Order! I have to announce that I have called a Joint Sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Wednesday, 16 March, at 14h15, for the delivering of the Second Reading speech on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate on behalf of this side of the House. In the first instance I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmasters General and the staff of the Post Office for their excellent work, their zeal and their dedication during the past year. I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the Postmaster General, Mr Ridgard, who, DV, will be retiring at the end of this month after 44 years in the service, for the valued service he has rendered to the department during this exceptionally long period. The contribution which he and his staff have made to the department is very apparent from the following details.

Over the past 10 years the number of telephones nearly doubled to 4,23 million. The telephone trunk network was extended from 11,3 million kilometres to 36,4 million kilometres. The number of manual telephone exchanges decreased from 1 430 to 728. The number of automatic telephone exchanges increased from 424 to 879. This serves as proof of the zeal and dedication which Mr Ridgard and his staff have displayed to the benefit of the department and of the Republic of South Africa. We thank him and his staff for this, and we wish Mr Ridgard and his wife much future happiness and prosperity.

I also extend my hearty congratulations to Mr Johan de Villiers on his appointment as Mr Ridgard’s successor. I also wish him the best of luck for the future.

The CP also extends its sincere gratitude to the Post Office officials for the loyal and selfless service they have rendered to the department and to South Africa during the past year. In particular the CP would like to extend a word of gratitude to the White Post Office workers who so faithfully stood by the department and who were so extremely loyal to the department and to the Republic during the past year … [Interjections] … because it was the White Post Office workers who did the work when the Black Post Office workers attempted to paralyse the department during the past year by way of a strike that lasted almost three months. [Interjections.] Yes, whilst the Black Post Office workers were playing games with the hon the Minister of Communications for approximately three months, it was the White Post Office workers who acted responsibly and who remained loyal to the department and to South Africa. For that the Official Opposition would like to extend a word of sincere gratitude to those Post Office workers. We are proud of them, and we should like to accept that the hon the Minister is also proud of them.

However, all indications are that this is not the case, because the hon the Minister cares so little about the Post Office officials of South Africa that, in accordance with the hon the State President’s directives, he does not consider the Post Office officials important enough to grant them their general salary increases. Yes, this is the thanks the White Post Office worker gets for his loyalty to the department during the recent strike. This is the thanks the White Post Office worker gets for acting responsibly in not striking. This is the thanks he gets for the support he gave the department during the recent strike by Black Post Office workers. This is the thanks he gets for having done the work of the Black Post Office workers when the Black workers went on strike. [Interjections.] Yes, this is the thanks he gets for having remained loyal to the department while the Black Post Office workers played games with the hon the Minister over a period of approximately three months.

The CP finds it regrettable that this should be the treatment the White Post Office worker is receiving from the Government…[Interjections]… because even a modest increase would have improved the Post Office official’s financial position. Is it possible that the hon the Minister does not realise what the financial position of the Post Office officials and other workers is? The fact is that just as the hon the Minister of National Education has turned his back on the White teacher, just as the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has turned his back on the SATS official and just as the hon the Minister of Agriculture has turned his back on the White farmer, the hon the Minister of Communications has turned his back on the White Post Office worker … [Interjections] … because for a long time now the NP has no longer been the friend of the White worker in South Africa.

The NP Government has turned its back on the White worker in South Africa, and for that reason the hon the Minister of Communications has also turned his back on the White Post Office worker, who has always been loyal to the department and the Republic. The hon the Minister has been carried away by the hon the State President’s plans to ostensibly reform South Africa economically, and that is why the Post Office worker must now pay the price for this, because, the Post Office worker is now being expected to tighten his belt. [Interjections.] The White Post Office worker has already tightened his belt; he cannot tighten it any further.

It is unacceptable to the CP that the Post Office worker should have to pay the price, that he should have to bear the brunt of this because the Government has for a long time failed to control State spending. It is unacceptable that the Post Office worker should have to pay the price because the Government did not take timeous steps to control inflation, because it is precisely the NP Government that has caused the inflation rate to sky-rocket, and now the Post Office worker is expected to tighten his belt even further because the Government has suddenly become aware of inflation and has decided to tackle this bogey of inflation, as the hon the State President put it.

No sooner had the NP decided to tackle inflation, decided that public servants and Post Office workers would not receive any increases, than interest rates and bond rates sky-rocketed. All this is costing the Post Office worker money, but he is still expected to tighten his belt even further.

If the hon the Minister thinks he can expect the Post Office workers to be satisfied with no general salary increase, he is making a big mistake. The Post Office workers are not prepared to content themselves with the gratitude which the hon the Minister is offering them in exchange for their zeal, their dedication and their loyalty.

When the hon the Minister needed them during the recent strike by Black Post Office workers, they were only too willing and ready to help him, but now that they need the hon the Minister’s help in providing for the basic necessities of life, he is giving them the cold shoulder. That is why he and the NP Government will have to be satisfied when the White Post Office workers give him and his Government the cold shoulder in Randfontein on 29 March.

A further aspect of the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech, which very clearly illustrates the critical financial position and conditions in the country, is the fact that the hon the Minister originally expected an influx of R400 million in investment funds into the Post Office Savings Bank, but that instead of that an outflow of R350 million is now expected. This clearly shows that consumers are having to make use of their capital in an effort to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

The Official Opposition notes with gratitude that no tariff increases are being proposed for 1988-89. Like the consumer, we are grateful for that, but because we have learnt that the NP Government is not to be trusted, and because we know that the NP is inclined to say one thing and do the opposite, the CP notes with disappointment that the hon the Minister has nevertheless allowed a thinly veiled increase in the fine print of his Budget by means of the new system of metering the duration of local calls which, in effect, means nothing if not a tariff increase to the consumer. The hon the Minister says there are to be no tariff increases, but just as the NP Government is renowned for doing, it is in effect allowing a tariff increase.

By way of motivation of the fact that there will be no tariff increases, the hon the Minister said that this was a contribution to the fight against inflation. However, when the hon the Minister allowed those tremendous tariff increases last year, inflation did not play a role in them. At that time he promoted inflation and yet now, all of a sudden, inflation has to be tackled. In the process the Post Office workers will have to be satisfied with no general salary increase. The NP is responsible for the high inflation rate, whereas it is the Post Office workers who must now pay the price for the Government’s increasing mismanagement.

As to the hon the Minister’s comments on privatisation, it is the standpoint of the Official Opposition that we would like more details in this regard, and we shall therefore not react further to it before Dr De Villiers’ Report on, privatisation inter alia, has been published.

The Official Opposition has taken note of the hon the Minister’s assurances and undertakings in respect of privatisation, as set out in the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech, because the CP is naturally opposed to the possibility that privatisation could lead to resignations by staff, to price increases and to a curtailment of essential services without any advantages to the White taxpayer, who originally paid for the establishment of those services. In our view the Government, through the agency of the hon the State President, regards privatisation simply as a way in which to obtain capital in order to settle public debt.

It is also interesting to note that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid views privatisation as a means of obtaining capital with which to build Black schools.

The impression that is being created is that the Government wishes to privatise Post Office services, for example, to rid itself of the responsibility of running those services on a profitable basis. In the process it also wants to rid itself of the problem which the NP Government itself created, namely Black trade unions, and obtain capital for the payment of debts and for the financing of political power-sharing, which will bring about the demise of the Whites in South Africa.

For that reason the Official Opposition naturally does not support the hon the Minister’s motion that the Post Office Appropriation Bill be read a second time.

We therefore move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, it is very clear to me that the CP has very little regard for the Post Office, because that party leaves such an important department in the hands of a totally inexperienced back-bencher—who, in every sense of the word, does not know what he is talking about. [Interjections.] I want to put a question to the hon member. He referred to White taxpayers’ money. What amount of tax funds does he think is invested in the Post Office? Not a cent! [Interjections.]

What about the past?

But he is ashamed of the past!

As they sit there, those hon members believe it is taxpayers’ money. That just goes to show how ignorant the CP members are. They thank only the White officials. What are the staff ratios in the Post Office? There are 54 000 Whites, 27 000 Blacks, 11 000 Coloureds and approximately 2 200 Indians.

Is the hon member trying to tell us that we could have established this wonderful network over the past few decades with the assistance of the Whites alone? That is not true. Whites have the expertise to design, plan and develop it, but to get the poles planted in the ground, in the area from which that hon member comes, we could not have managed without Black people. We could not have established this network, which has expanded so tremendously, without the services of the people of colour in this department. I shall be talking to the hon member again at a later stage, but I do just want to say that this indicates how irresponsible the CP leadership is.

Firstly I want to thank the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Primrose, for the way in which he dealt with this legislation in the standing committee. He is an economist with a lightning-fast intellect, a man with a quick grasp of what goes on in a department such as this. [Interjections.] I mean that he has a very quick intellect. He dealt very well with the matter.

We on this side of the House also want to endorse the hon the Minister’s statements about the Postmaster General who is retiring on pension. We on this side of the House want to wish Mr Willie Ridgard and his wife many years of peace and happiness.

One too often sees an employee as a single individual performing a service in one’s employ, forgetting that during his period of service that individual is encouraged and assisted by a marriage partner who contributes to the success he achieves in his work. That is why we on this side of the House also want to thank his wife for the way in which she assisted Mr Ridgard and for the example she set the wives of Post Office workers. In expressing thanks to her, by implication we are doing so to the wife of every member of the Post Office retiring on pension this year. We are proud of that staff. We know what they have achieved, we know what they have built up for South Africa and we thank them for years of service and loyalty.

For this reason we want to express our dissatisfaction, not only at the speech we have just heard, but also at what the hon member for Ventersdorp said in the Press about the staff of this wonderful department. During the elections we issued a warning to voters to be aware of the left-wing and right-wing radicals. We said that they embodied equal disadvantages for South Africa, and this has been proven here once more this afternoon. We warned that they were intent on making this country ungovernable, and that they would then, as the leader of the AWB—his leader—said, take over by force.

He illustrated that very clearly this afternoon. In the speech he made here this afternoon, and in what he said in this Press statement, the hon member, who is a member of the AWB, could not disguise the fact that he was a member of the AWB and that this was the way he viewed the Post Office and South Africa. [Interjections.]

From his Press statement on 8 March it is very clear that he is suggesting—he repeated it here this afternoon—that the hon member is whipping up the feelings of officials of this department against the Government, that he is trying to sow dissatisfaction amongst them about the salary increases which are apparently not going to be granted. [Interjections.] The fact that every official is going to obtain a notch increase is something he neglects to mention. Everyone on that side of the House neglects to mention that. They do not say a word about it, but in this Press statement he states that those officials are having a hard time of it financially.

Everyone in this country is having a hard time of it financially; it depends on what one wants in life. That is why the officials have thus far stated that they are going to co-operate with the Government. The private sector’s workers have also said so.

In this Press statement of his the hon member referred to “matige verhogings”. I want to quote the first portion of this Press statement in which he says:

He does not, however, have the courage to say what the extent of a “matige verhoging” is; is it 1%, or is it the 17,5% that the hon member for Carletonville speaks about?

You people have already said that you hold the White Post Office workers in contempt.

He still does not dare to give me an answer, and I shall tell him why. The reason is that that hon member is afraid that the figure he mentions might be too small, because if the figure were too small, Randfontein’s voters would not be satisfied. He plays both sides of the fence.

[Inaudible.]

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

As vaguely as left-wing and right-wing radicals always act, as vaguely will the AWB sitting in those benches also act here.

A salary increase of 1% will increase the Post Office Appropriation by R18,5 million. If we were to give officials a 17,5% increase, this would mean increasing tariffs by approximately 7%. That is something the hon member did not say, however. He was grateful for the fact that there were no tariff increases, but he said nothing about how tariffs would have been affected if we had increased the salaries of officials. In any event, it is not the taxpayers who have to pay for that; it comes from the money collected by the Post Office. [Interjections.] That means, does it not, that he and his party do not have to pay it. Let him therefore sow unrest, because the officials sitting here and the management of the Post Office throughout the country will have to go and explain why salaries have not been increased. They will have to explain these aspects. It is therefore easy, with a speech like that, simply to whip up feelings so that people ultimately come along asking for more money. [Interjections.]

I want to continue. The hon member also referred to the fact that 1,8% of the workers were going to be phased out this year. In the Press statement he said:

Let me say that that is a blatant lie. It is an untruth. The hon the Minister never said that.

I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition how long that hon ex-clergyman will still be sitting here and allowing such falsehoods to be blazoned abroad. [Interjections.]

You are a little pipsqueak!

I want to ask the hon leader why he, as an ex-clergyman, does not have a serious talk with his back-benchers when they make such speeches. [Interjections.] We have little expectation of his doing so, because for how long have we been trying to see some signs of leadership in him as far as this is concerned? He of all people has been trained to persuade people not to make such pronouncements. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Barberton say the hon member for Boksburg was a little pipsqueak?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. Let me then say … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member will withdraw it unconditionally.

Sir, I withdraw it unconditionally.

Let me say why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not do so. He is afraid that Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche will take exception to his giving AWB followers a ticking-off. That is why the hon leader just sits there writing when one asks him to take action. The hon member made this allegation on the strength of one sentence that appeared in the hon the Minister’s speech—I read that sentence—but he did not read the rest of the speech. Let us look at the rest of the paragraph and see what the hon the Minister said:

What the hon the Minister said was that there were no further plans to employ additional people. So as people resign this year, there will be a decrease. That is what is being planned. Nowhere is it stated that people are going to lose their jobs, but that is apparently beyond the intellectual capacity of the hon members in that party to understand.

If the hon member and his fellow party members had any knowledge of the Post Office’s activities, they would have known that what the hon the Minister was saying in this paragraph actually concerned the productivity of the Post Office. What it amounts to is that it is a very effective organisation that can plan ahead and state that in spite of this tremendous growth it is planning to have, there will be a decrease in the number of people it will have to employ to furnish this service. Those hon members cannot understand that. That is why we on this side of the House want to express our congratulations to the Post Office. What it comes down to is increased productivity on the part of the department, and we say to them that we are very proud of them.

If the hon member were honestly concerned about the personnel, why did he not make enquiries about this from the standing committee? Let me tell hon members what happened in the standing committee. On the first day on which the standing committee sat, he was not even there. He did not turn up. On the second day he turned up and told the chairman that he was there as a stand-in for the hon member for Roodepoort. The CP thinks so little of the person they want to appoint as spokesman for the Post Office, that they send a stand-in to act as spokesman. [Interjections.]

In this report the CP complains, by way of this spokesman, that the envisaged timing of local calls would adversely affect the consumer. I now want to ask the hon member why he objects and advocates that Soweto calls to Daveyton should be cheaper than those from Potgietersrus to Pietersburg, because that is what it amounts to. We are telling him that the trunk calls made by the White taxpayers from Potgietersrus to Pietersburg cost more than a call from Soweto to Daveyton; the Soweto caller can also speak for hours. As the minutes tick by, the Potgietersrus and Pietersburg callers pay more. [Interjections.] They do not understand these things. There is so much ignorance amongst them. I am saying that the hon member for Ventersdorp should tell his people that when they make a call to Potchefstroom the call metering unit ticks over more rapidly. This afternoon he advocated that those people should consistently pay more.

As I told the hon member for Overvaal last year, I repeatedly want to tell the CP that the way in which it deals with the affairs of the Post Office is not in the interests of the Post Office, its personnel or the country. The hon the Minister very clearly gave the assurance that all concerned— this includes till political parties and the private sector—would be able to make their contributions when we began to discuss privatisation. Listen to what the hon member said here about privatisation. The hon member for Ventersdorp said: “ … teen die moontlikheid dat die NP se privatisering tot afdankings van personeel, prysstygings en inkorting van noodsaaklike dienste sal aanleiding gee”.

He does not even begin to know what he is talking about, because in the hon the Minister’s speech it is stated that everyone will be able to make contributions before we start adopting those measures.

Must we believe him?

Order! The hon member for Ventersdorp cannot simply sit there making a continuous stream of remarks while the hon member is making a speech. If the hon member does not heed the Chair’s request now, I shall have to address him more severely. The hon member for Boksburg may proceed.

We are first going to divide into departments what we think will be business units, and then we shall consider privatisation.

I want to tell the hon member for Ventersdorp that in having to carry out the policy of the AWB here, he is doing the Post Office and this country a disservice. He cannot help it; he must carry out his leader’s instructions. The leader sitting in this House is not his leader. His leader is outside this Chamber. Why does the CP not rather tell the country that during the past decade there has been an increase of 28 000 Post Office workers? Surely those are the positive things we should be telling the workers out there. The Post Office could do that because it employed the most up-to-date technology and succeeded in furnishing a cheaper and better quality service. Nowhere in Africa does one get service of this quality. It is comparable to the best in the world. Optical fibre cables are used in this industry these days, for example, and make it so much cheaper and easier to run the Post Office’s systems.

Why did the hon member not rather say something about the digital telephone exchanges? They require much less maintenance than the outdated electro-magnetic system. He should tell the consumers that the consistent improvement of the service is the reason why this money is being spent. The cost-effectiveness of this system is proven by the following comparison. In the 1983-84 financial year the cost per additional line allocated was R2 602, as against R1 702 for the past year. At present it is 34% cheaper than was possible for us four years ago. The hon member should have done a bit of investigating; then he would have encountered the positive aspects.

Over the past decade the assets increased from R1,3 billion to R7,5 billion. As he said, we have expanded the telephone network from 11,3 million km to 36,4 million km. Automatic telephone exchanges have increased from 424 to 879. Over the past decade we have installed two million telephones, and the waiting list for telephones has been reduced by 14%. Farm lines have been improved in that existing lines have been placed on another system so that 20 or 30 farmers can speak simultaneously on the same line. There has been a growth in data services—this is where the economy benefits—from 5 601 to 71 799. This promotes trade and industry in this country and bolsters the economy. Telecommunications links with other countries—the AWB will not be interested in that, because it only wants the “Volkstaat”—have increased from 1 664 to 5 463. Those are but a few of the achievements.

Therefore, if South Africa wants to ensure that it is a winner in the nineties, we dare not allow our network and our technology to fall behind what we have established as a foundation in the past 10 years, whether we privatise or not. That is why we have to think things over before we privatise. We must distinguish between essential and luxury services and determine what the State ought to provide and what the private sector ought to provide.

Most of what the hon the Minister focussed on in his Budget speech is vital. We must also listen, however, to the standpoints of the private sector and others who are going to be involved in this. Consensus about how we can make this country a winner is going to depend largely on the transport and communications systems we will have in the nineties. If this is going to be based on electronics, and is going to be nothing but the most modern of systems, we shall have a country that is a winner. One aspect, however, gives me cause for concern.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I am worried about the shortage of trained technicians. It appears from this report that there is a shortage, and if we were ever to privatise, we must bear in mind that it has always been the Post Office and the Government departments which have trained people. If the private sector is to do so in the future, we shall perhaps experience some problems.

This Appropriation must be judged against the background of the type of service the Post Office wants to furnish in the nineties and thereafter. The Post Office is not merely the private individual’s messenger boy, since it also ensures that the productivity of agriculture and of the commercial and industrial sectors is increased. It must also ensure that their future productivity is increased and will remain at the high level, for example, at which it is at present. It must continually promote high technology and strive for modern-world infrastructures.

It is my view that in the nineties South Africa can be one of the countries which, if its communications systems continually improve, will also make progress at the technological level. We shall have to ensure, however, that the technological means employed in commerce and industry are manufactured locally so that we can benefit from that. In that respect the Post Office has specifically taken the lead.

The Post Office Appropriation has, for the past 10 years, been geared to putting a first-class system into operation for South Africa, and I think that this Appropriation is contributing towards that. We thank and support the hon the Minister.

Mr Speaker, hon members will forgive me if I do not follow on the two hon members who have spoken. I quite honestly feel that anybody in the House today would be forgiven for not quite knowing what this debate is about. According to the Order Paper we are discussing the Post Office Appropriation Bill, but from the two addresses we have just heard it is apparent that by-election fever has not yet passed and that we possibly shall have to wait till after Randfontein before we can return to rational debate and to actually discussing what this House is supposed to be discussing today, namely the Post Office. [Interjections.]

This is my maiden address as spokesman on Posts and Telecommunications for the PFP. Based on my limited association with this department—I am referring to the department as distinct from the Ministry—I would like to express the view that South Africans are fortunate to have a postal and telecommunications service which is in the main efficient, inexpensive and, fortunately, progressive. There are to my knowledge no other branches of Government service operating on a surplus of revenue over expenditure. With the exception of the 1985-86 financial year surpluses appear to have become an established trend in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications.

I believe that the good performance of the Post Office is primarily attributable to the dedication and efficiency of the postal workers. It is therefore a cause of considerable concern that they are being deprived of salary increases this year. I am not suggesting that the overall strategy of trying to curb inflation is a wrong strategy, but it is unfortunate that the officers in the one department which actually performs well in the Government service and where profits are being shown, should be deprived of salary increases.

I believe it is almost impossible for the breadwinner to meet the essential needs of his family today. The sacrifice which is being imposed on public servants is largely as a result of uncontrolled spending by the Government over the past so many years. Much of what has been squandered in the Government’s spending is unfortunately as a result of the failed ideology of apartheid. This is most unfortunate when it results in curtailing salary increases in a department such as this.

The dedication and efficiency of the workers is certainly not limited to the workers at low level.

I have been very impressed in my short acquaintance with the management echelon by the quality of the men who serve this department. Here I would like to pay tribute to our Postmaster-General, Mr Willie Ridgard. I thank him on behalf of the PFP for his 44 years of service to South Africa, and wish him strength and happiness in his forthcoming retirement.

On behalf of the PFP I further extend our congratulations to his successor, Mr Johan de Villiers, whom I only recently had the pleasure of meeting. He strikes me as a man of purpose and understanding who is well able to lead the Post Office and his team of men and women through the challenging and exciting times of reorganisation and privatisation which lie ahead for the Post Office.

The criticisms and the concern which I will express this afternoon are aimed mainly at those areas of administration and planning which flow from the NP Government’s mismanagement, policies and ideologies which unfortunately continue to have a negative effect on an otherwise successful postal service.

While the department has come a long way towards racial parity in salaries, conditions and benefits of service and training, the removal of all racial discrimination continues to be hampered by the NP’s ideology and a policy of continuing to pander to White prejudice. We heard it in the earlier part of the debate this afternoon. Instead of slamming the speaker from the Official Opposition for his racial prejudice, the Government spokesman attempted to out-rightwing him on this particular aspect. It is about time Government spokesmen realised that the CP have command over rightwing racist attitudes, and the more they try to promote that kind of thinking in this country the more they are in fact furthering the cause of the CP.

You do not know what you are talking about.

It is about time the Government started, if they really intend reforming and doing away with apartheid, to do it in all the Government departments.

Mr Speaker, the one area that worries me, is training centres. Unfortunately they continue to be segregated, and while in certain areas Coloured and Indian staff have received training with Whites, training for Blacks appears still to remain strictly segregated. I believe that this is an unsound practice, both economically and in terms of promoting human dignity and understanding.

Separate medical aid schemes for each race group are still maintained. I understand there is a historical reason for this, as there is for a lot of the discriminatory and segregationist measures in this country, but I think it is something that must be done away with. Posmed, which is the largest medical aid scheme, will admit only Whites to membership. As in other Government departments, this compels workers of colour to join other racially exclusive schemes set up for them by the Government. Even if one is a racist, even if one is a person who finds darker hues something unpalatable and something one does not want to come in close contact with, what possible effect can joint membership of a medical aid scheme have on one’s racial prejudices? I really cannot see how a man of colour submitting his claim for medical expenses at the end of each month can in any way affect your racial sensitivities. I really want to ask that, in all Government departments, and particularly the one we are now dealing with, one medical aid scheme be introduced for all people in that particular department, regardless of colour.

It is also of concern that almost one third of the total staff complement, ie nearly 30 000 employees, fall into the lowest income bracket which we see on page 13 of the Estimates, ie R3 000 to R6 000 per annum. I have been told that the minimum wage in the Post Office today is R375 per month, but this remains an appallingly low paypacket for a full-time permanent staff member. Just to equate it: It is approximately one third of what the Government pays on my car lease every month, and approximately one tenth of the amount paid monthly on one of the many limousines at the disposal of the State President.

I know these are far-fetched comparisons. They are, nevertheless, valid. One cannot expect a man in full-time Government service to feed himself and his family on R375 a month.

How much do you pay your servant a month?

I do not have a servant.

While on the subject of haves and have-nots, Mr Speaker, I must warn that the Government’s intention to introduce time-metred charging on local telephone calls will lead to a very substantial increase in the monthly telephone bill for pensioners and others who can least afford it. I am not going to take up the argument which was used by the hon member for Ventersdorp, that this is a hidden tariff increase. I understand that a very small percentage of local telephone calls in fact exceed three minutes—a minimal, small percentage. For that very reason, Sir, why do we want to introduce this? I understand that they say the system is being abused by certain businesses with their data processing and so forth. Now, surely, Sir, there is a means of combating that. I can say right now that there are thousands upon thousands of elderly people in this country who cannot move about freely and who want to remain in contact with their friends and their next-of-kin. They are either too frail or too impecunious to afford transport, or they are too old to drive, and they do like having a conversation on the telephone. It is their way of remaining in social contact with those who are near and dear to them. These people are the people who can least afford to have a metred local telephone call, particularly when we are in a situation in which we do not actually need it. The report which I read states that a very small percentage of such calls actually exceed three minutes. So, Sir, why the concern? There must be a way of getting to the commercial user who is guilty of malpractices, without penalising the people who actually need the benefits of these local calls, and who need them very dearly.

