities.

Mr Chairman, I got up in this House last week and said that if we were unanimous about a motion, we should talk as if we were unanimous. I am amazed to see that once again people are adopting other standpoints.

†I am surprised by the approach of the hon member for Border. Two weeks ago, in this Chamber, we agreed to a piece of legislation which dealt with precisely that which he was talking about today, viz the redistribution of the land among all the people. That legislation provided for land to be taken away from White farmers—I am not even going to mention their political affiliations—and to be given to Black farmers. Then there were objections from hon members on the other side. What I am asking for is absolute consistency at all times. We know that there is inequality when it comes to the distribution of land in this country, and until there is an equal distribution we are always going to be faced with problems. Since we are in agreement on this matter let us agree consistently and stop trying to score political points. What hurts me most in this Chamber is that people would agree with one another when it suits them, just to score political points.

*The land that was given to the Black farmers of KwaNdebele was land that had been taken away from Whites. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said numerous farms in KwaNdebele were lying empty. That is not true. If the land is lying empty, why do we want to redistribute it?

You do not know your facts.

Order! The motion actually states that agriculture should be regarded as a general affair.

That is quite correct, Sir. I have to qualify, because to me Southern Africa is still South Africa.

*When my party and I talk about South Africa, we are talking about South Africa as a whole. When we talk about farmers, we are talking about farmers throughout the country. When we talk about a new dispensation for farmers, we are talking about all the farmers in South Africa. In my opinion, therefore, farms are not lying empty because people do not want to live there or cultivate them.

†The salvation of this country lies in getting people back on the farms.

*A country that cannot produce its own food cannot make progress.

†We cannot afford the luxury of importing food. Therefore we have to take another look at the agricultural set-up in this country. I am concerned about this.

*Who is going to feed us? KwaNdebele cannot; it is in South Africa just like all the other Black areas, after all. That is why I am including them. †For that reason I have great appreciation for the motion of the hon member for Dysselsdorp. It is a motion dealing with a matter of concern for all the people of this country, irrespective of colour.

*I got up, therefore, to make this point that together we shall be able to solve this country’s problems, but trying to score political points is not going to get us anywhere.

Mr Chairman, it is general knowledge that more than 87% of South African soil is owned by 13% of the country’s inhabitants and that the farming population amounts to approximately 60 000. This number is decreasing quickly, because last year 3 500 farmers were faced by bankruptcy despite the special aid package of more than R400 million.

When one pages through the Landbouweekblad, one is amazed at the numerous insolvent estates advertised there.

Mr Chairman, I firstly want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Border, and I should like to tell him that in 1963 an Act, in terms of which Coloured people were permitted to farm in rural areas, was promulgated for the first time, something which was accepted by the CRC. As far as Act No 9 of 1987 is concerned, let me tell the hon member …

Mr Chairman, may I please ask a question? Is the hon member intimating that the CRC existed in 1963?

Sir, I said that this Act, in terms of which Coloured farmers were permitted to farm in rural areas, was promulgated for the first time in 1963. Act No 9 of 1987, to which the hon member for Border referred, comes under the auspices of the House of Representatives in terms of the Constitution, Act No 110 of 1983. This House passed the said Act as such, subject to certain principles. One of the principles involved the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture becoming the trustee of State land. The Act will be administered by the said Minister, in terms of a proclamation issued by the State President, and that proclamation is in accordance with the powers defined in agricultural legislation. Until this legislation is entirely re-written, that Act will be implemented, by proclamation, by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in order to administer the rural areas. So much for that matter.

I should like to speak in support of the motion of the hon member for Dysselsdorp. The motion reads that “agriculture should be considered as a general affair and ail farmers, regardless of race, should be treated on an equal footing”. This motion affects the whole basis of the Group Areas Act. It is asking for equality when applications are made for agricultural land. It is also asking for the same degree of assistance to be granted to all farmers, ie financial assistance, emergency aid and drought aid, too, as in the case of White farmers at present.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp and I gave evidence last year before the President’s Council Committee specifically investigating agricultural land and other State land. Whilst I was giving evidence, I confirmed the Labour Party’s standpoints and those of the larger section of the Coloured community. We in the Labour Party are requesting that agriculture be opened up; that there be one Act under which agriculture falls. We are asking for this, not only because there is disparity in regard to funds being made available for agricultural purposes, but because a large section of our people want to be bona fide farmers. On this basis it is important for agriculture to be regarded as a unit, without dividing it up into segments.

In making that statement, I should like to quote from Landbounuus of 30 October 1987, and specifically from page 7. Here the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture states:

I am saying that we do not have to look to Africa. I am saying that we should focus our attention on the domestic front and transfer that same knowledge to our Coloured farmers so that we, as a unit, can provide more effectively for South Africa’s nutritional requirements. I quote further—

The hon the Deputy Minister went on to say, and I quote:

That is why I am saying that the hon the Deputy Minister spoke a very true word here. He said it should not be done merely by “a few progressive farmers”. Who, however, are the few progressive farmers in South Africa? They are the lawyers, doctors, businessmen and the Anglo Americans. These are the people who are progressive farmers, but who do their farming by making use of the Coloureds and other people working on their farms. Those are the progressive farmers, and if those people were to be helped in implementing that same progressiveness on their own land, we would not have Anglo America and De Beers owning virtually the whole of the West Coast where they have mining rights and where they also, to a large extent, farm with sheep. I am asking the hon the Minister to have that statement he made, that warning he issued, become a true fact for our own people. The people to whom I am referring are the Coloured farmers. I quote further:

We really do have problems in agriculture. Hon members have heard about the millions of rand in carry-over debt. In many cases those debts are written off by the State. The same applies to debt involving co-operatives. I should like to quote a further passage from the same weekly publication. The report reads:

Then further additional schemes are added, ie:

It was further reduced, Sir. It is therefore assistance granted to White farmers for which Coloured farmers do not qualify. I repeat, that is assistance for which Coloured farmers do not qualify.

There are several other auxiliary measures. I quote further:

A three-year interest subsidy scheme on the production carry-over debt of stock farmers at the co-operatives has been deferred. The point I want to make is that the motion moved by the hon member for Dysselsdorp is in accordance with what we are asking for, and that is that Coloured farmers should also be given an opportunity of obtaining land on the same basis so that they can also obtain State assistance on the same basis as White farmers. For this reason I support the motion of the hon member for Dysselsdorp.

Mr Chairman, I am speaking in support of the motion. Early in 1986 at the opening of the Third Session of the Eighth Parliament of the Republic of South Africa on 31 January 1986, the hon the State President said in his opening address that the Government had pledged itself to broadening democracy in this country so as to include all South African communities through one citizenship in one undivided country. All South Africans would enjoy equal socio-economic opportunities and have a rightful say in the government of the country. We had outgrown an old and outdated colonial system of paternalism, as well as the outdated concept of apartheid. Those were the words—and encouraging words at that—of the hon the State President. I now want to come back to reality.

Approximately 25 000 of the almost 59 000 White farmers in the Republic of South Africa have received some form of financial assistance from the Government over the past few years. How many Coloured farmers have received financial assistance from the Government during this time and in the years of hardship and heavy drought? We cannot blame the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for that, since the amount allocated in the budget of the department concerned of the Administration: House of Representatives is like a drop in the ocean. The total budget for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture of the Administration: House of Representatives—I am speaking about the 1986-87 financial year now—was only R393,59 million. This amount had to be divided up amongst local government, housing and agriculture in 24 rural areas. Over the past seven years approximately R2,4 billion has been granted to White farmers, of which R1,4 billion was loans, and R1 billion was paid in subsidies. It is no wonder the poor Coloured farmer is simply going under. If agriculture were regarded as a general affair, White and Coloured farmers would enjoy the same benefits. Then there would be no distinction between a White and a Coloured farmer. Everyone would be dealt with on an equal basis, irrespective of race or colour. Only then would the country’s agricultural potential be realised to the maximum.

Sir, do you know that the Coloured farmer does not qualify for loan facilities from the Land Bank and the Agricultural Bank because the bank lends money mainly to farmers, agricultural cooperatives and statutory institutions? The Land Bank Act provides that loans may be granted to a “farmer”, who is defined in the Act as a person who practices farming in the Republic of South Africa. Surely the Coloured farmer is included here as well.

When agriculture is regarded and treated as a general affair, the White and Coloured farmers will have to be treated equally; they will be able to become members of the same co-operatives; and they will have the same loan facilities. This is still a form of apartheid, however. This is discrimination of the worst kind. Where is our new beginning, after two long years, of which the hon the State President spoke in his opening address on 31 January 1986? Too many negative statements are being made about the Coloured farmer, simply to disparage him.

Sir, I have merely tried to make a few statements about a few concrete implications of the approach on the basis of which the financial considerations of the White farmers carry more weight than those of Coloured farmers. Once again this can all be ascribed to that incurable disease, the apartheid policy. It is as incurable as Aids.

If you would permit me, Sir, I should like to tell you an anecdote, and I am doing so to illustrate a statement I am making. It concerns the way in which our land was lost to us years ago. The story goes that there was a Coloured farmer who had a large farm. A White farmer who was wandering around looking for land arrived. He asked whether he could spend the night there. The Coloured farmer agreed. It would not cost the White farmer anything, and he stayed the night. The following day he asked the owner of the farm whether he could make a little garden for himself near the well. The Coloured farmer consented to his making a little garden and planting a few pumpkins. In the third week, when the pumpkins had already made shoots, the farm owner’s goats came and ate the pumpkin shoots. The White farmer then caught the goats and had them impounded. The owner of the farm went and fetched his goats from the pound and paid for the goats’ food. When he got home he loaded all his possessions on his wagon and said to his wife: “I am not going to allow that farmer to make a fool of me on my own farm; I am going to move now.” [Interjections.]

When congresses are held, members of our Labour Party always sing: “Dis lekker om ’n ‘Labourer’ te wees.” However, this afternoon I want to say that there is something even better, and that is to be a White person. [Interjections.] One often wonders why the colour of one’s skin has to determine what one’s privileges are in the land of one’s birth. After all, our faith, language and culture are the same. Why are we as Coloured people despised so much?

I should like to quote from one of Breyten Breytenbach’s books, ’n Seisoen in die Paradys:

Finally I want to quote from a poem by the famous Afrikaans popular poet, Jan F E Cilliers:

No wonder, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the motion of the hon member for Dysselsdorp which was tabled this morning. First of all, I would like to say that agriculture in any form is food—food for everybody. Water on its own is life; and this is how we should look at the things all around us.

South Africa is endowed with some of the best land in the world. We can produce food throughout the year. The trouble is that the land is very unevenly distributed. We have a situation in which Whites have the best land. The man of colour is allowed to farm on only a very small portion of this land. During the last few years the NP Government has at least heard our pleas to be given a chance to own farms, apart from those what our people owned through inheritances in the past.

I want to give this NP Government its due for recognising that we could also contribute to the economy of the country via farming. Today we have an agricultural board, a body through which we can apply for funds for the purchase of farms, implements and even boreholes or necessities for any farm.

The four provinces each have a man in the field who notes the applications for funds, inspects farms for sale and makes recommendations according to his knowledge. This board sits every three months. In the case of an emergency the chairman of the board can call a meeting and deal with the application expeditiously. In quite a few instances our farmers' applications had been turned down by the board because there was no money. They said that in the job he had the applicant was earning money on which to live; and in some cases they also said he did not have enough experience of farming.

I am not going to say that the board should grant these loans holus-bolus; on the contrary, they should do so only after a thorough on-the-spot investigation. All loan applications should be treated more sympathetically, however. We must remember that the price of land does not decrease, but increases all the time. Any applicant who cannot repay his or her debt over a certain period, risks having his or her farm attached, as in the case of any business venture.

I cannot see why anyone should experience any difficulty in getting a borehole to extract water from under the ground. Some people have even had their applications for boreholes turned down.

Some of our elderly farmers give their sons about 20 acres to farm on their own during their lifetime to encourage the son to take up farming and to see how responsible the son can be. The son then applies for a borehole and it is turned down without a thorough investigation. This puts off our potential young farmers, all because there is no encouragement from the Government via the board.

The amount needed for a borehole is small. It is more or less R5 000 and this borehole will last for years—an asset on any farm. I repeat that water is life.

I come from the sugar belt in Natal, and the sugar consortium there really does help its members, regardless of colour. Our trouble is that there is not enough land to farm. My plea today is that our people be given a chance to farm by making it easier for them to buy land and work it. This should not be done on the basis of colour.

In farming our people have proved their worth. This I say from experience. On the South Coast of Natal we have some very successful farmers such as the Goldstones, the Pinns, the Landers, and various others. On the North Coast we have the Dunns, relatives of mine, who have likewise farmed successfully. I need not even mention the farmers at Ingogo outside Newcastle. These families are sons of the soil and have children who would naturally like to farm, but there is no land available for them. They will need assistance to buy land to farm.

I say this to the Government: Treat all farmers in the same way. Treat everyone equally. South Africa is for us all, in all respects. If a man can farm, encourage him, as he is an asset to the community. If reform is to be meaningful in this country, this is one of the main items which the Government must address itself to. I entirely disagree with the hon member for Border who wants us to remain where we are in regard to the acquisition of land. I say if Acts still refer to “Coloured" land, they should be repealed entirely. All South Africans should be treated as South Africans.

I am not a legal man like the hon member for Border, so I cannot quote the different Acts as he so eloquently does, but I would feel happy if all South Africans were treated equally.

Mr Chairman, I speak in support of the motion as moved by the hon member for Dysselsdorp. The debate emphasises the fact that the LP’s endeavour is to see to our people’s daily needs and the improvement of their living conditions. It is important to give constant attention to the question of the daily lives of our people in South Africa. Today we are talking about agriculture, which is of cardinal importance to South Africa. It forms the cornerstone of our economy.

The problem that we want to consider is the fact that agriculture, which should be regarded as a general affair, is divided up into compartments. In terms of the Constitution, agriculture is an own affair. We are experiencing many problems with the own affairs component. The own affairs agricultural department does not accommodate the needs of our Coloured farmers. That is the position among the Indians and the Blacks as well. For that reason we should like to see one Department of Agriculture.

Approximately 6 million people make their living from agriculture today. On many farms the farming is already in the hands of Coloureds or Blacks who have shown that they love the soil. Today’s economic realities require one to treat the agricultural industry as a unit to the advantage of the whole of the South African population, since White farmers are leaving their farms because of debt burdens.

If agriculture becomes a general affair, all farmers should be treated on an equal footing irrespective of race. At present the White farmers are enjoying bigger and better privileges than non-White farmers. Enormous amounts of money are allocated to the White farmers, whereas the money allocated to agriculture in the Coloured and Indian sectors is less than sufficient. An amount of R20 million for 24 rural areas hampers the Coloured farmers, for example. It places them in a position where they cannot make a positive contribution to the economy and the prosperity of South Africa. The allocation of insufficient funds to non-White farmers restricts agricultural progress. It leads to a lack of capital and training. Then there are also restrictive measures that should be abolished.

As long as agriculture remains an own affair, there will be a dark cloud over the agricultural industry. We appeal for agriculture to be regarded as a general affair so that agricultural training facilities in South Africa can be opened up to all races. Agriculture will come into its own by means of a strong training programme for all farmers, irrespective of race or colour. All farmers will develop the same agricultural knowledge if agriculture becomes a general affair. This must be to the advantage of the country, but it cannot happen as long as agriculture remains an own affair. That is why I appeal for agriculture to be made a general affair.

Mr Chairman, I support the motion. The hon the Deputy Minister knows what I am going to speak about, because he was with me at Campbell and Douglas. Last week the ministerial representative and I visited Douglas in connection with the flood disaster. On the way there we saw tractors dragging wagons and also lorries full of furniture on the way to Kimberley and elsewhere to escape the floods. That happened because people were told the floods were coming. The farmers were notified. The farmers lived in the choicest spots, on the banks of the rivers. The Coloureds lived on the rise, and in between there was a ditch which had subsequently become a river. The more well-to-do Coloureds, the teachers and so on, lived a little lower down and were also affected by the floods. Our people, however, were not affected by the floods, but rather by the rain. They suffered rain damage. The farmers of Douglas …

The “Afrikaner” farmers.

The “Afrikaner” farmers were safe, however, because they went to Kimberley. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister, however, that our people had nowhere to go. The White farmers took all their furniture and went to Kimberley, because there were empty houses standing there. They could also go to Campbell where 300 houses were standing empty. They could seek shelter there. What, however, could our people do?

Our people had to stay there, because the river separates the Whites from the Coloureds. Another area separating the Whites from the Coloureds is the sewerage disposal area, which is at the river. So first one has the river, then the sewerage disposal area and then the Coloureds.

When I arrived at Douglas with the ministerial representative … [Interjections.] That is the truth. When we arrived at Douglas, it was to see that the tiny stream running past the school had become a river. It went right through the school. There is still mud two metres deep in the school building. The mobile classroom had been washed away and lay two kilometres from the school building. The remainder of the mobile units looked like matchwood. It will be quite some time before the school can be reopened, and it will take at least six months to clean it up. The majority of the school children come from the farms and they are now going to become farm workers. They are going to be a source of child labour.

I now come to Campbell. The hon the Deputy Minister knows Campbell. We live here on the tip of the mountain. The hon the Deputy Minister and I both made speeches there. We talked to the people and lodged pleas with the Whites that the area around the White area, where hundreds of houses were standing empty, should be given to our people for farming purposes. The Coloured farmers are now farming up there. As soon as their goats and sheep multiply too quickly, it is said that there is not enough grazing. The sheep and goats are impounded and sold to the Whites. That is all the people have to live on. The hon the Deputy Minister and I were both there, and I want to tell him today that that problem has never been solved. It still exists. Campbell is still unchanged. Over the past 100 years nothing has been done there. I am glad the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is here too. [Interjections.] I am not picking a fight with the hon the Minister. He knows me well and he knows that we have been struggling for a long time to help those people.

Last year and the year before the House of Representatives voted R300 000 …

Order! The hon member must return to the motion under discussion.

I am still dealing with farmers, Sir. The money was voted for the farmers. All the people up there are farmers. They could not use the money, however, because a person cannot even install a water-pipe there because it would cost approximately R300 000. So that money could not be employed for farming.

Let us look at the Longlands farmers. Those people have been living there for generations now. They live in mud huts and are not permitted to erect brick dwellings because it is not yet a declared area. The Group Areas Board sat—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning knows this—and the Whites were willing to relinquish the land to the Coloured farmers. But—there is always a but—something happened and the Whites suddenly decided that they could not relinquish the land. There are now 260 families without houses. At the moment there are 25 tents in which the people are being accommodated. In the presence of the ministerial representative, Mr J Scholtz, the Defence Force said—one could hear it on my dentone telephone—they wanted R271 000 as a guarantee from the House of Representatives or they would have the tents removed. Then the people would have no accommodation. That was said in the presence of the ministerial representative.

Those people in Longlands now have nothing. They have only 25 tents between them; and 250 families have to make use of those 25 tents. Some people have neither houses nor tents. The probably never sleep.

Then we come to a very delicate matter. I now want the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to listen carefully. I am glad he has come. I think the Lord has sent him here. [Interjections.] Over the past four years there were seven pupils in the White school at Longlands. This year there are no children in that White school.

Order! The hon member must please note that the subject under discussion is that agriculture should become a general affair.

Yes, Sir, that is why I am now …

Order! The hon member must please confine himself to the motion. Would the hon member please do so.