We in these benches have always advocated privatisation. I am not going to try to discourage privatisation. Where we are dealing, however, with essential services such as those provided by the Post Office, I believe we must be aware of the disadvantages, pitfalls and limitations of privatisation. For a start, I believe it is common cause that our postal services as such—the actual postal services—can never be privatised. This service with its low tariff structure, which is a quarter the price of that in the United Kingdom, is by tradition a very heavily subsidised service to the public—a tradition which, I believe, should not be stopped. Running at a current operating loss of R145 million a year, it is hardly the sort of enterprise the private sector would bid for. I also think we have to accept that the postal service as a subsidised service to the public will have to remain an arm of Government.

Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult to privatise our entire telecommunications network, the infrastructure of which will have to remain intact as one national operational unit. Certain ancillary value-added services, in particular in the field of sale of services, equipment and installations, could be opened to market competition, and I welcome the fact that this is being done to a fairly large extent already. Then again, however, regional subdivisions of specific functions of the department will not have the effect of promoting competition as the handing over of one regional functional subdivision to private enterprise would in effect amount to a monopoly in that particular region. In this area one is not going to get regions competing with each other because each region serves a particular community. Therefore, it could constitute a monopoly, and I should like that to be considered when proceeding with the idea of privatisation.

We realise the value of the profit motive, and are certainly not going to knock privatisation. I do not think, however, it should be forgotten that essential services like these could go through a period in which privatisation does indeed have substantial negative effects. The public should not forget that the tax which a private entrepreneur pays the Government and the dividend which he pays his shareholders are costs which have to be built into the costs of the services offered. The pitfalls of monopolies and cartels, the initial capital expenditure in purchasing the undertaking, the training of staff, the costs of trial and error—all of these could result in a service which is initially not only more expensive but less efficient.

There again I trust that in going over to privatisation, due account will be taken of the pitfalls so as not to place a burden, even if for a limited period of time, on the user.

I sincerely hope that the expertise and training of the Post Office worker will stand him in good stead and that he will not be affected adversely by the takeover. I trust that, as the Government has promised, it will ensure that this is done.

A further specific aspect I should like to deal with is the use of the mobile post office. It may seem a small thing but it could be of tremendous benefit to the elderly if it could call at the homes of senior citizens on a regular basis at a fixed time. I am sure that our senior citizens would be able to make use of this service to great effect. Hon members, I am sure, will realise that today where there are so many muggings and attacks upon elderly and defenseless people, they are too afraid even to walk down to the local post office, and I should like to make an appeal that this particular aspect be investigated.

Despite my general support for the department, I have indicated that we are not happy with certain aspects of the Government’s approach to this department, and we will therefore not be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to start off by expressing my thanks to the hon the Minister of Communications for the Budget he has introduced. I think it is an important budget, and at some later stage I shall be comparing it with the SATS budget, because both have been influenced by the same trend of thought, that of Dr Wim de Villiers. What is more, the resulting implementation more or less follows the same guidelines. At a later stage I shall also be trying to indicate the differences between the two kinds of service.

Before I come to that, I want to associate myself with all parties, and in particular with my colleague, the hon member for Boksburg, who expressed thanks here to the Postmaster General who is retiring in a few days’ time. In the standing committee we have already taken leave of him. I want to use the same words I used on that occasion by saying that I hope he will have a long retirement.

I also want to say the same thing to the new Postmaster General, Mr Johan de Villiers, that I said to Dr Anton Moolman. He is taking up his new post in troubled times, and I sincerely hope it will be a happy experience for him. He can rely on the standing committee to help him wherever we can. I extend to him every good wish on the task he has to perform, and in particular on the new course on which he, together with the hon the Minister, will be at the helm to guide the Post Office.

I also want to take this opportunity of thanking the hon the Minister and the senior Post Office personnel very sincerely for what they have done for us as far as the memorandum is concerned. This memorandum contains additional information, and I want to focus the attention of all hon members in this House and in the other Houses of Parliament on how important it is to go through the memorandum. In this memorandum every hon member will find something about his constituency. For the great deal of trouble that has been taken in drawing up this memorandum, and for its comprehensiveness, I want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister and his senior personnel. It is truly a handy document that we can use as a reference framework for this year until we get to next year.

So much for the quieter portion of my speech, because now I want to come to the hon member for Ventersdorp …[Interjections] …since there are now only five hon members of the CP who are interested in this debate. The others are probably running around in Randfontein.

To give you people a drubbing.

There goes the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, the leader of the fringe Press, the Press which, to my mind, should also be banned together with the Stallard Foundation. That editor of the alternate Press, its great leader, is sitting over there! He shouts himself hoarse, but makes no contribution. Let me rather continue.

The hon member for Ventersdorp made a great many statements here about the personnel supporting him, and thereafter he attacked the Government.

On the one hand one of the hon members of the CP says the Government is allowing inflation to run rampant, but on the other, if we draw in the reins and begin to curb the inflation rate, something we are now succeeding in doing, they also criticise us. Those hon members must give us an answer. What is interesting is that the hon member mentioned a series of bodies and individuals we have adversely effected. I am now asking the hon member what we should do. Should we continue to increase salaries, thereby allowing the inflation rate to increase? One cannot jump from one side of the boat to the other and think one is not going to tumble into the water, because one is rocking the boat.

Hon members must decide whether they are criticising this Government about the inflation rate or the principle underlying the fact that we have not increased salaries.

Both!

Hand in hand with that there is the principle that we have not increased tariffs either. [Interjections.] The hon member for Ventersdorp’s contribution was such a scanty one, a real AWB contribution. It does not matter what he says, as long as he kicks and screams and lashes out. That is all that took place here.

The hon member says he will express an opinion on privatisation at a later stage. Is the underlying reason that his privatisation is viewed in the light of Afrikaner socialism, which means that everything should be nationalised? I want to leave the hon member at that, but I shall come back to him at a later stage.

I want to congratulate the hon member for Groote Schuur on being the PFP’s new spokesman on Post Office matters and wish him everything of the best as a member of the standing committee on the Post Office. I want to extend a hearty welcome to him and express the hope that he will enjoy his stay there.

On just one point, however, I want to dwell on what the hon member said for a moment. He sees everything as apartheid. We debated the point about Posmed at great length, and I should like to dwell on that for a moment, because it is a very important point. Every hon member of this House knows that Posmed is the medical aid fund of the Whites, but there are four medical funds, one for each group as such. If the PFP wants to be so prescriptive, the hon member for Groote Schuur, who in his wisdom emphasises association on one side, should in all fairness emphasise the principle of disassociation on the other as well. The hon member cannot simply come along here and say everything is apartheid.

Worst of all is the fact that the hon member did get the answer, but it must be recorded in Hansard. I want the obverse on record in Hansard, too ie the important point that these medical aid funds are autonomous. The hon member knows that, I know it and every hon member will know it after this debate. The fact that they are autonomous does not suit him, however, and he calls it apartheid. I am asking the hon member to be honest with the people in South Africa and, in emphasising the principle of association, also give the other side of the picture, mentioning that there are people who wanted a separate medical aid fund.

There are four separate medical aid funds which are autonomous, each with its own management, and the Post Office, or in effect the Government, which he criticised, treats all four medical aid funds on the same basis. They are getting the same subsidies, subject to the same conditions. To blame the Government is the biggest lot of nonsense I have yet heard. The hon the Minister of Communications and his senior personnel are trying to apply the equality principle when those people have to be compensated for their services, in accordance with the conditions laid down, and the conditions are that all four medical aid funds should be treated equally. They consequently obtain the same benefits on the same basis.

I hope that when we come to the Post Office we shall correct this state of affairs which is always labelled apartheid and which, clothed with the incorrect facts, is blamed on the Government, because what the hon member said—and hon members will not allow me to put it in stronger terms—is very far removed from the truth; in fact, it is as if his relationship to the truth is an inequitable one.

I want to dwell on capital needs for a moment. This body’s capital needs are phenomenal. This year they total R1,6 billion, with telecommunications absorbing 80% of that. It is these telecommunications needs which pose an interesting problem. We have come to a point at which we shall have to examine how this capital can be employed. It is interesting to see the growth in the sums of money voted in 1980 and 1981 for the capital account and to see that the capital account has evidenced more than real growth since 1980 and 1981. This indicates how great a value the Post Office, the Minister and his personnel have placed on capital expenditure.

I am gratified to hear that in his Budget speech the hon the Minister clearly explained that we cannot continue to use capital at this rate. There is insufficient capital in this country to justify its use in this fashion. Secondly, Mr Chairman, we are a service organisation. That is the important point we must never lose sight of. The first basic task of a service organisation such as this is that of furnishing a service of quality, and this is based chiefly on people. If we do not have the people to maintain or correctly utilise that capital, we could have all the capital possible to spend, but we would be heading for a crisis. I shall come back to staff and staff training at a later stage. I merely wanted to mention it as an additional factor.

We shall see that in the long term problems could be experienced in the cash-flow position of the Post Office—the hon the Minister said as much and the senior personnel of the Post Office who gave evidence before the standing committee, also made this clear—if we did not work out a new strategy for capital expenditure. I am grateful to be able to say that that task group has joined forces with Dr Wim de Villiers in examining future capital needs. In this instance the capital account is almost 50% more than that for the SATS’s capital needs for this year. For that reason I merely want to give hon members a picture of the extent of the capital needs. Capital is no longer available abroad; the majority of the capital must be obtained or generated by the Post Office on the local front.

The question that remains is whether we can go on supplying telephone services on demand. This question is becoming one of fundamental importance, because a large number of telephones which are installed are ones which are minimally used. In other words, expensive capital is being invested for the absolute minimal use of equipment. At this stage saturation point is very close at hand. Eighty three per cent of all White households already have telephones. The figure for Indians is 72%, and for Coloureds it is 53%. Thirty nine per cent of urban Black households already have telephones too. Future growth will take place amongst the Coloured and Black population groups.

So with the new pattern of telephone usage in the future, it is essential for us to investigate the best norms in accordance with which to invest capital so that we can obtain a decent yield from that money.

The results of working reveal an important point, ie that telephones are subsidised and used for postal subsidisation. Other hon colleagues of mine will speak about the postal services, but I merely want to lodge a plea with the hon the Minister that we re-examine the whole question of the quality of postal services. I think the quality of the service is too high. To have post delivered to one’s front door every day is a very great privilege for which we are sincerely grateful, but because this is a labour-intensive activity the costs are becoming too great. Cost calculations indicate that if we wanted to cover the full costs of a letter which is posted, we would have to increase the standard 16c postage stamp tariff to 21 cents. It would therefore require an increase of 33,3% to cover the costs. It is aspects such as those which will have to be examined. I trust that Dr Wim de Villiers will also give his attention to this. I have every hope that as we have been able to rectify certain aspects in the SATS, Dr Wim de Villiers and the hon the Minister will address this issue and manage, in the interests of an economic service of quality, to continue furnishing the service, but perhaps in a different form or a different style. Let us leave the matter at that.

I merely want to dwell on the personnel for a moment and say that expenditure on personnel comprises approximately 40% of our total operating expenditure. In the future, when the restructuring has been completed, there will be a greater focus on cost-coverage. At this stage I want to express my thanks to the personnel, and in particular to those staff members who, in these floods, have worked day and night to maintain telecommunications services and other postal services. On behalf of all of us I want to express thanks to them for what they have done.

Just a final remark about privatisation, something I have already mentioned. The hon the Minister also pointed this out. The new hon Minister of Privatisation, the hon member for Piketberg, is with us here in the House. I want to congratulate him very sincerely and tell him that it is with a great sense of expectation that we are looking to his guidance. The father of privatisation, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, has just walked out. The mantle falls upon the shoulders of the present hon Minister of the Budget and Welfare, and I sincerely hope that he will help us to implement privatisation properly. The right way is to tackle it carefully so that we do not chuck people out of their jobs for the sake of privatisation. I know it is one of the Government’s principles that we do not do that. The hon the Minister of Communications has pointed out that this will not happen. So if the CP is going to peddle that around, they will get nothing but a cheap little price for it, because that is not the intention. [Interjections.] We are saying this for the umpteenth time. From here on out we are going to make things hot for them. Firstly this will be tackled with the utmost circumspection and, secondly, the interests of the workers will be uppermost when we do privatise.

It is a pleasure for me to support this budget of the hon the Minister of Communications.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose asked us whether we were criticising the Government on account of the salary increase or the method in which it was attempting to combat inflation. We want to tell him that we are criticising the Government and this hon Minister on both counts. Over the years economists have told us that it is no use causing the water pressure against the dam wall to build up higher and higher and building the dam wall itself higher and higher, because if the dam wall broke, the hazards and the damage would be far greater. By freezing salaries on the one hand, just as prices are being frozen, pressure and tension would be created which, sooner or later, would cause the dam wall to burst. Then there would be greater adversity than there was before one began this exercise. That is our standpoint. [Interjections.]

I have here the hon the Minister’s introductory speech in which he reacted to Dr Wim de Villiers' proposals. I want to ask the hon member for Primrose why these things which the hon the Minister says are now going to be done cannot, in the first instance, be done within the department without introducing privatisation. Listen to the following, for example:

We are going to do it.

The hon the Minister could do it within the department!

We are definitely going to do it.

The hon the Minister had this to say with reference to privatisation. [Interjections.] I quote:

Surely that could be done within the department. It is not necessary to turn one’s thoughts to privatisation in order to solve this problem. The Post Office, which in any event is run very efficiently, could continue, as in the case of Escom, to operate in a sound and commercially effective manner within the present framework.

Have you read the White Paper?

Yes, I have the White Paper, and I shall refer to it again a little later on.

Yesterday I once again noticed the NP’s advertisement which has cost the taxpayer thousands of rands. As at 1 March it had cost R160 000. As a result of yesterday’s further advertisement it is going to cost thousands of rands more. All that was missing was the NP arrow, which these days ought rather to be pointing downwards. What is more, it is being repeated on TV, and reference was also made to it in the news commentary this morning.

Free of charge.

There is an untruth in the body of this NP advertisement for which the taxpayer is paying. The following statement is made in the advertisement: “There will be no postal or telecommunications tariff increases in 1988-89”. Surely that is not the whole truth.

Of course it is.

Surely the hon member knows that that is not the whole truth. The fact that the duration of private calls will be monitored from 1989 onwards is, after all, nothing if not a future tariff adjustment. Surely that is true. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said himself: “It will be a source of increasing revenue”. In other words it is a tariff adjustment. [Interjections.] No one is being fooled by this.

Aside from that we are still at the beginning of a year in which the hon the Minister had expected a large proportion of his revenue to be forthcoming from increased investments by clients in the various savings facilities which his department has to offer. At the same time, however, he expects an overall decrease of some R33,7 million in interest payable on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank; he expects a decrease of R38,6 million in interest payable on investments in savings bank certificates, despite an expected increase in investments; he expects a decrease of R1,13 million in interest payable on national savings certificates as a result of the withdrawal of those certificates. The hon the Minister also said that instead of a budgeted nett influx of R400 million there had been an outflow of R350 million from the savings funds. He said the reason for this was that there had been withdrawals of up to R35 million per month due to the fact that interest rates had been lowered in the course of 1987. That was the reason he gave for people having withdrawn money.

We want to tell the hon the Minister that the people made those withdrawals because they are no longer able to live on their income. They now have to withdraw their savings to live on. That is the problem. If money is being withdrawn at such a tremendous rate from investment funds, on which one does not pay tax, that one can only come to the conclusion that those funds have been withdrawn in an effort to combat the increase in the cost of living. [Interjections.] The return of the money that has been withdrawn in this manner will not take place so easily or so quickly. I hope the hon the Minister is correct; I doubt it, however.

He will probably have to find sources other than this source of revenue from savings in order to balance his books. He will have no choice but to make further tariff adjustments this year. Otherwise we are be destined for larger than normal adjustments next year. As far as salary increases are concerned, the hon member for Boksburg said that an increase of 1% for Post Office officials would mean an increase of R18 million in the Budget. At the same time a piece of land, on which no development is to take place in the foreseeable future, has been purchased for R16 million. An increase of only 1% would at least have served as a token of gratitude towards the workers. The hon member then engaged in an exercise in which he attempted to make it clear to us that the phasing out of 1,8% had not been due to a reduction in staff. That is pure semantics!

They were not dismissals.

That part of the hon the Minister’s speech may be interpreted in two ways, because when there is a phasing out, one reduces one’s staff.

The AWB …

I am sure that hon member has the AWB on his mind!

That is all he has!

We shall ask the AWB specifically to afford the hon member for Boksburg some protection because he is becoming hysterical about the AWB.

As to the salary increases which are not being envisaged, I should like to know how many Post Office workers will be affected by this step. After all, we know that a large percentage of workers received salary increases of approximately 12,5% with retrospective effect from 1 December 1987 under the pretext of occupational differentiation. We want to know how many people did not receive salary increases and what type of workers received increases under these circumstances. What type of work do they do in the Post Office? Was it not those people who could least afford it who did not receive any increases? To appeal to the private sector to follow suit in not granting any salary increases displays an insensitivity and a lack of understanding of the delicate negotiation mechanism in terms of the Labour Relations Act. It would be fatal for the private employer to commit himself in advance by publicly resolving not to allow any salary increases this year. Trade unions would sue such employers before they could say Jack Robinson.

That hon Minister, who is himself a legal man, knows full well that one cannot commit the private sector to announcing publicly, in advance, that they are not going to grant any salary increases during a given period. The whole question of salary increases forms part of the negotiation mechanism in terms of the Labour Relations Act. One cannot expect the private sector to issue such a categorical statement.

I want to tell the hon member for Primrose that I do not think containment is the most effective method of combating inflation. Rather, one should either make unproductive sections of the industry more productive or cut out unproductiveness. I am not saying this with particular reference to the Post Office because I think that by and large the Post Office is run very efficiently. We are very proud of that fact. However, inflation is combated by increasing productivity and cutting out unproductiveness. Certain sectors of the industry must be dealt with in such a way that inflation is combated by means of the rationalisation process.

I should now like to convey a few thoughts to the hon the Minister with regard to privatisation. In the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation the following is stated in paragraph 7.2.2:

With regard to the security of the country and the detection of crimes it is of cardinal importance that many important aspects of telecommunications should remain in the hands of the State.

It is naturally of no importance to the private entrepeneur that the remote rural areas should obtain automatic exchanges, just as long as they are profitable. From the results of investigations that were conducted a few years ago we know that the maintenance costs related to a telephone installation are approximately R700 per annum—they are now probably even higher—and that only 14% of telephone subscribers pay accounts higher than the maintenance costs. Can hon members imagine what would happen to the tariffs if this absolutely essential service were to be privatised?

The first important question in this regard is what is to happen to the agency services of the Post Office. The Post Office devotes five days of the month to the payment of pensions. In this regard we should like to record our great appreciation for the sympathy and empathy of the Post Office staff towards our aged. Our senior citizens greatly appreciate this and it forms part of the State’s functions. The Post Office devotes five days of the month to this service.

Television licences are dealt with by the Post Office and in the Cape Province vehicle licence fees are collected by the Post Office. These services give one cause to think long and hard about whether it is really in the national interest to privatise the Post Office either completely or partially. For that reason the planning of privatisation and deregulation must be spelt out very clearly.

As I said earlier, those things which the hon the Minister mentioned in this regard in his Budget speech could just as easily be done in the department as it is functioning at the moment.

In conclusion I note that an amount of R34 million has been appropriated for the printing of telephone directories. This represents an increase of R6,38 million over last year’s budget. It would be appreciated if the hon the Minister would tell us whether these contracts are still entered into on a tender basis, how frequently tenders are called for and how this high expenditure item is dealt with.

Mr Chairman, the debate on the Post Office Appropriation has thus far been a very strange one. When the Budget Speech was delivered last Monday, the hon member for Hillbrow’s first comment was that the R268 million profit that was made should now be employed to reduce tariffs. It is very easy to say that tariffs should be reduced, but then at least we should also indicate what tariffs should be reduced. Must we reduce the telephone tariffs or the postal tariffs? Which tariffs must be reduced, to whose benefit and by how much shall we reduce them, if we do, in fact, do so? Fortunately the hon member for Hillbrow does not have a say when it comes to the employment of the Post Office’s funds.

Hillbrow?

I am sorry, I mean the hon member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] I got to know him when he was the member for Hospital. Fortunately the hon member for Yeoville does not have a say in the expenditure of Post Office funds, because this surplus of R268 million which, thanks to our competent management and personnel, is much more than we expected, came like manna from heaven. At this stage we can spend it much more profitably than in the reduction of tariffs, which would not be to anyone’s benefit.

The hon member for Primrose made a great song and dance about capital expenditure, the employment of capital and the need for capital in our department.

He also placed special emphasis on the problem the Post Office has in obtaining loans from abroad. That is why it is so important for this R268 million to be employed for capital expenditure, together with an expected R215 million, which we shall obtain locally from stocks and loans, and R500 million from the application of operating assets. That is R300 million more than we originally estimated. So firstly the hon member for Yeoville should just please acquaint himself with the way in which the Post Office runs its affairs before making such statements.

Then I come to the hon member for Ventersdorp. I have been a part of the affairs of this department since 1981.

That will not last much longer!

No, probably not much longer, because we are going to privatise most of the component elements of the Post Office.

No, you are not going to … [Interjections.]

Since 1981 I have been participating in this debate, and I want to say that during that period I have never yet heard such an unsavoury, racist…

Stupid!

… and spiteful contribution in a debate on a business undertaking in which just figures are involved!

What do you have to say about Sakkie’s contribution?

I think he grew up at the knee of that Terre’Blanche fellow who is trying to play Hitler and who has poisened him with racism to such an extent that he even drags it into this Post Office debate as he has done here. I most sincerely hope the hon member will never again make such a speech in this debate. It is not necessary; not in this debate.

He does not know any better!

He was not a member of the standing committee!

The hon member for Ventersdorp’s first reaction to Monday’s Budget speech was that there was now a wage freeze. There is no wage freeze, however! There is no general increase in salaries and wages, but that is not a wage freeze! One only has to look at the Appropriation and the memorandum to see that in spite of this an amount of R119 539 million has been budgeted for salary increases related to conditions of service. Then he speaks about a freezing of salaries and wages. Sir, we must get away from the idea that this is a wage freeze, because “wage freeze”, “racism” and terms of that kind have no place here.

Now the hon member for Brakpan is saddling the same horse. He said that the hon the State President had asked the private sector to grant no salary increases during this year.

But that is not true. That is not what the hon the State President asked. The hon the State President did ask the private sector to keep calm about this and not to grant excessive salary increases, because that would defeat the whole object of the exercise. We all agree with that, of course. I gained the impression that the hon member for Ventersdorp was urging certain people in the private sector not to grant any salary increases and then to say that the hon the State President said they should not do so. So what that would amount to is that certain members of the private sector, in not granting salary increases, would be hiding behind the hon the State President. The hon the State President never requested that no salary increases be granted. He merely asked that when salary increases were, in fact, granted, they should be moderate ones and should be kept within limits.

Was it the hon member for Groote Schuur or the hon member for Brakpan who carried on about the piece of land costing R16 million which the Post Office purchased and which now lies unutilised. Land valued at R16 million is lying unutilised. Meanwhile the Post Office does not have any money for salary increases. That is what that hon member said. That hon member, however, must find out what is going on in the department before he speaks about departmental matters. That land, in Newtown, in Johannesburg, has an area of 333 square metres. It was purchased at a total cost of R15,7 million. It is going to be used for a centre in which postal items can be sorted automatically. The planning of that project is already in the final stages of completion. It is being done by professional consultants under the guidance of Mr Louis Carrol, an architect. The expected date on which this project will be completed is 1992, and the total cost will be R100 million. So for that hon member to allege that R16 million is being spent on land which is lying there unutilised, whilst no money can be found for salary increases, is a nonsensical kind of comment.

Sir, I am really struggling to furnish replies to the nonsensical and unfounded comments made about the activities of this department. [Interjections.] I am struggling to find answers that would at least be comprehensible to hon members of the CP too. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to the budget itself. If hon members who have thus far participated in the debate had taken the trouble to look at what had happened in this department during the past year, they would have noticed that the telecommunications services furnished a profit of R761,330 million. Our agency services made a profit of R0,509 million. Those are the sources of our surplus. At the same time our postal services evidenced a loss of R147,667, whilst our money transfer services were run at a loss of R13,272 million. This gives us a total gross surplus of R600,9 million.

Now hon members will be asking what has happened to this profit of more than R600 million. In the first place a portion of it has had to be used to offset the losses on the postal and money transfer services.

What is more, the major portion, an amount of R273 million, has been used to make provision for the redemption of loans and for changes in the exchange-rate spread over this period. A further R60 million of this surplus has been used to increase our capital. This gives us the expected profit of R268 million which the hon member for Yeoville wants to use for decreased tariffs and the other hon member wants to use for salary increases.

It is perhaps a good thing for us to examine the salaries of the personnel of this department. By this time next year our department will have an estimated 95 500 staff members. This Appropriation makes provision for 2,48% of the personnel earning more that R30 000 in the course of the year, with the remaining 97,52% of our personnel earning less than R30 000 during the year. Provision is also made for 30% of our personnel earning less than R6 000 during the year.

It is true, of course, that the incomes of many of our staff members in our department are too small. I do not wish to allege that they are earning too little to live on, because if one is young, unmarried and just starting off in a job, one makes ends meet on a smaller income. I think that one of the problems of our time is that our children want to begin where their parents left off. The children have become accustomed to a very high standard of living, and they want to perpetuate that very high standard of living when they start working. There are many of our people—I see the hon member for Carltonville listening very attentively now, because this is a subject he is particularly interested in—who definitely do not earn enough to maintain a very high standard of living. There are some of our low-paid workers who probably have a very hard time of it, financially speaking. I concede as much. Yet there are also many of our officials who have only just started working and are therefore still junior officials. What is more, in our department there are also posts which do not justify very high salaries.

Therefore it is only right and proper for the staff associations representing these officials to do everything in their power to negotiate greater benefits for their members. We therefore owe our staff associations an enormous vote of thanks for the great sense of responsibility with which they dealt with the hon the State President’s appeal. By relaxing the pressure and calming the troubled waters, they are doing South Africa a tremendous favour, because it is not the fact that there will be no general salary increase for the officials of this department which will drop the inflation rate by some percentage points. Of course not.

We trust that the spirit engendered by them and all the other officials, by this action that has been taken, will work its way through to the private sector, which will also tone down salary increases and, in particular, increases in the prices of their products. As in the case of the SATS’s transport costs, with its tariffs this department is setting an example in not allowing production costs to increase as a result of these cost increases. So even if our department’s officials cannot bring down the overall inflation rate by some percentage points, they are nevertheless making a very exceptional contribution to this. We should like to thank them sincerely for the extremely responsible manner in which this matter is being dealt with and also for their enormous contribution towards making the year which has just passed such a wonderful year for our department.

Mr Chairman, although I will not be following the train of thought of the hon member for Hercules directly, I will in due course touch on something he said.

I want to begin by endorsing the words of the hon member for Groote Schuur, who praised the officials of the Post Office for their progressive attitudes in general and for the work they have done in the past year.

I want to refer in particular to personnel and personnel problems in the Post Office. I noted with interest, in the annual report and the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech earlier this year, that the number of full-time staff members in the Post Office increased last year by 1,7% to 97 392. In the light of this continued growth within the Post Office, it is interesting that the hon the Minister now claims that the staff establishment will decrease by about 1,8% in the current financial year.

This party has always made it very clear that it believes in the rationalisation of the Public Service, including the Post Office and the SATS, and that the Government should be aiming for a smaller and more efficient service. We look forward to seeing whether the Post Office will be able to decrease its size during the course of this financial year, and what effects the whole process of privatisation will have in this regard.

In last year’s debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill, I raised the matter of job opportunities for people of colour as opposed to those who are White. I expressed concern because it appeared that White employees of the Post Office were being favoured in matters such as promotion. It is difficult to ascertain whether this has continued, since the Postmaster-General’s annual report for 1987 no longer gives a breakdown of people employed and promoted in the Post Office in relation to their colour. We now have all Post Office employees lumped together for statistical purposes. I accept this as a positive change suggesting that the Post Office now regards employees of all colours as equals, and one sincerely hopes that this is in fact the case.

In last year’s debate I also referred to the fact that in trying to analyse the makeup of the management, general administration and accounting sections of the Post Office, it appeared that only Whites were employed in these sections. I was pleased to receive a letter from the hon the Minister of Communications after the end of the 1987 parliamentary session referring to this point and to several others I had raised during the course of the debate. I would like to quote the part of the letter relating to the aspect I am discussing now:

I certainly accept this position but I accept it to some extent only. Is the hon the Minister telling me that a policy of promotion by seniority has been the cause of preventing Blacks from receiving promotion? Are there, in other words, at this stage no Black employees who have had the experience, and therefore gained seniority, to receive promotion yet? If this is the case, is the situation likely to change soon? Can we therefore expect to see Blacks in positions of seniority, particularly in the departments I have mentioned?

I would like to presume that a system of promotion on merit is the only important criterion for promotion in the Post Office, particularly when the Post Office is proud of its record in its policy for the employment of all race groups. I quote again from the letter of the hon the Minister to me:

I accept this and I commend the Post Office in this regard, but I must state too that there is no doubt that there is still much that has to be done in this regard, and I ask the hon the Minister to clarify what the Post Office’s future position in this regard will be.

The hon the Minister also referred to another matter that I raised last year when I spoke about the awarding of bursaries. Here I have been assured that bursaries are awarded according to the needs of the services and the availability of funds, and that they are awarded strictly on the basis of merit. I quote from his letter again:

Obviously I am pleased about this too and I want to thank the hon the Minister for his assurance in this regard and for the fact that he assured me that his department will continue with this policy. It is fairly clear that the Post Office is trying to adopt a fairly enlightened approach with regard to further education and training for its various employees. It appears to encourage its officials to further their studies not only to improve their qualifications, but also to provide a better service overall.

It was therefore with pleasure that I noticed an increase of 7,6% over the number of bursaries awarded last year in what can be regarded as a fairly wide range of professions. I note too that 39 new full-time bursaries were granted as well as 140 part-time graduate and post-graduate bursaries for studies in approved fields.

I would, however, like to pass some comment about concern felt by some professional people in the employ of the Post Office as to their status once they have completed their degrees. For easier reference, I would like to refer in particular to the case of engineers but I have no doubt that what I have to say here with regard to engineers will probably apply similarly to accountants and other graduates who compare their positions with others employed by the Post Office.

It appears—and this is the point I want to make— that engineers are ranked the same as technologists and control technicians, and there is no doubt that this has caused a fair amount of frustration on the part of the engineers who feel that because they have obtained a degree, and a difficult one at that, which gives them acceptance as professionals and makes them eligible for membership of a professional institution, they should receive greater recognition in comparison to the technologists and control technicians who have received diplomas at institutions other than universities.

It does interest me that according to the latest staff code I have been able to lay my hands on, a National Diploma in Technology will give a person a qualification of Matric plus five years of study, while a straight BSc Engineering degree from a university will give a person matric plus four years qualification. One has to do the equivalent of an Honours Degree in Engineering in order to be placed on the matric plus five years scale, which is the same scale as a person with a National Diploma in Technology.

I am well aware that the technikon courses have been upgraded greatly over the past few years, but it does seem that they have a rather heavy weighting in their favour at the expense of the university degree. I am well aware of the difficulty of trying to equate qualifications for salary and promotion purposes because the teaching profession, of which I was a part for a very long time, has been looking into this issue for years. If, as I have been informed, it is affecting the Post Office’s ability to retain qualified engineers, then the hon the Minister must look into this.

I do note with interest that some 26 engineers in fact left the employ of the Post Office last year. I want to ask the hon the Minister what he feels about the situation and whether any steps are being taken to place engineers and similarly highly qualified university-trained staff on a different level to other employees within the Post Office; in other words, is it contemplated that there will be any revision of the post structure within the Post Office in the near future?

Another matter which I believe requires some attention by the Post Office is the merit assessment scheme, a scheme that has caused it would seem a fair amount of discontent, not only—I would like to stress this—within the Post Office ranks, but also within the Public Service in general. Obviously we are concerned with the Post Office today, and I refer particularly to the Post Office. I should like to add, too, though, that having been involved in the Public Service myself for a number of years, I am well aware of the discontent that the merit assessment system has caused generally. The major criticism it would seem of any meriting system is that it is open to different interpretations by different people at different times, and inevitably cries of favouritism are to be heard. It is a system that leads to much bitterness and frustration and in the end it is not, I believe, a system that does much for morale. It is not a happy system, and the Post Office should perhaps reconsider its position in this regard, particularly in view of the fact—I came across this very interestingly—that the personnel development centre of the Post Office would appear to have discovered during the course of last year that there is very little correlation between merit marks and the assessment carried out by a Post Office management development centre when they attempt to identify line managers. There is very little correlation between the two. This is, I believe, a cause for great concern, and adds weight to the belief that the merit system in the Post Office is not working properly. I am sure that the officials present here today would have expected line managers to come from those merited personnel. One would expect that the more merits one has, the more in line one is for a management post. Merits, after all, I believe very sincerely, should never be handed out simply as favours. I wonder if the hon the Minister, in the Committee Stage, could reply to this criticism of the merit system assessment system. I wonder too whether he is in fact aware of the unhappiness such a system causes within his department and whether he intends bringing about any changes within the system or perhaps even abolishing it. Another thing I should like to know is whether the merit system applies to all race groups in the Post Office, or only to the Whites.

Still on the issue of personnel within the department, I wish to raise the issue of membership of the various personnel associations within the Post Office. The hon member for Hercules touched on this very briefly. I note with interest that a number of different personnel associations exist. I can accept that it may be necessary for different associations to exist to cater for the particular needs of the various groups of employees within the Post Office, that is, different associations for people involved in different types of work. We have, for example, the Postal and Telegraph Association of South Africa, the South African Telecommunications Association, the South African Postal Association and the Society of Post Office Engineers. What is a cause for concern, however, is that not only do different assocations exist for different types of work, but we also find in fact that different associations exist for different race groups. The Whites have the four associations to which I have just referred, the Coloureds have the Post Office Employees Association of South Africa, the Indians have the South African Post and Telecommunications Employees Association, and the Blacks have the Post and Telecommunications Workers Association. It is wrong, I believe, that while the Post Office has done away, as it claims, with discrimination on the basis of colour as far as job opportunities are concerned, one can only belong to certain associations if one is a member of a particular race group.

It is with this particular point in mind, as well as the points raised by the hon member for Groote Schuur, that I should like to move as a further amendment:

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Durban North will pardon me for not replying directly to his comments on the staff position in the Post Office. Arising from the amendment he moved, I merely want to say that staff associations in the Post Office are organisations that make their own internal arrangements; arrangements they make on the basis of their respective preferences and not the political preferences of the PFP or any other political party.

It was not for nothing that the Post Office together with the SATS were among the first Government undertakings to fall within the scope of Dr De Villiers’ enquiry. Contrary to what hon members of the Official Opposition said here this afternoon, we on this side have been aware of the fact that the Post Office has for many years been operated as a business undertaking. From that point of view the Post Office is obviously a good candidate for privatisation.

I wish to mention a few aspects arising from this idea of privatisation and refer to a few problems in that regard. We on this side of the House have on occasion expressed our support for the Government’s privatisation policy. We do not share the groundless fears of hon members of the Official Opposition as regards big business which now stands to benefit from the privatisation policy. We do not raise spectres before our voters either that the income obtained from privatisation will necessarily all be used for supplying Blacks with services. We on this side of the House believe on the contrary that if one accepts that this country will have to be a home for a large number of population groups in future, one should try to ensure that potential points of friction are limited to a minimum. One such point of friction is subsidisation of one public service by another. It is a fact that specific population groups, whether for reasons of preference or of living standards, use certain services more than others. It would be a disservice in respect of good coexistence in this country if the feeling were to arise that the users of one service were subsidising those of another. One need only look at the perpetual complaints of the Official Opposition about so-called White taxes being used for Black services to realise that this is an unwarranted fear, an unwarranted anxiety.

Not so-called.

There has been frequent mention of the business aspects of crosssubsidisation in this House. I think it important that we consider the elimination of cross-subsidisation will also contribute significantly to improved inter-group relations in this country.

One would in fact expect the Official Opposition, which is so concerned that White money should not be used for non-White services, to be enthusiastic about the idea of privatisation. After all the underlying principle characteristic of privatisation is that the user pays for the services he uses. If hon members of the Official Opposition were not so intent on making a little cheap political capital out of privatisation, they would have welcomed the fact that the principle of consumer levies, which are included in privatisation, would result in Whites paying for White services—if it is a specific service, a White preference—and vice versa. No, Sir, I think the standpoint adopted by the Official Opposition on privatisation proves as clearly as anything else that the main point at issue for them is not the improvement of relations between population groups of this country, but the political capital they can derive from it.

The hon the Minister referred specifically in his Budget speech to certain aspects requiring attention when one examined the privatisation of parts of the Post Office administration. One such aspect is the protection of the financial profitability of specific services. The hon the Minister said we should see to the financial profitability of the telecommunications network. If that is the case, we should take a long, hard look at the financing of uneconomical services. No fewer than six of the nine services furnished by the Post Office are uneconomic. By far the largest of these is the postal service but the other services cover telexes, telegrams, money orders, postal orders, and COD. Time does not allow me to discuss all these services but I can express a few thoughts on the postal service.

To limit cross-subsidisation between the telecommunications service and the postal service to a minimum, I believe we could primarily use three methods to make the postal service economically self-sufficient. Firstly, I think methods could be found to cut back on costs; secondly, that uneconomic services could be limited and thirdly, that tariffs could be made more realistic. As regards cutting costs, one immediately thinks of transport and labour; the administration of these two spheres costs the postal service most. As regards transport, we know that vast distances in proportion to our population make the conveyance of post by land an expensive undertaking. Post is already being conveyed by air mail between large centres at lower tariffs than that of surface mail in accordance with an agreement which the Post Office negotiated with the SAA. I think this type of agreement should be negotiated for every route which is served regularly by an air service. Smaller private airlines serving regional routes should be involved too. The Post Office is already benefiting from using its own vehicles for shorter and suburban routes. More intensive research could be carried out in this field as well. It could pay the Post Office to invite private contractors to tender for postal deliveries.

When it comes to labour costs we are actually dealing with the greatest culprits as regards the uneconomic aspect of the postal service. I think it important to remember in the sphere of labour costs that the task of sorting post was a reasonably specialised one in the past. It was worth its while for the Post Office to pay Post Office clerks and sorting clerks the same salary. Today the sorting of post remains a specialised service in smaller postal centres only. Expensive postal sorting equipment and codification have made the task of sorters largely a supervisory one at larger post offices. Consequently I believe that there is greater variety in the duties of sorters today than there was previously. As a result it is possible now to create a sorter’s post at a lower salary scale and also to use non-White sorters for less sophisticated sorting tasks.

In rationalising uneconomic services the Post Office should consider the possibility of phasing out some of these services. It will never be possible to phase out the postal service, but it is definitely possible that some of the other services can gradually be phased out. If one thinks of telex and telegram services, it is a fact that telephone and facsimile facilities are rapidly proving a substitute for these services. Increasing efforts should be made to expedite the process. In the same way it may be asked whether services providing money orders and postal orders are still necessary in the light of the sophisticated methods of transferring money which banks today offer the public.

There is unnecessary generosity within specific services as well where a turn of the screw could be applied. We give up to 25% discount on bulk post of 5 000 postal articles for instance. In Britain the maximum is 12,5% for 10 000 postal articles or more and 25% discount is given only when 1 million postal articles are despatched simultaneously.

When all this has been done, we shall ultimately be obliged to reconcile ourselves to higher postal tariffs. Our tariffs are among the lowest in the world and I want to add immediately we are grateful that it has been found possible in the light of the hon the State President’s statement not to increase tariffs this year but in the long run we shall have to introduce more realistic postal tariffs.

The argument was always put forward earlier that many of our population groups in this country depended on the postal service alone for their contact with the outside world and this argument was valid in earlier days. If one examines the number of telephone subscribers per 100 residential units, however, one finds that there were 71,5 White, 36,1 Asians, 19,3 Coloured and 3,3 Black urban subscribers and 1,8 Black rural subscribers in 1978.

Eight years later in 1986 the number of White subscribers had increased from 71,5 to 83,9—that is one sixth more. The number of Asian subscribers had increased from 36 to 72 per 100—that is double. The number of Coloured subscribers increased from 19 to 53 per 100—that is threefold. The number of Black urban subscribers increased from 3,3 to 38,1 per 100 residential units—that is twelvefold. Black rural subscribers increased from 1,8 to 13,7 per 100—that is eightfold. Not only was there a remarkable increase in the number of non-White telephone subscribers but an independent survey also indicated that a large percentage of Black telephone subscribers did not desire a telephone at home to the same extent as the availability of public telephone facilities. Consequently we are exceptionally grateful that R6 million has already been voted this year for the expansion of public telephone networks, especially in country districts.

In the short term we can envisage placing a telephone within reach of every person in South Africa but to hope that every family will become subscribers is neither possible nor economically justifiable.

To the extent that we make an alternative means of communication—in other words telephone facilities—available to all in South Africa, we reduce the force of the argument that the postal service is the only means of communication which a large part of our population has with the outside world. It therefore becomes possible to the same extent for us to adjust our postal tariffs until we too, have realistic tariffs as people elsewhere in the world have. We take pleasure in supporting this Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, speaking in support of my colleagues, the hon member for Ventersdorp—I want to congratulate him on his first speech in his new capacity as chief spokesman of the CP on Posts and Telecommunications—and the hon member for Brakpan, I wish to agree with the hon members when they reject the NP treatment meted out to the faithful public servants in service of the Government. I also want to congratulate the public servants in the Post Office on what they have achieved in terms of this Budget. In exchange they have received a general increase freeze instead of a reward for their efforts.

The hon the State President talks about stimulating the economy. He even uses tax money to pay for big advertisements in newspapers and then gets the television to boost it as well. An increase in salary—no matter what size—will have the effect immediately of stimulating the economy far more effectively than any other measure. Instead they freeze the general salary increase and then follow this up with a total lack of concern as far as the plight of the public servants is concerned. I want to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon whether it is his intention also to freeze the phasing in of taxation on benefits to assist these officials who, if this is not done, are going to end up earning less money at the end of the day than before the freeze in general increases was announced. I also want to know whether he and his hon colleagues intend freezing increases in other deductions like medical aid fund deductions. Surely there has to be some give from the side of the Government as well in this regard. I think this matter needs urgent attention.

The hon the Minister and his colleagues say that the decision to use normal metering procedures on local calls will not result in an increase in telephone call tariffs. They are playing with words, Sir, and they should rather tell us what percentage of the call traffic handled by the Post Office is made up of single local calls, and what the effect will be of a mere doubling in this regard on the income of the department.

I want to refer very briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Boksburg, who I see is not in the House. Talking about the number of people in the House, there were even fewer than 60 members sitting here when the hon the State President graced us with his presence earlier, and yet those hon members have comments to make about our attendance.

You cannot even count.

I think that we are all agreed on this side and I am sure that many hon members on that side must agree with us that the behaviour of the hon member for Boksburg this afternoon was actually an embarrassment, not only to us on this side of the House, but also to hon members on that side of the House. That is of course, however, what we have come to expect from the hon member. He even failed to congratulate the hon member for Ventersdorp on his promotion.

When he makes a remark that telephone poles cannot be planted without holes being dug by Blacks, then I think he reaches into the realms of ridicule far exceeding those of any of his colleagues. One only has to look at other countries like Australia and New Zealand and so on, where there are no Blacks to dig holes, and then to ask who digs the holes there.

The hon member for Primrose says salary increases will cause inflation. I just want to make the following comment, however. Inflation is not caused by salary increases; it is caused by wage equalisation when there is not a concomitant increase in productivity. I think the officials in the Post Office have shown through their productivity that an increase for them would not be inflationary and therefore a very meritorious increase.

I want to put a question to the hon member for Boksburg, who has an absolute obsession with the AWB. He knows which hon members on this side of the House are members of the AWB. Is it not about time those hon members came clean, Sir? Should they not tell us how many of them are members of the Broederbond? Maybe we will make it easier for them and just ask them to tell us which hon members are not members of the Broederbond. That would be a much shorter task, Sir.

Are you a member of the Ku Klux Klan?

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

I have very little time, Mr Chairman.

Incidentally, I understand that the Dutch Reformed Church has also decided to grant their ministers a 16% increase. Even they are not heeding the hon the State President’s appeal, because they too realise how unfair that is in the present circumstances in South Africa.

†I now want to touch on the subject of privatisation. [Interjections.] I notice Lawaaikamp is on the go again, Sir! It is no good hon members on that side of the House giving us the assurances that their attitudes are contained in the White Paper and that we do not have to worry that they will betray the White worker, the State official and so on. Since 1982 the NP has a record of regularly reneging on any assurances, promises or guarantees that they give us. How can we believe what stands in the White Paper, and how can we accept an assurance as far as that is concerned?

I want State officials to note—and they must make it an ominous note—that the hon member for Piketberg, who is not in the House at the moment, is now the Minister who is going to control privatisation. Hon members on that side of the House are quick to make snide remarks directed at my hon leader as a former theologian. I would be very interested to hear what that hon Minister as a former theologian knows about the introduction of privatisation, because my hon leader at least has the honesty to acknowledge that his knowledge in that department is very limited, and I am sure the same would apply to the other ex-“predikante” on the other side of the House. [Interjections.]

I have covered the Broederbond, although I must say once again that I should like to know which hon members opposite …

Order! I have allowed the hon member a certain latitude as far as that matter is concerned. I shall be pleased, however, if he will now confine himself to the issues under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I have indicated that I am moving away from that subject. I am now going on to discuss the question of privatisation. I realise this is a sensitive subject for hon members on the Government side.

Talking about privatisation, however, I believe it is appropriate at this stage to make mention of the contents of a report I received recently from the United Kingdom concerning the privatisation of British Telecom. They classify this as probably the most visible of all of the services sold off by the British Government. The industry watchdog, which they set up at the same time in terms of the legislation which provided for the sale of British Telecom in 1985, has not yet issued a single report that has not been critical of that company’s services since its privatisation. There are delays in installations. Repairs cost more. More complaints are received from the public. Directory enquiries are delayed. Operators take longer to reply. The percentage of pay-phones out of order has increased every quarter since the sale. Not even British Telecom itself has issued anything more than excuses, promises and more advertisements on television—something like the hon the State President—to improve its crossed-line image, which is equally applicable to the hon the State President, of course.

There is, however, they say, one sense in which British Telecom has achieved the cost efficiency privatisation was intended to bring about. It has laid off thousands of technicians and other staff and makes a profit of £2 million a day. They go on to say that such bitter experience has brought a note of realism to the ideological urgings of privatisation’s champions.

I should like to move away from that subject, too, to say that when one looks at what is being privatised in the United Kingdom it emerges that the majority of those organisations were nationalized because they were inefficient and because there were too many operators in the field. Now that they have been privatised, in the case of British Telecom, for example, almost 50% of the shares have been retained by the British Government, and up to 99% of the shares in other departments are now in the hands of employees who have been allowed to buy them, unlike the system which is on offer by the NP in terms of privatisation. [Interjections.]

I want to refer now to the Budget itself. Let me first of all refer to aspects which have not been covered by the memorandum. One of these is the reduction in the amount appropriated in relation to item 4.8.3—Profit-sharing in terms of agreements with the suppliers of telecommunications equipment. I should like an explanation of that, Sir. I am afraid my time is expired.

Mr Chairman, I was quite looking forward to reacting to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. After all, he does entertain us all the time with various comments and observations when other hon members are speaking. It is therefore a golden opportunity to react to his speech and cross swords with him. I listened closely to discover even the slightest possibility of doing this in a substantive way. Unfortunately I find it extremely difficult, owing to the superficial nature of the speech he has just made here. The cliches he used make it impossible to react meaningfully to his contribution. I find it difficult to react to his speech because it was rather insubstantial.

There is one point he raised, however—he concluded his speech with this—to which I do want to react. He held up the British telecommunications services and their privatisation to us as an example of the failures that could await us in this field in South Africa. I should like to ask him why he has to equate the best we have, our profitable postal and telecommunications services, and compare them with the poorests example of privatisation we find in the United Kingdom. I want to give him one piece of advice. If he wishes to see how privatisation may really be carried out, he should permit himself to benefit from the experience in the privatisation of telecommunications services in the USA. I believe we should set this up as our guideline and not hold up the failures in the United Kingdom as a norm and as an indication of what lies in store for us.

I should like to raise quite a different matter here today. I want to talk about the influence recent floods have had on the activities of Posts and Telecommunications.

We have all recently found that when the heavens open, streams and rivers flood their banks, dam walls are breached, bridges collapse, houses and businesses are inundated, mudslides sweep prestige residences away and homesteads on droughtstricken farms suddenly become islands. There is loss of life to man and beast.

During such events the public gaze is naturally directed at high-profile and courageous rescue attempts; helicopters lifting people off rooftops; fast motorboats rescuing drowning people from trees; heavy machinery desperately attempting to throw up retaining walls; our ever-present Defence Force which provides shelter, and our civil defence organisations which do a tremendous job.

Today I should like to draw specific attention to a less highly conspicuous group of men and women and the role they play during and after these disasters. I want to draw hon members’ attention to the small white pick-up trucks carrying aluminium ladders; to the inconspicuous closed white kombis full of electronic equipment. I want to speak about young men and young women who plod along gushing streets in pouring rain from postbox to postbox, cold and even wet, to enable us to stay abreast of news from our families or world affairs while sitting before a crackling fire.

They also deliver the accounts!

We on this side of the House pay them!

Therefore I specifically want to pay tribute today to our workers in Posts and Telecommunications. Right at the outset I want to explain to hon members in more detail why they deserve our praise. I want to sketch to this House the way their part of the world looked during the floods.

We Natal people are often accused of regarding our province as the cradle of all development in South Africa…[Interjections]…regardless of whether it is in the sphere of political indabas or education.

And it was in Natal that the great floods began. I shall confine myself from here on, however, to the traumatic experiences of Posts and Telecommunications during these floods.

During the period from 26 to 29 September last year surface as well as underground telecommunication, links were disrupted in Natal, and I should like to give a few examples. Forty automatic and 41 manual exchanges were cut off; approximately 30 000 subscribers were left without a service; 115 major interruptions in cable service occurred and 10 post offices were cut off. Three days later approximately 80% of these services had been restored and only two manual exchanges, Ndwedwe and Glenmill, were still cut off from the outside world. Trunk lines to these two exchanges were restored by means of a temporary route on 5 and 6 October, respectively.

All post offices had been reopened by 2 October and through the splendid co-operation of the SA Air Force, accumulated post for Empangeni and surrounding areas was transported to Richards Bay on 30 September. By Wednesday, 7 October, the position was practically back to normal with only 1 927 services out of order, of which most were in the Pietermaritzburg area. Repairs to these were greatly hampered by heavy and continuous rain.

A temporary microwave link was put into operation on 6 October to replace the concentric cable over the Tugela River at the John Ross bridge. By the end of January 1988 this link was replaced by a temporary concentric cable spanning a distance of 450 metres. This is the longest singlespan cable ever put up in South Africa. It was a piece of engineering work on which this side of the House should like to congratulate our engineers and technicians.

This performance did not see the end of the troubles for Posts and Telecommunications. Costs of repairs in Natal amount to about R3 million and this money obviously has to be recovered from somewhere.