Yes, Mr Chairman. Sir, these Coloured children of farming stock were accommodated in that White school until recently, after I had asked permission. On Sunday, however, they were kicked out. The reason which was advanced was that the rain had stopped and that they now had to leave the school. Now the school stands there empty and the people sit outside with all their furniture and everything else. I want the hon the Minister please to look into that. That is not something that has anything to do with education, but it does have something to do with housing. It also has something to do with agriculture, because these people can no longer utilise the land. They can no longer utilise the land on which they were born. [Interjections.] Sir, I am speaking about farming land after all.

Order! The hon member must not crack jokes now. He must continue with his speech. He must speak about the motion that agriculture should be regarded as a general affair. The motion is clear and the hon member must confine himself to that motion. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, if agriculture were regarded as a general affair, my people in Longlands would no longer have to live in the White school, because there are 10 houses standing empty—10 enormous houses!

If agriculture were to become a general affair, we would no longer have a problem. Longlands has a suitable infrastructure. Even if it were to be declared a mixed area or a grey area, the Whites already living there could still continue to do so. Then we would no longer need a proclamation, because everything would be in order and the Coloured farmers could live alongside the “Afrikaner” farmers.

Mr Chairman, allow me to say today that I have no problem with the motion of the hon member for Dysselsdorp. [Interjections.]

However, I want to explain at the outset why I am saying this, and also ask the hon the Deputy Minister right now whether he is familiar with that area between Keimoes and Warmsand. That is an area where we have people who are probably amongst the most successful irrigation farmers in the Republic, viz the Loxtons and the Spangenbergs. Here we have agriculturists par excellence, and to come and push those people back under own affairs now, is absurd. I am absolutely convinced that their turnover is greater than what is being budgeted for under the section for agriculture by the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

How can one come and put people who have been running an agricultural enterprise all these years, and have been doing so very successfully, under own affairs, as a result of their so-called race group?

That is why I agree with the hon member for Dysselsdorp. Separate agriculture creates another real problem for us, however, and that is—as the hon member for Griqualand West also tried to illustrate—that when we are dealing with natural disasters, the Coloured farmer always comes off second best. I have already heard farmers say that they prefer natural disasters such as a flood, because then they make more money than they would have made with their crops. This is the kind of thing that hurts us. Under the own affairs dispensation it has often been the case that when some natural disaster or another has hit our agriculturists, they have had to rely on Government loans. What do the other farmers get, however? They openly speak about the subsidies they are waiting for. I am familiar with these kinds of circumstances, and they are almost like the seven lean years and the seven years of plenty which the Bible describes. It is so significant that when a disaster hits the farmers in the rural areas, it takes them more or less seven years to repay their national debt. Ten days after the last 10 cents where paid after the 1967 flood, the Orange River again overflowed its banks. Unfortunately I do not know whether the 1974 flood debt has already been paid, but I do know that if we continue to plod along like this, and we want to plant our food, which is essential, we cannot afford an own affairs agricultural administration. We have tremendous potential to export agricultural products. We could feed the whole of Africa if we do not let agricultural land lie unutilised. Has the hon the Minister ever considered that the millions of liters of water which flow away into the sea, would certainly not have happened in America? Pipelines could be laid to irrigate the fertile soil in the Northern Cape where there are no canals or rivers. Agricultural land could be created in this way. Have the hon the Minister and his department ever considered how much potential there is in the Kalahari where maize grows lushly in the fertile agricultural land around a borehole? Why can we not lay on water there? It is because provision is being made for the convenience of a certain group which does not see its way clear to braving the stark landscape there. Because so-called Coloured farmers are living there, we do not see our way clear to incurring expenses there. I want to appeal urgently to the hon the Minister for us to work together—we so often speak of consensus—to extend our hands to one another so that we can go forward in confidence. These are always just idle words, however. I want to make an appeal that we really work at the cause which is going to help us to earn our bread in the future. If one casts one’s bread upon the waters today, it will come back to one after many days.

Mr Chairman, we have not come here this afternoon to beg. Nor have we come here to solicit charity. We have come to ask that justice be done in the field of agriculture.

What is agriculture? Agriculture includes all forms of agricultural activity, including the harvesting of crops and also the breeding of animals under human supervision. The most important single factor in the field of agriculture is man. Man is the producer, and also the dealer and the consumer. Agricultural processes were created by man, and man is at the hub of economic agricultural processes. All people therefore play a role in the economic processes involved in agriculture, and everyone participates in order to satisfy his own unlimited economic needs. Owing to the fact that all people play a role in the economic agricultural processes, we are all aware that the intensity of the production, distribution and consumption of agricultural products differs from community to community.

For this reason we can no longer regard agriculture as an own affair. We shall have to regard it as a general affair. It is specifically because there are common interests in this sphere that we are sitting in this House today. We request the hon the Minister immediately to create one department for dealing with agricultural matters. Mining is a general affair; forestry and fisheries are general affairs. Why is agriculture an own affair? Is it a token of acknowledgement to CP policy, or must an own affairs department administer poverty in a rural area?

Sir, this afternoon I want to place the emphasis on Coloured farmers. Coloured farmers have been compelled to apply traditional methods transferred from generation to generation. The degree of success achieved by these methods is directly ordained by nature, and in this way reserves are seldom built up. If droughts, floods or other natural disasters occur, they wreak havoc. The result is famine, misery and poverty. A further result of this system is that owing to a lack of surpluses, there is no capital available.

Today it is said that the Coloured farmers in flood-ravaged areas owned nothing at all. That “nothing” which they owned, however, had sentimental value for them. It took them years to build up what they had. Now everything has been washed away. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to give these Coloured farmers back what they lost so that they can continue living their daily lives.

It is extremely disappointing to see that an amount of approximately R20 million is being budgeted for agriculture, when we have 24 rural areas. [Interjections.] Sir, who lives in these rural areas? When will injustices in the Republic of South Africa come to an end?

What is also very difficult for us to accept is the fact that when White farmers come forward with objections, they are really treated as objections, but when Coloured farmers do the same, no notice is taken of them. They are not regarded as farmers. In the field of agriculture the rights of the Whites are protected by laws. Let us look, for example, at the position of the Agricultural Bank. At the Agricultural Bank one does not qualify for a loan if one is not a landowner. Sir, just think of the thousands of different kinds of boards whose object it is to protect the rights of Whites.

Today we want to ask the hon the Minister to make agriculture a general affair.

Mr Chairman, I think one of the hon members mentioned the fact that it is not always pleasant to be Coloured. He said it was nicer to be White. That rule does not always apply, however.

There is one situation where Whites suffer, and that is when they are sitting here, listening to the problems concerning the Group Areas Act! It is striking that whenever we discuss agriculture and the specific problems that are linked to agriculture, we discuss the Group Areas Act, and other things are drawn into the discussion as well.

But that is necessary!

That is true. It is necessary to talk about these things, but hon members must remember that we are dealing with something specific here, viz agriculture.

The hon the Deputy Minister must stick to the facts!

Order! The hon member for Haarlem must permit the hon the Deputy Minister to reply. In terms of the Standing Rules and Orders an hon member may not interrupt a Minister when he is replying. If the hon member wants to put a question, he can do so. I can give the hon member an opportunity to speak if the hon the Minister is prepared to reply to his question.

Sir, in that case I want to put a point of order: This debate is going to be more fruitful if the hon the Deputy Minister will stick to the facts. The Group Areas Act is the problem …

Order! That is not a point of order.

I am making a statement.

Order! The hon member must not argue with me. That is not a point of order. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, it was not my intention to adopt a standpoint here that would cause the hon member to become aggressive in discussing the problems in agriculture. The point I want to make is that when we talk about own affairs and general affairs in respect of agriculture, we have given circumstances which we have to use as a point of departure. That is applicable here, and we have come here with a certain set of circumstances which hon members do not like. Hon members have spelt this out, but the fact remains that this has been part of the system until now. It is changing, however. That is what I want to use as my point of departure. We must consider how we are going to address the problem in future. We must see whether this problem can be solved simply by making a general affair of agriculture. That is a principle that hon members and I can debate, because it is contained in this motion. I should like to single out a few aspects in this connection with reference to the speeches made here by hon members of this House.

I am sorry to see that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture who deals with hon members’ affairs, is not here today. He has done very good liaison work in establishing the basis of communication so that there can be communication between our different communities in respect of the existing needs, as well as to convey information from the people who develop it in the various institutes to the farmers who have to apply this information. We are trying to remove colour completely. This is a process that we are going to take further, because in my opinion it is not something that can simply happen overnight.

Hon members must take a further look at these circumstances. It is easy to talk about agriculture as an idyllic own affair. Let us take a look at White agriculture.

What is that?

That is White agriculture as it is structured at present. [Interjections.] Let us look at the distribution there. That is an important point of departure. In agriculture 80% of the production is effected by 20% of the farmers. The assistance given to agriculture is not aimed at this 20% of the farmers, however, but at the smaller farmer who produces a smaller amount. Differentiation therefore takes place in agriculture as such in respect of the assistance that is given and the money that is spent. It is given with a view to effecting structural change, because certain landowners who own a great deal of land receive less assistance from the Government than other farmers who own less land, but receive relatively more assistance.

How much assistance is given to Coloured farmers?

I shall come to that. This is a structure which has been established on a historic foundation. It is a system which has worked up to now.

Who made it?

Yes, but the policy applies. With all due respect, we are here today as part of that system that we want to change together.

We must change from that point of departure. We cannot undo everything and start over again. It is a gradual process that is in progress. We are building roads and bridges in an attempt to correct matters.

When we look at the present discussion on assistance to agriculture, therefore, we see it is based on a basic fact, viz that Government assistance is based merely on the solvency of the receiver thereof. Money is not given to a farmer merely because he is a farmer. Money is given to a farmer on the basis of the fact that he will be able to repay that money as well as the interest on that money. [Interjections.] This is an economic basis which applies everywhere, not only in agriculture. It also applies in the world of commerce and is a basis that has been built into agriculture. That is the most important norm that applies, not the colour of one's skin.

If we look at the Land Bank figures, therefore—I requested that the figures be brought to me …

Six applications; six granted.

No, I have the figures of the past few years in front of me. During the past four years, 75 applications have been received, of which 60—that is 80%—have been granted, amounting to approximately R1 million.

What is the average amount?

The average is more than R100 000 per farmer.

Over a period of how many years?

Over a period of approximately four or five years. The point remains, however, that the same norms are applied throughout. There is no differentiation between the norms that apply to applicants. There are financial norms such as repayment. That is a norm that we apply in agricultural credit as well. It is not based on market value, but is a matter of security for Government funds that have to be utilised and repaid.

Hon members will see that the controversy surrounding agricultural financing is not so much a matter of the norms as a matter of writing off or not writing off debt. Hon members will find that the people who talk easily about agriculture are those who make a noise outside the Government. They say the money must be written off; that is the only way in which the farmers can get out of trouble. In contrast the Government adopts the standpoint that there are only two ways in which to write off money. The one is legal sequestration and the other is to extend it over a long period, so as to make it possible for the farmer to repay the money.

Sequestrate another CP MP who is a farmer, and let us see what happens then.

Yes, there are many people who are being sequestrated. Everyone is treated alike. When we talk about agricultural financing, we can lay down only one norm and that is a financial norm that everyone complies with. I think we should emphasise that.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the Agricultural Credit Act is an own affair of the House of Assembly?

But it was said that this was debt that could be written off. As regards the basis for agricultural credit, we apply the norm strictly in the same way as the Land Bank applies it.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister was not replying to my question. I merely wish to know whether the Agricultural Credit Act is an own affair in the House of Assembly.

Yes.

So, everything the hon the Deputy Minister says relates entirely to Whites and not to the component the hon the Deputy Minister is addressing now.

That is true, but I am using this as an example to show that the financing has an economic basis.

I want to take a further look at this aspect. I listened to the hon member for Dysselsdorp. Is it not possible for us to come to an agreement in respect of agriculture in this House? Even if we debate until we are blue in the face and we admit that agriculture should become a general affair, I want to know whether that will really change anything.

We cannot settle these matters until the constitutional debate has taken place. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to put his case.

If we do not do that, we are going to make agriculture into a political matter and then we shall not be able to focus on the true problems of agriculture. Agriculture is a great leveller. The people who work with one another on farms know that. We all get on the farms because we are working with realities and facts.

Baas en Klaas! [Interjections.]

Order!

We do not always like those facts, but we are trying to find solutions to them. We have a basis, therefore, on which we can co-operate. Can we not use it as a basis and see whether it does not facilitate the solution of our political problem? Agriculture is an area in which we can reach one another, but if we use agriculture as a subject in talking about the political matters, we are dodging the issue. [Interjections.]

I want to make certain comments on what hon members said in connection with the motion of the hon member for Dysselsdorp. The hon member asked why Whites were moving away from the rural areas. What is the problem in the rural areas.? When we consider the problem of the rural areas, we see that it is a financial problem, a problem of circumstance. There are a variety of factors that should be taken into account. Only 4% of the 122 million ha agricultural land in South Africa is really highly productive. This includes the irrigation land of almost one million ha. The other is middle-class and lower potential land. The approximately 10% of reasonably high-potential land in South Africa is situated mainly in the eastern part of the country. We must guard against using statistics in respect of the redistribution of land in general, however. It is a matter of the redistribution of productive land. Approximately 12% of the population in the USA is non-White, and they do not own even 2% of the land. It is also a matter of the possession and utilisation of land, therefore. I know hon members will react if I say that our present legislation has the advantage of encouraging poorer communities to possess land and protect them against the exploitation of rich communities. There are negative aspects, but we have those plus points as well. The system of permits does create problems.

Big problems!

Yes, there are problems. There are communities in the Cape Province whose purchase of land is not controlled by the veto of a permit. This happens in the Postmasburg and Griekwastad areas, for example. The hon member for Griqualand West and I have spoken about the problems of Campbell and so on.

I do not think the hon member was being quite fair when he spoke about discrimination in respect of flood aid. I do not believe that that can be true. I serve on the committee that controls that aspect. If it is true that such irregularities and discrimination have taken place, has the hon member reported this to the committee so that the matter can be investigated and rectified? The opportunity is there to do so. Assistance is being granted on a large scale to people from all communities who have suffered losses. Look at the farmers who were affected by the Natal flood disaster. There we drew a clear distinction between Black farmers, who have a small income and were helped in another way, and the White and even Indian farmers. Assistance to address the problem was granted on the basis of specific circumstances.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister said the statement I had made in connection with the Defence Force was not quite correct. The ministerial representative was with me. I have a dentone telephone on which one can hear what is being said. The ministerial representative sat there …

Order! That is not a point of order.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that things were not quite true.

Order!

This is merely a rectification, Sir.

Order! The hon member must give me a chance. The rectification can be made in a subsequent debate. The hon member cannot make it now, however, because the hon the Deputy Minister is making his reply.

But he is misleading the House.

Order! In that case the hon member must provide facts. The hon member for Haarlem must come to order. [Interjections.] Does the hon member have the correct facts?

I have the facts, Sir. The hon member for Griqualand West wants to put the case to the House.

Order! The hon member for Griqualand West had an opportunity to do so. He can do so in a subsequent debate. He can also ask for another turn to speak. There is a lot of time to discuss this, and the hon member can arrange with the Whips to get a further turn to speak. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, I do not want to take that point any further, except to say that there is somewhere where we can take it further. I would be grateful if the hon member would bring the facts to our attention so that the irregularities, if they exist, can be eliminated. That is what we are here for, and I shall do that with pleasure. I do not mean to be nasty to the hon member.

Before I come to the hon member for Vredendal, I want to say that I missed the appreciated contribution of the hon member for Dias. It is a pity that his voice prevented him from making the whole of the speech he had prepared.

The hon member for Vredendal quoted from a speech I had made. He mentioned inter alia that Africa was dying because of a lack of knowledge. I think that is true. I referred to knowledge to assist Africa in solving its problems and producing food, instead of being at the mercy of food suppliers. That is the dilemma of agriculture in general. There is no point in saying South Africa has a potential which it must develop to its full.

We have the water and we have the land. And, as the hon member said, if we could lay on water to the Kalahari, we could plant mealies, which would grow beautifully, around the nozzle of every sprinkler. That is possible; we have the knowledge. We can make highly productive land out of what looks like mere stone. That costs money, however. The question is, what will we do with the products we produce? Surely they should pay for the production costs. That brings us to the dilemma of Africa. The people of Africa are starving, but they do not have the money to fill their stomachs.

That is why our production in South Africa has to remain linked to the economy. What happens if we over-produce? What happened in the maize industry, in which all farmers are involved? We had to export the excess at a loss, and recoup the loss from the domestic price. This was to the detriment of everyone. If, therefore, one develops one’s potential to the maximum without taking the market into account, one has a problem.

Let us go further. The hon member spoke about the marketing boards which supposedly benefit only a certain part of the farming community. That is a general affair, however. These boards control the marketing of the products of all farmers in the country. They are there for the sake of an orderly system of surplus removal and stimulation when there are shortages.

We have made progress in that sphere in getting co-operation in the marketing of all farmers’ products. I have dealt in part with the further aspect mentioned by the hon member in respect of writing off debt. Debt is not written off. It may be extended over a long period, but the farmer repays every cent, as I pointed out to hon members. The loans from the previous flood debt have not all been repaid yet.

The subsidies that are made available are for something that is paid for. When I say that contributions and assistance to agriculture have been granted from existing funds, I must point out that these are not additional funds that are created. Often certain schemes have to be suspended to make certain other schemes possible. If, for instance, an interest subsidy is granted on certain loans, it is not extra money, but money that was provided because other schemes were suspended. That is how budgets work, after all. That is why we shall have to understand that when money has to be provided by a department for a certain purpose, it must be budgeted for; and an orderly structure is essential in drawing up a budget. Organisation is also necessary among the farming community. Order is also necessary in the mechanism by means of which that assistance is applied. Control is needed as well. Farmers are the salt of the earth, but it is extremely difficult to pin them down when they have to fill in forms. Not everything the farmer writes down is necessarily correct. Unfortunately it has to be checked, and that applies to all farmers. When it comes to complaining, the farmers are often first in line, but when it comes to guaranteeing information they have given, one has to watch them.

The hon member for Macassar—unfortunately he is not here now—spoke about the farmers at Keimoes. What he said was true. The farmers there do not farm on an island, however. They do have certain problems in respect of financing and agricultural credit. The hon member can go and ask the Land Bank what the position of those farmers is. They are treated in the same way as any other farmer in respect of co-operative facilities, and their representative is sitting here. That also applies to access to knowledge and information from the extension services and the acceptance of that community by the White community. After all, that is where we have to start co-operating, and this matter can develop in the correct direction from there. As far as I am concerned, there is no way of effecting that other than by granting the people who live with one another an opportunity to live together and expose themselves to those conditions. That is what is happening there. That is also what is happening successfully in other communities.

We must guard against going from here with certain views and forgetting what is practical, however, because as I said, farming is a leveller because it exposes people to one another, because people need one another, and because it teaches them to co-operate. That is why I feel this can happen more often in future. I see examples of this. I see examples in the area I represent, and I see examples in the department of hon members’ Administration. Hon members do not like the fact that this is own affairs, but it does create a basis. It creates a basis upon which we can build.

We find that there is very good co-operation between Indian farmers and officials. This also applies to the training of Indian extension officers. After all, their needs are different from those of the established First World agriculture of the Whites. The needs of the Black farmers, which are communal at the moment—they are moving away from this slowly—are also different at present from those of the First World, and if they have to compete with the First World agriculture on an equal footing, they are going to come off second best. We would have had to differentiate even if we had a general department of agriculture, therefore, because we would have had to accommodate the various levels of agriculture in South Africa and make extension possible.