Added to this, rain then began falling in the Free State and by 22 February of this year floods were raging in that province. In the Bloemfontein multi-exchange area 6 470 telephone subscribers were cut off. Furthermore, the Bloemfontein trunk line to 16 towns in the south, seven in the east and six to the west of the city were cut off. As a result about 160 technical personnel, some from elsewhere, were immediately mobilised for repair work. Road links were practically impassable and rain fell continuously to impede efforts at carrying out repairs. Strategic services had to receive preference as well.

In spite of these difficult conditions, approximately 2 000 points in Bloemfontein had services restored within two days. Meanwhile more rain fell, causing further disruption to the underground cable network. Nevertheless the northern and eastern trunk routes were restored temporarily and the ND circuits to Colesberg were temporarily switched through De Aar while floods made repairs to the southern trunk routes impossible. Nonetheless 12 channels were patched into the optical fibre communications network at Philippolis.

On 25 February this year, two weeks ago, approximately 3 320 services were still out of order in Bloemfontein, but repairs proceeded under difficult conditions. Continuous rain impeded efforts at carrying out repairs and even the South African Defence Force could not succeed in establishing a temporary link, in spite of their efforts. Channels were, however, transferred to the optical fibre system.

A further problem which cropped up as a result of washaways and flooded roads was of course postal deliveries. Nevertheless post was successfully delivered to and collected from those towns which were at all accessible by using Post Office vehicles over almost impassable roads. Meanwhile success was achieved in towing a mobile generator to the Kaffer River and supplying an internal telephone service there, since Escom power had failed.

The Escom power supply to the microwave repeater stations on the Bloemfontein-Kimberley route was also cut. This route serves speech channels to Kimberley and South West Africa. In addition—this is even more important to some— television programmes are relayed to the Northern Cape along this route.

The fuel capacity of the emergency generators was only 400 litres and the roads were impassable. Once again it was the Defence Force which had to intervene and the Air Force, in particular, did a tremendous job.

On 26 February 3 000 telephone subscribers in Bloemfontein were still without telephones. The heavy rains made repairs practically impossible. As a result of bad washaways along SATS sections, the dispatch of post was still being maintained by private transport. I have already referred to these inconspicuous white pick-up trucks and kombis.

After 27 February matters started improving appreciably. The number of telephones that are out of order at the moment, varies from 1 500 to 2 000, depending on weather conditions. According to most reports, there were still approximately 1 000 subscriber faults by the end of last week, faults which are being repaired rapidly. All trunk lines are operative again and are undergoing permanent repairs. The dispatch of post is also taking place by means of normal contract transport again.

It is estimated that damage to departmental property in the Free State should not exceed R500 000. This consists mainly of damage to river and stream crossings, as well as underground cables which have been washed away.

In spite of all this damage and disruption, a vein of humour is not lacking. I am told that at present there is serious discussion in the Free State about the possibility of an own harbour and, last but not least, an own republic! I have to sound a warning to my Free State colleagues on this side of the House, however, as this will cause the insistence on the inclusion of the Free State in the CP “Boerestaat” to increase drastically.

Whatever the case may be, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is prepared to supply, install and administer the necessary electronic equipment for such a harbour.

Mr Chairman, this department has not merely confined itself to the restoration of services within its sphere of responsibility. On 16 November last year the department launched its contribution to the flood disaster relief fund by issuing the existing 16c stamp, with a surcharge of 10c per stamp. The Bible stamp issue of 19 November was issued with a similar surcharge on 1 December. The hon the Minister should be able to inform the House today about how much has already been collected for the Natal disaster fund by this means.

The 16c stamp in the Dias issue of 3 February 1988 was released on 1 March with a surcharge and overprint of 10c per stamp too. Simultaneously stamp books containing ten 16c stamps each were made available in respect of all three surcharge stamp issues. On 1 March the campaign was expanded to provide for the flood disaster relief fund on a national basis. Details of the sales since then are not yet available however.

The achievements of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications personnel, as I have briefly described, as well as their dedication, as reflected in the Budget discussed here today, leave me in no doubt that they will also excel in a structure which is more geared towards private enterprise.

My request to the CP in this regard is therefore that they must not try to make these competent people believe that they will not make the grade when privatisation comes. This would be an undeserved motion of no confidence in them; they deserve better than that.

In accordance with the hon the State President’s guidelines, the hon the Minister has already announced that no salary increases can be granted, except for the normal notch increases. There is reason to believe that employees in this department, in particular, are approaching this entire matter with a great sense of responsibility. Consequently my request to the CP is not to attempt to incite these people to dissatisfaction and material covetousness for the sake of their own political greed. These people are better than that and South Africa deserves better than that. If we stick to this, we believe we shall all fare better next year.

This brings me to a very serious matter. A salary increase of say 17% for employees in this department would mean an increase of approximately 7% in all tariffs. I do not want to go into the cumulative effect this would have and of what its effect on inflation would be. In the past the PFP and their supporting Press made no secret of their aversion to salary increases for public servants. In addition they are perpetually ascribing our economic problems to an overlarge Public Service. This year public servants are making their sacrifice. We on this side of the House thank them for it.

The Government itself is on the way to privatisation, so it is fair to expect the Progs and their Press too, and not only the hon member for Yeoville, to address a serious word to the private sector, that is to say to that part of the private sector where they still retain some influence, to ensure that prices are kept properly under control.

Posts and Telecommunications workers are not capitalists; they are vulnerable to escalating prices. They, together with others in the Public Service, including education, are making their sacrifice this year. They expect the same of the private sector. I hope the private sector will not underestimate the responsibility resting on them in this regard. Through their action, members of the private sector will either take up the cudgels more vigorously on behalf of the free-market system or drive another nail into its coffin. This year they also have the opportunity of illustrating the advantages of a free-market economy at the expense of tendencies—I am referring to the AWB—toward nationalisation. We on this side of the House shall closely observe their achievements in this regard.

In conclusion, we on this side of the House should like to say the following to the staff of this department: Thank you. We are proud of you. We wish you well in coping with the rains in the Free State!

We say thank you to Mr Ridgard and wish Mr De Villiers well on the road ahead.

We take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to associate myself with aspects of the speech of the hon member for Umhlatuzana, and I would also like to record extreme appreciation to the department for the sterling work that they did during the floods in Natal. [Interjections.] Representing a rural constituency, I can assure hon members that the department received much praise for their efforts in maintaining contact, and the dedication with which they went about the restoration work, which was very much appreciated.

In the very limited time at my disposal I too wish to commend the officials of the department for a successful year’s operation.

The first matter I wish to deal with concerns the timing of local calls, as referred to in the Budget Speech of the hon the Minister. I await with interest details of the proposed new system. One appreciates the reasons for having to review the tariffs, but I want to make certain observations and suggest that consideration be given to amending the basis on which the unit price is set. This is a figure which should be relatively constant and should be kept to as low a figure as possible. The variable factor for telephone charges should rather centre around time, which could be adjusted as and when required. Consideration should always be given to those subscribers who merely wish to make short contact calls. I think particularly of the elderly in this regard, whose principal means of contact is the telephone.

With this as a basis there could be sound grounds for even going so far as to reduce the existing unit charge.

I wish to confront the hon the Minister on the issue of manual telephone exchanges that still exist in many rural areas. I note that in the year under review 29 manual exchanges were converted to automatic exchanges, leaving some 728 manual systems yet to be converted. I do wish to impress upon the hon the Minister the need for greater priority to be given to the phasing out of manual exchanges and replacing these with automatic systems. Manual exchanges are an anachronism in today’s world of high technology communication systems, and are so inadequate as to make it impossible to meet the growing demands of many rural areas. It is inconceivable that highly sophisticated communication systems exist in urban areas, when facilities in many rural areas are so antiquated. I am not overstating the case when I claim that inadequate telecommunication facilities are responsible for stifling development in many rural areas.

Another aspect that I would like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister is the question of the staff on these manual exchanges. I for one wish to pay tribute to the staff of these exchanges who go far beyond the bounds of their actual duties to please the public in the services they render.

I want to touch on the question of tariffs that are applicable to the use of manual exchanges. I wish to point out that from information made available to me telephone subscribers to certain manual exchanges are paying twice as much for local calls as they would if they were served by automatic exchanges. I am advised that within a 25 km radius a two-minute call from an automatic exchange is calculated as being approximately the equivalent of one unit, reflecting a cost of 13,5 cents. On this basis it can reasonably be argued that the charge for a three-minute call would be in the vicinity of 20 cents. May I ask what justification there is for a minimum charge of 40 cents for three minutes for a call from a manual exchange within the same radius of 25 kilometres? This is an anomaly which cannot be justified in the light of the circumstances which are beyond the control of the subscribers concerned.

Mr Chairman, since I am speaking after the hon member for Mooi River, and since he concentrated on saying thank you, I want to associate myself with him for the time being, particularly with regard to the floods during September and October last year, and the selfless services rendered at the time by the officials and workers of Posts and Telecommunications to get everything back to normal.

I also want to mention the hon member for Ventersdorp in passing. While the hon member for Boksburg was speaking he made a remark which, in my opinion, would perhaps go unnoticed here if I do not react to it, because I do not think the hon the Minister would condescend to react to it. This was when the hon member for Boksburg was speaking and the hon member for Ventersdorp said: “But you—that is, the NP— have already rejected the White voter of South Africa.”

I have always regarded the hon member as a well-educated and intelligent member, but now he makes such an unintelligent remark in this House. [Interjections.] I shall not go into that any further, but I really do think that as an educated person the hon member will have to take more careful note of the interjections he makes in this House in future. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon member for Groote Schuur, who, by the way, also went on again about the NP not being in earnest with their reform policy. He also said that the NP was promoting apartheid with certain measures. I do not think there is another political party in South Africa which fans the flame of apartheid more than the PFP! If they would lay apartheid to rest and accept that this side of the House is in earnest about what they are doing, I want to tell that hon member that there would no longer be an outcry about apartheid in South Africa from overseas countries. [Interjections.]

We now come to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. That hon member has the Broederbond on his brain. [Interjections.] The AWB is such an embarrassment to that party that that hon member is always asking how many members on this side of the House belong to the Broederbond.

Are you a member?

I want to tell the hon member that the Broederbond has never broken up meetings. The members of the Broederbond have never carried weapons. There is a world of difference between the Broederbond and the AWB, because the AWB is a resistance movement, and the Broederbond has never been a resistance movement. The hon member must first go back in history and go and look at what the Broederbond has done for the Afrikaner, and then he can come and howl about it in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I trust that we can now come back to the Bill under consideration.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Since we are dealing with a fine budget introduced by the the hon the Minister of Communications, I am sure you will permit me, Mr Chairman, to avail myself of this opportunity, on behalf of this side of the House, once again to convey our congratulations to the hon the Minister on this excellent and fine budget. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity on behalf of us all to thank the team which made it possible to introduce such a fine and positive budget. I thank them in particular on behalf of this side of the House, since we represent most of the White inhabitants of South Africa. When I say the team, I mean the hon the Minister, Mr Ridgard, the Postmaster General, and all his staff, right down to the most junior official of that department.

If one takes into account the difficult circumstances under which this achievement has been accomplished, it makes it even greater and more praiseworthy. This is true particularly if one considers that from an operating deficit of R107,6 million in the previous financial year, an operating surplus of R469,9 million has been achieved. To have accomplished the excellent achievement mentioned, speaks of a sense of duty, the maintainance of financial discipline and certainly also of stringent economising measures. These economising measures were not felt or noticed by the public who made use of the postal services. These services were rendered to the public without the strikes inconveniencing them. This was achieved despite the fact that certain members of staff of the postal services were on strike. Despite this strike, the services maintained by the department were practically normal. The maximum effort must have been made by them all, and we are very grateful for that. We must therefore ask the hon the Minister to convey our special thanks to the officials of all population groups who did not participate in the strikes and who, probably with great personal sacrifices and long work shifts, prevented business being disrupted. The exceptional thing about this effort by the department is that by their dutiful actions, they prevented the enemies of South Africa from succeeding in achieving their objectives with the strikes in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications.

On this occasion I also want to express my concern about the rural areas and the sparcely populated areas of South Africa. Despite the fact that there are so few people in the rural areas, all population groups living in the rural areas are important to South Africa, and I therefore want to ask that the services of a high quality that have been rendered there thus far, be continued so that we can occupy our rightful place among the citizens of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the Official Opposition today.

You learnt a lot!

That is just the point I am trying to make. The hon member for Carltonville is illustrating that so clearly now, that one can only laugh about the behaviour of the Official Opposition here this afternoon.

As newcomers on this side of the House, we learnt not to cross swords with the senior hon members on the opposite side of the House, but we have just witnessed a typical example of how the Official Opposition fabricates things to get at this side of the House when they have nothing to criticise. The hon member for Brakpan referred to the advertisement in yesterday’s newspapers, in which it was stated that post office tariffs would not be increasing this year, and he said that that was a half truth. He referred to the fact that local calls would in future be metered and that one would have to pay for them. When the hon member for Boksburg referred to that, he said he was engaged in an exercise in semantics. However, it appears from the hon the Minister’s speech that the metering of local calls will only become operational during the first half of 1989.

This is only going to take place in the next financial year. Nor is it by definition a tarrif increase on the metered call units. After all, it is obvious that the calls are not metered at this stage, and it is therefore not a tarrif increase per unit.

At the moment local units are not metered per unit. One can speak for as long as one wishes. I want to tell the hon member that he is far off the mark by trying to make political capital out of this. I have already received calls from my constituency from fathers who are very grateful for this measure. They actually want to know whether it cannot be introduced this year already, since parents with teenagers in particular have problems—the children talk for hours, and if the husband has to speak to his wife urgently at home, he cannot get through to her. At present they also have the problem that the teenagers are intelligent enough, when they are reprimanded, to say that a conversation of three minutes and one of thirty minutes costs parents the same. The CP is going to feel foolish.

Once again the hon member for Groote Schuur spoke on behalf of the aged in his constituency. He raised the question of mobile post offices on the standing committee, and he brought it up here again today. In the standing committee I could see that he did not know what is going on in his constituency, or there were no old-age homes in his constituency. I do not think that there is a situation anywhere in our metropolitan areas where there are no mobile post offices that visit old age homes on certain days. However, it is clear to me that he is merely trying to soft-soap his voters, and with the declining support for the PFP at the moment, he is only trying to win back a few lost votes for the next election.

I do not want to spend any further time on opposition parties, however. I want to say that this Budget is of such a nature that there can really be very little criticism of it. When one looks at this department, and if one has investigated its background and activities a little, one must conclude that it is a department that has already adapted in preparation for the 21st century. When we look specifically at the telecommunications section of this department, and in particular at the research being done, the local development projects they are engaged in in order to develop new systems and equipment to adapt to the technological era, and note that they include local expertise to save us foreign exchange on the importing of components and the payment of licence fees to foreign suppliers, I must say that this department, with its Minister, is opening up new vistas for this country, which is in the grip of sanctions. I think we will still reap the benefits of this in the years ahead, and just as we look back today on the achievements of Armscor, we will also look back then on the efforts made by this department in the late seventies and eighties.

One need only look at how this department has progressed in the technological field over the past year and at what it has meant to our country. The earphone is available in the PWV metropolitan area, and many people have been connected. The way in which the consumer’s needs are being met is amazing. Then too there is the electronic postal service. At present research is being done on the BAS system, and the department estimates that it will also be able to introduce this system for us within three years. The department is also engaged in an investigation into the Photo Videotex, and I think it will be wonderful news for the Press industry in particular when that system is made available in this country. If one bears in mind that this department is doing research on video communication services, it is clear that we are rapidly on our way to the 21st century.

As far as the teletex services are concerned, hon members should take note that this department has already made good progress, and that we need not take a back seat to any other First World countries.

The First World component in this country is leading the Third World component into the technological era—the era of technological explosion. With a view to the possible demand in the future we need only take note of the consumer growth rate with regard to the Beltel system, which has grown by 177% over the past year. In the light of this, one must congratulate this hon Minister and his department.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister referred to the necessity for financial planning in the telecommunications section. He referred to the provision of infrastructure in the form of more cables and other equipment so as to make it possible for consumers in the metropolitan areas, particularly in the business districts, to make use of these advanced technological methods in future. The hon the Minister went on to say that the Post Office was watching its budget and the future financing of this section of its service very carefully. I am very pleased that the hon the Minister feels this way about these matters.

I want to point out that there has been a tremendous upsurge in the use of a very ordinary commodity for which the normal telephone lines are used. I am referring to the facsimile machine. I am unable to inform hon members as to the actual purpose of this machine …

What have you really told us so far that was worth listening to?

… since I assume hon members are intelligent enough to know what this machine is used for, or to investigate its uses for themselves. [Interjections.] I should like to refer to the upsurge in the use of this commodity. In this regard I want to focus attention on a report in yesterday’s Rapport. According to that report the facsimile industry is bursting at the seams. Furthermore, it states that it is estimated that the South African markets for facsimile machines are going to amount to approximately R130 million this year. During the first six months of last year, the report says, an average of approximately 1 187 facsimile devices were imported from Japan each month. During the second half of last year this figure was 2 400. They then went on to refer to figures which industry supplied to Rapport regarding the expected growth in this industry this year. In some cases the estimated expected growth is between 100% and 150%. One supplier even said he expected a growth of 170%.

Now there is one thing I am concerned about, however. The people who make use of these services are those in our business community. It is not only the professional people who make use of this—attorneys and so on—to send documents. According to information I obtained from suppliers in East London, the greatest demand for these services comes from the manufacturing industry and from agencies, so-called manufacturing representatives. In particular, they say, there is a demand for these services from one and two-man business undertakings. In my town it has even become a status symbol among businessmen who boast among themselves with the facsimile machine they have just acquired. I think even hon members of the Official Opposition could handle a facsimile machine. It is much easier to operate than a telex machine. [Interjections.]

Before I conclude, I also want to thank the hon the Minister for a few things but I also want to bring a few matters to his attention. I would like to know from the hon the Minister what the department’s planning entails with regard to linking East London with the larger centres by way of optical fibre. When is the final linking up of East London with the digital microwave system going to take place? I am not speaking on my own behalf. Is there a prospect of East London also being linked up with the M-Net television system?

With these words I should like to express my support for this Budget.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Ventersdorp on his appointment as the chief spokesman of his party, but there are a few tips I would like to give him. The first thing the hon member must know is that there are certain subjects and departments that one should not drag into the political arena, and Posts and Telecommunications are one of them. By politicising Posts and Telecommunications, as the hon member did this afternoon, he was doing the entire organisation a great disservice.

In addition the hon member must realise that Posts and Telecommunications is not something one can master quickly. It is a complicated technical matter, seen from an economic-financial as well as a technical point of view. So I would very kindly recommend that the hon member make a study of the matter; otherwise he is not going to perform his task for his party properly here.

The hon member for East London North, who has just resumed his seat, spoke with great enthusiasm about the future which lies ahead in the sphere of electronics. There is in fact an enormous future for electronics. The science of electronics is an interesting, fascinating matter, and let us now study all the financial, administrative and technical facets in a level-headed way. The hon member could be enormously successful if he confined himself to those things.

On the one hand the hon member also spoke about strikes and referred derogatorily to the clumsy performance of the Minister—I think he was referring to me—in dealing with the matter. In this regard I just want to tell him at the outset that I have very good contact with Post Office workers. I know better than the hon member does how those who did not go on strike rolled up their sleeves, how they worked and made sacrifices, and the hon member need not try to make any political capital out of that by saying it now. However, I would not even have referred to it, because surely all of us know it. The Post Office worker did his share and worked hard, and I can speak only with the highest praise of the Post Office workers who showed their mettle once again in a crisis situation.

The hon member said he condemned the failure to increase salaries. Very shortly afterwards he noted with thanks that there were no tariff increases. I shall discuss this again a little later, but my recommendation to the hon member is that he should really do his homework, because he cannot have his cake and eat it. There are certain financial and economic principles one has to adhere to, and it makes no difference how much one wants to confuse them; there are certain principles one simply cannot avoid and of which one must take cognisance. I think the hon members for Boksburg, Hercules and Primrose dealt summarily with his logic, and I want to thank them for doing so.

I want to thank the hon member for Boksburg for the important points he raised here. Among other things he discussed the salaries, and I now want to associate myself with what he said about what salary adjustments meant to the Post Office.

I just want to point out to hon members that a 10% increase would cost the Post Office R173 million. Surely hon members can perceive that this is not a matter to be decided lightly; that it is a considerable amount of money and that it is a matter on which one has to decide with the utmost gravity apart from the fact that it is not popular of course—in accordance with specificprinciples.

Of course the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Finance and I held discussions with the Post Office workers. Although they do not like the decision not to grant salary increases, these are extremely responsible people. They behaved themselves in an extremely responsible way. The hon members know that the Post Office has a diversity of workers. There are some people who earn very little in the way of salary, and there are others who are also professional people who receive more in the way of salary. Our hearts go out to those who are suffering hardships at the present moment, but I believe that the Post Office workers are coming to terms with the matter and will react to it in a responsible way.

In this connection I should just like to associate myself with other hon members who referred to the private sector. I want to place on record that the hon the State President did not say that the private sector should also freeze wages. He merely made an appeal to the private sector to help us all to shoulder the burden, and that it should act in a responsible way when determining wages and prices. That is all the hon the State President did, and I think it was a very reasonable request. I think the Post Office workers are going to watch with great interest to see what the private sector does in this connection.

The hon member for Boksburg also said that in this entire process, and in particularly in respect of our capital programmes, we should listen to the private sector and obtain their contributions. I assure the hon member for Boksburg that there will be an opportunity to discuss these matters with the private sector in general and with the manufacturers in particular.

The hon member also expressed his concern in respect of a shortage of trained technicians. The Post Office is a training ground which discharges its obligations and creates good facilities. Particularly in times of shortage, however, the private sector snaps up the trained technical personnel. This is a problem we have to contend with, but we are looking into it as well.

†I want to congratulate the hon member for Groote Schuur on being the chief spokesman for his party. I am sure he will be able to make a sound contribution. We agree with him about the efficient, inexpensive manner in which the department is run and we will try to keep it like that and even improve on that. I join him in the congratulations he passed on to the Post Office workers for their dedication.

The hon member then spoilt a good speech by referring to politics again—apartheid and all that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Otherwise it was a quite a good speech. He spoke about Posmed and separate medical aid societies. The hon member for Primrose replied to him fully but I want to reiterate what the hon member said.

Posmed is an association established by the White staff of the Post Office in 1922. It is still an independent body with its own board of directors, and belongs to its members and not to the Post Office. It is therefore fully autonomous and the Post Office cannot dictate to it. Why the hon member had to refer to that, I do not know, because I think he is aware of these facts. Why he talks about it again I cannot understand.

Posmed has 49 000 members and it is not possible to accept the other population groups because admission can only take place with the consent of the majority of the existing White members. Moreover membership of Posmed is compulsory for Whites, and would then also have to be compulsory for other groups. Therefore there are many reasons for this, and the hon member must please accept that to be the position. It is not a matter of discrimination being practised; it is a matter of historical fact, and the four medical aid schemes are being run quite well.

The hon member also asked about mobile post offices. The mobile post office service has proved very effective in areas where for economic and other reasons a fully-fledged post office service cannot be justified. The mobile service is being extended on a regular basis and is popular among post office clients. If the hon member is aware of the need for this type of service in any particular areas he must please notify me.

I shall not be able to reply to each and every question that has been put to me. As in the past, if a question cannot be dealt with during the Committee stage or at the Third Reading I shall address a letter to the hon member concerned.

*The hon member for Primrose raised many important matters, including the question of capital expenditure which is so exceptionally high. That is the very problem we are addressing at present; it forms the subject of the exhaustive inquiry on which Dr de Villiers is at present engaged. The fact of the matter is simply that during the past few years the Post Office, particularly its telecommunications network, has expanded considerably. This has led to very high levels of capital expenditure. It cannot be expected that this process must be continued. In real terms, therefore, capital expenditure will simply have to show a decline.

This is a perfectly normal phenomenon in all undertakings in which there is heavy capital investment, inter alia for infrastructure, and this is then followed by periods of low expenditure. Sound norms are determined for the consideration of capital expenditure, due regard being had to the rendering of service, as well as return on capital. The emphasis which has already been placed on the improvement of the capital structure will of course be encouraged by the decelleration of the capital expenditure programme. This will certainly contribute to a more effective and healthier undertaking that will constitute an attractive investment potential for the private sector, if and when it should perhaps be decided to proceed to privatisation. I also thank the hon member for indicating various points, for example that we are approaching saturation point. I thank him for the fine way in which he dealt with this matter.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to privatisation in particular. He warned against this, and mentioned a number of factors. I just want to remind him that I made it clear during my Second Reading speech that the guidelines in the White Paper on privatisation would be strictly adhered to. In this connection I just want to bring a few matters to the attention of the hon member for Brakpan and his hon colleagues, because it is important for them to know these things. These guidelines are for example stated clearly in paragraph 6.1.2 of the White Paper:

Paragraph 5.2.5 reads as follows:

I just want to emphasise to the hon member that the Government is not going to act precipitately in this regard, but that it is thoroughly aware of the great responsibility which rests upon it. The Government will take all these sound principles into consideration.

Another very important paragraph is paragraph 7.2.2:

What I want to emphasise is that the wild accusations that the Government wants to sell out the assets of this country must cease. They are not true. If hon members advance that kind of argument it is no use their bellowing it out in the vain hope that it will then be believed. Instead they should advance sound arguments in support of these allegations.

The hon member for Brakpan also referred to the personnel groups which had not benefitted from occupational differentiation on 1 December 1987. Occupational differentiation is applied according to a pre-planned programme. On 1 December 1987 it was the turn of the clerical, administrative and technical personnel groups. The position of other personnel groups which did not then come into consideration will be scrutinised in future programmes. Wherever salaries are already market-related, such personnel cannot of course expect any increases.