I want to conclude on that point, Sir. I am very grateful to have had this opportunity. I am also grateful to hon members for having addressed this problem and having spoken frankly about it.

I think we can now create a basis on which we can communicate with one another in future. We must be frank with one another and differ with one another, but we must not destroy the things that bind us. We must use them to get rid of the differences between us, because by doing this in agriculture, we shall be building a better South Africa.

Sir, I should like to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister. The hon the Deputy Minister talked about a lot of things, but I expected him to talk about the motion of the hon member for Dysselsdorp. He replied to what the chaps had said, but …

Order! The hon member must please not refer to hon members as “chaps”.

Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister did not answer the cardinal question with which the motion is concerned. He merely told us about various experiences. When is the hon the Deputy Minister going to reply to the cardinal points raised in the debate?

Order! The hon member must please put his question. The hon member wanted to ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question and he must now please put that question.

Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister discussed certain points raised by hon members, but I want to know when he is going to answer on the motion that, and I quote:

This motion has political implications and …

Order! The hon member has put his question and the hon the Deputy Minister will now have the opportunity to answer him. I cannot allow any further discussion on this matter.

Mr Chairman, I tried to point out throughout my reply that at the moment we are caught up in and are part of a system which creates a certain order in agriculture. We must accept that as a fact. It can serve as a point of departure, however, to move in the direction of one department if it has to. We can debate the matter and I tried to weave this into the discussion. I also tried to reply to certain questions, and that is why I said towards the end that we must build bridges so that we can cooperate with one another. The hon member can deduce from that that I was saying that if we can co-operate in future and solve the problems, we are going to move closer to one Department of Agriculture. If we differ with one another, however, we shall be moving away from the idea of one department. That is the crux of the problem that I was trying to convey. I am sorry that this was not quite clear to the hon member.

Sir, I want to thank each speaker who took part in the debate from the bottom of my heart. I also want to address a special word of thanks to the hon member for Toekomsrus who called the attention of the hon member for Border to his inconsistency.

We are all keenly aware of the fact that the hon member for Border usually requires 15 years to understand something. I also want to condemn the hon member for Border for the frivolous remarks he made about the recent floods. Once again it indicates that this hon member takes a long time to understand the consequences of the flood disaster. It is also clear that he does not realise the misery suffered by people, regardless of race or colour, as a result of the floods. It is clear that the hon member for Border does not realise that we are living in a time of great significance and perhaps that is why only one hon member of the Official Opposition is present here. [Interjections.]

According to the Central Statistical Service there were 69 180 White farmers in 1985, while today there are only 60 000 White farmers. In the same year there were 1 263 Asian farmers and 53 500 Black farmers.

It is quite clear that the void left by White farmers must be filled. Therefore the permit system will have to go! It will have to be repealed. Let us save South Africa from its downfall in the agricultural sphere, because a farmer is a farmer regardless of his colour.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, after discussions with the Official Opposition I move without notice on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning:

Agreed to.

†Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning I further move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In his report on the revenue accounts of the Administration: House of Representatives, the Auditor-General reported that for 1985-86 there had been an unauthorised expenditure amounting to R23 376 334,20 for Vote No 5, Improvement of Conditions of Service. The excess is due to an oversight in that the abovementioned amount, which was drawn from the State Revenue Account, Vote No 8, Improvement of Conditions of Service, was not allocated. Funds were allocated under Vote No 8, Improvement of Conditions of Service, which is the Vote for the Commission for Administration, and said amount was earmarked for transfer to the Administration: House of Representatives.

The transfer did in fact take place. The money was received and spent on the improvement of service conditions. Unfortunately, however, no provision was made in the Additional Appropriation for 1985-86 in respect of this Administration, because the impression was that it had already been budgeted for, viz that provision had been made for this amount in the budget of the Commission for Administration, and that it simply had to be transferred to this Administration’s Vote No 5, Improvement of Conditions of Service.

In reality, however, in addition to the transfer of the Commission for Administration to this Administration, this Administration also had to make provision for this in the Additional Appropriation. The circumstances as outlined above were presented by the accounting officer of the Administration: House of Representatives as evidence during his appearance before the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts—Own Affairs: House of Representatives.

The committee considered the evidence and in its report, which was tabled on 5 August 1987, it recommended the amount of R23 376 334,20 for specific appropriation by the House of Representatives. The result of the recommendation made by the standing select committee was that the unauthorised expenditure of R23 376 334,20 has to be authorised by means of the passing of special legislation by the House of Representatives. It is for this reason that the legislation is before the House.

Mr Chairman, I want to apologise to the hon member for Dysselsdorp for not being present to reply. I was called out by the chairman of the joint committee sitting in connection with the alleged bribery. That is why I was not present. I apologise for that.

I also want to congratulate the hon member for Robertson, the hon member for Haarlem and the hon member for Esselen Park on their promotion to the front bench. I now wish to come back to the matter before us today.

Firstly I wish to query something. Money is a general affair, so why is it that when it comes to the accounts of the House of Representatives or the accounts of the House of Delegates or the House of Assembly, only a select committee is chosen from the ranks of hon members of that particular House? Surely, finance being a general affair, the committee on finance should be a joint committee comprising hon members of all three Houses so that it may investigate the funds of the other Houses.

I have no problem with the explanation made by the hon the Minister of the Budget, but I wish to disagree with the committee under the chairmanship of the hon member Mr Douw as far as their finding is concerned, viz that this was unauthorised expenditure. Because of the hon the Minister's explanation, it would appear that the committee’s finding that this was unauthorised expenditure is not true or correct. The money was allocated under the Vote of the Commission of Administration, Vote 8. Through a simple accounting error the money was not transferred to the account of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the finding of the committee that this was unauthorised expenditure is not an accurate reflection. The money was, in fact, allocated, but due to the accounting procedure it was not incorporated in the Appropriation Bill of the House of Representatives. I cannot therefore, agree with the finding of the committee.

With those few words, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts met on 3 June 1987 to discuss the Auditor-General’s report as well as inter alia to discuss the matter of unauthorised expenditure. After due consideration the committee took the following decision. I quote:

The Administration: House of Representatives has its own budget and that budget is being debated in this House at the moment. If, therefore, the Auditor-General’s report is before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the House that debated and appropriated that budget of necessity has to discuss that budget and the report on the budget for that financial year. I want to tell the hon member for Border that that is the reason. We appropriated this budget separately, and we have to discuss the report separately.

Sir, these funds are unauthorised. Surely one cannot spend money which is not in one’s possession.

In my explanation I shall deal with the appropriation of funds. Firstly I want to tell the hon member for Border that if I offer him R100, but have not yet paid the money into his account, he cannot write out a cheque for R100.

I can; you just don’t know me. [Interjections.]

There the hon member for Border himself has provided the answer, because he says he would write it out. If he wrote out that cheque, we would be dealing with unauthorised expenditure. That is what happened here. It was merely a question of bookkeeping that should have taken place, but which did not take place.

For that reason the committee stands by its decision that the expenditure was unauthorised.

The excess that has to be voted on this afternoon is due to expenditure which has been payable since 1 October 1984 in respect of the improved conditions of service of teachers. The date indicates that that was before the actual date upon which the Administration: House of Representatives came into operation. The Education and Culture Vote was therefore faced with a deficit of approximately R26 510 million because of the adjustment for the 1985-86 financial year. For the 1985-86 financial year R73,43 million as well as R13,56 million was appropriated under the Improvement of Conditions of Service Vote for the review of the dispensation with regard to teachers which came into operation on 1 October.

It came to the attention of the Department of Education and Culture, however, that these appropriated funds would be insufficient. Therefore a request was made for a further R11,396 million. Despite this request the Department of Education and Culture’s allocation to the Improvement of Conditions of Service Vote was cut by a further R2,24 million during the second revised budget of 1985-86. Instead of there being an increase, there was a cut.

The Department of Education and Culture definitely acted correctly, since it was determined at that stage that the additional expenditure in respect of increased salaries would amount to approximately R7,935 million every month. That means that an amount of R26,510 million was necessary to make good the overexpenditure.

The funds were appropriated initially, but unfortunately under the Improvement of Conditions of Service Vote which fell under the Commission for Administration. This fund formed part of the process of occupational differentiation and the adjustment of teachers’ salaries. The fund was used for its intended purpose, but unfortunately the Commission for Administration did not indicate that in its Additional Appropriation of 1985-86. As the hon the Minister said, the Director-General gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that the amount of R23 376 334,20 had indeed been transferred from the Commission for Administration. The Director-General also said that they had been under the misapprehension that the money had already been appropriated in the appropriation of the Commission for Administration and that it simply had to be transferred to the Administration: House of Representatives. For that reason no provision was made for this money in the Additional Appropriation for 1985-86.

We should like to support the appropriation of these funds.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon members who participated in this debate and thank them very much. I do not think I shall ever have as easy a Second Reading to deal with as this one. The hon member for Border conducted himself as a worthy opposition member.

He looked for a question to put and my hon colleague, the hon member Mr Douw, explained it just as a real teacher would explain something to a Sub A child. [Interjections.] I want to express my thanks for the support. There is absolutely nothing left for me to explain.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Hon members will recall that a Commission of Inquiry into the Establishment of a Negotiating Body for the SA Transport Services in connection with Salaries and Service Conditions was appointed during 1986. The report of this commission forms the basis of the Bill.

The provisions of the Bill are well-considered and with Parliamentary approval, should be to the advantage of South Africa in general and the SATS and its work force in particular. The Conditions of Employment (SA Transport Services) Act, Act 16 of 1983, together with the staff regulations in which the service conditions of employees are embodied in a statutory manner, is being repealed. In its place the Bill provides for the establishment of a labour council in which collective bargaining can take place, as well as for settlement procedures for disputes.

In the case of conditions of service a departure is being made from a statutory approach to a more contractual approach. In the new dispensation, the conditions of employment of employees will be embodied in consolidated service conditions which can be amended by the Labour Council. Only a few conditions of service are retained in the Bill, namely those requiring legal sanction.

For the information of the House I should like to refer to a few specific clauses. The SATS is a large and geographically widespread organisation and clause 2 vests powers in respect of incumbency and conditions of service of employees, and also regulates the power to delegate in detail.

In clause 3 provision is being made for various categories of employees and this serves to confirm the parity of conditions of service, as effected by section 6 of the Transport Services Amendment Act, Act 91 of 1987.

†Clauses 8 to 18 are in line with the recommendations of the commission and are based on a scientific investigation into a bargaining council. These clauses will provide a negotiating model and will inaugurate a new era for the SATS.

Clause 21, which prohibits strikes, is a repetition of the present section 26 of Act 16 of 1983, as amended by Act 91 of 1987. The intention of this clause is reconcilable with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1956, regarding local authorities, and with international approaches in the case where arbitration possibilities are provided for employees in essential public services.

In the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications some doubt was expressed regarding the stipulation that transgression of the prohibition of strikes constitutes a crime. Once the Bill has been approved by the three Houses and the hon the State President has given his approval, I will, in accordance with clause 8(3)(c) of the Bill, refer the whole matter of clause 21 to the Labour Council for investigation. The Labour Council will then submit recommendations to me after advice has been obtained from all concerned.

Mr Chairman, I should like to pay tribute to the Chairman and members—especially those hon members in this House who serve on the committee—of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for the competent and thorough manner in which discussions on the Bill took place. The penetrating questions asked by members indicated clearly that the committee approaches its activities with responsibility.

Mr Chairman, I shall deal with the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Bill in general and my colleagues will discuss it clause by clause.

Even before the big strike by the SATS in 1987 the recognised trade unions and the SATS came to realise that there were certain problem areas in the existing structures for negotiation. These problem areas caused it to be practically impossible to conduct normal labour relations. An enterprise such as the SATS, as part of the State and without its own legal personality cannot, however, be brought into alignment with the structures of the Labour Relations Act. Consequently a unique bargaining machinery had to be created. In 1986 this task was entrusted to a commission under the chairmanship of Prof Nic Wiehahn with the full co-operation of the recognised trade unions.

The structures incorporated in clauses 8 to 20 of the Bill are based upon the recommendations of this commission’s report, with certain adjustments which arose from the inputs made by a variety of interest groups. The Bill creates a labour council as well as a concept of bargaining between management and the recognised trade unions. In future, it will not be possible for service conditions to be adapted unilaterally. Instead service conditions are considered to be the joint responsibility of the SATS management and the recognised trade unions.

Although the premise regarding membership of the labour council is that only the existing trade unions are recognised, the Bill does provide for a more normal recognition of trade unions in future.

The Bill also makes a supplementary contribution to the machinery of the labour council which admits of the newly recognised trade unions, even before such trade unions acquire membership of the labour council. This Bill provides a variety of arbitration mechanisms both inside and outside the proposed labour council by means of which the stormy world of labour relations can be approached more comfortably than is the case at present. In this regard the chairman of the labour council can play an important part if the services of a competent person who has a favourable image in the labour world can be acquired.

In addition to the abovementioned aspects, the Bill contains a number of clauses which are simply a repetition of existing sections in the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Act, 1983. One of these is clause 21, which regulates the aspect of strikes. Normally this is a sensitive matter and one would like to see constant attention being given to this in an attempt to find the best possible solution to the phenomenon of strikes.

The Bill also defines the question of parity of service conditions and the various categories of employees. In this sphere the Bill will therefore also make a contribution to promoting better labour relations.

In general, the Bill can be considered as a serious attempt to normalise service and labour relations within the SATS. The real practical proof of this will depend, however, upon the way in which the Bill is used by the SATS and all other interested parties. One hopes that when the Bill is promulgated as an Act, it will be used correctly to the advantage of the SATS and all its employees.

Mr Chairman, I am truly shocked that this House will support this Bill while it contains clause 21, because this clause will only be referred to the Labour Council after the Bill has become law. That is the danger. I should like to know why clause 21 will specifically be referred to the Labour Council for investigation only after this Bill has been passed. Why is this particular clause not going to be referred to the Labour Council before it is passed by this House? [Interjections.] I shall explain what I mean.

There are many hon members in this House who belonged to trade unions in years gone by. The sole aim of clause 21 is to prohibit strikes. Hon members will recall that when the hon the Minister dealt with the Transport Services Appropriation Bill here last year, glowing tributes were paid in respect of what was happening in the SATS. As one listened to the hon the Minister’s speech, one’s fears were allayed because the impression was created that everything was rosy. Yet just a week later the strike started. There are a few questions I should now like to put to the hon the Deputy Minister and he can reply to them when he replies to the debate.

Firstly, in view of the fact that it prohibits strikes, is this measure aimed at forestalling what occurred last year? Hon members of this House will recall that many people lost their lives as a result of the strike. I ask, therefore, whether this measure is aimed at stamping out strikes altogether. Secondly, will strikes be allowed under certain circumstances—as a safety measure, for instance? Or is this a measure that is being introduced by the Government to counter what took place during the past year? I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to answer those questions today. Is clause 21 aimed at curtailing the activities of Cosatu? Cosatu were regarded as the initiators of the strike that took place last year. Furthermore, is clause 21 aimed at curtailing the activities of other trade unions, not necessarily the trade unions about to be established?

What about the existing trade unions? Will they be allowed to carry on trade union activities within the constraints placed on the railway workers? In terms of the banning orders on these various bodies, Cosatu were, in fact, allowed to operate trade unions. Does this mean that they will be allowed to operate as a trade union within the ambit of the SATS?

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to put the hon member for Border on the right track. I do not want to differ with him; I merely want to put him on the right track. The reason why clause 21 was not referred to the labour council, is that at this stage no such council exists. The Bill in question provides for the establishment of such a council, however.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the measures contained in the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. This amending Bill is aimed firstly at making provision for certain matters with regard to the service conditions of SATS employees. Secondly, the legislation provides for the establishment of a labour council, to which I have just referred. Thirdly, the amending Bill makes provision for other incidental matters relating to the SATS. In my opinion the SATS are engaged in taking an in-depth look into the rights and privileges of their employees for the first time in their existence. This amending Bill is the result of the work of a three-man commission which was appointed in 1986 by the then Minister of Transport Affairs. The members of that commission were Prof Nic Wiehahn, Mr Jimmy Zurich and Dr Willie Coetzee. For the first time there will now be a proper structure in which an independent person will act as chairman.

Clause 1 deals mainly with the definition, while clause 2 deals with the powers of the State President, the Minister of Transport Affairs and the managing director, as well as the delegation of powers. This clause deals primarily with appointments and service conditions, as well as the delegation of powers by the managing director to other senior officials in the SATS.

Clause 3 mainly deals with the various categories of employees, namely—and I quote:

1. 3.
   1. (1) An employee may be employed by the South African Transport Services in an intermittent casual, casual, temporary or permanent capacity or on a contract basis.
   2. (2) A casual employee may be employed without the formalities provided for in this Act or the Consolidated Service Conditions, and normally on a shortterm basis, in connection with seasonal traffic or an exceptional situation, or to replace an employee absent from duty because of leave, sickness or other reason. An applicant for employment whom it is intended to appoint to temporary employment may be employed in a casual capacity pending compliance with formalities or requirements laid down for appointment in a temporary capacity in the Consolidated Service Conditions. An intermittent casual employee may be employed at a harbour, also without such formalities, to carry out work of an intermittent nature.

Clause 4 as a whole deals with consolidated service conditions. Clause 4 (3) is very important here, because it gives the labour council the right to make amendments to the consolidated service conditions should the labour council fail to agree on the basis of a two-thirds majority.

Clause 5 deals with the payment of money due to an employee to a person other than an employee, after receipt of a report by two medical practitioners. That means that when a person is unable to receive his money, someone else may receive it on his behalf once a report has been issued by two medical practitioners.

This clause does not apply in cases where a curator has been appointed.

Clause 6 deals with the basis on which salary adjustments are made. In this regard I can refer to the recent discussions between the hon the Minister and the Federation of Trade Unions concerning salary adjustments. We all know what the results of those discussions were.

Clause 7 deals with the compensation for injuries on duty in the case of employees employed outside the Republic. According to my information this compensation does not apply to employees who have been seconded to the TBVC countries.

Clause 8 deals with the establishment, objectives and functions of the proposed labour council, the maintenance and promotion of labour peace, and the prevention of labour disputes. Subsection 3 of clause 8 deals with the functions of the labour council, namely collective bargaining and the conclusion of agreements, as referred to in section 15, in connection with conditions of service and salaries of employees occupying grades and represented by trade unions; the referral of disputes to mediation, arbitration or other procedures for settlement or conciliation of such disputes. Subsection 5 stipulates that should the labour council be unable to agree on what procedure is to be followed, the chairman of the council may decide on the council’s behalf. That is the case because the chairman of the council is an independent person. He does not serve on the SATS management and does not fall in the group of SATS employees who form part of the trade unions. For that reason the chairman, who is independent, can take a decision on behalf of the labour council. It will be accepted as such.

Section 7 has been amended by the standing committee in its entirety, and this amendment has been accepted by the hon the Minister. The same applies to section 9. It has been replaced by a new clause, which deals with the legal personality of this labour council.