As regards telephone directories I have a note here which reads:

I want to thank the hon member for Hercules sincerely for the knowledgeable way in which he presented a few matters. I want to tell him that I am in full agreement with him. I was just as disheartened as he was at certain statements that were made here. I want to thank the hon member sincerely for that. I shall reply fully to his questions during the Committee stage or at the Third Reading of the legislation.

†The hon member for Durban North raised a number of questions. He referred particularly to the salary scales of the Post Office engineers, among other things. He also referred to the general shortage of professional and technical staff in South Africa and the great demand for qualified personnel which has resulted in losses being sustained by most major employers. Like any employer the Post Office does its best to pay market-related salaries and to improve service conditions to retain staff. In regard to promotion prospects for various race groups and the merit system there are no barriers to any particular group to promotion, as can be witnessed by the fact that people of colour have progressed to senior posts. A common merit system applies to all. Finally, in this regard, the staff associations are independent bodies and the department has no say in the matter.

*I want to thank the hon member for Umlazi for his contribution. He referred to a number of matters including privatisation. I want to emphasise that the primary objective of Dr Wim de Villiers’ investigation into the affairs of the Post Office is not necessarily privatisation. In the first place it is concerned with the revision of structure, strategy and policy in regard to provision of services with a view to greater efficiency. It is a question of investigating a variety of matters. However, it is not aimed at the pursuit of privatisation. Up to now Dr de Villiers has drawn important conclusions and the inquiry is making very good progress. To a large extent it is supported by departmental experts on the financial and economic side and in the sphere of engineering. It is a very smooth-functioning machine and we hope to receive the final results soon. I want to inform hon members that very interesting findings are being made, because a wealth of data has been built up over the years and is all being interpreted now. This should enable us to determine what steps will be the correct ones.

Since the total demand for telephone services is diminishing—as I also said in my budget speech—a new market is now developing for sophisticated services such as teletex, data lines, Beltel and motorphones. We must bear in mind, though, that this is a small market which consists of scarcely 6% or 7% of telephone users, and of course it requires enormously high capital investment. This matter is also being exhaustively investigated and we ought to be in a position to give more attention to it soon.

The hon member for Umlazi also referred to the uneconomic services. As hon members know, the loss on the postal service for the 1988-89 financial year will amount to R204 million. It will be R44 million on the public telegram service. As the hon member correctly observed, this is being made good by means of cross-subsidisation, which is also unsound. I hope to be able to address this matter too in the near future. I listened with great interest to the hon member for Umlazi’s suggestions and proposals in respect of the postal service, and we shall definitely give attention to them.

†The hon member mr Derby-Lewis …

Oh, leave him alone! [Interjections.]

The hon member also suffers from the habit of speaking on issues without doing his homework well, and that is something which is common among backbenchers. [Interjections.] However, I must add that the hon member does his homework as a rule.

He referred to British Telecom and the watchdog and the poor reports that have been received from the United Kingdom in this regard. I made it my business to go and hear at first hand what the position was. I had discussions with the people intimately involved in this and I can tell the hon member it is quite true that there are some defects in the way in which they have done it, but that is why we are in the fortunate position to learn from their mistakes. That is exactly what we have done and are still doing and I believe we shall be able to come forward with at least an improvement.

The Germans have completed their investigation and the report is to be released. They are working in the same direction, but they also do not want to commit themselves at this stage.

As the hon member indicated, privatisation did take place to a certain extent in the United Kingdom and also in France, but there are a number of other countries which are at present doing the same thing that we are doing. By putting together our common sources of knowledge we shall be able to avoid many of the pitfalls that we would otherwise have fallen into.

I also want to give the requested explanation of the reduction in receipts from profit-sharing, item 4.8.3. The reduction is due to several factors, among others the phasing out of electromechanical telephone exchange apparatus, the manufacture of which gave high profits as it was well established and efficient, and its replacement by new types of equipment on which no profit-sharing is as yet payable. It is a process.

Another consideration is that many components of the new equipment are still imported which, owing to adverse exchange rates of the rand, increases costs and reduces the profits that can be shared.

I cannot reply to all the queries, because I could not write fast enough, but the hon member must address me further on that at a later stage.

*The hon member for Umhlatuzana dealt with the flood damage very skillfully and effectively. I found it very interesting that he said that the Free State was going to acquire a harbour and perhaps, too, declare itself a republic. We sincerely hope that the damage, in the Free State too, will not be all that heavy.

I should just like to state here that all of us were shocked by the flood disaster in Natal in 1987, and the present flood disaster in the Free State and the Northern Cape. I am very pleased that the workers of the Post Office and Telecommunications Services were able to make a positive contribution by repairing this damage as quickly as possible and restoring conditions to normal in their sphere of operations. Together with the hon member for Umhlatuzana I should like to convey sincere thanks to the Post Office and Telecommunication Service workers for the great zeal with which they did this. I know about the nights on end which they worked through, and I know that they really went out of their way to repair the damage.

As hon members will remember we issued a postage stamp with a 10 cent surcharge after the flood disaster in Natal. This came to an end in February of 1988 as far as Natal was concerned. I should like to give my colleague the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development a larger amount, but I have authorisation from the Postmaster General to tell him that by tomorrow I shall be issuing a cheque for the amount of R900 000 to him for utilisation in Natal.

These stamps are now being bought again with great enthusiasm from all our post offices, and as from 1 March 1988 the proceeds will be utilised for the National Disaster Fund and I shall also convey this to my hon colleague. I also want to thank the Post Office workers sincerely for the assistance rendered in this connection.

†The hon member for Mooi River referred to the fact that subscribers connected to manual ex changes paid higher tariffs than subscribers connected to automatic exchanges. The hon member must please bear with me because I also cannot understand this note I received. It reads as follows:

Obviously the hon member and I must get together because both of us must be informed about this. I will see to it that the hon member receives a proper reply.

The hon member also particularly referred to the standard of telecommunication and postal services in the country districts, and I agree wholeheartedly that we must ensure that those services are as good and of as high a standard as the services in our cities and towns. We have taken note of what the hon member said.

*The hon member for Aliwal also discussed services in the country districts, and I want to thank him for bringing this to our attention once again, because the people who assist us there are the salt of the earth. Sometimes they also live under difficult circumstances there. We shall ensure that a far higher standard is maintained there. I thought the hon member was a very calm member, but I think the way he went for the hon member for Ventersdorp was quite justified.

And missed him completely!

I did not know he could become so excited, but no one blames him for doing so.

I have already replied to the hon member for East London North. He put a question to me about optical fibre. I shall get hold of the details in this regard and inform the hon member about it.

With that I want to conclude and thank hon members sincerely for their contributions. I am looking forward to having a fruitful discussion during the Committee Stage and at the Third Reading.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—102: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mart, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—24: Burrows, R M; Dalling, D J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, P W A; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Coetzee, H J; Le Roux, F J.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have to announce that the UDP will today withdraw from the activities of the House of Representatives until further notice.

Our act in doing so is an act of protest against the tyranny of and abuse of the Public Safety Act, No 3 of 1953, by the Government in prohibiting the Committee for the Defence of Democracy from carrying on or performing any activity or acts whatsoever.

This action, following the previous clampdown on various other democratic bodies, is steering South Africa on a road of conflict and we of the UDP cannot condone or approve of the activities of the Government.

The only organisations that are affected by the Public Safety Act are organisations within the Black, Coloured and Indian communities whereas the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging and the Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging can carry on their activities with impunity.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Today I want to state clearly for the record that the LP has never been anti-Muslim. Nor will the LP ever be anti-Muslim. Rumours are being spread that this party is anti-Muslim. The LP is not based on religious differences, however; the LP was established to combat the differences in the political, economical and social spheres and to promote well-being in these spheres. This is a most important aspect which affects a large section of our community, viz our Muslim pilgrims.

These people prepare themselves for the pilgrimages for years. At the end of their lives, when they retire on pension, they decide to undertake the pilgrimage once and for all and to go on hadj. They are extremely disappointed when they are faced with tremendous problems at the end of the journey.

Before continuing, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs most sincerely for agreeing at the last moment to attend the debate. I appreciate what they did in this regard tremendously. I also want to thank them sincerely for their willingness to adjust their schedules in such a way that they could come and listen to the problems which face our Muslim pilgrims. It is not always easy to understand the kind of problems these people experience.

These people’s problems do not start right here in South Africa, however; on the contrary, they have to face their most serious problems when they reach Jedda. Worst of all—and this is what hurts these people most—is the fact that after scraping together all their savings, they find that they have to deal with subagents. There are many agents who cater for these tours, but these people still find that they have to deal with subagents.

These subagents make wonderful promises. They promise the people that they need not worry about anything until they reach their destination, that accommodation will be arranged and that all the other necessary things will be done. On more than one occasion, however, these people have found on reaching their destination that that was not the case at all. They find themselves on the streets with bigger problems than they could ever have imagined.

I should like to quote from South and more specifically from a letter from Aisha Galant of Sherwood Park.

†Mrs Galant, I take it, champions the cause of these people. She has written several letters to the Government and has been involved in this particular work since before 1984. I want to quote from the section of South in which the problems these people encounter have been written about. Of course, the problems arise mainly because of these subagents. The heading reads: “Lone Bid to end Hadj rip-offs.”

These people pay out a large sum of money, only to find when they get to their destination that things are not as promised. I think they have made several deputations to the Government with regard to the establishment of a central booking office. They have made an attempt, therefore, to prevent things from going wrong because of too many cooks having spoilt the broth. They have always found, after having arrived at their destination, that they had to pay for everything wherever they went. I now quote from South-.

I want to quote from a paragraph further on, Sir:

I want the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs to note this especially. These people would prefer to have a central office at which they can make their bookings, instead of having to work through all these agents and subagents. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will consider establishing a central booking office. At least then these people can know that their money is in safe hands.

While we are carrying out this exercise of trying to eliminate the problems that these people are experiencing, I should also point out that they asked that a centre be established at which these people can be given the necessary assistance. This is particularly important when they get to Jedda. When they arrive there they find themselves without accommodation, or they find themselves in a wood and iron shack which is sometimes used as a storeroom—I have read all about this. Even the Hadj from Malaya complained bitterly about the conditions in Jedda. These people have requested, therefore, that a centre be established at which they can obtain information, receive medical treatment and obtain advice in respect of any problems they may be experiencing.

We know for a fact that there are other problems as well at this particular time. Some of these problems have been brought to the notice of the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. I wish to quote from a letter in which the Department of Foreign Affairs asked these people to form a Hadj committee. The letter reads:

The letter I am quoting from was written during 1984.

Mr Chairman, it is all very well to ask them to form a Hadj committee, but I want to go a little further and ask whether it will not be possible for the Government to get this committee off the ground, because I feel that this committee should be represented countrywide. It should have representatives from all the provinces so that there is at least adequate representation. The Government can take the initiative to form the Hadj committee and thereafter allow these people to carry on the work of the committee. It is difficult for the people because they do not know who will come forward. I would like to know whether it is possible for the Government to take the initiative to form the Hadj committee and in so doing give these people a start.

Mr Chairman, other hon members will definitely point out what internal problems they have been experiencing as far as accommodation, and other things are concerned. There were also further letters in which these people complained bitterly about the conditions they experienced whilst being on pilgrimage. I also want to thank the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs for having answered practically all the correspondence that was submitted to them.

Mr Chairman, there are two points I wish to make in conclusion. Firstly, as far as transport from here to Jedda is concerned, I believe the pilgrims have to go via Nairobi where they are treated with the utmost disrespect. These people feel that it is about time the Government did something about this matter and perhaps considered another route to Jedda. Perhaps they could consider establishing a consulate at Jedda. I do not know what the foreign relations between South Africa and the government of Saudi Arabia are like, but something should be done in that regard, as something like 3 000 to 4 000 pilgrims leave South Africa annually. Surely the Government should do something in order to lighten the burden of these people, in view of the vast numbers of them who leave from this country.

Therefore, Mr Chairman, I ask that everything possible be done to assist the pilgrims.

Mr Chairman, before I begin my speech, I want to put on record that I see that the Official Opposition is not in the House today. As a Muslim I feel that those hon members should rather have remained here and taken part in the debate, than to issue a statement and withdraw from the House. [Interjections.] They must remember that the Muslims vote in elections as well. They must not expect the Muslims to vote for them in future. We are going to make sure that that does not happen. [Interjections.]

I support the motion of the hon member for Bishop Lavis. I can assure the hon member that the Muslim community in South Africa is going to welcome the motion. I find it very strange that the Government is always saying they respect all religions, yet they have done nothing about this over the past few years.

Our people suffer when they want to go abroad or want to visit Mecca, because of the sanctions and boycotts against South Africa and the evil system of apartheid. As hon members know, 70% of those who undertake the journey to Mecca are over 50 years old.

Some people save all their lives in order to undertake such a journey to Mecca. Some of them are so disheartened that they have come to us to ask what they can do and whether we cannot help them to solve the problems they have been experiencing. Some of our pilgrims were stranded at airports in Zimbabwe last year. One of our hon Ministers in this Ministers’ Council had to rush about to get them back to their destinations.

There was a certain travel agent in 1985—I am not going to mention his name—who made reservations for people who wanted to travel to Mecca. As you know, Sir, the people’s money was taken, but the reservations were never made. When the people arrived at the airport in Jedda, it was to find that no hotel reservations had been made for them. Some of these people are poor; they live from hand to mouth. Some of them had to return to South Africa after having waited at the airport for days to get a seat on an aeroplane. They could not do what they had wanted to do in going to Mecca, even after having saved all their lives in order to undertake such a journey. When they got back to South Africa, the chap had disappeared. The travel agent in question was nowhere to be found, and even today they do not know where he is. Sir, this person was attached to a very large company in Cape Town, but what did they tell these people? They said they could not help; he was simply one of their agents and he had never paid in their money.

A further problem is obtaining a visum to enter Saudi Arabia. It takes months to obtain a visum. Then one has not even mentioned the long journey we have to undertake to get there. If one lives in Cape Town, one has to fly from here to Johannesburg, from Johannesburg to Nairobi, and from Nairobi to Jedda; or one can fly to Zimbabwe and fly to Jedda from there. The return journey to South Africa is a problem as well. One sits waiting for a seat on an aeroplane for days.

I am pleased to see that the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs is here, because I want to make a proposal today. I want to ask whether the international section at the D F Malan Airport cannot be used by our people when they make this journey. Sir, when people go to Mecca the whole family sees them off. It is traditional for the whole family to go to the airport to see them off. The international section is a white elephant at the moment in any case; it is empty. Why can we not use this section during the period between April and the end of July, when our people travel to Mecca and return again respectively? Sir, I do not know whether you have been at the airport when these people leave. The airport is extremely full when that happens. I do not want to criticise the people who are in control of the airport, but I know that they are nervous when all these people arrive there. It is not a matter of a few hundred people, but a few thousand who are there on a Sunday afternoon. The airport staff get nervous, because there are other flights that have to leave at the same time. I am referring to the normal flights that fly from Cape Town to Johannesburg or Port Elizabeth, for example.

Why can we not accommodate these people in the international section of the airport? Surely they will not bother anyone. Nor will they have problems. Sometimes the aeroplanes are delayed by an hour. Everyone wants to greet one when one goes to Mecca. This is a centuries old tradition. We shall not be able to change it. Why can we not get a direct flight from Johannesburg to Jedda? I know the hon the Deputy Minister is going to say that the authorities in Saudi Arabia will not permit us to land there, but there are other ways of getting around the problem. Why can we not involve a private company in this? Why can we not contract a private company so that they can get the necessary permits to land there? A number of companies have tried to do so, but the Government did not want to permit this.

I do not want to go any further, because quite a few hon members still have something to say on this subject.

Mr Chairman, before I start, I would like to say that I am speaking on behalf of all pilgrims, those who leave our shores for Lourdes, Jerusalem and India. I request that the Government give all assistance to pilgrims who leave South Africa.

Apartheid makes it difficult for our people to go on pilgrimage. As soon as they arrive in some countries, they are made to sit at airports, all herded together. Sometimes they have to sit there for a day, and sometimes they have to sit there for longer than a day. We appeal to the Government to make it easier for pilgrims by arranging flights to friendly countries, like the Comoro Islands and from there to Saudi Arabia. Our people’s identity documents are treated with contempt in some countries.

I should like to concentrate on the circumstances people find themselves in before they leave our shores. I am referring to the local airports. It has been noted that people are cordoned off when they leave for Mecca, or when they arrive back from Mecca. Well-wishers are very emotional when people leave on a pilgrimage. I appeal to the Government to make it easier for people at local airports to see off their loved ones.

I should also like to request that incentives be made available to pilgrims in respect of air travelling costs and hotel accommodation.

In the past it was difficult to bring in holy water from Mecca. I believe this matter has now been taken care of. We call it zam zam water. It is now possible for people to bring holy water into South Africa.

I know that there are many other hon members who wish to say something on this matter, but I should like to repeat that it is very important for pilgrims to go on pilgrimage. Encouragement must be given from all quarters, especially from our Government.

Mr Chairman, in 1986 my wife and I had the honour of going to Mecca in Saudi Arabia to perform the holy pilgrimage. For this we have thanked Almighty God every day of our lives since our return from the Holy City. This holy pilgrimage is one of the cardinal principles of Islam. As a Muslim, one is required to fulfil this obligation once in a lifetime if one has the financial means to do so.

Approximately 3 000 pilgrims leave the shores of South Africa yearly to perform the holy pilgrimage. We are in the position that there are no diplomatic relations between the South African Government and the government of Saudi Arabia. This causes undue problems for pilgrims from South Africa.

The pilgrims have to travel from Jan Smuts Airport by BOAC, KLM and Swissair to Nairobi. There they are transferred to the airlines of Saudi Arabia. The biggest problem they encounter en route is at Nairobi. The people there are arrogant and disrespectful, and they are often caught pilfering the luggage of the pilgrims who are waiting there to be transferred.

Mr Chairman, travelling to Mecca and performing the holy pilgrimage should be a hassle-free journey. While en route one should build oneself up spiritually to perform the pilgrimage to the best of one’s ability. There are two very important questions I want to put here this afternoon. Firstly, I want to know whether it would be possible for the SAA to fly the South African pilgrims to Jedda via the Comoro Islands. Secondly, I want to know what the possibilities are of opening a consulate office or an information centre in Jedda. This office can see to the welfare of the pilgrims when they arrive in Jedda and before they depart from Jedda after performing their religious duties.

It is a great pity that while we are in the Western Cape where there is a larger number of Moslems than anywhere else in South Africa, the Islamic bodies here in Cape Town did not attend to these problems earlier. When I say earlier—it was rightly said by the hon member for Gelvandale that people have been going on pilgrimage for centuries, from the time of the Prophet Abraham—I mean it is a great pity that these problems were not addressed here in the Western Cape as a point of departure.

Mr Chairman, you have heard here this afternoon that there are fly-by-night agents who rip off the pilgrims. After saving for a lifetime to go on pilgrimage, these pilgrims are ripped off just before their departure for Mecca. The Government must address this point very seriously. They must step in and stop these fly-by-night agents. They should encourage pilgrims to make use of recognised travel agents in the Republic of South Africa.

Lastly, Sir, when we speak about pilgrims, it is a very sore point because it affects one’s community. What we should endeavour to do is to restore the relationship between the South African Government and the government of Saudi Arabia.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon we are speaking about the Holy Land. The pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the few fundamental principles of Islam. Every year hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world perform this pilgrimage. Tens of thousands of South Africans also visit the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Over the past few years there have been a number of complaints ranging from poor accommodation—which we have heard about this afternoon—to travel, and so forth. This is partly attributable to the lack of expertise on the part of the travel agents, as well as to politics. Travel agents arrange all bookings and accommodation for the South African pilgrims.

Another problem is that pilgrims have difficulty in obtaining visas—as has been pointed out here today—simply because South Africa has no diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia and poor diplomatic ties in general because of her politics. In more cases than one, South Africans are screened more thoroughly than any other Muslim pilgrims.

Accommodation is arranged by travel agents under very poor conditions. Pilgrims are under the impression that the bookings are made. Travel agents negotiate fairly good accommodation. The time has come that travel agents should act more responsibly in this regard.

Nevertheless, in spite of all their helplessness in the face of all these hassles, the pilgrims try to overlook them because they want to accomplish that once-in-a-lifetime feat of visiting the Holy Land and the birthplace of the Prophet.

Mr Chairman, the opening speech of the hon member for Bishop Lavis gave me the impression that he finds it very hard to gain Muslim support and that is why he moved this motion. He said the Labour Party would stand up for the Muslims, and so perhaps he will win the next election after all. [Interjections.]

The LP has been in power since 1984 and what have they done about this situation? Why has it suddenly become necessary to move a motion without notice, because this situation has prevailed for many, many years? The hon the Leader of the House visited Mecca a few years ago and what has he done? Did the LP simply bring this matter up in order to score a few political points? I have spent no less than R25 000 out of my own pocket in an effort to solve this problem. [Interjections.]

Where are your receipts?

I can say with confidence that the Freedom Party of South Africa has been negotiating the following: A shorter and direct route for Muslim pilgrims to Mecca; free medical care and assistance for our pilgrims …

Mr Chairman, on a point or order: The hon member is misleading the House. She said she had spent R25 000; can she prove it? [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to produce a statement. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, when those hon members were chatting, I kept quiet and listened to them. This is a very important point and they should listen. If they want to ask any questions, they are welcome to do so. [Interjections.]

Order!

Thirdly, we negotiated the issue of visas for South African Muslim pilgrims to Mecca. Fourthly, we negotiated a reduction of approximately 20% in air fares for Muslim pilgrims to Mecca and Jedda. These negotiations are at a very advanced stage between the authorities on both sides.

I have been negotiating with various countries and have received letters from them, written in Arabic and not in English or Afrikaans, because if one speaks about “hadj” and Muslims, one has to speak Arabic. [Interjections.] It is no use consulting the Saudi government in English or Afrikaans. One’s representative must be well versed in an Arabic language. [Interjections.]

In the sixth instance I have discussed this matter with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. On behalf of the Freedom Party and the Muslim pilgrims I have negotiated this issue and discussed these problems with Middle Eastern authorities in letters written in Arabic. [Interjections.] I would like the LP to show me an Arabic typewriter or one Arabic letter. [Interjections.] I have an Arabic typewriter in my office which I bought out of my own pocket. I have been negotiating with various countries—I am not talking about Saudi Arabia alone, but about all the Middle Eastern countries—and one can only communicate with these countries in Arabic; not in any other language. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I have written letters to Arab countries all over the world. I have also received replies from these countries in English. [Interjections.] An issue of this nature—I am referring to the Muslims—is a very important one, and it was, in fact, a sore point. These things took place last year and the year before and if the LP is concerned about the Muslims, they are now trying to score points and are looking for cheap publicity.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can the hon member for Tafelberg read to us from the letters which she sent overseas?

Mr Chairman, it seems to me that the hon member for Nuweveld is trying to waste my time. I ask him please not to waste my time. The hon member can write me a letter and I will write him one in answer. [Interjections.] I can read these letters. Mr Chairman, if you will allow me I will read the letter. That is no problem. But what about Hansard? [Interjections.] Sir, may I read the first paragraph in Arabic?

Order! It is not necessary to read it.

Hon members are asking me to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I have visited the Middle East and I have been overseas. There was an article in a newspaper with regard to the Muslim pilgrimage from South Africa to Saudi Arabia. [Interjections.] Those hon members are only talking; I talk less but I do my work quietly. The article appeared on 5 March 1988 in the Munn, which means “olden days” in Arabic.

Order!

Is the hon member for Tafelberg referring to an article in The Argus? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, this is an overseas publication. There is also a photograph of a Mrs Hoosen in this newspaper. [Interjections.] I am talking about Islam and about pilgrimage.

Read the letter!

Sir, I want to refer to something—a very sore point to our Muslim people— which took place a few years back and again last year. However, not one hon member in the LP took up this matter. It was discussed only by myself and my party. If the LP is really concerned about the Muslims, they must discuss issues like the Ahmaddiya issue, the High Level Road Cemetery issue and the Long Street Mosque issue. However, I am the only person who speaks about these issues. Not one single hon member of Parliament who is a Muslim—and a member of the LP—has the guts to speak on behalf of the Muslims.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Tafelberg is not discussing the motion now, but is talking about cemeteries. The motion is somewhat different.

I am speaking about Muslim cemeteries. We are discussing the Muslim issue.

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

Very well, Mr Chairman. I feel that if one wants to discuss the sore issue of the pilgrimage, one must first know exactly what the pilgrimage is all about. One must know all about Mecca and Jedda. Hon members are talking and laughing about it. However, this is not a joke.

If we are true Muslims or true Christians we would know exactly what a pilgrimage means. We should not even mention pilgrimage if we do not know the meaning of it. I believe it is something that is extremely important, and the issue we are dealing with here is not something that can be resolved overnight.

We have no representation in Saudi Arabia. The moment one lands at an airport in Saudi Arabia and produces one’s green passport, one is recognised as being South African and told to go back. That is not only the case in Saudi Arabia, but also in many countries throughout the world. Never theless, we should try to find a solution to this problem; and we are only going to find a solution if we all sit around a table and negotiate. Once we have found the solution we should submit our papers to the Government of the RSA in which we tell them what we want. It is no use talking. This is not the first time we have brought this matter up; we have been talking about it for many years.

It is not the fault of this Government that thousands of our people are left stranded at their destination. It is the fault of those agencies here who take those people’s money. In 1981 I was held at Jedda airport. There were 350 of us who had left from Johannesburg for Jedda airport, and the moment we landed we found out that the agency had “disappeared”. Of course, we had problems getting visas, and no one could help us. I looked for the agent but he had “disappeared”. He had taken our money and was gone. He had not even booked our accommodation. I eventually got hold of a passport and spoke to the immigration department. I told him: “Look, these people have come from South Africa. You have to issue them visas.” He refused and said that if people landed in that country they had to have a visa or someone to vouch for them. I then told him that we had no consul there or anyone who could help South Africans. He again refused. I then spoke to him in Arabic and discovered that one could only solve problems if one communicated with those people in their own language. Many of those officials at the Saudi Arabian airport, I discovered, spoke neither English nor other international languages. They could only communicate with one in Arabic. They could perhaps say hello or goodbye, but if one wanted to explain to them exactly what one wanted for one’s people, one had to communicate with them in their own language.

It is no use our saying that the Government of South Africa must do something about it. We, the Muslim community of South Africa, must first do something about it ourselves. We must stop all these subagents. If we suspect that some of them are taking our people for a ride we should simply remember that the police stations are open. We should also tell our people that if they have any problems they should explain these in writing.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis mentioned Mrs Galant. Mrs Galant spoke to me last year. I am not prepared to say openly here what Mrs Galant told me. It was not my business and I am not prepared to bring it out into the open. I said to her that I understood and appreciated what she was doing for our people, but I told her that if she wanted me to assist her she was to remember that our Government can never be expected to spend one cent paying for our pilgrimages. When one goes on a pilgrimage—one talks about “hadj” or “umra”—one must have money that one worked hard for, that one sweated for. One cannot simply borrow money from the bank or one’s friends or expect charity. The money one uses must be money which one worked hard for, money which one sweated for. After all, one is not going there on holiday or on one’s honeymoon; one is going to face one’s mighty Allah.

We hope so.

I was there; the hon member need not worry about that.

The money one uses for “hadj” or “umra” must be “clean” money for which one worked. Many of our people who want to go on “hadj” save for years and years. There are some, however, who know little about Islam and who, once they arrive in Saudi Arabia, go shopping first. I was present to see that. They go shopping and spend their money on this and that and afterwards cry that they have no money. Our Government, therefore, can never be expected to help each and every one of those people. This Government is not a Muslim government, so we cannot expect to take and spend this Government’s money. We cannot expect just to say to them that our people are going on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

All we can do is provide them with free medical assistance. Our Muslim organisation is sponsoring three medical doctors on these pilgrimages.

The only way in which we are going to find a solution is to work out exactly what to tell our Government. As we all know, we cannot bring this out into the open. The moment we say to the Saudi Arabians that they should negotiate with our Government, organisations get banned, and there is nothing that we can do about it.

As far as travelling is concerned, we shall have to use another route. We can even involve the SAA, but we have to come up with a solution. The moment that other countries latch on to us, we are going to be banned. If, therefore, we are really sincere about helping our people we have to come up with something. Nobody else can do it for us.

Mr Chairman, my name is Ismail Richards, a name I am very proud of. It is a fact that I am a Muslim. It is also a fact that I am proud of being a Muslim. Moreover, it is a fact that I am a South African, that I speak both Afrikaans and English, and that I am proud of the language I speak. I do not try to hide the fact that I speak the language I speak. I shall never try to hide the fact that I was born here. So let that be put on record.

The motion under discussion deals with an emotional issue. The pilgrimage issue is an emotional issue because it is compulsory for every Muslim who has the necessary means—not only financial—to undertake a pilgrimage.

†Mr Chairman, I want to say to you first of all that in the short time I have been in Parliament I have tried, in my humble way, to make life bearable for those who are less privileged than me.

*I am not boasting about this; I do not want to talk about what I have done. [Interjections.] What has been done, and the attempts that have been made to help people, will be recorded in history one day.

†I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is present, because last year, in my hour of need, I could knock on his door, as a friend, and say to him: “Sir, I have problems.” I did not only receive a sympathetic ear but also his undivided attention. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to know what party the hon member belonged to when he approached the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, it is an established fact that I was a member of the LP at that stage, and it is mere coincidence that I am also the deputy leader of that party. [Interjections.]

Do not try to score points!

As I said, when I talk about my religion I do so with the necessary respect. I do not want to make a fuss about my religion, because it is very dear to me. That is why I do not make interjections when people of the Islamic or any other religion are speaking, because I know how people feel about their religion. The hon member for Tafelberg said she had also been on a pilgrimage. In that case one would have expected her to discuss these matters with greater sensitivity.

†I should like to finish what I was saying. I said that when I went to my friend, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, he not only gave me a sympathetic ear but also his undivided attention and all the time necessary for me to state my case and to come to the aid of those people who were stranded in Harare.

That is the kind of problem those pilgrims are faced with year in and year out. Let me start at the beginning, however. Muslims did not come to this country of their free will.

*Sir, the Muslims did not come to this country of their own free will. The Dutch forefathers brought us here against our will.

As slaves.

They did not only bring us here as slaves; they brought us here because we stood up for our rights in our own country.

†We came here as political exiles. Tuang Yusuf, whose tomb is here in Faure, did not come to this country as a slave. The same applies to many of the other Moslems who came to this country. They did not come here as slaves. That is a misconception. They came here because they were regarded as a danger within their own country. They could not tolerate the presence of an oppressor within their own country.

*Sir, let us get this straight:We did not come to this country of our own free will. However, we are here now and we enjoy living here.

Like Gallatjie.

Like Gallatjie.

However, like all other groups in this country …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Those two hon members at the back there—they call themselves Whips—must not call me “Gallatjie”, because I do not belong to their party. I have nothing to do with them. They must stop calling me “Gallatjie”, because if they knew what it meant, they would not have done so. They will regret it one day.

Mr Chairman, I take exception to this interference …

Order! Will those two hon members please withdraw the word “Gallatjie” which the hon member for Tafelberg accused them of having used?

Mr Chairman, we were not talking about her; she is Mrs Hoosen. [Interjections.]

Order! The word is unparliamentary nonetheless. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I proceed? This is no joke …

Order! No, I want the hon members for Bishop Lavis and Swartland to withdraw that word if they used it.

Mr Chairman, we were honestly not referring to the hon member for Tafelberg; we were talking among ourselves.

Mr Chairman, I can call on Hansard to … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Toekomsrus may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I really must object, because you are playing games with me now. When that hon member rises on a point of order, it should have a bearing on what I am saying—not on what somebody else in the House has said.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Tafelberg must contain herself. The hon member for Toekomsrus may proceed.

Sir, as far as I am concerned we are dealing with a very serious matter. I say this as someone who has gone on pilgrimage and experienced the problems which pilgrims encounter. We are trying to point out what problems the pilgrims encounter in the process of trying to fulfil their obligations, and I expect the hon member for Tafelberg to support us in kind. I expect of her, at least, to give me the opportunity to state the case of the pilgrims.

Sir, we are not asking for Government intervention; we are asking the Government to lend a sympathetic ear to the problems which pilgrims encounter in the whole process of fulfilling their pilgrimage. The problem, as I see it, is that there is absolutely no control or contact. Firstly, there is no contact with the government of the country which we are visiting; and, secondly, there is no control over those who are entrusted with the arrangements of pilgrims. It is time that we looked at the whole structure of travel agencies in this country. I say this with great respect because, as a pilgrim, I went to a travel agent and received excellent service. I have nothing but praise for the person who handled my travel arrangements. I did not encounter a single unnecessary problem. However, there are thousands of pilgrims who go year after year and who do experience problems. One must not forget—other hon members in this Chamber mentioned this—that the majority of pilgrims are people over the age of 50.

I would say that 50% of pilgrims are pensioners. What is even more surprising, however, is that the greater majority of pilgrims are poor people. They have to save throughout their lives to fulfil their obligation of pilgrimage. It is these people that we have to take care of. These people have never travelled in their lives, and all of a sudden they are engaged in a major form of travel. Their experience of travelling is thus absolutely limited and they are dependent on the ability of the travel agent to guide them and to prepare a programme that will be easy for them to follow.

The suggestion that the international airport at D F Malan be opened is fine, but I would like to go one step further. Pilgrims must depart from here and fly directly to the next stage of their journey, and not to Jan Smuts airport. There are no direct flights to Jedda, and people have to travel to Harare or Nairobi in vast numbers. This is what I mean when I talk about control. Can pilgrims not be flown from Cape Town—because this is where the greater majority of pilgrims come from— directly to their destination? This will save them an en route stopover at Jan Smuts airport. Moreover, the relationship between our Government and the government of the Comoros is a good one. That, in my opinion, is the ideal alternative to the route via Harare or Nairobi.

Those of us who have travelled on those routes know that we go to a country where we are not welcome. If we travel to the Comoros, we know we will be welcome there. All South Africans are, in fact, welcome on these islands. The SATS must negotiate to fly that route.

International facilities have been provided. I am not even referring to the article in yesterday’s Sunday Tribune. I shall try to confine myself to this issue. I believe that if the route via the Comoros could be established, a great number of travelling problems would be resolved. It would certainly also eliminate the visa problems.

As a result of the non-diplomatic relationship between the two countries, people cannot get visas before they leave. They have to get their visas when they get to Jedda airport. That is where the problem lies. Sometimes thousands of people arrive there at the same time, and it is humanly and physically impossible for any office to cope with the issuing of visas. It would be totally unfair to say that the Saudi government makes it unduly difficult. It is not their problem. It is just not physically possible for them to handle it.

However, if we go via the Comoros where there is an established Saudi government mission, visas could be issued at that point. That would eliminate a great number of problems. When one gets to Jedda airport, one is in the right psychological state to go to Mecca. This is important. People psyche themselves up over the months as they prepare themselves spiritually to go on pilgrimage. Now they still have to deal with all these in-between interferences. Is this fair to any person who is spiritually ready to face the Almighty God and who is ready beg God for forgiveness? This is the whole purpose of their going to Mecca—to beg for forgiveness. We have to find solutions to these problems. People talk about medical problems and finding doctors in Mecca. There is no shortage of that in Mecca. The free medical service available to all pilgrims who visit Mecca outshines the services in our own country. Although I have great respect for the medical services in this country, I want to say that this is the least of my problems. People complain about the food problems, but those are minor problems. There is an abundance of that kind of facility in Mecca.

However, there is a lack of communication and contact, and that is what we must establish. We should ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to investigate the possibility of establishing a mission or a fully-fledged diplomatic office there. This should either be done in Saudi Arabia or in the Comoros, whichever route we are going to take. We must speak to the Department of Transport—the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs is here—and see how we can obviate the transport problems.

I do not think any pilgrim comes to the Government to beg. They do not want these things for nothing, but they want a fair deal and a safer means of travel. In 1985 I travelled with a woman who developed gangrene in Mecca. That could have happened anywhere in the world, but she was on her way home, and everybody advised her to get home as soon as possible and not have the operation in Mecca, because this would have meant an undue delay. However, we had to travel via Nairobi, where South Africans are totally welcome, and they were unsympathetic to the plight of that woman. Something which brings tears to the eyes of most people—it certainly brings tears to my eyes—is to see people handling other people as non-humans. However, this is the kind of problem the pilgrims are faced with year after year.

Another problem is the question of unscrupulous travel agents who are out to make a fast buck. They exploit people. One does not want to shout this out all the time, but it is so—it is a reality. While I am a firm believer in the free-enterprise system, under which a person who renders a service is entitled to make a profit, I am opposed to the blatant exploitation and, worse than that, the sheer robbery that is taking place. These are the things we have to look at.

I am not asking—the hon member will understand this—a Christian government to look after a Muslim issue, but as a Christian government they are responsible for me. The one thing which we have enjoyed in this country since time immemorial is absolute freedom of religion. Therefore, we are entitled to protection from the NP Government or from any other government for that matter. We are entitled to this because we are citizens of this country. Those pilgrims have a right to call on the Government for protection.

It is easy to say that a pilgrim has the right to choose who is going to make his travel arrangements, but in reality it is not that simple. It is the easiest thing in the world to sell a commodity, but we as a government are responsible for the protection of those innocent people. They do not know better. The great majority of pilgrims are simple people. I am proud to say that the people selling flowers next to OK Bazaars are the kind of people who save all their pennies to fulfil their obligations. Those are the people we have to protect. So it is just too much to expect them to look after their own interests. We have to protect them. We have to see that these indiscriminate, fly-by-night travel agents and some of the others are eliminated.

I think the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has the power to scrutinise the issuing of permits or licences—I do not know under what they operate, but they do operate under something— and to see to it that not every person has free access to making a fast buck overnight, because pilgrims are easy prey.

*The plea that I am addressing to this House on behalf of these poor people comes from the depths of my heart. I ask the hon the Deputyminister to look into this matter.

Mr Chairman, it is a very good thing that this motion has assumed a very serious tone, because I think the one issue on which we should all agree, is freedom of religion. No mockery should be made of this matter, and therefore one welcomes the seriousness with which hon members who have spoken on the subject have approached it, and this applies specifically to the hon member who has just sat down. He made a plea on behalf of those people who wish to go to Mecca, who are not all that well off, but have saved a great deal of money to be able to go there. I might add that some hon members may be surprised that I should discuss this matter, but the hon member Mr Solomon will know that I represented a Port Elizabeth constituency with a fairly large Muslim community for a considerable period. That was when the Coloureds were still on the voters’ list.

The good old days!

That was until 1958. Therefore I do have some experience of this matter and I got along very well with those people. I appreciate the seriousness with which they approach this matter, and that is why I am so pleased to be able to take part in this discussion.

The debate may be divided into two parts. I do not want to discuss those issues that will be dealt with by my hon colleague, since he is competent enough to reply to them himself. However, there is one point on which we agree, and that is that this is a very sensitive issue, no matter how strongly hon members have appealed here today for better travel and visa facilities as well as better mutual relations between us and other countries. We do not want to spoil things and I do not think there is one hon member in this House who would want to see things spoilt by our having too much to say on an occasion such as this one.

†I want to say straight away that I am impressed by the sincerity of all those hon members, including the hon member for Tafelberg, who have spoken on this issue. I know that the hon member, in her private capacity, has done a considerable amount of work in this regard. She has also done it very, very discreetly. I want to pay her that compliment. She has in no way tried to jeopardise the position of the SA Airways or that of the South African Department of Foreign Affairs. I do think, however, that it is absolutely essential that my hon colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and I, together with hon members in this House as well as in the House of Delegates—because this issue was also raised there—should have a round table conference at some stage or another where we can talk to each other privately and confidentially and where we can have the opportunity of exploring all the ways and means of redressing this whole situation.

I think that would be a wise approach which would pay greater dividends in time to come. Hon members are withholding certain things from me because this is a sensitive debate. Of course, I am also going to withhold certain things from them because I do not think it is in the interests of South Africa to say these things. However, I think a conference of this nature is necessary so that we can thrash out the whole issue and reach some or other understanding and follow a line of action which, in the long run, could pay considerable dividends for South Africa and for the SAA.

Hon members have raised certain issues and I think I am in a position to reply to those issues. The question was asked whether we could not accommodate pilgrims who are on their way to Mecca at the international section of the D F Malan Airport. This issue could be tackled in this way. According to information submitted to me, the international section has already been used to assist the pilgrims and this could become the custom. However, the SAA and the Department of Transport should be notified in advance, ie before the pilgrims are on their way, so that the necessary arrangements can be made. This is something which would be of great assistance to the department and would help them in dealing with those issues raised by hon members.

An issue in regard to travel agencies has been raised. I have discussed this with the department in order to find out whether these journeys cannot be arranged through the SAA without use being made of travel agencies. This can be done of course. However, we in turn can only deal with those countries which are members of lata—the International Air Travel Association. It is only then that we can assist in the bookings. If those countries do not reciprocate, however, we cannot satisfy the travellers. The issue in regard to travel agents falls outside the department of my hon colleague and it is not within my power for me to say anything in that regard.

However, one would like to have the names of those travel agencies who are causing problems, because only then will one be able to deal with the matter. If hon members can draw up a list pertaining to all the problems they are experiencing with travel agencies, and name such agencies, they can then discuss these problems at the conference that I envisage and steps could be taken to rectify the situation.

*There is no doubt that travel agents who do this kind of thing cause the good name of travel agencies much harm. I think there are travel agencies which work very closely with the SAA and the SATS. They do excellent work, have a wonderful reputation and will do nothing wrong. One must stop the fly-by-night agencies, and the only way to do this is by prosecuting them. It is, therefore, possible to attend to this matter.

Finally, we do already have the SA Airways. I am not going to say much about that subject, but some hon members of this House will be aware of what the SAA has been doing recently to accommodate the Muslims.

†In fact, we stuck our necks out, but others were prepared to help us. One must also remember, however, that the enemies of South Africa quite obviously have no respect for freedom of religion and even go so far as to ostracize, embarrass and victimise people of the same religion who have a desire to visit their holy places. That is a fact we should recognise.

*The Government, with the aid of others, is doing everything in its power, and we have often tried to help the people with their problems. The point has been made that we should take people to the Comoro Islands. Suppose we do take them there. We cannot guarantee that they will be able to travel to Jedda from there. What good would that do? Then we ourselves would be responsible for having left people stranded a short distance from their destination. Therefore, sensitive negotiations will have to take place in order to ensure that people will not merely be transported from one place to another, but will in fact reach their final destination.

Mr Chairman, various other hon members here mentioned the Comoro Islands, and it seems to me now that all the plans on which we have worked so hard have been destroyed. I do not know whether the hon the Deputy Minister agrees with me or not. Certain hon members here have mentioned that we can have our people leave from Johannesburg Airport and land on the Comoro Islands. As far as I was concerned those plans were highly confidential. The people knew exactly what to do. We worked hard on all those plans. Then those hon members came along, did their own thing, and destroyed plans we had worked on for many years. I would like the hon the Minister to answer me on that.

Mr Chairman, the point has been made that we should consider whether or not we can have direct flights from here to the Comoros so that people will not have to stop somewhere in Johannesburg or elsewhere. These are all wonderful ideas and one is prepared to consider their practicability, but there is no point in getting pilgrims to, say, the Comoros—I do not say we should take them there—if they cannot get to their destination from there. That is the real issue.

I think I have said enough about this, but if hon members could liaise with the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself we should be able to arrange a conference for some or other time in order to deal with this issue effectively. I should like to thank the hon member for Bishop Lavis for having brought this matter up, because I think we have had a very useful and a good discussion on the issue.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Tafelberg tried to create the impression that the Comoros plan was a secret. It is no longer a secret.

†There is a very good relationship between the Comoros and ourselves, and that is something the whole world knows. We also know that there is an international airport at the Comoros; and the question was put as to whether or not we could reach an agreement with the Comoros in terms of which the pilgrims could travel to the Comoros and then from there to Jedda. Our plan was not to leave them stranded midway. Certainly, no one wants to leave anybody stranded midway to his destination.

The question is: What is the relationship between ourselves and the Comoro Islands?

Sir, I think the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs should rather reply when it comes to international relationships. I merely raised the issue because of the difficulties one might have to face. Obviously the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Transport must work closely together and there must be liaison in this particular regard.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with my hon colleague and I want to thank the hon member for Bishop Lavis sincerely for the interesting motion he tabled today. I also want to tell him immediately that the short notice was no problem to us. We are good friends and we are aware of this problem. I think it is a very good idea for this matter to be thrashed out properly in this House for a change. I want to add that it is always an exceptional privilege to speak in this House.

Grant me an opportunity to begin with some philosophy. The one thing that really struck me about today’s debate—something that is a general occurrence in the South African system— was the proof of the enormous diversity found in South Africa and its people. Everyone has his own language, customs and religion, and today we had a member of the DR Church who was making an appeal in respect of a problem concerning the Muslims. I think that is wonderful. In my opinion that is the crux of the whole solution for South Africa—that we shall understand one another’s problems and take them to heart and try to find a solution for them.

Even if we do have differences in respect of religion and language, there is one common, binding factor—I am sure hon members will agree with me—viz our love for this country. The hon member for Toekomsrus put it so beautifully in his speech, when he said that some people— possibly some of our ancestors—actually came here as slaves. Yet no one is unhappy about the fact that he is living in this country, with all its problems, today. The love for a common father-land is the one binding factor.

Despite differences in political ideologies, all of us in this House and the other Houses have a desire—I saw this so clearly today—to try to negotiate what is best for all the people of this country, and that is quite natural; one must accept that, because no two people are exactly alike. I have given thought to this matter previously, and again today, because the hon members for Bishop Lavis and Toekomsrus have been talking about this matter for some time and therefore one is aware of the background of the situation. It is true that to a Muslim, a visit to Mecca is a pilgrimage. As was said here today, they save all their lives for that pilgrimage. I respect that and the Government will go out of its way to help our people to try to attain that ideal.

That is what the Muslims live for. That is what they strive for and save for. They look forward to it all their lives. It is a meeting with their history and their origins, which not everyone is fortunate enough to experience. In fact, I wonder what percentage of Muslims eventually have the privilege of reaching Mecca. It is probably a very small percentage. We must make it possible for those people to increase this percentage.

Sir, to my knowledge everyone who goes to Mecca returns to this country with all its problems, which is remarkable. They come back as better South Africans and throw in their weight and put their shoulders to the wheel to make this country a better country for all its people.

As a member of the DR Church, like the hon member for Bishop Lavis, I cherish the ideal of visiting Bethlehem. It is much easier to visit Bethlehem than Mecca. One has no problems with passports, visas and so on. Since I also have an ideal, I can understand another man’s ideal very well. I promise that we shall do our best to try to eliminate those problems. I therefore agree with the essence of this motion. We must make every effort to make it as easy as possible for our hon colleagues and their kindred spirits to get there, and especially to return.

After all, that is the problem the hon member for Toekomsrus referred to. It is one thing to experience problems on one’s way to Mecca, but it is rather different to find oneself stranded in Harare on one’s way back. People had to sit in the transit rooms there for days. They were not permitted to leave the airport building. Had it not been for the thoughtfulness of the hon member for Toekomsrus—he took up that problem on behalf of those people and brought it to the attention of people who could solve it—things would not have worked either. In lighter vein I want to tell hon members that the hon member for Toekomsrus can catch a ball that is heading towards him. I saw that with my own eyes on Saturday. He did the same thing last year when he was confronted by that problem.

I should like to refer to some of the speeches that were made here. I want to associate myself with my hon colleague by saying that I was really impressed to see how seriously hon members regard this matter. I know the hon member for Bishop Lavis as someone who concerns himself particularly with the underdog—the poor man. The two of us served on the Standing Committee on Pensions for years. The contribution made by the hon member there was of inestimable value, because he knows how important it is to a person who is starting to get older to satisfy certain needs. It is those older people—I think it was the hon member for Nuweveld who pointed out that 70% of the people who go to Mecca are over the age of 50; that is an interesting point that I did not know—who use their hard-earned savings to make this journey.

I want to associate myself with what my hon colleague, the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs, said. I fear that one of the main reasons for the failure of earlier attempts to deal with the situation successfully can be ascribed to the underhand dealings and conduct of the fly-by-night travel agencies. That is an enormous problem. Sir, I shall tell you in a moment what was done in the past in attempts to make a success of this, attempts that failed because some travel agents refused to see how serious the situation was. I therefore want to associate myself with what my hon colleague said.

The Government has a problem when it comes to travel agents. On the one hand the Government can decide to enforce stricter legislation concerning travel agents. Many of us may feel that this should be done. On the other hand the Government intends to deregulate and privatise. The Government wants to make it easier for people to do business. I am sure hon members agree that this is the direction in which we in South Africa should move. As regards this aspect, the Government therefore has rather a difficult choice. Must it make things more difficult for travel agents, or must it make things easier for them? That is the problem we have to contend with.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to the necessity of a central channel. I agree with him, but want to issue a warning that that central channel should not be the Government. That central channel should still be the private sector if that is at all possible.

The hon member for Nuweveld referred to the different routes—the one over Harare and the other one over Nairobi. The hon member for Toekomsrus also referred to the one over the Comoros. There is a regular flight to the Comoros in any case. The SAA flies to the Comoros on a regular basis. Of course, there is another possibility.

UTA regularly flies from Moroni, the capital city of the Comoros, to Jedda. The problem is that there is a long period of time between flight times. Our relations with the Comoros are good, however. I shall tell hon members in a moment how we are trying to improve our relations with our neighbouring countries. Our relationship with the Comoros is based purely on the granting of mutual assistance. I wish I could show hon members how scientists from this country are teaching the people of the Comoros how to farm. We are helping the Comoros in the sphere of tourism. A beautiful hotel has been built to help that little country to build up its own tourist industry. Assistance is being granted in respect of technical knowledge for the building of roads and houses. There is assistance in respect of environmental conservation. It is this kind of practical assistance to neighbouring countries and other countries which ultimately opens the door to closer and better relations.

This is definitely a possibility that will have to be investigated. At the same time I want to say that in the past there was a very interesting arrangement in terms of which a neutral airline was used to transport our pilgrims to Mecca, but I do not want to elaborate on that now. Unfortunately those plans came to nothing because of underlying disputes among travel agents.

The hon member for Gelvandale requested that all possible assistance be given to pilgrims. I agree with him wholeheartedly. That is the ideal we are striving for.

The hon member Mr Solomon made a very interesting point. He said the Government should go out of its way to improve the relations between South Africa and Saudi Arabia. We should like to improve the relations between South Africa and every country in the world, but this is impossible for various reasons. I have told hon members what we regard as one of the best ways of improving relations. We must truly build bridges.

I should like to give hon members a few examples. Lesotho and South Africa lived like cat and dog for decades. This is something we can discuss when we deal with the Foreign Affairs Vote, however. Lesotho’s Minister of Finance lunched with me this afternoon. Some hon colleagues were there as well and they can attest to what I am going to say now. The moment we signed the Lesotho Highland Water Project, the whole feeling and relationship between the two countries changed.

It is incredible. Today there is the best possible co-operation in all spheres—including the sphere of security. Naturally that is very important to us. Swaziland is another example. Their Minister of Finance was with us this afternoon as well. When we signed contracts with them on certain joint projects, the problems disappeared as if they had never existed.