Sir, one of the clauses in this Bill, which was dealt with very thoroughly in the standing committee and was debated at length, is clause 21. Various organisations made representations to the standing committee. I do not intend to quote the evidence here, since we have been told by the hon the Deputy Minister that the standing committee’s request will be accommodated. I should like to tell the hon member for Border that clause 21 is only one of the clauses in this Bill which was strongly emphasised, since it deals with labour practice and with the Labour Relations Act. The whole Act will be referred to the labour council so that they can go through it with a fine-tooth comb and submit amendments to Parliament.

As far as clause 21 is concerned, there is one thing which I do not agree with entirely, and that is the question concerning lockouts. We spoke about that. You also know, Sir, that I do not agree with the general regulations concerning strikes. We have, however, promised this Bill to the labour council in good faith, and I gladly support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to draw the hon member for Border’s attention to the fact that when we discussed this Bill, we noted to our dismay that there was hardly ever a member of his party present at the meetings on this important legislation.

I want to return to clause 21. I want the hon member to take a look at the Labour Relations Act, Act No 28 of 1956. The hon member might have the Act in front of him, because he always has a copy of Butterworths at hand. Clause 21 was taken from this Act word for word. I want to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that the Labour Relations Act, Act No 28 of 1956, has come a long way.

I want the hon member to read this Act, bearing section 28 in mind. I also want to draw his attention to …

[Inaudible.]

Sir, let the hon member for Border take out his Butterworths. I want to draw his attention to the fact that whereas previously there was practically no real arbitration, provision has now been made for it. Provision has been made for arbitration. [Interjections.] The hon member for Border did not study the Act. I am informing him about it now. Now there is more potential for arbitration.

Hang yourself! Hang yourself!

I am not going to hang myself. I read the Act thoroughly. At a later stage I shall furnish the hon member with the Black premise on this Act.

Provision is also being made for a neutral arbitrator. The hon member did not notice that.

†Mr Chairman, I would have dealt with this aspect, but my hon colleague covered considerable ground with regard to the clauses in this particular Bill. That is why I would rather not cover that same ground.

The hon member for Border expressed his concern about this Bill, and I would like to take it from that point. I wish to share that sentiment with him, because that is something which I have also raised. If the hon member of the opposition had attended the meeting of the standing committee, he would have had more insight into this.

I am too busy with other things!

It is a pity that he cannot find the time for such important matters. Here I wish to address the hon the Minister on the sentiments expressed. What we have found, and Mr Mopp can listen too …

The hon member for Border, please!

The hon member for Border can listen, too. My concern is that two of our Black trade unions have been excluded. With regard to dealing with that particular issue, I wish to ask the hon the Minister to be very cautious. There is Blatu, which has not been included yet, and there is also Swaru. The fact that we do not have Black trade unions who are part of the council, is a matter of concern.

We must heed the way Blacks perceive the trade unions per se. I wish to quote from The Influence of Apartheid and Capitalism on the Development of Black Trade Unions, written by Don Ncube. He says:

I am satisfied, however, that in this particular Bill the Government has not tried to be very prescriptive, but is instead allowing the council to consider whether a particular issue is one in respect of which workers may strike.

One of the important questions which were raised was the question of strikes. This Bill is based on essential services—as a practising attorney the hon member knows for a fact that all local authorities are based on essential services—and as far as essential services are concerned, no strikes are tolerated. However, we went so far—it is a pity the hon member was not there—as to say that the council should be allowed to decide what is essential and what is not. That is the point which the hon member for Border missed.

Why was there a strike? Explain that to me.

At the time there was a strike the machinery was not there.

We have to congratulate the SATS not only because they have been addressing the problem of parity in salaries and job opportunities, but also because they have brought about a mechanism whereby they can now negotiate about whatever problems may arise from the work floor.

What about in the event…

The hon member may have a chance to speak when I finish.

I also want hon members to note that there is a very strong trade union, namely the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa—Numsa—which falls under the Cosatu umbrella. It is important to note that as far as trade unions are concerned they see trade unions as a political platform.

If time will allow me, I will be able to point out to hon members that the trade unions, especially the Black trade unions, perceive a trade union today as something similar to a political party and they use trade unions in this way. I wish to quote from Numsa’s booklet. They held a meeting at which they adopted certain resolutions, and hon members will find that every trade union adopts these resolutions. They say they believe:

Trade unions are going to use that particular platform as a political vehicle. They also believe:

Mr Chairman, I want the SATS to take note of this. These are important matters, because these resolutions are going to be carried out to the hilt.

There is also one last aspect I want to mention, and this concerns the forming of the alliance. They believe:

Mr Chairman, I was satisfied because we were given the assurance that, with regard to strikes, the ball will be placed in the court of the Labour Council. The Labour Council will look into the matter and will have the opportunity of addressing it.

Another thing which the hon member for Border missed is the further resolution that every year they will report back to Parliament. Whatever the achievements or the problems are, a report will be tabled in Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thought that a few more hon members would participate in the debate. It appears to me that, generally speaking, hon members are satisfied with this Bill—with the exception, of course, of the hon member for Border. I am going to reply to the hon member for Border, but, if he will pardon me, I will bestow that honour on him last. It is not because he is the least important, but I think that one should pay special attention to what he, as the spokesman for the Official Opposition, had to say.

*I want to thank the hon member for Wuppertal, who opened the debate, for his support. He sketched the good qualities of this Bill to the House, and made me realise that in addition to being a useful member of the standing committee, he has made a thorough study of the Bill before the House. There was one particular point that he emphasised—and I think it needed emphasis—viz that the role that the chairman of this Labour Council could perform. If this position is occupied by a competent person who can act as an arbitrator between the representatives of the SATS and the various trade unions, enabling them to co-operate in this council and take the right decisions, this man will be the pivot on which everything hinges. I therefore want to associate myself with the hope the hon member expressed that this chairman will indeed perform that role.

The hon member also referred to clause 21, but we shall come to that later. He also mentioned parity. Perhaps it is necessary to repeat that the Government’s attitude is that parity is an accomplished fact. Some hon members may perhaps find that the process is moving too slowly—the hon the Minister and I may even share that feeling—but we have given that undertaking and hon members need not fear that parity will not come about. It all depends on the availability of funds. The hon member also pointed out that apart from the good qualities of this Bill, what is also important is the implementation of the Bill once it becomes law. I might just add that if hon members had had the opportunity—which I suppose they did not have—to read the Wiehahn Commission Report, they would have realised that the trade union movement and the SATS have come a long way together over a very long period—since before we became a union in 1910—and that the SATS management has made a constant effort to promoting the trade union movement within its own service. Therefore, this Bill is a further consequence of a new dispensation and a new approach, aimed at bringing that SATS more into line with the private sector, and that is why this Bill is so important. I am pleased that the hon member pointed this out. He may rest assured that those who will be responsible for enforcing this Bill will take due cognisance of the importance of the trade union movement and of good relations between management and employee. I am pleased that the hon member mentioned this.

I want to thank the hon member for Vredendal for his excellent explanations of several clauses, making it almost unnecessary for me to refer to them. I presume the hon member’s time was limited, otherwise he would have discussed some of the other clauses as well.

The hon member for Vredendal also referred to the problems surrounding clause 21. I shall come back to this later when I reply to the Opposition’s chief spokesman on this subject.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis mentioned the fact that the chairman will be neutral. He also pointed out that the Bill has an extensive history, and that the negotiating body that is proposed in the legislation will operate on an entirely different basis.

†The hon member also wanted to know why two Black trade unions were not included in the proposed new council. I would like to remind the hon member for Bishop Lavis that Blatu, the Black trade union, as one of the presently recognised trade unions, will be one of the “founder” members of the council. The mechanisms contained in the Bill will enable the SATS to consider any new applications—for example Sarwhu—from a normal labour relations point of view. Therefore, they are not excluded; but the recognised trade union, Blatu, will obviously be one of the founder members of this proposed new council right from the start.

The hon member quoted quite extensively from certain publications—and I am glad he did that—about some of these Black trade unions and Blacks who are looking at trade unions as political organisations. We are obviously taking cognizance of that. It is a very sensitive issue. At the same time, however, one should bear in mind that an organisation like Cosatu—I say this partly in reply to the point made by the hon member for Border—or its members was restricted because of what they are doing in the labour field. That has nothing to do with it. The hon member will recollect that they are still able to continue with their normal work as members and as leaders of trade unions. Quite obviously, however, some of these Black people look upon trade unions as political organisations.

What is wrong with that?

There are obviously such organisations. I have nothing against a trade union that tries very hard to protect the interests of its members. There is nothing wrong with that. I think, however, that the moment trade unions start interfering with law and order, causing upheaval and to a certain extent violence in South Africa, they extend their responsibility to such an extent that no civilised government can tolerate their action. That is the difference. As long as people stay within the ambit of their own constitution, it is fine. None of us has anything against them if they want to promote the interests of their workers. They should be free to do so. We agree with that. The point is, however, that if they interfere with law and order and the right of other people to do what they want—if they want to do it in a civilised manner—they would be going too far, they would be going beyond what they are supposed to do.

What about the AWB?

Sir, that applies to all those organizations.

What is the hon the Deputy Minister doing about the AWB?

Sir, I can tell the hon member that if any political organization creates an uncivilized situation in South Africa, or if they want to exploit law and order and create disorder and lawlessness in South Africa—let us make no mistake about this—they will be dealt with by this Government, because we are committed to maintaining law and order in this country, regardless of who creates the disturbance. I hope hon members will understand that.

I want to come back to the hon member for Border. The hon member has already been replied to to a certain extent by the hon member for Vredendal when the latter told him that the Labour Council could not be established before this Bill became law. The moment this Bill is promulgated as a law, the Labour Council will be constituted.

The other point to which I want to reply relates to the hon member’s concern about clause 21. My reply to the hon member’s question is as follows. It is not the intention to charge each and every striker. During or after the strike by thousands of employees of the SATS in 1987, not one striker was charged under the identical section 26 of the Conditions of Employment Act (South African Transport Services), 1983, for striking only. However, the fact that it is a criminal offence to take part in a strike is not without value or significance. It does serve as a discouraging factor, especially with regard to certain categories of employees. We have already indicated that clause 21 is nothing new. It is part of the old legislation. Not only is it part of our own legislation, it is also part of the legislation dealing with the industrial situation in South Africa as far as the private sector is concerned.

Sir, may I please ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? He has indicated that not all the people who took part in the strike were charged—those were the words of the hon the Deputy Minister. If that is the case, why do we have this selective application of the law?

Sir, the hon member talks about the selective application of the law, but I have already said that people have not been charged for striking only. The hon member must know that there were people who were charged in 1987 not only for striking, but also for certain other acts which they committed at the time.

The second point I want to deal with is that a similar criminal sanction is also provided in respect of employees of local authorities in terms of sections 46, 65 and 82 of the Labour Relations Act of 1956. Most certainly, the activities of local authorities, in general terms, are not of a more essential nature than those of the SATS. Notwithstanding these arguments which I have just advanced, a scientific investigation into the whole matter can only serve a good purpose. I am, therefore—I already indicated this in my introductory speech—prepared to refer the subject to the Labour Council, once it has been established, for a complete inquiry and the formulation of suitable recommendations in this regard.

I think it is not only fair but also democratic that the Labour Council, the body which will have to maintain sound labour relations in South Africa, should investigate that particular issue.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether it is not true that there is a built-in provision in this Bill for a White majority? One needs a two-thirds White majority to win a vote in this Labour Council. Furthermore, how many trade unions—I am not referring to staff associations or anything else—are involved in this set-up?

Sir, I recollect that in his report Wiehahn made mention of something like 10 different trade unions in South Africa.

Not staff associations!

No, I am talking about trade unions. However, at the time the Salaried Staff Association was also regarded as a trade union. Therefore, one cannot say that there will be a built-in majority as far as the Whites are concerned. Secondly, as I have already indicated, the possibility exists that in time to come there may even be more trade unions. It is not impossible. [Interjections.] Provided the Labour Council and the other trade unions are prepared to have them, they could have representation on the Labour Council. Therefore, I do not think the hon member can advance the argument that built into this Bill there is …

At the moment there is!

Well, let us say that that situation can arise. However, the hon member must not forget that the employer organization—that is the SATS in this case—will obviously also have its representatives on this council. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I point out to the hon the Minister where the two-thirds White majority comes into the matter? One is already looking at four White trade unions, and one has the White SATS making up the other 50%. Therefore, one needs to get only one of those four White trade unions to agree with the SATS and one will have a two-thirds White majority. It is a built-in White majority that will remain there forever.

Sir, I should like to reply to the hon member’s argument in the following way: Why do we have this particular provision? The SATS has a long-standing relationship with the existing recognised unions. It was felt that the new dispensation should be built on this foundation and not in a vacuum. The Bill makes provision for the recognition of new trade unions, as I have already indicated to the hon member. However, if such recognition could lead to automatic representation on the Labour Council, it would mean in practice that the SATS …

Is Sarhwu represented there?

No, Sir. I have already indicated to the hon member in my reply to his question that Blatu is the recognised trade union.

Why not Sarhwu?

However, the Bill makes provision for a mechanism which will enable the SATS to consider new applications—like an application by Sarhwu. I think the hon member was not listening well enough, since I have already made this point.

No, you are trying to defend the White majority! That is what you are trying to do. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I want to reply to what the hon member for Klipspruit-West has now said. The point is that at the moment one has a certain practical situation to deal with. We are not departing from an unknown factor; we are departing from a known factor. The hon member must accept the fact that we have a particular situation to deal with now. There is, for example, the question of the conditions of service.

This Labour Council will have an opportunity of looking at the service conditions. We are, however, starting off with the service conditions as they are now. Does the hon member agree that that is correct?

You are looking at it from a White point of view!

No, I am not looking at it from a White point of view. The point of view is based on the point of departure I referred to a moment ago. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Klipspruit West must contain himself!

Sir, the hon member wants to change the situation, and it is his prerogative to want to do so. I am not against change. I am only saying that we should start off with what we have at the moment.

Start, yes, but start in the right way!

Does the hon member not know that the management and labour force of the SATS have managed to get on very well with one another over the years? They have established a certain rapport which has promoted the best interests of the SATS as well as the labour force. It is from that foundation that we will move. I wish to make the following point, too.

Sir, in terms of clause 10 (11) a trade union must be recognised by the SATS. Is it not fundamental that a trade union must, in the first place, be recognised by the workers who constitute that trade union? Then, the decision of the Labour Council will be final. One cannot take the Labour Council to court because in terms of clause 9 the Labour Council is not a legal persona. That means there is an automatic safety device built into the present provision relating to the Labour Council, which will exclude any trade union recognised by the workers.

No, Sir. If the hon member has studied trade unions, he will agree that it is the established right of any employer organisation to recognise trade unions. That is the whole issue. The SATS obviously has that built-in right in the L C to recognise trade unions. However, it depends entirely on the labour force—on how they put their case and on how representative they are. They can come to the SATS. Surely the SATS will not be so stupid as not to recognise a trade union if it is representative of a particular trade. If there are no other spokesmen or better organisations, the SATS will recognise them and allow them to speak on behalf of certain sections of the trade. [Interjections.]

I would, however, like to complete the argument which I was busy with when I was replying to hon members on that side of the House. I believe it will also put the objects of this Bill into the proper perspective. The Bill makes provision for the recognition of new trade unions. However, if such a recognition had led to automatic membership of the Labour Council, it would have meant in practice that the SATS could no longer remain the sole decision-maker on the new recognitions in terms of its own policy, but would have to consult unions already recognised. If this had not been the case, a new recognition would have endangered the co-existence of the Labour Council. I say that also as part of my reply to that hon member. A distinction is therefore made between recognition by the SATS, and admission to the Labour Council. At least half of the existing trade union members will be in agreement with this. [Interjections.]

It is accepted that newly recognised unions may not be admitted immediately to the Labour Council. Therefore, the conciliation and arbitration procedures contained in clauses 19(1) and 20 were added to the Bill. For the information of the hon member for Klipspruit West, I just wish to repeat this point: Therefore, the conciliation and arbitration procedures contained in clauses 19(1) and 20 were added to the Bill. It is accepted that newly recognised unions may not be admitted immediately to the Labour Council.

It should also be mentioned that the Labour Relations Act of 1956 provides each member of an industrial council with a veto as far as application for new membership is concerned. Although some recognised unions of the SATS pressed for a similar veto right, it was felt that such an approach would be unrealistic, hence the requirement of only a three-quarters majority vote.

I have replied as far as I possibly could to the questions of hon members. I think hon members will see that this Bill, when it becomes law, despite its imperfections and despite the fears and suspicious of hon members, will prove to be in the interests of the workers of the SATS. It will also open a new door for a spirit of co-operation. Furthermore, it will be to the economic benefit of all the workers who find themselves in the employment of the SATS.

Mr Chairman, I asked the hon the Deputy Minister specifically why, in terms of clause 9, the Labour Council is not a separate legal persona. Is that to prevent anybody from taking any decision of that Labour Council to court?

Mr Chairman, I think I have replied to that. Even the SATS is not a legal person in its own right. So, Sir, I think I have given all the replies I possibly could.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting)-

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! I have now had the opportunity to study the transcript of the relevant portion of Hansard which the hon member for Stanger referred to yesterday when he requested a ruling as to whether certain remarks made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers' Council were unparliamentary or not.

The transcript clearly shows that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had in fact referred to the hon member for Stanger when he stated that “if I got a statement from them you would stink”. I regard this as unparliamentary and I now call upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! In his reaction, however, the hon member for Stanger referred to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council when he said that he trusts “that he is using contraceptives to avoid any situation”. That statement I also find unacceptable.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Will the hon member for Bayview realise that when presiding officers are dealing with serious matters, this is not a circus and that due respect should be given when rulings are being given by the Chair. This goes for all hon members in this House, so that decorum and dignity may be maintained. I now continue: That statement I also find unacceptable in the context used and I call upon the hon member for Stanger to withdraw the remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I am very privileged to speak in this august Chamber for the first time. I have not had the chance to do so before. This is not because I did not want to speak, but there were certain time constraints and occasions when I was asked to stand down so that business could be completed in time. I realise that the hon the Minister also has certain time constraints today and therefore I shall be very brief on this particular Bill.

This Bill provides for the deregulation of professional wrestling. Act 39 of 1954 prohibits females from participating in wrestling and boxing. Arguments for and against have been advanced at the standing committee, but eventually, after much discussion, consensus was reached and the status quo remained, thus protecting the dignity of women. There will be no statutory control on wrestling and it will be controlled by the private sector. However, boxing will still have statutory control, as this requirement will allow the South African National Boxing Control Board permanent membership of the WBA.

Mr Chairman, in view of the Government’s policy of deregulation this amending Bill provides for the abolition of statutory control of professional wrestling.

Professional wrestling will therefore be controlled by the private sector in future. Whilst I welcome this, I just want to sound a note of warning that a strict code of conduct and rules should be adhered to so that wrestling does not become a farce through the fixing of fights and things of that nature. Although wrestling is a noble sport, it is sometimes open to suspicion.

The retention of the prohibition on women participating in wrestling is questionable. At first I was conservative in my standpoint in support of the retention of the prohibition but on second thoughts I realised that we were living in the age of women’s lib. Women are participating in major sports throughout the world. More and more women are engaged in the sports of judo and karate, both of which are far more lethal than wrestling. Although I realise that there are certain circumstances that prevent women from wrestling, we shall have to review this situation at some stage in the future. I have no objection to this Bill and I support it.

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to say that I believe this is the first time that the hon the Minister of National Education has been in this Chamber. May I welcome him on behalf of all hon members in this House.

This Bill applies to professional boxing and wrestling only. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this stage to define wrestling inasmuch as wrestling is conducted under a certain set of rules and victory is determined when an opponent submits or is pinned for a predetermined period of time, or is successfully thrown in what is called a fall. Points are awarded accordingly.

In the particular sport in which I participate, we do not practise discrimination. I think it is common knowledge in this House that I come from the world of martial arts and that I was a professional karate instructor prior to my entry into politics. [Interjections.] We do not believe in discrimination in sport in so far as men and women as concerned.

It has been proved that a man’s leg muscles are twice as strong as his arm muscles whereas in the case of a lady, her leg muscles are four times as strong as her arm muscles. [Interjections.] Notwithstanding that, I want to say that this measure is welcome because we should not view it in the South African context but rather in a universal context. In doing so we can see the examples that have been set in other countries such as Europe and the United States where one finds wrestling confined exclusively to male audiences. One may ask why this is so, and the answer is quite obvious. This wrestling is conducted under circumstances which may not be parliamentary for me to mention. One has, for example, mud wrestling and wrestling conducted using various types of lotions, and no one can convince me that this mud and these lotions have any kind of sporting value.

The important aspect behind this Bill is that the human body has a certain amount of dignity and value, and it is our responsibility as a concerned and sophisticated society to protect that dignity and those values.

What about topless swimmers? [Interjections.]

No other sport in the country is affected by this statutory legislation. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem in supporting this Bill. However, it is also opportune for me to say at this stage that I wish to acknowledge the work done by the South African National Olympic Council, through the Department of Sport of the hon the Minister of National Education and Development Aid, by means of the periodic awards at functions, in view of the boycotts against this country. However, the attempts by South African sportsmen and women to re-enter the international arena must never be given up.

Mr Chairman, prior to the debating of this Bill in Parliament, it was the general opinion of the great wrestlers of the world that South Africa was behind the times, lagging behind India, behind Japan—which is a great wrestling country—and also behind the Western world. That is why some of the world’s great wrestlers avoided coming to South Africa. Those who were coaxed into coming to South Africa when they were not otherwise busy, were very critical of the South African Wrestling Board, the provincial wrestling boards, the benefits which the South African Wrestling Board offers, especially when wrestlers are injured, and also the high levies which are deducted from the gross gate takings at wrestling tournaments.

Everyone knows that the Indians, especially from the province of Punjab, are great wrestlers. I understand that in Punjab wrestling is like a religion. All males, from the time they are born, must perform wrestling, the type of mudwrestling to which my colleague, the hon member for Lenasia Central, referred. Every day little children, under the tutelage of masters, must perform mud-wrestling. As a result, two or three decades ago there was a very great wrestler in Punjab called Gama Singh who fought the best in the world. The world was exhausted of opponents to such an extent that it is believed he held the world wrestling title for 50 years.

When wrestling began to be commercialised, there was a debate as to whether wrestling can be regarded as a sport. We find that in South Africa, with the passage of time, newspapers removed wrestling from the sports pages. I believe in the past five or six years the newspapers that covered wrestling did not cover it in the sports pages, nor did they send the sport journalists to cover wrestling tournaments.

I thought that the hon the Minister of National Education, as a result of representations he received from wrestling promoters and after having obtained the views of the Wrestling Control Board, would have changed the structure of our control boards in such a way that these would be in keeping with the Western world, so that we would not deregulate wrestling altogether, but have some sort of regulation. One needs regulations. One cannot rely on the private sector, for example, to check a person applying for a certificate of registration as a boxer, wrestler, trainer or an official, or to check the ability or fitness of a wrestler. We cannot really allow the private sector to decide on these matters. One would have expected that we would see the establishment of a one-man-wrestling-commission, as we find in many countries in Europe and in the USA. As I said, South Africa lagged far behind, but in deregulating wrestling altogether, we have now recovered the lost time and we appear to be ahead of the Western world.

I want to make a comment. I am not happy about retaining the prohibition of females participating in wrestling tournaments. I think the purpose behind deregulating wrestling may be that many people are now convinced that wrestling appears to be fun. Wrestling is not taken seriously and is not actually regarded as a sport.

I am particularly concerned about the assets of the wrestling control boards. I believe that they have much money. Sometimes the promoters and the wrestlers are the real losers. In terms of this Bill the board, in concurrence with the hon the Minister of National Education, will have to decide. I want to propose to my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, to consult with the board and donate the assets to the flood disaster fund.

Mr Chairman, I was amazed and surprised when I listened to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House this afternoon. With all his expert knowledge of wrestling he still failed his duty. Firstly, when the draft Amendment Bill was published he gave no input to the board.

I have practical experience.

His contribution of today would have carried far more weight and would have been far more valuable if he had commented on the draft Amendment Bill as the people mentioned in the memorandum did, eg Mr J du Plessis, Mr S Steyn, Mr J Pein, Mrs M A Swanepoel etc. These people contributed their comments on the draft Amendment Bill. I accept that the hon the Minister’s argument is valid but it is the wrong time and place for it—he missed the boat. That is all that I can say. [Interjections.]

Do you want to share in my practical knowledge? The carpet may be meant for that! [Interjections.]

I would like to go back to the history of wrestling for a moment. When I was a youngster wrestling was called “tiger dancing” by the Afrikaners. The participants used to paint themselves in the colours of a tiger and wrestle each other. That was true wrestling such as we do not see any more today. It was a true sport but nobody got injured.

What worries me today in this age of women’s lib is that women are excluded. The hon member for Lenasia Central said that women are not excluded in karate which is a far more dangerous sport than wrestling. Why should they then be excluded in wrestling? The hon member contradicted his own statement by saying …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member whether he made any input in the standing committee when this Bill was discussed?

Mr Chairman, that is one of the most ridiculous, irrelevant and stupid questions that I have ever heard in this House. That hon member knows full well that I do not serve on the standing committee concerned. I do not serve on it!

Order! Did the hon member refer to the question of the hon member for Allandale as “stupid”?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! I ask the hon member to withdraw it.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and withdraw the word. The hon member knows full well that there are only five hon members on this side of the House who serve on the standing committee. Five of my hon colleagues are serving on that committee. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am sick and tired of having to ask for the Chair’s protection in this House. Last week the hon the Speaker of Parliament made a special plea that hon members should conduct themselves in a way that will uplift the decorum in this House. I do not know what to think of the hon members sitting there. They act as though Mr Speaker spoke to the wall instead of to them last week. [Interjections.] Why did the hon members not listen to him?

You are a natural comic. What can I do?

The hon member Mr R S Nowbath irritates me very much. His conduct is quite understandable because he does not have to answer to anybody except to himself. He does not have a constituency and he does not have to answer to anybody outside Parliament.

Ask him to join the PFP!

Yes, he should because they are well disciplined.

As long as they do not take you!

To get back to the amending Bill before us, it seems technically unjust to exclude female wrestlers but the Bill was accepted by the standing committee and I will abide by their decision. I accept the amending Bill and I welcome the most important part of it, namely the abolition of statutory control of wrestling. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am not a wrestling aficionado—I know the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is very keen on wrestling. Wrestling may be a sport or it may be a pretended sport. Sometimes I watch wrestling on television. If the alleged throw occurs in the manner in which it is portrayed then, of course, some bone has to be broken, or a vertebrae has to crack. Obviously these people are experts in the art of dissimulation.

Clearly the sport they practise is one that gives the appearance of being a robust sport and I say good luck to them and good luck to those who pay good money in order to go and see something which is pure make believe.

Wrestling is a funny thing. The word “wrestling” has many meanings. There was a Supreme Court case in which an advocate was cross-examining a co-respondent. The co-respondent’s name was Thompson and he was defending a claim for R50 000, which is a popular figure these days, as damages for having committed adultery with Johnson’s wife. The advocate was cross-examining him and he said:“Mr Thompson you have admitted that you and Mrs Johnson booked into the same hotel under the name of Mr and Mrs Smith.” Thompson agreed that he had admitted to that. The advocate then said: “You have admitted that you and Mrs Johnson occupied the same room.” He agreed to that too. “How dare you then deny that you and Mrs Johnson slept together that night?” the advocate asked. Thompson said: “My Lord, I continue to deny that we slept together. We wrestled all night”. [Interjections.] So you see Sir, wrestling has other connotations as well.

We know that in Durban there is a very powerful wrestling promoter called Mr P L Maharaj and we know that the Administration: House of Delegates paid R1,1 million for a cinema building of which the assessment was R700 000. The owner had been trying to sell it for two years for R900 000, but within a matter of precisely 32 days the Administration: House of Delegates started negotiations, purchased the property and paid R200 000 more than the original asking price of the seller.

Of course, when there was a furore in the community, it was this wrestling promoter Mr P L Maharaj, a very great friend of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who submitted what I am satisfied is a spurious wrestling match kind of offer of R1 250 000 for the same property which of course was never taken up. Mr P L Maharaj never had that kind of money to buy that kind of property.

Wrestling then amounts to wrestling with all kind of things except for certain hon gentlemen who do not wrestle with their consciences. For if they had wrestled with their conscience then we would have other answers. Here there was R200 000 more of public money paid for a cinema property within 32 days of the negotiations having been started. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was directly and personally involved in those negotiations. So one can see we have problems.

That is serious enough, but I want to come a more serious matter and that relates to Sacos, the South African Council for Sport. We have a difficult situation. I have no objection to that organisation’s projecting whatever image it wants. In a democracy people are entitled to put forward points of view that may be objectionable or anathema to many of us. They are entitled to put forward their point of view. But what are they doing? They are using public property in order to propagate their own views. They are using municipally controlled sports arenas to practise their double standards.

Wrestling may or may not be classified as a sport but it comes under the portfolio of the hon the Minister of National Education who is also in charge of the sport portfolio in South Africa.

We are dealing only with professional boxing and wrestling.

Exactly. Therefore, improper wrestling by Sacos with publicly owned property is objectionable. It is harmful to all the people of this country, and steps should be taken to prevent that as well. I do not usually advocate legislation when some minor misconduct takes place, but in respect of a small, politically oriented organisation, which is using sport and sport facilities in order to harm the majority of the people in this country, appropriate action has to be taken. This is why I am referring to that matter here. I believe the hon the Minister of National Education should take cognisance of that and set the necessary wheels in motion.

Mr Chairman, the question of Sacos raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills is really not relevant to this Bill because I do not have any information that Sacos was at any time involved in professional wrestling as such. However, inasmuch as he attacks Sacos and inasmuch as he has used his time to show them up for what they are, T appreciate his contribution in that regard.

I was somewhat disappointed when originally my impression was that the hon member for Reservoir Hills would not be participating in the debate, because it has never been my privilege to participate in a debate in this House where he did not also do so. In the final analysis, he did not disappoint me after all.

I am not an expert in all fields, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills appears to be, and I therefore want to refrain from an evaluation of professional wrestling as such. I think those that support it must have the right to continue to do so, and those that are not impressed by professional wrestling have sufficient options to keep them busy in this beautiful country of ours.

The main issue raised by most hon members, whom I want to thank for their support for this Bill, was the question of the prohibition, which is retained, against the participation of women in wrestling.

Allow me to say firstly, to the hon member for Lenasia Central, who highlighted the strong and weak points of men and women from a physical point of view that, not being a martial arts instructor, I have no experience in that field. I have always believed that it is wise to avoid combat with the fairer sex.

In all seriousness, we have had conflicting views on the question of women participating in wrestling. I think the philosophical basis of why we have decided to retain this prohibition is that throughout the world womens’ wrestling has unfortunately been misused and it has degenerated into just another form of pornography. It militates against our view in this country that the dignity of all people, but especially the dignity of our ladies, should at no stage be impaired.

Wrestling lands participants in all sorts of awkward postures, and what I have seen on television overseas of ladies wrestling has strongly persuaded me that this would be unacceptable in our country.

Therefore the basis for this is not that it is dangerous to them. It has a moral basis and not a physical one. The idea is not that they are not capable of participating in a sport similar to wrestling.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also referred to his expectation that we should perhaps not have revoked regulation and control, but rather that we should have put forward amendments. I want to say I think in this instance we have, because of very peculiar circumstances, adopted a different approach in South Africa. In the effort to isolate South Africa, all forms of Government involvement in sport have been misused by the enemies of this country as a basis to argue against us. For that reason this Government has decided to recognise fully the autonomy of sport. Today we can stand and look the world in the eye and say that the Government is not involved in the control of sport.

That, however, does not mean that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—I think it is also the hon member for Merebank who pleaded for that—is wrong in saying that if professional wrestling wants to retain its image as a sport, it will now have to ensure that proper controls are exercised. The only difference is that they must do it, and it will not be through statutory control or through Government involvement.

All sports in this country have their own codes of conduct. Rugby which, I think, is as, if not more dangerous, than professional wrestling, has a code of conduct. Moreover, the general laws of the country still apply—one can still charge a person with assault, even on the rugby field, and I suppose one could also charge a person with assault if he disobeyed the rules in the ring itself. However I do think that on balance it is in the interests of South Africa that we totally withdraw and leave it in the hands of the sports administrators. This is a new and heavy responsibility especially upon the shoulders of the promoters and also upon the shoulders of those who participate in the sport to establish a code of conduct which will and can attain and retain, inasmuch as is necessary, the respect of the public and especially the respect and the confidence of those who over many years have appreciated professional wrestling.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to Gama Singh. I have not heard of him. I am sure, however, that he has heard of Johannes van der Walt. It is good to look back on the past in which professional wrestlers have attained great heights and have become extremely popular figures in the sporting world as well as in national life.

There is also Jan Wilkens.

Yes, Jan Wilkens too. Unfortunately I think we are going through a dry patch, and perhaps it is high time that we get these new personalities who can dominate the sporting scene.

I want to thank all hon members for their support and assure them that inasmuch as the funds which will now have to be decided upon are concerned, those assets will be determined in a manner suggested by the National Wrestling Control Board, but with the concurrence of the Minister of National Education. I have taken note of the plea made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that we should consider donating this to the flood disaster fund. I can assure him that whatever might be decided, we shall ensure that those funds will be used constructively and for a good purpose. With those words I thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this Bill relates to amendments to the Acts of 1979 for the University of the North; of 1969 for the University of Zululand; of 1976 for Medunsa and of 1981 for Vista University. The Advisory Council for Universities and Technikons and the Council for Education Training were consulted. The Bill prevents pupils from being used as farm labourers and a penalty for such an offence has been increased from R50 to R500 or three months imprisonment if in default of payment. It also provides for compulsory school attendance.

In view of the changing political milieu, more efforts should be made and reforms addressed to eliminate exploitation. Presently there are over 5 400 farm schools, which constitute 49,7% of Black pupils in rural areas. It was also agreed upon to provide for the establishment of combined schools up to Std 10 in the areas where the population was too small to warrant special schools. Parents of schoolchildren will now be represented on the governing body of the school so that they can be actively involved in the welfare of their children.

I would like to quote the amendments to clause 9(b), which defines the word “parent” as follows:

The hon the Minister is empowered to erect State-aided schools, which includes farm schools, where the farm owner is not in a financial position to do so. I would like to read a sentence from a book called The Provision of Education for Black Pupils in Rural Areas, which was written by Meiring and published in 1986. I quote from page 29:

The question I wish to pose is: Why has this Government taken so long to inject more money into Black education? The political struggle for power now taking place in South Africa could be directly linked to the a pathetic attitude of the different governments in upgrading Black education. Though this Bill provides for improvements, it has been long overdue. One does not know how long it will take this Government to implement its Black education programme.

There does not appear to be anything immediately forthcoming to accelerate and reverse the past trends. To my mind, these short-term prospects smack of unfair, hypocritical treatment and I call upon the Government to demonstrate its sincerity. It is a sombre prospect, not for the comfort of anyone except the radicals and the revolutionaries, and only then will the Government rue the Frankenstein path it has traversed for four decades. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want firstly to associate myself with the viewpoints expressed by the hon member for Allandale, although I do not want to belabour the issue of blaming the present Government for past set-backs and omissions. [Interjections.] However, I think the fact that this department, namely the Department of Education and Training, is extremely conspicuous in the magnanimous efforts it is making in the promotion of Black education, is worthy of great admiration, and I want to go out of my way in discussing this Bill to commend the hon the Minister and the senior officials of his department.

And his deputy! [Interjections.]

At no time in the history of the Republic have so few done so much for so many. I think that aptly describes the department of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and his group of senior personnel who are doing an outstanding piece of work in this country against tremendous odds. I think it is a matter worthy of tremendous appreciation and I think it will go down in the history of this country, or at least in the history of education in this country.

I do not want to deal with the entire field covered by my hon colleague. I must accept the fact that it is necessary, for many obvious reasons, to enable the rectors and vice-rectors to be present and to participate in the committees of the senate as well as the council.

It is not always possible to have separate schools. There are certain physical difficulties which prevent separate schools for the primary and secondary school phases and therefore combined schools sometimes have to be accepted, accommodated or even encouraged, especially in those areas with a very small population growth.

My hon colleague has already indicated that parents will be allowed to serve on the governing bodies of these schools. Whilst that in itself is a good thing, it is also a good thing for another reason. Now that the owner of the land on whose property the school is built will also be represented on that board, I think it augurs well for a close relationship since the elected parents of the pupils will be on close terms with the owner.

I might also mention the fact that this committee gave consideration to prohibiting children on the farms from being used as farm labourers. That is a good thing. It is a progressive step. Although this Bill does not overcome all the deficiencies and problems in education, I nevertheless think that by way of an incremental progression, a very good piece of work has been done and I want to compliment the department and its officials once again and express my pleasure—and I am sure the pleasure of all hon members of this House—in welcoming this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid continues to embarrass us. I want to address an appeal to the hon the Minister. He must please give us an opportunity of throwing some brickbats at him. It is becoming embarrassing for us on this side of the House, belonging to the opposition parties, to have to get up and applaud a Nationalist Minister. I sometimes think it might be embarrassing to the hon the Minister as well, considering a certain swing in the White electorate.

There was a time when it was alleged that the Government was doing too much for Blacks. Of course the Government never did too much for Blacks. They did too little for Blacks, which is why we have many of the problems we have today. Thankfully, however, this hon Minister, his hon Deputy Minister and his officials have been taking ameliorative steps, and taking them in consultation with, and enlisting the co-operation of, parents. I have applauded them for this before. I would say that it is the best way to enhance the education of any people. Obviously, we look forward to the day when this fragmentation in education will be a thing of history, when all children will come under the control of a single overall control.

I want to refer to the situation as it exists in Great Britain, more particularly in England. In England the Ministry of Education is in overall control of education, but effective control is on a regional basis. The county administrations control education on a strictly geographical basis. Children of West Indian, Asian, English and European descent all attend the same schools, which is controlled by the same county council. We look forward to the day when that kind of real regionalisation will come about in this country instead of the racialisation which exists.

Regrettably, in 1952, if I remember correctly, the then Government prohibited the churches from carrying out their function of providing education. The churches were doing this at the time, notwithstanding the fact that previous governments should have been doing it. Here I concur with what the hon member for Cavendish said, namely that it is not only the National Party or the Afrikaner Government that neglected the education of Black or Brown children, it was also the previous governments under Smuts, Hertzog and Louis Botha. These governments also neglected education. This Government has done more to uplift education for all people in this country than any other government in the past. That, of course, we applaud.

I want to make specific reference to clause 9 of the Bill, dealing with the definition of a child. In ordinary civilised states, to define a child is very simple, and it is likewise simple to define a parent. However, because the social fabric of Black people in this country was effectively destroyed by the system of migrant labour—for which the present Government was initially not responsible, but which they maintained for a while—it was very often difficult to find out who the parent of a child was. Very often a woman bore a child and then sent the child to the grandmother.