At present I am involved in very sensitive negotiations with Mozambique concerning Cahora Bassa and the supply of electricity to the Republic. I want to tell hon members today that if we can manage that, the relations between South Africa and Mozambique will also improve overnight.

I now come to the point. We have no official relations with Saudi Arabia, although we do have good relations with important individuals who come here. I want to tell hon members, my Muslim colleagues in this House and the Muslims throughout the country, that when they get to Mecca—I grant every Muslim the opportunity to go there—they will build those bridges between South Africa and Saudi Arabia by their example. I want to tell hon members that the Government and all the people in the country will be grateful for the bridges that they can start building with that country.

I was very interested to hear what the hon member for Tafelberg had to say. She put forward some interesting ideas and I should like to read her Hansard and follow them up.

The hon member for Toekomsrus emphasised that he was proud of being a Muslim. The hon the Minister reminded him that he was a member of the LP, and he said he was proud of that. He emphasised it, however, by saying he was a South African and was proud of being one. I know that all of us in this House can join him in saying that.

The hon member was very grateful about what had happened in respect of the problem in Harare last year. I should like to thank him for that, but I also want to say immediately that in reality the Department of Foreign Affairs was merely the channel through which that problem was solved. It was my hon colleague and his department who ultimately created the true channel that solved that awkward problem.

Reference was made to Mrs Galant’s letters. I am very pleased that she is here today. I really want to pay tribute to a person who views a matter of this nature as seriously as she does, and brings the problems experienced in this connection to the attention of the Department of Foreign Affairs at every possible opportunity. The hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to a few letters. I myself am in possession of a few other letters from Mrs Galant in this connection, letters that we responded to. There is nothing we should like more than to comply with those requests, if only we could find a practical way of doing so. I want to give hon members the assurance, however, that we are giving the necessary attention to these requests.

I want to mention another example of how constant assistance is received from the Department of Foreign Affairs in dealing with problems experienced by people going to Mecca. From time to time the department receives letters from people who have visited Mecca and have experienced problems either on the way there or on the way back. My department goes out of its way to help these people, irrespective of the nature of their problems.

Recently, for example, someone who had lost all his luggage in a city in a well-known country in Africa while on his way to Mecca wrote to the department. He followed all the usual channels according to which luggage is sought, such as contacting the relevant airline, but this did not produce anything. He then approached the Department of Foreign Affairs. At present my department is trying to determine by means of contacts in the country in question—I merely want to say that we have no official relations with that country—whether it is not possible to have the luggage returned. Naturally it is not really the Department of Foreign Affairs’ function to locate lost luggage, but I am using this case to show that we should like to help, and I invite hon members and any people who experience problems to approach the department in this connection, as the hon member for Toekomsrus has done in the past.

I want to conclude by thanking hon members sincerely for raising this problem. I think it is a very good thing to have more discussions on these practical matters which are so important to many people, instead of always being involved in lofty political rhetoric in these Houses. In this way we can show the outside world that Parliament can also get down to basics to solve the problems people have to contend with every day of their lives. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Bishop Lavis and all hon members who took part in the debate.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to thank the two hon Deputy Ministers for the replies they gave us. I also thank hon members who took part in this debate. There are one or two points I want to come back to in the reply.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Sir. I must congratulate the EP on winning the Nissan Shield, since it has been said that the hon the Leader of the House can catch a ball so splendidly. I want to congratulate the hon the Chief Whip.

It is deplorable that while we are discussing a matter here today which affects our community throughout the Republic, the members of our Official Opposition should have chosen to make themselves conspicuous by their absence. I think they could have put their differences aside and participated in a debate about a matter that concerns the community. The matter that concerns the community is more important than our differences and it is of the utmost importance that this matter receives attention.

Certain points were raised and the hon the Deputy Minister replied to them efficiently. They particularly concerned the comments by the hon member for Nuweveld with regard to the international aspect. I, too have arrived there and wondered why the people were standing around, and whether there was not enough room. I am pleased that the matter is being rectified and I hope and trust that people will liaise with the department timeously so that the department can make the necessary provision for them.

I also want to thank the hon member for Gelvandale for his contribution. He drew my attention to the fact that the hon member for Tafelberg had made a big fuss about the so-called confidential work that had been made public. Unfortunately I have to ask her to read the Sunday Times of 6 March in which an article appears under the heading “SAA asked to provide flights to Mecca”.

I shall come back to this point. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution.

I now want to refer to something that the hon member for Tafelberg quoted from a Turkish newspaper which none of us could understand; only she understands it. I take exception to the hon member’s allegation that the LP ignored this issue when it was raised last year. Another matter that I want to take up with the hon member for Tafelberg is the fact that she refused to help Mrs Galant. The reason I introduced this motion here this afternoon is that I immediately got to work after having been approached by Mrs Galant. I did not let grass grow under my feet. I did not write some letters first either. I felt that this matter concerned the people and that it had to be addressed as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order.

I am not attacking the hon member, Sir.

Order! Does the hon member for Tafelberg have a question or does she want to raise a point of order?

Mr Chairman, I can reply …

Order! The hon member for Tafelberg is not allowed to reply to the hon member; she may only put a point of order.

Mr Chairman, I refused to help Mrs Galant because in the past various departments helped her with money and I refused to take money from this Government. I would like to place this on record. [Interjections.] Mrs Galant took money from the SA Government…

Order! The hon member for Tafelberg must please …

… to go and enjoy herself in Saudi Arabia.

Mr Chairman, I take exception … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it seems to me that if somebody speaks the truth in this House, other hon members just say “sit hom uit, sit hom uit”. Hon members must behave themselves. I am speaking the truth. That is why I refused to help her. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I make the strongest objection to the manner in which the hon member for Tafelberg is behaving in this Chamber.

The hon member talks about the way I behave. I know what is happening.

Order!

Mr Chairman, no other hon member is permitted that kind of privilege in this Chamber. No other hon member can raise a point of order which in fact is not a point of order, and make a long speech about it. If any other hon member attempts to do this, he is shown the door. I think the same kind of treatment must be meted out to the hon member for Tafelberg. As long as she treats this Chamber with such contempt, I think it is your function and duty, Sir, to treat her in exactly the same manner as you treat other hon members in this Chamber.

Order! If the hon member for Tafelberg behaves in this manner again, I will have no alternative but to apply the rules. The hon member for Bishop Lavis may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I do not think the people’s cause should be used for vulture politics. [Interjections.] Neither do I believe that the people’s cause should be used to score political points here. The LP was not established yesterday; this party has been taking part in the struggle for 22 years. The hon member for Tafelberg mentioned the Freedom Party. Sir, I should like to hear from the hon member where she was when the Freedom Party was at its zenith. She did not even know about a Freedom Party and I presume she was not even near South Africa.

While I am referring to the hon member for Tafelberg I want to read to her what this newspaper article says. It reads:

†I want to proceed because it seems to me the hon member for Tafelberg is lagging behind in her reading. [Interjections.]

[Interjections.] I see the hon member has just left the Chamber. You see, Sir, that is what happens when one tries to point things out to an hon member who has problems. What I would still like to know is how that hon member became a member of the Freedom Party.

*An hon member said earlier that she had got too much sand in her eyes. [Interjections.]

†I want to place it on record that whilst we were discussing the problems experienced by the Muslims—I do not intend to get any praise for the fact that I, as a member of the DR Church, am prepared to get up in this House and speak for these people—the hon member for Tafelberg, who is a fellow Muslim, walked out.

Her behaviour was most deplorable in the light of the fact that an issue relating to her religion was being discussed. [Interjections.]

I do not want to waste any more time, but I do want to thank the hon member for Toekomsrus for broaching this matter in such a serious vein. When he spoke one could appreciate the problem these people are faced with. I am glad he could elaborate and highlight their suffering.

Moreover, I want to pay tribute to Mrs Aischa Galant. She has left no stone unturned in promoting the cause of these pilgrims. This woman has come to me with a bag of letters. She has come to me with newspapers from Malaysia and other countries. This is how she has taken up the cause of her people. I immediately listened to her and recognised the seriousness of the situation. That is why I asked to be granted the privilege of introducing this motion urgently. This is also why I am so grateful to the two hon Deputy Ministers who immediately set aside the time to listen to the debate on this particular problem.

*Therefore, I should like to place on record that I am grateful to the two hon Deputy Ministers for coming here today to listen to the debate. I should also like to express my gratitude to Mrs Galant once again for approaching us. She did not sit and wait, trying to decide what to do; when she failed to get assistance from others she looked to the anchor and the diamond—the Labour Party.

Hear, hear!

She brought her case, and within seven days her case was tabled here.

†I want to place it on record that we will at all times act whenever a member of the community approaches us, because we are here to serve—ich dien.

I want to focus on another point with regard to the Comoro Islands, and I want to bring this to the attention of the hon member for Tafelberg. The late Mr Yusuf Rhoda and Mr Ismail from the President’s Council were busy with this particular project long before she was. They even undertook a trip to the Comoro Islands in order to discuss the matter there. She is not the first person, therefore, to have undertaken to resolve this particular problem. [Interjections.]

*The hon the Minister was a little puzzled about the fact that I, as a member of the DR Church, raised this issue. I want to tell him that this is our religion too. The Bible tells us:

It is of the utmost importance to me that I should bear my fellow man’s burden at all times.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the continued existence of agricultural co-operatives, especially in the rural areas, is of cardinal importance to the agricultural industry, particularly when it comes to the reconstruction of agriculture. In my opinion it has become essential in the interests of the agricultural industry for co-operatives that are no longer successful enterprises because of financial problems to be placed under judicial management instead of being liquidated. Liquidation of the larger agricultural co-operatives in particular will have a detrimental effect not only on their members, but also on the agricultural areas they served.

Mr Chairman, we support the Co-operatives Amendment Bill and regard it as a normal and practical measure. It is merely a matter of the Government’s giving the Land Bank a guarantee for a loan by the Land Bank to the co-operative in the case of farmers with large debts. On the other hand, the co-operative still owes the Land Bank this amount, and in the past there were conflicting interests in the case of written-off debt when members could have expected that surpluses be declared. That is why the existing Act is being amended in such a way that in a case of that nature the Minister can work out a structure in terms of which a co-operative has to set aside surpluses to counteract such debt which the cooperative has to pay the Land Bank. The objective of the Co-operatives Amendment Bill is to ensure that co-operatives are financed on a sound basis. This amending Bill will secure the continued existence of co-operatives, restrict the Government’s financial risk and protect the public interests as well as the interests of members and creditors.

In conclusion I want to avail myself of the opportunity to thank Mr Pienaar, the Registrar of Co-operatives, who retires at the end of May, for the contribution he has made in respect of cooperatives in South Africa, and I wish him a pleasant retirement.

Mr Chairman, allow me to begin by quoting a report from Rapport:

We want to support this legislation because this clause is nothing but a security measure by means of which the Minister can compel co-operatives to build up their reserves to a more secure level, and by which the danger of their untimely liquidation as a result of carry-over debts and production credit is being reduced. As I have said, we support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the earlier debate was rather heated; so I am going to tell a few co-operative stories. [Interjections.]

The Co-operatives Amendment Bill was discussed thoroughly in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs. The Bill was accepted, although we had the usual CP abstainers when it came to voting. We are well aware that the continued existence of agricultural cooperatives is of cardinal importance to agriculture and particularly to the reconstruction of agriculture. In my opinion it is also very important for the continued existence of agricultural co-operatives that the Coloured farmers are also becoming part of the system in that they may now join the co-operatives of which only Whites could be members previously.

The Government’s reconstruction programme is sometimes frustrated when co-operatives’ rendering of service is interrupted or is ineffective. Co-operatives are making use of foreign capital to an increasing extent without there being a corresponding increase in own capital. This leads to an increase in the co-operatives’ financial risk. The Government then incurs the risk of the unnecessary spending of public funds. Of course that is why the Government issued a guarantee of R800 million to the Land Bank in respect of loans to the co-operatives.

Apart from existing measures in terms of which assistance is granted to co-operatives and farmers, it is the Government’s duty to ensure that co-operatives’ financial interests remain sound. In his Second Reading speech in the House of Assembly, the hon the Minister of Agriculture said that this Bill sought to make an arrangement in respect of building up own capital via those co-operatives that have obligations to the Land Bank in terms of the Government-guaranteed credit scheme. The existing carry-over debt schemes in respect of production credit for farmers have been made possible by the guarantee for an amount of R800 million which could be given to the Land Bank in the exceptional drought conditions.

The Bill provides inter alia that co-operatives that have obligations in terms of the Government-guaranteed credit scheme can be obliged to build up their reserves to a safe level where necessary, thus reducing the danger of their untimely liquidation.

Sir, I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support of this Bill. It is a very important Bill, and I am aware that there was a great deal of discussion about it in the standing committee and that many of the problems were resolved there.

This Government guarantee has a history that has extended over a number of years. I think it was instituted towards the end of 1983. The agricultural co-operatives’ normal procedure of financing is to take a lien over the farmer’s harvest once he has received production financing. Hon members know what happened during the past six or seven years, however. The climatic conditions were particularly poor, and this kind of security was no longer serviceable. After all, what does one do with a lien over a harvest if there is no harvest? Consequently the Government intervened, and the Government guarantee of R800 million was issued, in terms of which the debt of farmers who had had bad harvests could be carried over. We therefore now have the five-year and the ten-year schemes on the basis of which farmers can repay this carry-over debt over a certain period.

Circumstances and the deterioration of the situation affected the co-operatives’ capital structure. Hon members will understand that if they have to finance production inputs, for which they have to pay cash, on an annual basis, their cash-flow position will be prejudiced.

The ratio of own to foreign capital is not all that sound in respect of many agricultural co-operatives. It is true that many large co-operatives make a profit in any case. They do not necessarily make a profit from the producer, but from secondary activities such as the baking and milling industries. This reflects a profit on the co-operative’s balance sheets, and because its members are bona fide farmers, their standpoint is that the co-operative is making a profit, whereas they are suffering a loss. They feel they also want part of the profits. The producers then begin to demand that the board of directors pay out that profit by means of bonuses to producers, because they themselves have financial problems. The position is such, therefore, that pressure is brought to bear upon boards of directors. The moment there is pressure on these boards to pay out all the profits in such a way instead of building up its reserves, the capital ratio of such a co-operative could be detrimentally affected.

Consequently it was decided to build this safety measure into the Co-operatives Act. One realises, however, that in the process one is threatening the autonomy of co-operatives. Hon members will remember something that I made very clear in my Second Reading speech. I said we would consult with the Co-operative Council of the South African Agricultural Union on the basis upon which we intervene. Co-operatives should not be detrimentally affected in the process, therefore.

Naturally not all co-operatives are involved in this. Only approximately 32 co-operatives are involved. I think, however, that we are introducing this amendment with a view to the future, because co-operatives can get into trouble from time to time. In that case they can apply for carry-over debt schemes, irrespective of where in the RSA they are. At present there are 32 co-operatives which operate mainly in the summer grain areas, and they can be integrated into this scheme.

The hon member for Springbok mentioned that co-operatives play an enormous part in the reconstruction of agriculture in South Africa. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Sir, allow me just one political comment: There is no colour in the Co-operatives Act. We are trying to implement this Act in such a way that there is no form of discrimination in co-operative activities under any circumstances.

This plays a part in the reconstruction of agriculture, because agricultural co-operatives are part of agricultural development in South Africa. Agricultural co-operatives are an extension of the farmer’s activities on his farm. That is why they play such an important part. The agricultural co-operatives are being used by means of this Government guarantee to fulfil a role in overcoming the tremendous debt ratio that has built up. We are investigating certain problems in this scheme at present.

We have suffered tremendous losses—not only as a result of drought, but also as a result of terrible flood damage. I do not think it is humanly possible to overcome the damage suffered by producers in one, two, three or even ten years. I am thinking of farmers in the Lower Orange River area in particular. The co-operative system is an instrument, therefore, that can be used to accommodate this situation. I think the Government guarantee can play an enormous part in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of agriculture in those areas which have experienced a lot of flood damage.

Once again I want to thank hon members for their support of this amending Bill. I appreciate it most sincerely.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Wine and Spirit Amendment Bill contains measures which will lead to more market-orientated prices being determined for the respective categories of wine. Market-orientation is the key to the future, and the provisions with reference to the determination of the minimum and quality prices of wine are extremely inflexible at present. Apart from certain regulations concerning minimum and quality prices, such prices can be determined only in terms of the alcohol level of wine. The alcohol level is not a decisive factor in determining the quality of wine, however. The production of quality wines is not being promoted in this way, therefore. That is why it has become absolutely essential to make the relevant provision more flexible.

The areas in which wine is produced, the class, kind or grade and the purpose for which it is produced, play a more important part than the alcohol level of the wine. The quality requirements with which imported spirits in particular have to comply, differ considerably from local requirements. In order to protect the local industry, the amending Bill provides that imported spirits have to comply with the same requirements as the local products.

This Bill also grants the KWV the authority to grant every winegrower a quota depending on the quantity of wine he produces, and to impose levies on the quantity of wine produced by every winegrower.

Mr Chairman, we support this amending Bill, because it will definitely promote the winegrowing industry in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in the last line of the first paragraph of his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said that “all parties have been consulted”. This is not correct. My party has not been consulted.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Tafelberg is misleading this House. Political parties were not consulted; interested parties such as wine companies were consulted. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Tafelberg may proceed.

Yes, Mr Chairman, that was not a point of order. In principle we cannot agree to support a measure which furthers the sale of spirits and liquor.

It is common cause and medical research has proved that the drinking of liquor is harmful for the human body. In many cases the drinking of liquor also leads to permanent addiction. In this day and age we are fighting drug addiction, but as long as the manufacturing of liquor and drugs is allowed to continue, we will go on suffering.

How often do we not see men here in Cape Town going to the bar directly after being paid at the end of the week? There they drink away most of their money …

Your husband drinks too, does he not?

Order!

The hon member asks whether my husband drinks. We are Muslims and according to our religion we do not drink.

Order! The hon member asked whether the hon member for Tafelberg’s husband had a bottle store.

Mr Chairman, as Muslims we cannot run a bottle store. Those are our principles.

Too many men drink all their money away. The result is that their wives and children have to suffer because he has no money to pay the rent, the electricity and the household accounts. Countries like India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia do without liquor because they have banned the production and sale of liquor. These liquor-free countries do not suffer without liquor and our country could also have the joy of a sober society if we banned the production and sale of liquor. The initial reaction may be negative, but in the long run we will have a sober society.

I cannot support any law which promotes the production of any kind of liquor. Some great men in history have landed in the gutter because of liquor addiction. The question remains whether we want to see the lives of more people destroyed. Every weekend we see the number of accidents on our roads because of liquor. On television we see advertisements for several kinds of wines and liquor, and yet, five minutes later, they show one an accident and tell one not to drink and drive. How can they tell one to buy liquor and drink it and five minutes later tell one not to drink and drive? How can we do that? If we can ban the smoking of cigarettes we can do the same in respect of liquor.

Many homes have been broken up by divorces which were caused by liquor abuse. We can solve this problem by putting an end to the production of liquor. We can plant something that will be of more use to South Africa like fruit and vegetables. I know many hon members here get liquor duty-free and that is why they are avoiding the whole matter. [Interjections.]

We live in an age of stress and tension and it is so easy to try to escape one’s problems by turning to liquor. One must learn to face realities more objectively than through liquor. No man has ever solved his problems by getting drunk. He only worsens them by running away from them.

I look forward to a day in the future of South Africa when we will become a liquor-free society.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Tafelberg is missing the point completely with this Bill, because I do not see one clause in this Bill which promotes the sale of liquor. Nor do I see anything that indicates that this amending Bill encourages anyone to abuse liquor.

The use of liquor is as old as man himself. The Bible warns against the abuse of liquor constantly. There are followers of almost every Christian and non-Christian denomination in our country in this Parliament. I believe that no denomination that really has Christ as its goal will ever encourage its followers to abuse liquor.

The second aspect I want to mention is that the wine-growing industry in our country makes up an integral part of agriculture as a whole and that it provides many employment opportunities to followers of all creeds—including Muslims—in the Western Cape in particular. I have said enough in this connection, however.

We supported this amending Bill in the standing committee, and therefore I do not think there is much left to say. One very important amendment which concerns the production quotas that were or are being allocated is being effected by this amending Bill, however. In terms of existing legislation the production quotas allocated to farms by the KWV are permanent. Even if a farm changes hands, the quota is sold along with the farm. When farms are sold, they are often sub-divided into residential or industrial areas, or dams are built on them. These quotas are transferred just as they are. Recent development has necessitated the cancellation of such quotas.

Many problems are being experienced with the keeping of records with reference to these unutilised production quotas. A number of requests have been addressed to the KWV to reduce or cancel such production quotas. In addition farmers have to pay levies in respect of quotas granted to their farms. When land is no longer used for grape or wine-growing purposes, the levies are no longer paid and as a result said levies remain outstanding. The KWV does not have the authority to cancel quotas and has no recourse when requested to do so. They can do absolutely nothing about the matter. This amending Bill makes provision for those quotas to be cancelled or reduced by means of regulation and notice in the Gazette.

This amending Bill was submitted to various bodies for commentary, including the Cape Wine and Spirit Institute, the Institute for Oenological and Viticultural Research, the Cape Estate Wine Producers’ Association, the Co-operative Wine Cellars Committee and the Uncommitted Grape Growers’ Association, and it was also discussed at the district conferences of all eight KWV districts. The amending Bill was accepted by all the above-mentioned organisations, with the exception of the Uncommitted Grape Growers’ Association. That is proof that the measure is deemed necessary by all those involved. For that reason we support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon members who served on the standing committee and considered the various amendments will agree that this industry of ours is a highly developed industry which has to compete not only on the South African market, but also abroad. It must be made possible, therefore, for this industry to effect a better flow and a better sale of its product. As the hon member for Hantam said, the whole industry had discussions with the standing committee and said it was essential that these amendments be made to the Act to adapt the industry to the prevailing circumstances. It is essential that we who are in a governing position and hon members who serve on the standing committee comply with that request. Hon members have done so, and I am grateful.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp made a very important point which is actually also an answer to the statement made by the hon member for Tafelberg who apologised for her absence. We can never accept that all people who use liquor necessarily also abuse liquor in this country of ours.

Hear, hear!

With reference to the relevant provision in the amending Bill, the hon member for Dysselsdorp pointed out that one need not assess the quality of wine according to its alcohol content. Quality involves many more facets such as the region, the taste and the sophistication of the use of wine. In South Africa we have developed a culture in which the use of wine is a civilised practice, and this particular amending Bill makes it possible for one to determine the quality of wine in South Africa in terms of other criteria.

The hon member for Hantam referred to another very important facet, viz the question of quotas. Quotas are one of the few marketing restrictions still contained in agricultural legislation in South Africa. Basically we are opposed to quotas, because it is our standpoint that one should never use the restriction of production restriction as a means of controlling marketing. This quota system has developed with the wine industry over decades, however. The quota is part of the system, and it would not be possible to effect radical changes to this at the moment. The KWV has developed problems, however, in that it has to collect certain levies to stimulate and further develop the industry—by promoting the development of certain cultivar wines, for example. The KWV is therefore using the revenue from the levies to promote the wine industry. Some people have quotas on their land which increase the value of their land. As a result of other activities, those people do not produce, but still have the quota. They therefore have the benefit of the value, but never make a contribution to the promotion and development of this industry.

Consequently the KWV thought the Act in question should be amended so that they could also impose a levy on the quota and not necessarily on the quantity of wine that is produced. One could have the situation, for example, that as soon as the industry is doing well, someone may decide to produce, but when things are not going very well and these funds are really needed to promote the industry, that person might decide not to produce.

I think this is a very reasonable amendment. Members of the standing committee will agree with me that most of the amendments are mainly technical. I do not think any of the principles contained in the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act are being threatened here. I therefore thank hon members for the work they did in making it so easy for me to pilot these amendments through the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, by way of introduction I want to say that we are dealing with a very important amending Bill which also affects the constituency—Reigerpark—of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I see that not a single hon member of the Official Opposition is present.

They are boycotting.

I want to give a brief historic synopsis of the Rand Water Board. The Rand Water Board was established because of a recommendation by a commission of enquiry in 1895, which was in favour of creating a public body to replace private water supply companies which were profit-orientated. Subsequently, in 1902, the Witwatersrand Water Supply Commission recommended the establishment of the Rand Water Board by means of legislation, and in 1903 the Rand Water Board was established.

The area served by the Rand Water Board is the largest area supplied with water in South Africa and it covers 16 785 km, from Sasolburg in the south to Pretoria in the north, and from Bethal in the east to Rustenburg in the west. Approximately 6 million people live in this area, and it is estimated that by the year 2010 the Rand Water Board will be serving approximately 11 million people.

The total length of the pipeline of the Rand Water Board’s distribution network is 2 305 km, not including the pipes that are less than 150 mm in diameter. The water is pumped to some reservoirs at a height of more than 380 m, which, as far as can be determined, is not done anywhere else in the world.

The development of the Witwatersrand and adjacent areas is thanks not only to gold, but to water. The role of this essential substance and the Rand Water Board, which is responsible for its supply, will always form part of South Africa’s industrial history.

Without water there is no history, and there can be no future.

Today the Rand Water Board is controlled by nine members who are appointed by the Minister of Water Affairs. Despite the fact that nonWhites are the major consumers in the area under the Rand Water Board’s control, they have no representation on that board. [Interjections.] I want to put it unequivocally that the LP has accepted the challenge of today and tomorrow in striving for a new South Africa in which everyone will receive equal and just treatment. I am not making any appeal, therefore, but I want the hon the Minister’s assurance today that he will appoint non-Whites to the Rand Water Board. [Interjections.]

Since the board supplies a number of Black local authorities with water, this amending Bill provides that the membership of the board can be increased to a maximum of 12. The Water Act, No 54 of 1956, was amended in 1981 to grant the necessary authority in respect of the purification or treatment of effluent or the disposal thereof so that the available sources could be used to their optimum on a regional basis. This amending Bill grants the same authority to the Rand Water Board on the basis of similar considerations.