Grandma was not only the custodian but also the de facto parent of that child. Fortunately the extended family system among the Nguni’s—I am not quite familiar with the Tswana custom—gave succour to the child. When officials have had to look for a parent in the past it has been difficult for them and this is obviously the reason why we have this definition in this clause.

However, even this definition, with respect, does not go far enough. I would have wished that the person who has custodial possession of the child and who cared for him—this would be the de facto parent—would be classified for purposes of education as the legal parent. However, presumably the law advisers had difficulties in extending the scope of the definition to that extent. It would certainly be of benefit to the officials who actively administer education and the clause is welcomed, as is the change from the appellation “rector” and “vice-rector” of universities to the description “principal” and “vice-principal” or “vice-chancellor” which apply in most universities. It certainly applies in the universities of the USA as well as in Britain and South Africa.

When apartheid was first established in universities and what are now called “tribal colleges” were first established, the description of “rector” was used. Some naughty Latin students started saying “rector, rectus” and then they went on to the next word which was not very nice. Thankfully we do not have to put up with that kind of situation any longer. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must confess that I have been terribly embarrassed by the hon member for Cavendish. For a moment I thought it was I who was speaking on this Bill and in fact I did call the hon member to cross over to this side and speak from here. He was followed by the hon member for Reservoir Hills in his analysis of what the Department is giving. I wanted to say all those things myself. The hon member for Reservoir Hills used the phrase “National Party’s people”. They made themselves eminent “National Party’s people” this afternoon and I am glad about that. [Interjections.]

This Bill when taken in its totality is again an illustration in some way that this country is on the path of reform. It is not moving as fast as the Black people would want it to move or as fast as we would want it to move but it is moving nevertheless. Reform is always a slow and painful process. The alternative to moving forward slowly and painfully is simply revolution and I must submit that I do not believe in that because one will only inherit ashes and nothing else.

Since this particular system of government came into being in 1984 we have had tremendous destruction and burning of schools, boycotts, intimidations and the general ruin of Black education. I would like to mention in this regard that apart from a slight ripple in 1980 and 1981 the Indian community did not engage in destroying its own education. The Indian community was quite willing to accommodate itself to what was available regardless of how fractured it was and regardless of the weaknesses it contained. There was always some little thing to be gained out of it. This is what I have preached.

This is something which should be spread to the South African community at large. Even those Whites who preach a liberal and progressive South Africa have not to my knowledge as yet told the Black people, “Please in Heaven’s name do not destroy what you have; keep those things and ask for more.” But what have we got? Anyone who follows the alternative media will always find apologies and excuses for what the Black people do. They do not tell the Black people not to do this.

This is illustrated by the following situation. If my neighbour comes to my house and tells me that my son has been beating up his son, I could tell the neighbour very simply that boys will be boys and that they will go on beating each other. Then my son would get the message: Carry on in your job, beat the neighbour’s son. On the other hand, if I tell him that that is not the way to live or to do things and that he must not engage in that kind of behaviour or way of life, it would be different. I use this to illustrate what the liberal Whites, the progressive Whites, the demi-semi Red Whites, are doing in this country in the name of liberalism.

One has to read all the liberal magazines—the alternative media—to find out exactly that they have not at any stage come forward and told the Black people in simple terms, “Do not do this.” It is only recently, after three years—I think it was at the beginning of this year or late last year—that the National Education Crisis Committee for the first time told the children, “for God’s sake get back to the classrooms”. They were the ones who created this kind of Frankenstein, or monster rather—this is one of those expressions more often misused than used correctly. Frankenstein was not the monster, he was the creator of the monster. So we talk of Frankenstein’s monster. These people were Frankensteins who created monsters. It has been a case of sowing dragons’ teeth and reaping the whirlwind.

This particular subject which we have before us here today is really an own affair. I notice in this House today no member of the opposition has taken up this as an own affair or criticised it for the fact that it is an own affair except that the position is different; it is Black education. All education is an own affair but in this case it so happens that Blacks do not run their own educational system. They have trustees. They have at this stage of their history, members of the Government of the NP acting as trustees and this we should really have heard from the hon members of the opposition and not from me.

I am not for a moment going to be supercritical or unnecessarily critical of that. It is a fact of our life. Black education is hostage to the history of this country. I do not ad lib blame the NP for all the sins of the country. They came into power in 1948, 40 years ago, but the ills, the evils and the sins of the White man began long, long before that. So it is never really justifiable at any time to criticise the NP and the present Government holusbolus. One has to look at the subject in its historical perspective.

I do know that it was some time in the mid-1950s that all the ills were consolidated and the system of Black education reached its nadir in the Verwoerdian concept of Black education. Over the past several years, however, the present Government has given attention to this matter and it is changing direction, for itself, very radically. For the White man it is a traumatic change; for us, it is very little. However, we have to look at those people that have to restructure the system and start its forward movement.

At this stage I should like to add my tribute to those who have already paid their tribute to the current hon Minister of Education and Development Aid, Dr Gerrit Viljoen, and his Deputy Minister, Mr Sam De Beer, who have shown a degree of tolerance which I myself would not have been able to show. In situations in which they have been patient, I felt that the big stick should have been wielded—that is my personal view—and that explains the measure of respect these hon Ministers have in the eyes of the community.

They are true educationists.

They are, and I am certainly very happy that academia’s loss in the person of this Minister has been Parliament’s gain—the nation’s gain. When he decided to leave academia and come here, the entire country gained.

I should like to make reference to the members of his department. At this stage the name of Dr Meiring, Director-General, immediately comes to mind. I have listened to him in the standing committee. It was not that he was simply doing a job; it was not that he was a public servant. He was emotionally involved in the matter with which he was dealing.

He was very human.

As the hon member for Camperdown says, he was very, very human in his approach, and very, very understanding. There are others advising in that department. If I do not mention their names it does not mean we have not noted them. I trust that this is a beginning and that it will go forward. I do know that changes are not easy to make. When a building has been built alterations are not easy to do, so it is often easier to bulldoze the whole building and rebuild. To do that to Black education, however, would mean calling for the revolution. We, of course, being the National Party’s People, must support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, as a member of the Opposition party I want to say very frankly that we welcome this amendment to the education laws. It is welcome because it is an attempt to carry out the De Lange Committee’s report for reforms in respect of education in this country.

I want to refer briefly to certain sections. In the first instance, Black universities will enjoy a measure of autonomy in the designation of degrees, bringing them into line with other universities in the country, thus according uniformity.

The Medical University of Southern Africa Act of 1976 is being amended to bring membership of the Council and the Senate into line with wider democratic representation and effective administration.

The Education and Training Act of 1979 is being amended so that combined schools may be established, combined schools being primary and secondary schools where phases of education are combined. At first there were some negative reactions to this move. However, after consultation and assurances from officials, they realised the need for this Bill.

However, I must point out that the situation in South Africa is unique in that education falls under different ministries and different departments. I still maintain that the day will dawn when the real recommendation of the De Lange Commission is carried out, namely a single ministry of education in the country for everybody.

I have said that the situation in South Africa is unique, in the sense that we have different population groups, and what is applicable in the form of education for one particular group is not applicable to the next. Blacks have a different kind of problem. The Whites and Indians do not have the same problem. The Coloureds, to a degree, have the problem. The problem is that there are small population groups throughout the country, and these population groups need education. Schools cannot be built separately. A number of factors do not justify the establishment of separate primary and secondary schools. This is the reason for this amendment which will meet the immediate demands of the affected communities.

The Bill also provides for the welfare of farm school children. According to the Director-General there are some 5 400 farm schools as, mentioned by the hon member for Allandale.

Is that 4 500 or 5 400?

The figure is 5 400. When I talk about farm schools, I refer to schools that do not have large numbers of pupils. The population differs from area to area, and the school population may vary between 20 and 30, and so on. Nevertheless, education is necessary for these children.

The Bill is a good one in the sense that it protects the education of these children. It makes provision for control of the schools under the Minister. The Minister is given the power to erect buildings for State-aided schools, including farm schools. For example, where the owner of a farm cannot, financially speaking, afford to provide the school, the Minister may help. Provision is also made for parents to form parents’ committees in these farm schools so that they will make an input in looking after the welfare of the children in those schools. There is further protection in the sense that farmers should not ill-treat these children or abuse their privilege by employing these children during school hours. The reason why the fine has been increased from R50 to R500 or one months’ to three months’ imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment, is to deter the farmer from abusing that privilege.

Therefore it can be seen that important reforms are taking place in Black education in this country. I do not wish to sing anyone’s praises. We must realise that Black education in this country has been denied for a very, very long time. On the other hand, however, we cannot expect miracles to happen overnight; we cannot expect everyone to get equal education at once. This is so because it is virtually impossible to achieve that goal overnight—it takes time.

First of all, if one looks at the farm situation, the child who is herding cows gets a greater freedom in that he enjoys nature’s gifts, such as the breeze, the song of birds and the view of the hills. Taking him away from that and putting him in a classroom situation would be like putting him in jail. It must come from within. On the other hand, there must be sufficient motivation for the child to be educated too. Even if we have parent committees, they must be given something to achieve for their children so that they will get into better jobs.

Each situation is unique in itself. I am not for one minute advocating that children should not be educated. My standpoint is that the privilege and opportunity for education must be equal and given to every person. However, in this sense we have to take circumstances into consideration. I had a word with the Director-General and compliments were expressed and sentiments were endorsed concerning the education of those children. They are engaged in a very massive programme and I am satisfied that genuine efforts are being made to update and improve Black education in South Africa. I want to quote the old example that education did not come to us very easily. As the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will know, our desks were very rickety and we could not write straight. However, we survived.

Let us see who was straight. Compare the progress in the next 20 years.

Yes, I am sure. The hon the Minister told us so.

The teacher or the pupil.

Yes. Mr Chairman, I would like to quote a statement made by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, dated 23 January 1986:

That statement was made at that time and I believe that the problems of Black education in this country are being tackled with all sincerity. I hope and pray that it will progress and improve. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is naturally a pleasure to be able to participate in a debate of this nature. If one believes that reform has come to a standstill—and sometimes I am one of those pessimistic people who believe so—perhaps this may be so in other fields, but in respect of the education of our Black population one must admit that reform-orientated legislation has been placed before us from time to time. It is interesting that the Bill before us is a so-called omnibus Bill which amends a number of Statutes which have to do with Black education.

I remember the 1950’s when, as a school going pupil I had the habit of reading the Rand Daily Mail every morning. One of the columns I loved reading was the report on parliamentary debate. In those years there was a very gifted cartoonist by the name of Bob Connolly, who also had another front page cartoon, namely Mutt and Jeff—the tall chap and the short fellow. One specific headline has stuck in my mind since those days. It read: Health, cattle and soil—the essentials of Bantu education. Thereafter the Rand Daily Mail used to have a dash followed by the name of the person who said this. In this instance the person who had mentioned these words in Parliament was non other than Dr Albert Hertzog. In later years he was one of those who broke away from the National Party because of misgivings about the inclusion of Maori’s in a visiting overseas rugby team.

However, Sir, what he said in the 50s to my mind represented the thinking of the NP Government at that time. When one looks at a measure like the one before us today, one finds that it is actually like a sweet breeze blowing through a smoke filled room. It is one of the most welcome pieces of legislation.

The winds of change! [Interjections.]

If we do not watch out, the winds of change could become the hurricanes of change. [Interjections.] Perhaps this may be destined to become the hurricane. However, Sir, I think it would be appropriate today to pay tribute to the hon the Minister and his Deputy. By way of interjection, I said that one of them was a former “predikant”. That happens to be the hon the Deputy Minister and I am proud to say that he comes from a part of the world in which only 10 kilometres separate us from one another. That is how far away he lives from me; less than 10 kilometres away.

I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the sort of measures that are coming before us. What is even more important, however, is not what one sees in print but what one experiences in practice. I think the fact that we have found over the past year or two that there has been a tapering off of unrest at schools, is largely due to the humane approach which this Ministry and its officials are presently adopting. To my mind, that is responsible for the relative peace and quiet and the calm that we are experiencing at most of our schools throughout the country at the moment, unless as a result of the state of emergency we are not being given the correct news. However, as a person who keeps in contact with Black leaders in the country and with large Black concentrations within kilometres of where I come from, I have the impression that there has been a definite improvement over the past year or two.

There are some problems, and some of them have been addressed here. It is so that there has been exploitation of Black families that have had to occupy farms. Firstly, if one member of such a family is not employed on the farm, that family cannot live there. There has been exploitation in the sense that in return for being permitted to live on the farm, either the head of the family had to work there or the mother has had to be a washer woman. The children have had to herd the cattle and sheep and serve a sort of apprenticeship period as herd boys. I am pleased that the measure before us addresses this very situation.

I should like to pay tribute to the teachers who man these farm schools. Having grown up on a farm, I remember that in the early 60s a farm school was about to close down because a nearby coal mine had closed down and the numbers of pupils had dwindled. I remember many of those pupils. They came from adjoining farms and they walked kilometres upon kilometres, all being very eager to get to school. I think one should pay tribute today to the sacrifices Black children make—the distances they have to travel and what they have to endure—simply to obtain a little education. I think it is to the credit, not only of the child, but also of the parents, who go out of their way to ensure that those children go to school.

That is not all. Parents and families would go without food, but they will see to it that their children are properly attired.

Here I want to make an appeal to the authorities. When it comes to the issue of uniforms for these children, I must admit here today that some firms that market uniforms are, I believe, exploiting the Black population.

Are they not patrons of the UDF?

They are. I know some of them are patrons of the UDF.

Whereas the manufacturing price of a pair of socks is in the region of R1,00, the mark-up on these is so high that at times such a pair of socks is sold for R4,95 or R5.95. I think it is appropriate that I make an appeal to the private sector. It is all very well to say that people should be humanely treated and that the Government should move on and do things, but I believe that the private sector can do something more tangible. They can choose this area and the area of stationery and decide to cut their profits to the bone, and pass on the benefits to the poor population, that sector of our society which is at the lowest rung of the economic spectrum.

Another group of people to whom one should pay tribute are, naturally, those parents who, in spite of what they go through and the trials and tribulations to which they are subjected, do their utmost to see to it that their children are geared for a better tomorrow. These are the parents who, in the difficult years behind us, have made their contribution to see to it that there is stability in the schools and that the children do not get up to mischief. I believe that we should salute these parents.

With respect to farm schools, I am aware of many farmers who undertake to provide schooling.

*Mr Chairman, it is sometimes said that the farmers are heartless people, who have no feeling for their fellow human beings. I want to say that I know of farmers who have, on their own initiative, used their own finances to create the necessary structures in the form of classrooms, so that these farm children can receive instruction. I think it is appropriate that tribute should be paid to those farmers, in contrast with those farmers who abuse young Black children. These farmers undertake, on their initiative, developments which are to the benefit not only of the labourers who live on the farm, but to the entire region.

†The hon member Mr Nowbath said that the big stick should be wielded. I think that we have reached the stage in South Africa where we should wield sticks when it is necessary, but we should also wield the carrot. There should be an encouragement for young people. We should therefore adopt a policy of “sticks and carrots”.

I want to make another observation. I am not a member of the standing committee which dealt with this measure, but I take note of the fact that the standing committee found no reason to introduce any amendments to the measure. Therefore, we from this side of the House, in the name of continued reform and progress, and seeing to it that we create a better tomorrow for these children, support this measure.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that while it is not his function to get involved in what the private sector may be doing, he could perhaps find ways and means, with the help of some of his other colleagues who are involved in economic affairs, for Black people themselves to become involved in little home industries which could make uniforms for schoolchildren. Some assistance could be given to them in this regard. I am certain that those entrepreneurs, who would themselves be making a small living and would be creating some employment opportunities, would be satisfied with a smaller profit, because their overheads would be extremely low.

I want to appeal to the store chains—this is irrespective of colour or creed—in our communities who market uniforms to reconsider their profit margins and bring them to more realistic and acceptable levels.

Mr Chairman, firstly I must concede that I was not listed to speak this afternoon, neither am I standing up this afternoon to praise my hon colleague who is doing so well—we have done the praising before. I am also not going to criticise or cover up for any weaknesses because there are none. All I want to do this afternoon is to give my hon colleague some advice with the experience that I have gathered in relation to the State-aided schools that we have built over the years.

There will definitely be a number of difficulties. While we are phasing out these State aided schools I see that my colleague has to build more of these schools of necessity and maintain them at the same time. We are aware of the fact that Black education is not on the same level of standing as the Indian or White education is but we are grateful for what is being done for Black education. We as Ministers of Education are agreed that there should be an equalisation of education facilities for all communities and I think it is one of the things that is being done presently.

There are two aspects that I would like to highlight. This Bill provides for the regulation of the constitution of the governing body of a State-aided farm school and it also empowers the Minister to erect and maintain the buildings of a State-aided school.

Provision is made in this Bill that there should be a grantee or an owner. From my own experience I can say that I am afraid that if too much power is placed in the hands of a grantee or an owner rather than in the hands of the committee that controls the building, and the education of the children together with this, then that exploitation can take place to a great extent. If one has a very possessive owner of a farm school or a State-aided school then difficulties can arise as mentioned by my colleague the hon member Mr S Abram. Entry to school can be made difficult for the children of certain parents who might not be in a position to contribute in some form or another, be it material or financial. If they do not come up to scratch, the children may be prohibited from entering the school. I thought this point should be mentioned. We had difficulties in our own schools in the past and I say that from my own experience.

Secondly, I see that this Bill also brings about control insofar as pupils may not be used for agricultural purposes. This is of course objectionable but I think it could be easily controlled. My experience is that when children are keen to do gardening during their period of physical education that must not be regarded as farming. They must be sent willingly to get that experience. I found from experience that such children really take great pride in doing the gardening at school because it is an extension of what they do at home and that situation should be encouraged. There are many good things in this Bill and I want to support it.

Mr Chairman, I always believed that because we are in what I always describe as a period of transition between the pre- and postapartheid era, it would be unwise for one to be a purist. We have to give recognition to the fact that there has been group education in this country.

It has been argued inside and outside this House that there should be a single Ministry and Department of Education. Of course, prior to the establishment of the tricameral Parliament we had a single Minister of Education, a single Minister of Housing, a single Department of Housing and a single Department of Education. Nonetheless we had Indian housing and we had Indian education. We had Coloured housing and we had Coloured education. Likewise we had White education and we had Black education and White and Indian housing etc.

However, in this period of transition, where we have complained about inequality, it is important that there be group bargaining so that we can move towards the programme of equality or equalisation as quickly as possible.

I think it was last year that the Standing Committee for Education was dealing with the Bill. Some members of the standing committee were refusing to approve or accept that Bill because they wanted a clause included which would compel all education departments to write a common senior certificate examination paper. I am glad that hon members of all the parties finally realise that because we had this imbalance and inequality on a group basis, it would have done a tremendous measure of disservice to those who lagged behind other groups in this country.

While listening to this debate we did not have the usual chorus from the other side that we are dealing with ethnic universities and own affairs and if one amends legislation relating to own affairs one is entrenching or promoting own affairs. I agree with my hon colleague Mr R S Nowbath when he says that reform is not only reform in a constitutional direction. Social and economic reforms are also reforms and are equally important as constitutional reforms. I remember a few years ago seeing a cartoon in the Natal Daily News after the Nigerian crisis where a little child comes with a begging bowl to Genl Gowon and says, “Never mind your pride, give me food”.

I say the solution to South Africa’s problems, getting rid of racial polarisation, getting this country more on a peaceful course towards finding a solution to its problems, will be enhanced if we accelerate the pace of educating our children.

We should accelerate the pace of interaction between the various groups as far as our education is concerned, and in this sphere I must firstly praise the hon the State President.

When he officially opened Parliament a few years ago he announced the programme of the Government to bring about equality in education in South Africa. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, his Deputy Minister, Director-General and the officials of his department followed the programme of the hon the State President with distinction. I know that even the ardent critics of the Government, silently and in their own environment, recognise the fact that Black education was being uplifted on a very broad front.

This afternoon we heard the hon member for Reservoir Hills praise this Government. He said that ever since this Government had come into power, he has praised it. The actual words were that he has high praise for this Government as compared with any other government in this country for the advancement and the upliftment of Black education in particular.

Then the hon member for Merebank stated, in relation to the progress being made in the field of Black education—he even mentioned details in respect of sixfold improvements—that, and I quote, “you cannot expect miracles overnight”. He therefore concedes that one cannot expect miracles overnight and that it will take time to effect changes.

I addressed a gathering of about 1 500 members of the Indian community, including about 500 schoolchildren, in Chatsworth on Saturday where I officially opened our first regional hall constructed by our Department of Education and Culture. A reasonably sized hall cost us R1,34 million to construct. I even told them that it did not take us 32 days to negotiate acquiring a ready made building in another section of Chatsworth; it took us nine months of negotiation, of obtaining professional advice, and I made a comparison. It cost us R1,34 million to build a new hall, but we acquired two massive halls, a very large business, a garage, three separate shops and a massive space for only R1,2 million. I gave that comparison, but I reminded these children and the members of the Indian community that in Parliament they should not expect us only to safeguard jealously the welfare of the Indian community. I indicated to them that the problems of our Indian community cannot be seen in isolation. The safety, security and stability of the people of Chatsworth and Phoenix are dependent on the extent to which the children of KwaMashu, Umlazi and Soweto also advance. This hurts us because we know what it is to be on the receiving end of discrimination.

I want to say in this House that education of the Indian community suffered tremendously when it was in the hands of the provinces. I do not think anyone here would disagree with me when I say that the greatest event for Indian education took place when Parliament passed the Indian Education Act, approximately 23 years ago.

In 1965.

In 1965, 23 years ago. That was the greatest event for education in this country because overnight it changed our pattern. One can compare the number of Indian or so-called nonWhite graduates that are produced in the so-called liberal universities of South Africa with the number of Indian, Coloured and Black graduates that are produced in the so-called ethnic universities in South Africa—the universities of Durban Westville, the North, Zululand and the Western Cape. Although they were criticised after they had been established, they did play and are playing an important role in the field of the academic advancement of the people for whom these institutions were established.

I want to say that when these institutions did not exist—for example, when the universities of Zululand and Durban Westville did not exist—we were confronted with problems in trying to gain admission at the so-called liberal universities such as the universities of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand and even the University of Natal. Therefore I indicated to my community that we must show understanding, patience and tolerance, since education and the funding of education in South Africa comes through the Department of National Education. One does not have the previous method of allocation, in terms of which a White Minister decides to allocate arbitrarily in respect of education. This is now determined by way of a norm, and this norm does not discriminate. It neither favours the Whites, nor is it to the detriment of those who are not Whites.

Also inbuilt in this norm is a provision to uplift those communities where the greatest need exists. Allowances are made in this regard.

I suggest to any hon member of this House, any critic of the Government, that he make a study of the actual allocation of funds for White, Coloured, Black and Indian education in the present financial year and when the details in respect of the next financial year are to be released. Let us not, for example, compare universities. Let us not say that this is a global allocation to the House of Assembly, because there are non-Whites at the University of Cape Town; there are nonWhites at the University of Natal; there are non-Indians at the University of Durban-Westville. Do not, therefore, say that because a major portion of that expenditure goes towards financing universities, that is really White expenditure. My suggestion is that we make a comparison in respect of primary schools, pre-primary schools and secondary schools. Then one will find that there is a massive boost in that area that deserved upliftment most. Here I do not wish to deal with the details we discussed during the Vote of the Department of Education and Development Aid. I think one could speak volumes about what has been done.

I had occasion to visit an Eastern Transvaal town during the election, and in the course of the evening I saw a magnificent building. I took it for granted that it was a White institution. The next day the people of the area told me that it was in fact the new school for the Black community. That is the pattern of the times!

When I indicated that we experienced the pain and suffering of inequality when the provinces handled education, I gave an example. When a new Indian school was built, the new furniture ordered for the Indian school by the Natal provincial government at the time, was actually delivered to an old White school, and the old furniture from the White school was transferred to our new Indian school. That is how we had to suffer.

However, I also want to make an appeal, and I think that sometimes people misunderstand things and take them for granted. There must be some community self-help as far as upliftment of communities in this country is concerned. I think that our treatment at that time was no different from the treatment received by other non-White communities. However, the Indian community took upon itself in a programme of self-help to advance our education, and when the Government took over Indian education in 1966, our education had progressed significantly, so that we were second behind the Whites.

I am therefore glad that members of the standing committee and hon members on both sides of this House did not adopt a purist attitude or seek to engage in any act of confrontation. Although these acts referred to Black universities and this amendment refers to Black education, this represents progress and advancement. This passing of this legislation will only help to improve education in the area where assistance is needed most.

Here also, I want to reiterate what I said earlier in another debate. We are experiencing a silent and peaceful revolution in this country. Sometimes when people talk about revolution they think only of violence and confrontation. Pandit Nehru, the former Prime Minister of India, once gave a lecture on changes. He indicated that a revolution does not necessarily mean the breaking of heads. It also means changing things in a big way. Therefore, although we might not visibly see any progress in the programme in respect of real constitutional change in this country—because the Standing Committee is still dealing with the Bill for a proposed national council—the country is definitely moving at a good pace as far as reform in other directions is concerned. Great reforms are taking place in the field of education. This is why on Saturday I appealed to my community and to hon members of this House. There is a difference in the allocation of funds for Indian education. If one is to advance Black education because of the general consensus that it needs the advancement most, this can only come from the same Treasury, which cannot be overtaxed any more. My appeal therefore is one for tolerance when we see that the allocation for Indian education is not quite what we desire. We have all agreed that Black education needs the upliftment most.

Present conditions in the country can speak volumes for the new attitude towards Black education, much of which is due to the guidance given by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, together with his hon Deputy Minister and department. I can assure them that the practical, unideological and realistic approach of all of the parties represented in this House towards the programme for the upliftment of education for the masses can only augur well for the future of education in this country. Mahatma Gandhi once said: As long as there are tears and suffering in the eyes of the broad mass of people, our task is not over. Let us not pass judgment by what we see in the glitter of the major cities, but let us bring development where it really is needed the most.

Mr Chairman, we had the privilege of listening to a very powerful and persuasive address by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in which he, as it were, put the seal on one of the most positive and appreciative debates I have been privileged to hear on the subject of Black education. I would like to thank him and other hon members of this House for their support and encouragement and for their words of appreciation.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has emphasised the unwiseness of what one could call an ideologically obsessive purism. He has pleaded for the positive aspects flowing from not only a group system of government, but also a group system of education with its inherent bargaining possibilities.

I have listened with appreciation to his remarks on the multifaceted nature of reform in education, politics and economics. It is an inter-dependent concept.

I have listened to his appreciative words about the way in which the Department of National Education is accepting the overall responsibility and leadership in distributing the financial means for the various communities in respect of education, and I should like to supplement his remarks by saying that when the hon the Minister of National Education does this he does not act on his own sole authority. He does so in conjunction with his colleagues in all the other education departments who assist him and advise him, and in all cases a consensus decision is reached.

Finally, I should like to associate myself in particular with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who emphasised that community selfhelp is an important aspect of progress. Even where there is injustice or inequality, it is no use just crying and complaining. People should also do something about it as a community.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council quite rightly referred to the fact that it was the hon the State President who, when he was Prime Minister, and just before he appointed the De Lange Commission to investigate a new dispensation for education, committed himself to equal educational opportunities and standards for all in South Africa. He appointed the De Lange Commission to make concrete recommendations as to the path along which this objective should be achieved. I think it is important that we pay tribute at this stage to the hon the State President for his initiative and his leadership at the time, and for the fact that as one of the speakers—I think it was the hon member Mr Abram—said, it is not only what is in print that matters, but what we see in practice. It was the leadership of the hon the State President that ensured that the commitment he made in 1980 did not remain a commitment on paper or a verbal commitment but that it was translated into action, a fact to which various hon members have paid tribute here today in diverse manners.

Whenever people ask me when equality in education is going to be achieved, my answer is: Not simply on the day when financial provision is equal but ultimately on the day when each community will, through its own inner strength—the quality of its children, of its parents and of the people it puts forward to become teachers—and through self-reliance, avail itself of the equal opportunities that exist and build on that foundation to achieve equal quality of education. No Government can give equal quality of education to any community; it can only give equal opportunities. It can only ensure equal standards. Whether or not there will be equal quality will, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council quite rightly indicated towards the end of his speech, depend on the community’s self-reliance, on its own initiative to avail itself of these opportunities.

I should like to acknowledge the very kind remarks that were addressed to my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister, as well as to the Director-General and the senior personnel of the department, and to myself.

I said something yesterday in another House, and I should like to repeat it here today. The task of the leaders, and even that of the captains, so to speak, in the schools and in the inspectorate circuits concerned with Black education, is a very exacting, a very challenging and at times even a very dangerous one, and I should like to pay tribute to the calibre of those people and to their dedication and their achievements in promoting the work of the department. Particular reference has been made to Dr Meiring, the Deputy Director-General, who made himself available to the standing committee as a spokesman on behalf of the department.

I should also like to refer to the Director-General, Dr Fourie, who is here this afternoon. He is really the master mind behind the top management of the department, and he is assisted by Dr Meiring, who is one of the two deputy directors-general, and by Mr Jaap Strydom, the other deputy director-general. Both of them have excellent qualities. One of them in particular, I would say, is a planner.

Under Dr Meiring’s leadership a number of national plans have been developed in the department to co-ordinate the reform process taking place. The other person, Mr Strydom, is especially a great negotiator and diplomat who has played an enormous role, together with his staff, in defusing difficult and even explosive situations. I think it was good for the top management of the department to listen to this positive debate this afternoon. I would like to thank hon members very warmly.

I would like to make a basic remark, which links up with what the hon member for Reservoir Hills said. He pointed out that neglect or backlogs in the field of education for Black people or for other communities in South Africa cannot merely be ascribed to, or made the responsibility of the present Government, but it is something which goes back very far in history. He quoted some examples from the time of Gen Smuts’ government and earlier.

I want to remind this House that the world is very pious, self-satisfied and conceited in the way it today criticises South Africa. Let us be frank and clear about this matter with each other. It was only during the Second World War that there appeared a general recognition that the old dispensation where European people dominated, even in highly civilised countries in other parts of the world, was a thing of the past. It is only during and since the Second World War that real emancipation, politically and culturally, of peoples all around the globe has taken place. People who criticise South Africa forget that until the Second World War many of them were involved in different dispensations, denying other racial groups and other nations in other parts of the world full justice, fairness and equality, whether it be in the economic, political or cultural and educational field.

Even slaves!

I would not even go back so far, Mr Chairman. However, people who today throw stones should remember that they or their predecessors were still living in glass houses very recently.

I would like to deal very briefly with some of the remarks hon members made. The first speaker, the hon member for Allandale, referred to compulsory school attendance being provided for in this Bill. There is a slight misunderstanding here. Compulsory school attendance is not being provided for. What is being provided for is that no farm owner can prevent a child from attending school by imposing labour or other duties on such a child.

The question of compulsory school attendance and compulsory education is a matter which is dealt with in another section of the existing Act. Wherever the community is prepared to accept it, the Department of Education and Training is prepared to introduce compulsory education. Unfortunately, during some of the unrest times in the 70s, there was a strong reaction against movements on the part of the department to introduce compulsory education. Therefore it has been introduced very carefully only where the communities concerned are prepared to accept it, and we would like to continue in this way. However, I must make it quite clear that this Bill does not change the situation. It does, however, protect the position of farm workers’ children against being forced into farm labour while they should be at school.

The hon member also referred, very correctly, to the definition of a parent and the hon member for Reservoir Hills associated himself with that discussion. I think the definition of a parent is extremely important in this Bill, because it acknowledges the different and much more flexible and extensive system of the parent and child or grown-up and child or family and child relationship in the Black community. It moves away from a simple imposition of what one could call First World family patters on the Black community.

There are actually four different types of people who in their relationship to the child can be defined as a parent. All these definitions of “parent” are brought into the process of giving participation in the running of education and a say in the formulation of educational policy on a local and a regional level. The first possibility of being a parent is by law or by virtue of an order of a competent court. Such a person must have the custody of that child. One can therefore say that it is a biological parent or a parent by an adoption order.

Secondly, our law makes provision for various ways in which, instead of a parent, a legal guardian can be appointed. Thirdly, the Bill says that where there is an absence of such a parent or guardian, in other words where the child is not staying with his parents, then the person with whom the child resides and to whom the parent or guardian has entrusted in writing the custody or control of such a child is then regarded as the parent. We have many cases of children living in larger towns where they attend schools with more advanced classes than are available in their immediate surroundings. These children have been entrusted by their parents who live some distance away to the care of the person who then takes care of the child.

Fourthly, if a child has no parent or legal guardian, the person who is regarded as the parent is the person with whom the child resides and who has the actual custody or control of such a child. The decision about this broad definition was not taken by the department alone. It was taken after careful consultation and at the request of leaders in the Black community, educational leaders in particular.

None of the hon members referred to what I consider the rather unfortunate remark made by the hon member for Allandale when he said that there was really nothing to accelerate spending with regard to Black education. He said that what had been done smacked of a hypocritical attitude. I think the hon member slipped very badly there and I think the tenor of this discussion differs greatly in the light of what other hon members said. How can it be hypocritical if as from last year we have introduced full parity in terms of salaries etc for teachers of all population groups?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he would not also say that I also mentioned in my remarks that this Government—previous Governments inclusive—has not given the necessary finance to the Black community and that it therefore smacks of hypocritical attitudes?

Yes, the hon member did say what he repeated now but I challenge whether the term “hypocritical” is correctly applied to the actions of the Government. I ask again: How can it be called hypocritical if the standards to which schools are being built presently are exactly the same for all population groups and controlled by the Minister of Finance? Actually the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to a new school for Black children which he was surprised to see in an Eastern Transvaal town recently.

Finally, how can it be considered to be hypocritical if the former disparity which existed with regard to the provision of stationery and books at schools was completely removed two years ago? Pupils in Black schools receive the same treatment as pupils in all other schools. Perhaps the slip was not meant by the hon member but I thought that it did call for a challenge and a rectification from my side.

The hon member for Cavendish spoke very positively and I would like to thank him for saying that the department has been conspicuous in its magnanimous efforts to improve education. The hon member for Reservoir Hills dealt with the matter, as I have already said, of what happened under previous Governments. He also dealt with the definition of a parent. He called furthermore for a single overall control in education. I want to say again that I am absolutely convinced that in the present South African situation the educational needs of the different communities differ to such a degree that it would be unwise to administer them all together under the same department.

At the same time the Government acknowledges that there are common interests and matters of common import which have to be dealt with in an overall umbrella way by the hon the Minister of National Education. This is with regard to the norms and standards of finance, with regard to the standards for the appointment of staff and their remuneration and with regard to the standards determining the content of syllabuses and programmes and the standards of examination. These matters have to be the same for all. They are the yardsticks according to which quality of education and fairness in the assignment of resources is determined for all. In that respect I think the Government has gone a long way to implement a basic recommendation of the De Lange report.

I should like to thank the hon member Mr R S Nowbath for the emphasis he has laid on the fact that if one does not follow a path of reform, though it may not always be fast enough, the alternative is a revolution which only leads to an inheritance of ashes and chaos. He very wisely spoke against the liberal and militant media which refrain from reprimanding irresponsible young people who are breaking down the educational system to their own short-term and longterm disadvantage. I thank him for these wise words.

He also said that although some of its members may also have been frustrated in the political and constitutional respects, the Indian community has set an example by not destroying their own education. I want to supplement what he has said by referring to the outstanding matriculation results which have been achieved this year by students from the Department of Education and Culture of this House. It shows what progress has been made by the proper use and intensive application of making the best use of the facilities available to this community in the field of education.

I also want to say that in Black education although this year the average pass rate for the matric examination was 57% of the students writing the examination—which means that the failure rate was still high—there are certain areas where the achievement was outstanding. Here I particularly mention Venda, Gazankulu and Bophuthatswana whose students achieved outstanding results with 77%, 74% and 69% of the candidates passing in those cases. This was not a small number of candidates but a very large number of candidates—more than 10 000 candidates in some of these cases.

This again shows that if people do not destroy or obstruct or boycott their education but use it then they can—even under circumstances which they might feel called upon to criticise—achieve outstanding results.

I want to venture onto a very risky path. This is to draw the attention of this hon House to certain unhistorical or historically incorrect references to the so-called Verwoerdian concept of education. Hon members of this House will know that two years ago I came out in a very frank and outspoken way against certain restrictive interpretations of the provision of education for Black people that have been ascribed to the late Dr Verwoerd. I completely dissociated myself from any restrictive interpretation on the provision of education for Black people. I said that the same vistas and the same options and the same standards must be provided for Blacks as is done for others.

However, we should also retain a historical perspective. Firstly, it was Dr Verwoerd who for the first time introduced the goal of universal primary school education for Blacks at a time when funds for Black education were very limited. He wanted us to concentrate on trying to get every Black child into a primary school. I think that in terms of overall African educational development policy that was a very wise thing. He was almost a man before his time in that respect. Secondly, he emphasised the importance of national planning and a central national direction for the promotion of Black education. Black education too suffered previously under the provincial departments. This was the same in the case of Indian education. However, it was one of the reforms that Dr Verwoerd introduced a national central direction and planning for Black education countrywide.

Thirdly, he introduced, in a way that was afterwards criticised and rejected, real community control of education. In his time the community representatives virtually controlled all education on a local level, even the appointment and dismissal of staff, to such an extent that the teaching profession revolted against this and insisted on greater control by the department and from professional people because they felt the community was not always sufficiently sophisticated to carry out this responsibility. Here again he showed that, in a sense, he was ahead of his time by introducing this community control.

Fourthly, mention has been made of the fact that the universities that were established in the late fifties and early sixties for the non-White communities achieved outstanding successes. In retrospect I think we all acknowledge that the obligatory separateness that was introduced in those universities was a mistake and undermined the credibility and image of those universities. However, we cannot deny that each of these universities made a major contribution to the progress of the communities in whose interests they were established. They are today generally accepted as part of the family of South African universities. In fact, they are also attended by members of other population groups. There is a number of White students at the Universities of Durban-Westville, Western Cape, Fort Hare and the University of the North, etc.

I would like to refer briefly to the words of the hon member for Merebank. He again pointed out—I think very wisely—that the institution of combined primary and secondary schools in the case of Black rural education points out how the needs of this community differ from the needs of other communities. He acknowledged the need for differentiation in meeting the needs and requirements of different communities in education. I thank him for that remark.

The hon member Mr Abram made a very extensive contribution. I have already referred to some of his remarks but I would like to echo particularly the tributes he paid to the teachers on the farm schools. I may say that we have now changed the subsidy system so that farmers can also build houses for the teachers which would attract better quality teachers to stay at the school.

He paid tribute to the children, who often have to walk fairly long distances to get to school and therefore make great sacrifices to go to school. I can remember that when I was a youngster, many of my friends studied at places where they had to go on foot. Sometimes they had to take a detour when lions were obstructing some of the paths on which they walked in the Ellisras or Vaalwater districts. I can remember that my wife was responsible for driving the donkey cart from home to school, but because the donkey was so slow and sluggish, she usually had to run in front of the donkey and pull it along, so I think she was really pulling the cart along to school. Thus there were difficult times for all communities, and I think it is a good thing for us to pay tribute to the children at farm schools. I hope they will progress in the same way as children in other communities who, two or three decades ago, also under difficult circumstances had to make sacrifices to go to school and to receive an education.

I would also like to echo the hon member’s tribute to the families for the sacrifices they make and to the parents for the contribution they make.

The hon member Mr Abram also referred to school uniforms and I would like to support his appeal to the private sector, especially to those businesses that provide school uniforms for Black children, to ensure that they are very reasonable in the pricing of those uniforms. I think he made an excellent suggestion that in promoting the informal sector of our economy we might look into promoting home industries in the rural areas, or wherever school uniforms are required, so that the mothers will be able to earn some money by making the necessary uniforms for their own and other children. Dressmaking has in my opinion been a standby over the decades and has enabled many communities in the lower income group to earn some extra money and to ensure their own progress.

The one point I want to make, however, is that there is no compulsion from the department that children should wear uniforms to school.

We realise that in many communities the parents cannot afford to pay for uniforms, and therefore there is no departmental instruction that children must have and must wear uniforms. The wearing of uniforms and decisions on uniforms are matters for the parent communities—for the school committees of each school as elected by the parents—to decide on, and this then, has to be carried out by the headmaster.

I should also like to thank my hon colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, for his advice in the light of his own experience in setting up State aided schools. May I just, for the sake of clarity, explain that we shall probably have three different types of schools, economically speaking, in the case of the rural or farm schools.

Firstly, there is the case where the farmers still remains owner of the land and builds the school himself, and then receives a subsidy for the cost from the department. In this case he is the owner and has the overall say, but we are trying to enter into an agreement that when he receives a subsidy, he must commit himself to maintain that school over a period of at least 10 years.

Secondly, this Bill will enable the department to build State aided schools, though the land remains the property of the owner, but on the basis of a long-term lease. Thus it will be possible, to guarantee the continued use of that school, even if the owner sells to another person, since as you know, lease goes before sale.

Thirdly, there is the possibility of the State acquiring property—buying land from farmers, and building a fully-fledged State school in those cases.

All three of these options are being used according to what is best in a given situation. I should like to give my hon colleague the assurance that we shall also keep his advice in mind in applying this.

I think he made a very important point with regard to gardening. Perhaps he was misunderstood in the sense that some hon members understood him to mean that he encouraged the participation of the students during school hours in gardening in a farmer’s garden. However, what I think we really want is that the farmer should make some land available at the school so that there can be school gardening—part of the educational process of the children—where they can produce some vegetables and generate some knowledge. I think that this is an outstanding idea, which has already been put into effect at some schools, and not only farm schools. At town schools, too, this can be done and it can be part of the practical educational experience in teaching nature study, some basic agriculture, basic science and so on. Although Dr Albert Hertzog perhaps had a different intention when he used those words that the hon member Mr Abram quoted, namely that this education should be a matter of “health, cattle and soil”, it is still true that health, cattle and soil should be part of education. It should not be the only part of education, but it is still a very important part. I think that knowledge of soil and the good use of soil is something that should be introduced in all schools in any way possible. This is a very practical and sensible suggestion which, from his own experience, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has made, and I wish to thank him for it.

I have already referred to the generous remarks made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. With these words I should like to thank hon members, also on behalf of the Director-General and the representatives of the department who are present here today, for their words of encouragement and appreciation. I assure them that this is an inspiration to us and will strengthen us in carrying on with this job with even greater dedication, and I hope, with even more achievement than in the past.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I rise to support this Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill which is before us. I think I should mention, before saying that this House should accept this Bill, that this Bill is accepted outside by the worker for whom this Bill is really intended.

The fact that this Bill has gone through without any amendment is an indication of the involvement of the employer organisations and employee organisations jointly having some input in order to bring about some relief in respect of certain requirements for the employee, who were handicapped in certain areas.

Before I go into the “nitty-gritty” of this Bill I would like to emphasise that we are dealing with a very important sector of our population, namely the working man. I would like to pay tribute to the hon the Minister and his department for their handling of the very recent situation when unemployment was rife. The hon the Minister, the Director-General and his assistants played a very important role in bringing about some relief for the unemployed. A lot of their frustrations were alleviated.

Very recently I was addressing some students through Rotary. They had asked us how manpower actually fits into the cycle of the country’s economy. I told them that in my view there are the three pillars; to the left the pillar of economy; on the right the pillar of political power; and in the centre you have manpower. Without the centre one the other two are useless. It is like having a sandwich consisting of two slices of bread, where the filling is very important. Manpower namely plays a very important role in keeping the economy going. One should always pay a lot of attention to those people who help to keep the wheel of economy turning.

This Bill actually brings a lot of relief to the worker, who was handicapped in many areas. This Bill makes provision for the Minister to delegate power to a commissioner, who in turn will have officers in various parts of the country with whom an employee can now register in terms of unemployment. Furthermore, provision is also made for those who are ill to seek the help of chiropractors and homeopaths. Applications may now be filed for benefits in this regard. This is another useful contribution to the worker. As regards our female workers, there is a tremendous improvement in the maternity benefits. The waiting period has been reduced from 18 to 13 weeks, bringing in line all other types of benefits in terms of these unemployment insurance benefits.

In the peak period of unemployment the department handled the registration of 110 000 people per month and there used to be quite a delay between registering and receiving a benefit. This was due to the many channels through which an application had to go and this caused tremendous delay and frustration to some people. For anyone who is unemployed, not receiving money and not being able to do something about it causes enough frustration, even without having to stand in a daily or weekly queue.

I think this has also brought about a certain amount of unrest in the townships because there are so many people who are unemployed and who cannot receive benefits, and the devil always finds work for idle hands to do. I think this is perhaps another perspective from which one may view the unrest that is taking place in the townships and I hope that this measure will now eliminate some of those undesirable events as well.

Therefore, Mr Chairman, I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill and I hope that it will be implemented so that those people for whom it is intended may derive the full benefit from it.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Mariannhill knows a great deal more than I do about manpower and labour matters. He has had very extensive experience on the factory floor, which I am sure will stand him in good stead in this House. [Interjections.] The detailed account he has just given us speaks well of this Bill. He gave us a very detailed report on the various clauses of the Bill.

I do not have very much more to add, but I do want to refer to one particular clause in which an amendment is being made in order to recognise homeopaths and chiropractors. I think this Bill must have elicited a great sigh of relief from these people who have been striving for a long time to be recognised as people of professional standing. They will now be competent to complete applications for illness benefits and this, of course, will also supplement their business.

The other important aspect of this Bill concerns the question of applicants for benefits, who in the past had to wait for long periods of time. The amendment to the Bill will most certainly expedite this type of long delay.

As far as maternity benefits are concerned, the amendment also brings about uniformity with the other types of benefits and I feel sure that those women will be very happy that provision is being made for them and that they are now being recognised. This type of uniformity is in keeping with the other types of benefits.

We on this side of the House have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the working class of a country constitutes the backbone of the economy of that country. That is universally accepted. This being so, I am pleased that the Department of Manpower, which looks after the affairs of the working class in this country, is a fair-minded one and that it operates fairly well.

Coming back to the Bill, up to now the Minister has had the power to appoint any officer in his department as secretary of the Unemployment Insurance Board. However, clause 1 of this Bill empowers the Minister to delegate that power by assigning any officer of the Department of Manpower to be the secretary of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Clause 2 of this Bill provides for the compulsory registration of unemployed contributors with the Department of Manpower as unemployed persons prior to filing an application for unemployment benefits with the board.

I now come to subsection (c) of clause 2. This is very interesting. Up to now if an unemployed person registered in Durban, for example, and then moved to Cape Town, he had to register with the Department of Manpower within 14 days of moving from one centre to another. That is a very short space of time, Sir, and as a result very many contributors defaulted and were penalised, thereby suffering a loss of income.

However, subsection (c) of clause 2 increases this registration period from 14 days to 28 days. This is a most welcome amendment.

Subsection (d) of clause 2 is a most laudable amendment to this Bill. Previously, officers of the Unemployment Insurance Fund had the right to penalise contributors by discontinuing payment for six weeks. In this respect, my mind goes back to the early sixties. I know of a man who was employed for 18 years, who was never sick for a day and was continuously with the same employer for 18 years. After 18 years the unfortunate person took ill …

And died.

No, he did not die. He took ill and was retrenched by an unscrupulous boss. Because he was away from work for two months, they put someone in his place and when he got back they demoted him from a senior post to a junior post. They said that because his health was bad, they had no guarantee that he would continue in his post. They also said that the man who replaced him during the two months seemed to be a shade better in his performance. Naturally the man resigned from his job, having been demoted from grade 1, the top grade, to grade 6, the lowest grade in the establishment.

When this person registered with the Unemployment Insurance Fund he was not told that because he resigned he would be penalised. They made him sign for the normal 21 days after the third week. The man waited for his payment with so much hope and optimism that he made out a shopping list. When he got to the payment counter, they told him that they were sorry … No, they did not even say they were sorry, they were very brutal. They said: “You resigned from your work, so you do not get paid.” This man sat with tears in his eyes in Melbourne Road in Durban. I went upstairs to ask what had happened. They were kind to me and explained that the man had resigned from his work and that the Act provides that they have the right to penalise him. I said that they must look at the circumstances of this man’s resignation, but they were not interested. They asked me: “Who are you? Are you a lawyer?” I said: “I am not a lawyer, but I am interested in the welfare of the community.” They said: “Look, it is none of your business.”

I had to take the man to a lawyer, pay for a lawyer and lodge an appeal. This was successful and he got his payment three weeks thereafter. All the same, he lost six weeks’ pay. Now I welcome subsection (d) of clause 2 which will even do away with that six week penalty, “by the deletion of paragraph (e) of subsection (13)”. That is the paragraph that still rings a bell to me. It will now be deleted totally.

Clause 3 of this Bill is the one to which the hon member Mr Abram referred. This is also a welcome amendment. Hereafter people who are treated by chiropractors and homeopaths can be certified unfit for duty and they can qualify for unemployment benefits.

Clause 4 was referred to by the hon member for Havenside. Previously female workers had to wait eighteen weeks before they qualified for benefits. This has now been reduced to thirteen weeks.

Having said this, I do not think that any sane person can find anything controversial or objectionable in this Bill and I have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, it is naturally a pleasure to follow the hon member for Camperdown on the note on which he resumed his seat.

I must say that ever since the days of former Minister Fanie Botha we have witnessed some of the most important reforms in this country and those reforms have been in the field of labour.

*With regard to the Bill before us, it is clear that it is the product of real experience. There were shortcomings in the legislation which of course had to be rectified. It is interesting to note that various employers’ as well as employees’ organisations are represented on the Unemployment Insurance Board and that they found deficiencies which are merely being rectified by this measure. In this regard once again it is a piece of legislation which we should like to support without any hesitation and with total confidence.

We should also like to compliment the hon the Minister on the manner in which his Ministry deals with legislation and we want to add that it meets the demands of the times we are living in. This is of the utmost importance for creating satisfaction, not only among the employers, but also among the employees. That is accomplished by this measure and we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, the Unemployment Insurance Board represents both the employer and the employee. This board examined the Bill before the House thoroughly. I believe the board has brought satisfaction to employees. The Department of Manpower is also undertaking projects that will bring a certain amount of relief to employees. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Chairman, some of the amendments in this Bill are long overdue and I am glad that they come about now. It is also very encouraging to note that certain provisions in this Bill help the ordinary man in the street, particularly the inconvenience that the man in the street experiences when he is unemployed. If for example an unemployed contributor moved from one area of jurisdiction of a claims officer to another area of jurisdiction of another claims officer he had to reregister within 14 days. Henceforth, if the Bill goes through, he will have 28 days in which to register. This should be sufficient time when one keeps in mind the inconvenience one has to suffer when one settles in a new area as well as all the rigmarole involved in settling down in a new place.

There is also another aspect that I would like to mention. Prior to this Bill, if a contributor lost his job or resigned there was a penalty period of six weeks before he could receive unemployment benefits. For six weeks such a person had to sign for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Who qualifies for the Unemployment Insurance Fund? Not all unemployed do—there is a ceiling wage group that qualifies for this fund. The ceiling is R30 000 per annum or R2 500 per month.

Another drawback of the penalty period of six weeks is that it is very cumbersome for the staff involved because of the processing of ever-growing numbers of applications.

Consequently this amendment is most appropriate. The unemployment figure of people in the age group between 20 and 60 years is as follows: Blacks, 1 004 000 of whom 486 000 are male and 518 000 are female; Indians, 33 000 of whom 20 000 are male and 13 000 are females; and Coloureds. 104 000 of whom 51 000 are male and 53 000 are female. The total number of unemployed Whites is 25 000 of whom 12 000 are male and 13 000 are female. Imagine these people being subjected to this penalty clause! Therefore it is heartening and encouraging to see that that penalty clause has been removed and one can get the benefit in the normal way.

Finally, something that concerns me very much is that when a contributor who has no dependants but has parents dies, the benefits that accrue to him are not paid to the parents. This worries me a bit and I should like the hon the Minister to look into this matter and bring about some relief. Personally I think whatever has accrued to the deceased who has no dependants but has parents, should go to the parents. I therefore ask the hon the Minister please to look into this. Otherwise it is a very welcome amendment and we have no difficulty in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I should first of all like to thank all hon members who participated in this debate and I must say I am very satisfied with the level at which this debate took place. I think the hon members of this House excel in preparing themselves for debates. I must also mention that I was very much impressed by the debate which took place just before mine when Black education was discussed in this House. I also want to compliment you, Mr Chairman, on the way in which you handle the discipline in this House.

First of all I want to come to the hon member for Mariannhill. I really want to thank him very much for the compliments he paid my department and I, especially as far as the relief of the unemployment situation is concerned. I can tell the hon member that the whole question of unemployment is being considered on a continuous basis and is being monitored by my department.

We are busy with very extensive efforts to relieve unemployment, and I can also tell the hon member that with these job creation projects and the training programmes for unemployed persons we have achieved great success. We have been able to place many of those who were unable to find employment. After training they were in a position to find employment and quite a substantial number of them entered the informal sector. Some of them are now independent entrepreneurs. I again want to thank the hon member for mentioning that action taken by the Department of Manpower.

The hon member made a very interesting point when he said that there are three pillars, politics and the economy on either side with manpower between the two. I want to agree with the hon member that both those side pillars—politics and economy—depend on what is happening in the field of manpower.

If there is no peace in the field of manpower the economy and the political position of the country usually suffer.

The hon member also mentioned the question of homeopaths and chiropractors whose qualifications will now be acknowledged by the board. I think this is a great improvement because these people play a very important role in the lives of many of our workers. I think this really is a substantial improvement in the present situation.

They also help MPs.

They also help some of the MPs. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is quite correct in saying that.

The hon member for Havenside mentioned that maternity benefits are now being brought into line with other benefits. I think the female employees should be very grateful to Parliament and the department for treating these benefits on exactly the same basis as other benefits. I think there was some discrimination as far as their qualifying period for the benefits is concerned. I think we have done our duty and all benefits are now treated on exactly the same basis.

The hon member for Camperdown mentioned especially the deletion of the penalty period of six weeks. I must say I agree with him. The whole question of the penalty period actually caused considerable delays. The fact is that whether or not the penalty is applied at the beginning of the period, it is added at the end of the period anyway. There is therefore no saving of money simply by doing away with the penalty period. I do not think the penalty period served its purpose. It acted only as an administrative hurdle in the past in respect of the payment of benefits. This is also a very great improvement.

*I come now to the hon member Mr Abram. He stated quite correctly that some of the greatest reform in this country had taken place in the field of manpower. Because of our labour policy and our manpower policy we have succeeded in eliminating many grievances. We are following a path that offers everyone in South Africa a reasonable chance to reach the top as far as the work sphere is concerned. I want to thank the hon member for expressing those thoughts here, because that is the factual situation.

The hon member also mentioned the fact that the problems we are addressing here today are all problems that have been identified by the Unemployment Insurance Board. As some hon members have also mentioned this board consists of employer associations, trade unions—the representatives of employees—and of course some officials of the Department of Manpower. Since I became Minister of Manpower this board has always submitted very responsible recommendations. They are really good trustees of the funds of employers and employees that are paid in there. Their actions are characterised throughout by the responsible way in which they handle their affairs.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Chatsworth Central for his contribution to this debate. I appreciate it.

I now come to the hon member for Bayview who said that these amendments were very welcome because they help the ordinary man in the street. That is quite true. This helps the man in the street and makes his life easier. I think it is a very positive Bill.

He also mentioned the question of the extension of the application period from 14 to 28 days. That also makes it easier for beneficiaries of this fund.

The hon member also mentioned the question of unemployment, especially the fact that it is relatively high among the Black population groups. The Government is very much concerned about the growing unemployment, and we sincerely hope that when the economic upswing gains momentum, we shall be able to accommodate more of the unemployed in our country.

The Government and my department are very sympathetically disposed towards unemployed people. We know about the suffering and the sorrow these people go through, but within the financial ability of the country, we are doing our very best to do something for them and to improve their position.

The hon member also asked, in the case of a contributor with no dependants, what happens to the money. There is a definition of “dependants” in subsection 38(7) of the Act. It reads:

1. (i) the widow or invalid widower of the deceased contributor;
2. (ii) any child (including an adopted child) of the deceased contributor who was under the age of 17 years at the date of the death of the contributor and who was, in the opinion of the board, wholly or mainly dependent upon the contributor for the necessities of life; or …

This is important—

1. (iii) Any other person who was, in the opinion of the board, wholly or mainly dependent upon the deceased contributor for the necessities of life.

We apply this section in such a way that in the event of the deceased contributor having no other dependants, his parents—if they are dependent on him—receive the benefits accrued during his period of work.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question. If the deceased contributor has no dependants, but he does have parents, and the parents are earning a living, shouldn’t they receive the money? That is my point.

Mr Chairman, the Act states:

We interpret that very, very liberally. For instance, one has cases where both the father and the mother work—in other words, they are fully employed—but where his monthly contribution towards the household was substantial. Although they are both working, where his contribution was substantial we draw the conclusion that those parents are partially dependent on his income, and then they receive the benefit. One has to take into account the fact that this is not in fact an insurance policy for death benefits. It is a policy similar to an insurance policy taken for periods of unemployment.

If a contributor should die, we are very sympathetic when we handle the dependants, including the mother or father. The hon member can rest assured that I have had enquiries from parents and they mostly express their thanks in their letters for the way in which our department has handled their case. However, there is always the right of appeal and cases can be brought to my personal attention. At times I may ask the department to reconsider certain decisions.

I would like to bring a case which refers back eight years ago.

The hon member may do so. We do have records and I will look into that very sympathetically.

Someone may say that it is political interference.

Mr Chairman, I think I have replied to most of the hon members and I thank them all for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.