The water is supplied to different kinds of consumers. There are the foundation consumers, for example, such as the SATS and the larger municipalities, and preferent consumers, who receive water in bulk and sell it retail without making any profit. The latter group includes the smaller municipalities, mines, industries, utility corporations and Government and provincial bodies.

In practice the establishment of Black local authorities results in new local authorities, that were part of a local authority previously, having to pay more for water supplied by the board in terms of the board’s prescribed tariff structure. To eliminate anomalies, this amending Bill proposes the conversion of the three-tier tariff to a two-tier tariff. This will mean that existing foundation consumers will pay approximately 2,9% more for water supplied by the board. The new local authorities will receive a benefit of approximately 6,1% on the present tariff structure.

There was a great deal of dissatisfaction about the high water prices, because of the high interest, of the Rand Water Board in the past. In this connection I should like to quote from Rapport of 15 March 1987:

Hon members probably remember that there was controversy about the Rand Water Board’s tariffs recently. Certain people maintained that their money was being used to pay for the Rand Water Board’s new building costing R7 million.

Mr Chairman, the heading in the article reads: “Verhogings was meer as ander verbruiksgoedere”, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, the committee made a close study of the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Act Amendment Bill, Bill 21 of 1988, as submitted by the hon the Minister. Initially there were problems with the amendment of section (1) of section 5 of the principal Act. This appears in clause 3 of the Bill in which the board is extended from nine members to a maximum of 12 members, all of whom are to be appointed by the Minister.

From the explanations in the committee, we were satisfied that the objectives of the amendment seek to provide a reasonable representation of the various consumer sectors on the board. I am referring particularly to the recent extension of the number of local authorities in the area under the board’s jurisdiction.

It is clear from the information we received that a large section of the board’s supply area consists of Black areas. The present board consists only of White members, however. Past experience has taught us that it has always been the case that only White people are recommended by local authorities and other bodies that make recommendations.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister the same question as my hon colleague who spoke before me asked: Can the hon the Minister give us the assurance that non-Whites will serve on the Rand Water Board in future? [Interjections.]

We have no significant problems with other sections of the amending Bill. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Dysselsdorp and Steinkopf for their contributions.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp sketched the background of how the Rand Water Board was established. When one looks at what we are doing now, one sees that that part of the area under the jurisdiction of the Rand Water Board which has always had a preferent tariff is going to be charged a little more for their water. It is not that much more; it is only 1c more per cubic metre or per kilolitre of water. [Interjections.] With this equalising measure, the large number of new municipalities and areas which have developed over the past few years and have had to pay a higher tariff than the old established areas are receiving an advantage which is more than double the sacrifice the others have to make. I therefore think this is a very fair distribution.

Obviously these new municipalities still have to develop. They still have to develop their industries and create infrastructure, and that is difficult if the water tariff they pay is too high. That is why we felt we should reduce the water tariff from a three-tier tariff to a two-tier tariff system. The original foundation members are no longer alive. The reasons they had for receiving a special tariff as foundation members years ago no longer exist. At that time they got water from boreholes that they had drilled themselves and small schemes that they had developed themselves. Today all the water on the Rand is supplied to the Rand Water Board by the Department of Water Affairs. It is the same water, and in my opinion everyone should pay the same price for it. As a result I do not think that people can dispute this principle too much. I am also very pleased that the speakers of this House support that principle.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp also mentioned rising costs, but at the same time he said that that report mentioned how much capital was needed for new developments and infrastructure. Obviously one has to recover those capital costs as well as the interest costs and therefore the water tariff had to increase.

Both the hon member for Dysselsdorp and the hon member for Steinkopf spoke about the provision that we are going to include in the legislation, viz that the number of members on the board is going to be increased from six to nine. Both hon members asked me whether I could give them the assurance that non-Whites will serve on that board. What is the situation on our other boards? The Rand Water Board is not the only water board.

But begin there.

Non-Whites are serving on our other water boards already. [Interjections.] I want the House to follow this very carefully. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, it is very difficult to speak when hon members interrupt me constantly.

Order!

We must understand that this board is not structured primarily to represent each local authority, but rather in such a way that one can have a board which has a lot of knowledge at its disposal. What are the levels of knowledge we need there? Obviously the Rand Water Board must have a very good technical foundation.

We therefore need engineers, technical advisers and economists to consider the socio-economic position of the consumers in certain areas. When we call for nominations for this board, we call for nominations from the engineering industry and various other bodies. We shall also call for nominations—I give hon members this assurance— from the consumers who will now be included as preferent consumers. This has reference to the areas which are being equalised. We shall also call for nominations from those people, because we believe that from a socio-economic point of view, the board must contain certain expertise. We do not want only engineers and technical people on the board. We also want people who can consider the socio-economic aspects which also have to be addressed by the board.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister how many non-Whites serve on other water boards?

Unfortunately I do not have the correct figure with me, but non-Whites do serve on these boards. If, however, hon members want me to give them the assurance that two or four or whatever number of members must serve on this board, I say frankly that I cannot do so.

Why not?

If Soweto, for example, were to nominate someone who has special knowledge in respect of certain socio-economic aspects, there is no reason why he cannot be appointed. We cannot include a provision, however, that there be so many Whites, so many Indians, so many Coloureds and so many Blacks on the boards, because then we will be doing exactly what hon members do not want us to do. Let us say that in structuring this board there are no regulations in respect of colour, but obviously if there are people from the various population communities who can be appointed on merit, I shall consider them. Surely, however, hon members do not want me to appoint anyone without merit simply because he is of a certain colour, irrespective of whether he is White, Coloured or Black. [Interjections.] If the man has merit, I shall appoint him irrespective of his colour.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister by implication said that there was no person of colour who had the necessary qualifications to serve on this board and that he could not give any guarantees. My question to him is: In view of the fact that he is a member of the South African Government—I am not going to deal with their ideologies and policies now—he knows that 99% of all civil engineers, accountants or economists are White and so, obviously, they are going to nominate a White person. However, can he give us the assurance that if we have people with the required qualifications in the various fields he will appoint them regardless of the nomination of that particular body?

If a person has the necessary qualifications and is nominated by any of the nominating bodies—this can also be a local government or local committees—I will naturally consider him for appointment. I shall appoint a person on merit. [Interjections.] It does not matter whether a person is Black, Coloured or whatever. If he can do a positive job on that council, I shall appoint him on merit. I think this should satisfy the council.

*There were no other objections to the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please give the hon member for Genadendal a chance to put his question.

I want to ask the hon the Minister what the local authorities should do to reduce the water tariff if it becomes too expensive for the consumer.

Many local authorities find it very difficult to supply consumers with water at a reasonable tariff. We are aware of that. The local authority, which is the retailer in water since it buys water wholesale from the supplier, the Rand Water Board, can supply water more cheaply if it sees its way clear to reducing its own profit. [Interjections.] The first consideration, therefore, is that the local authority itself must try to work at as low a profit margin as possible.

If the community still has a socio-economic problem with the water tariff, however, the local authority will take other steps to get the necessary subsidisation. The Department of Water Affairs wants to try to keep the tariff as uniform as possible.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, water is the source of life and therefore it is a special privilege to speak in support of the Water Amendment Bill today. The main purpose of the measure is to facilitate the administrative processes, as well as the flow and the disposal of functions within the Department of Water Affairs.

In many cases the Water Act of 1956 requires the submission of reports, known as white papers, of proposed Government water works or water networks which are going to be built by other bodies with the aid of a Government loan or subsidy, if the estimated construction costs exceed the prescribed amount. Due to escalating construction costs, these amounts had to be adjusted repeatedly in the past by means of amending legislation. To eliminate routine amending legislation of this nature in future, the Water Amendment Bill now authorises the Minister of Finance to determine these amounts.

This amending Bill prevents delays in the commencement of the construction of a water work which has been approved by the Minister, because one has to wait for the final approval of a subsidy. There are numerous dams in our beautiful country, South Africa, which can be developed, for example the Stompdrift Dam and the Kammannassie Dam, both of which are in the constituency I represent. [Interjections.]

In the past statutory bodies such as the provincial administrations did not have the necessary funds for such development. The private sector and the individual are now being granted an opportunity to undertake such development, and the transfer of the development of the recreational potential of such works to the private sector is in line with the Government’s purposeful privatisation campaign. [Interjections.]

Order! Before I call upon the next hon member to speak, I want to make a serious appeal to hon members not to carry on so.

Mr Chairman, I should like to support the Water Amendment Bill. The purpose of this amending Bill is to amend certain sections of the principal Act, viz the Water Act, No 54 of 1956. In clause 1 the amount of R10 million is replaced by “the amount which the Minister of Finance may from time to time determine”. In addition the words “House of Assembly” are replaced by “Parliament”. This has reference to the reports on proposed Government water works or the water works that are going to be extended by other bodies with the assistance of Government loans or subsidies, if the estimated construction costs and prescribed amount should be exceeded.

Due to inflation these amounts had to be adjusted repeatedly by means of amending legislation in the past. To obviate this in future, it is proposed that the relevant sections in the principal Act be amended, so that these amounts can be fixed by the Minister of Finance in future.

The Bill also provides for the extension of the authority of the Minister of Water Affairs with reference to the transfer of control over Government water works, so that the development of the recreational potential of such works can be transferred to the private sector, for example.

Another very important provision is that no subsidy on water works is granted without the approval of the Minister. I merely want to mention that this amending Bill was discussed thoroughly in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I speak in support of the Water Amendment Bill as submitted by the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs.

In terms of clause 1 of the said amending Bill, the Minister of Finance is being authorised, as the hon member for Vredendal said, to determine which reports on Government water works should be tabled in Parliament before the construction thereof may commence. Previously the construction of Government water works of which the estimated cost would exceed R10 million could not commence until Parliament’s approval had been obtained. As has been mentioned, this amending Bill eliminates a great deal of administrative red tape, and accelerates the rate at which essential constructions and other Government water works can be undertaken.

To those of us who come from the arid parts of the country, water is an essential commodity which should be made available as quickly as possible, even to those who cannot afford it. The Government will have to change its preferences in this regard. It will have to consider assisting those in the arid parts of the country by establishing Government water schemes by means of projects in order to uplift those people. One often hears the argument that people in certain regions cannot afford water. I believe that although this is the case at this stage, Government water projects should be used to assist these people to afford water and to make a viable living.

To come back to the Bill, I welcome the amendment of section 110 of the principal Act in terms of clause 4 of the submitted amending Bill. The water boards can now, with the agreement of the Minister of Water Affairs and on the basis of agreements that have been concluded, render services outside the service areas for which they were established. In the long term this will have financial and other advantages for the board— and it will not be to the advantage only of the areas served in this way—because such a board will be able to serve a larger area more economically.

Sir, it would give me some peace of mind if the hon the Minister could assure me that consideration will be given to the development of the Lower Orange River area in the region of Namaqualand in the near future, because in terms of this amendment it is possible now to conclude an agreement with Namibia on the basis of which water will be supplied to them from dams in the Orange River.

We have no problems with any of the clauses in the Bill and we therefore support it.

Mr Chairman, the previous speakers, my hon colleagues, said a lot about the water problems, but they forgot one very important point. They forgot how important the water one adds to whisky is! [Interjections.]

Sir, the Water Amendment Bill was discussed very thoroughly in our standing committee. The actual purpose of this amending Bill, which amends the Water Act, No 54 of 1956, is to authorise the Minister of Finance to determine on which Government water works reports should be tabled in Parliament—I am referring to clauses 1, 6 and 8 which amend sections in Act 54 of 1956—before the construction of these water works can commence.

In addition this Bill deals with the extension of the authority of the Minister of Water Affairs in connection with the transfer of control over or the alienation of Government water works. It is important that irrigation boards and water boards also be authorised to negotiate loans in order to redeem loans and interest payable on loans. In addition water boards are being authorised to conclude contracts, with the approval of the Minister of Water Affairs, in respect of the rendering of services outside the areas for which they were established.

Section 58 of the Water Act, 1956, is being amended in terms of this Bill. I quote as follows from the Bill:

1. (a) by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
   “(1) The construction of a Government water work or any subsequent works in connection therewith whereof the estimated cost exceeds the amount which the Minister of Finance may from time to time determine, shall, subject to subsection (1B), not be commenced unless the Minister has before the date on which the appropriation of money for the purposes of such work or works is first considered by Parliament laid upon the Table of Parliament a report in regard to such work or works containing the particulars required in subsection (2).”; and
2. (b) by the substitution in subsections (1A) and (1B) for the words “the House of Assembly” wherever they occur of the word “Parliament”.

Naturally the reason for this is that the Bill must be dealt with and agreed to by all three Houses of Parliament. Sir, I support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, we are talking about the Water Amendment Bill while we are experiencing a period in which our country has too much water. The Afrikaans expression “daar’s water” has become a reality. Since so many hon members come from the Northern Cape and the Free State, it is perhaps appropriate for me to give them details of the position in respect of the flood situation at the moment before I reply to other hon members’ questions.

The present position is that all the large dams in the Vaal and Orange Rivers are more than 100% full. At nine o’clock this morning the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam was 127% full. The Vaal Dam was 107% full, while the Bloemhof Dam was 110% full. The flow into the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam at the time—between nine and ten o’clock this morning—was 6 760 cubic metres per second. This condition caused the flow at Prieska to reach 5 900 cubic metres per second this morning which gave a reading of 7,9 metres.

There is no reason why this water cannot flow through to Upington by Wednesday. The flow is unpredictable and varies from hour to hour. Perhaps there will be more rain and more water, or perhaps the flood will level off.

Early this morning I had the privilege of flying from Upington to Augrabies. Since the emergency walls have washed away, even this flood, which is relatively low in comparison with the flood of a few days ago, is capable of flooding our lands once again.

Despite the fact that the dams are full and that one does not have complete control over them, the Department of Water Affairs is manipulating the flood by means of keeping sluice gates and outlets closed at certain given times. They are ensuring that the peaks of the floods in the Vaal and Orange Rivers do not reach one another simultaneously. The department is trying to manipulate this flow in such a way as not to cause an artificial flood.

What has happened during the past few days emphasises once again that we shall have to pay more attention to our research in respect of the flood control of our main rivers. This matter is receiving our attention.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who spoke in favour of this amendment. The hon member for Dysselsdorp pointed out that these amendments will facilitate certain administrative processes. The Minister of Finance is also being authorised to determine that amount for which a white paper will be necessary.

In explanation I want to say that although the Minister is being authorised to amend this amount, the final approval of funds for any work will still rest with Parliament, either by approval of the white paper, or by approval of smaller amounts under R10 million in the case of Government works, or under R2,5 million in the case of irrigation boards, water boards and private water works. In that case the amount will also be approved in our Main Budget. The particulars of such amounts will be open to inspection at the Department of Water Affairs. I mention that just in case hon members are interested.

The hon member also referred to the question of privatisation which will be made more flexible in correspondence with the Government’s policy.

The hon member for Vredendal comes from an irrigation area, and I think he is well informed on what goes on in irrigation schemes. Consequently he can talk about irrigation and all the attendant factors with great authority. I thank the hon member for his support.

The hon member for Steinkopf broached a few very important points. The hon member was justified in what he said about water supply to these arid areas in our country. There are two aspects, viz water supply to towns and water supply for irrigation. Policy determines that when one builds water works for a community, whether for irrigation purposes or for municipalities—the hon member referred to this—the consumers of the water have to pay for the construction. The hon member is correct in saying that we say we cannot build the works because the people cannot afford them. We cannot stop there, however. That is why the department announced a policy the year before last with regard to assistance which is being granted to arid towns.

I want to tell hon members immediately that that policy is not sufficient either, because it applies only to new schemes that are built and these have certain restrictions too. As a result, another committee was appointed. This committee is either still in sitting or is involved in investigations to see how existing schemes, which are not capable of paying their water tariffs, can be assisted.

I want to go further and tell hon members—I think I said this in the House last year as well— that if rural towns have to depopulate as a result of a water shortage, when water is available but the people cannot afford it, the Government will have to grant greater assistance. What will happen? There is no point in our providing decentralisation aid and all other forms of aid if we deny the communities something as essential as water.

In that case, however, we shall be moving outside the administration, the framework and the funds of the Department of Water Affairs. We shall reach a point at which the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, for example, will have to tell us it is in the interests of the country that the people continue to live in this town. We shall have no choice then but to intervene and assist with water supply, as, in fact, we are going to do in De Aar. We have eventually been compelled to take action and to assist in supplying De Aar with water. I therefore want to tell hon members—we have had discussions with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in this connection—that we must get broader support from the Government, because we have the people, the facilities, the machinery etc, but when we move outside our funding, they have to give us special funds to supply these towns with water in some or other way.

The second point made by the hon member concerns the question of the development of irrigation schemes and the building of dams. That is a subject which can be debated for hours, but from the point of view of production it is not at all necessary to develop even one more hectare of irrigation land in the country. Hon members must listen carefully to what I am saying; I am talking from the point of view of production. There are other arguments, however, as to why we should develop these schemes. What are we going to produce? Wine is virtually running out of our ears … [Interjections.] Even the people who drink a great deal are not helping us sufficiently. Then there is maize and wheat.

We can enumerate them one by one; the yield in these areas is already either in overproduction or on the brink of overproduction. That is why I say that we shall not be able to justify this from the point of view of production. There are socioeconomic arguments, however, which will lead to our having to develop.

We have a list of priorities in the department. We see where we can use the least money to effect the greatest development. My own standpoint is that we should consolidate existing schemes properly first. This hon Minister of the Budget, for example, has a number of smallholding farmers in his constituency, and with the aid of the hon the Minister we shall have to consolidate their position and place them on a course of development with larger units at the Neus-Augrabies. We shall have to take these steps, and there can be no doubt that this is an important priority.

Before we build any more dams, we must make better use of the Orange River’s water, because at present we use only about a third of it. We can say a great deal about these matters, and hon members are correct to be concerned about them. They can rest assured, however, that we are taking an in-depth look at these matters.

The only person I still have to reply to is the hon member for Springbok. He spoke in general about the advantages we shall derive from these amendments. I thank the hon member for his contribution and I thank all the other hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the role of agricultural co-operatives is well-recognised in organised agriculture. Agricultural co-operatives will continue to be of vital importance to agriculture and to its restructuring, as outlined in the report of the Economic Advisory Council to the hon the State President. The State’s restructuring programme is frustrated where the rendering of service by co-operatives is interrupted by closure or inefficiency. The Government has furnished a guarantee of R800 million to the Land Bank as security in respect of loans to co-operatives. Co-operatives increasingly make use of loan capital without a corresponding growth in their own capital. As a result of this imbalance the liabilities of the co-operatives exceed their assets. The State incurs a risk of losing public funds.

While providing aid to co-operatives and farmers, it is the duty of the State to safeguard public funds by ensuring that the financial infrastructure of co-operatives is sound. The Bill makes provision for the granting of authority to the Minister to lay down a basis in terms of which co-operatives which have obligations in terms of State-guaranteed credit schemes, will be obliged to reserve part of their surpluses in order to strengthen their capital structure. The object of the Bill is therefore to ensure that co-operatives are in a sound financial position. Sound finance not only safeguards the existence of co-operatives, but also limits the State’s financial risk and protects the public interest and the interests of members and creditors. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker was a member of the standing committee and he has just paraphrased the Memorandum on objectives of the Bill. I take it every member receives a copy of the Bill and should therefore know what it is all about.

Nonetheless, I would like to trace the origin of co-operative societies. Co-operative organisations exist in all principal agricultural countries in the world. They embrace many varied forms and have developed in different ways in different countries. Local conditions and national character have to a large extent determined the nature and method of co-operative development in each country. In South Africa, as in many other cases, the co-operative movement has risen out of circumstances of distress, chaos and the realisation of a deep need for the reorganisation of agricultural enterprise and rural life. The hon the Minister agrees with me on that point.

A general characteristic of the co-operative movement which is noteworthy, is that in its origin it has been essentially a voluntary undertaking based on self-help. That was actually when it first started.

It was based on self-help. In later years State aid has been accorded more as a subordinate and auxiliary service. State aid was, and still is, a measure designed to encourage better farming, better business and a better standard of living. I wish to isolate better business as the central problem facing South African farmers today.

It is a well-known fact that during the past financial year the South African farming industry became indebted to the tune of R14 billion to R15 billion. Somewhere along the line better business and better farming have been eroded and a better standard of living seems to have taken their place.

Coming back to the Bill itself, I welcome the measures taken by the hon the Minister to ensure that those co-operative societies that lend money to farmers must have financial stability. It is analogous to the situation of a man with no bank balance trying to run a pawnshop. There are certain co-operative societies whose own reserves are inadequate and they rely very heavily on the State scheme which guarantees farmers’ loans from the co-operative societies. They take undue risks because knowing full well that the Land Bank will reimburse them, they extend credit beyond a farmer’s capacity to repay. They do this because they know that their big brother, the Land Bank, will repay them the money. However, this provision compels certain societies to increase their capital from surpluses.

What is a surplus? A surplus is made up of profits gained from that particular co-operative’s activities during the year. They pay a certain amount in dividends or bonuses but from that profit, or surplus, they will be compelled to create a better capital reserve so that they will not be a drain on the State funds. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, agricultural co-operatives play a very vital role in agriculture, especially in the restructuring area. Cooperatives must promote efficiency by way of sufficient production without undue loss to the various people who make up the co-operative.

Co-operative loans have increased in recent years without a corresponding growth in the co-operatives’ capital. This has increased the financial risk by the State. At present, the value of secured State loans to co-operatives stands at R800 million. In its endeavour to help the co-operatives and farmers, the State has a right as a lender to see to it that the financial infrastructure of cooperatives is sound at all times.

The aims of the Bill may be summarised in the following manner: Firstly, to ensure that the co-operatives are soundly financed; secondly, to limit the State’s financial risk; thirdly, to protect the public interest and the interests of members and creditors; fourthly, to make provision for the granting of authority to the Minister to lay down terms, conditions and obligations in terms of State—guaranteed credit schemes; and fifthly, to impose an obligation to reserve part of the surplus to strengthen the capital structure. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately my friend, the hon member for Camperdown, has just left the House. I am very pleased to hear from him today that he supports the co-operatives.

My colleague, the hon member for North Coast, spoke very strongly of the restructuring of agriculture in general. Hon members will remember our very strong emphasis in this House with regard to the restructuring of agriculture. Whilst we lay strong emphasis on that, side by side with that we have to give equal consideration to the co-operatives that are linked with agriculture. Therefore, as the hon member for North Coast mentioned, the safeguarding of the various parties, the co-operatives as well as their members, is important.

The hon member for Phoenix made some very important points here this afternoon concerning the efficiency that is required and the increase in growth which we must acknowledge in the field of agriculture, also to ensure that the required additional finances are available. The other important factor he mentioned is that the co-operatives increasingly need loan capital without corresponding growth in their own capital. All this points in one direction.

If we have to look at recent circumstances, no provision has been made for natural disasters. There are two types of natural disaster. The one is that of a drought situation, as we have had in the early 80s, which we have never experienced. No machinery existed to accommodate that. During last year and more recently we have experienced flood disasters. These are natural disasters for which no provision has been made either.

The importance of co-operatives to the agricultural sector cannot be overemphasised. While there is a need for co-operatives, the financial muscle of co-operatives and their membership has to be protected. If the membership requirements are frustrated, then the resources of the co-operatives are equally frustrated, and the endresult will be disaster with regard to overall survival. Surely if farmers to whom production credits were granted in terms of the State-guaranteed credit scheme are sequestrated and the co-operative of which they are members is unable to recover the outstanding production credit for them, the co-operative may claim the deficit from the Land Bank. This is an advantage. Also, for this reason provision is made in the Bill …

Mr Chairman, I would like to know from the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture how many co-operatives were sequestrated over the last five years as a direct result of their members being sequestrated?

Mr Chairman, I want to answer the hon member very carefully, because he is a scrutineer of the Mahabharata. For the very reasons contained in the question asked by the hon member for Camperdown, these structures are in actual fact being strengthened. We adjust, strengthen and negotiate structures in accordance with the circumstances with which we are faced from time to time. For this reason provision is made in the Bill that when necessary, cooperatives which are obligated in terms of the State-guaranteed credit scheme may be obliged to increase their reserves to a safer level in order to postpone the date of the ultimate liquidation.

Those who have had experience in co-operatives will agree they have advantages. I am satisfied that the introduction of this Bill will provide the necessary additional muscle for the agricultural sector. For this reason I must commend my colleague, the hon the Minister of Agriculture of the House of Assembly, for the introduction of this Bill and I fully support it.

Mr Chairman, co-operatives have played and are playing an important part in the upliftment of agriculture. As is said in the memorandum it is of vital importance to ensure that they operate on a sound basis.

I do not want to miss the opportunity of reminding the hon the Minister while he is in this House that all this legislation can only be of great advantage when there is free and open participation by the people and if agriculture is not based on the concept of own affairs. Only then will the measures that are put forward today be of great benefit to society in South Africa.

The measures contained in this Bill will ensure that the co-operatives are soundly financed, they will increase the reserves and they will reduce the State’s losses in terms of a State-guaranteed credit scheme. Up to now agriculture has not been open and I want to plead here today that there must be a freer participation by the communities in South Africa. I know the hon the Minister gave an undertaking earlier in this House to look at the whole questions of agricultural participation insofar as land usage is concerned. Land is to a large extent still owned by the White community and in terms of the Group Areas Act the other communities are restricted in their participation in agriculture per se.

We always support measures such as contained in this Bill before the House but we find it hard to accept after years in this House that agriculture is still not open to all communities. The hon the Minister himself said in this House that the production of food is vital to any nation and can only be achieved by the total commitment of the people of the country and that the Government should not place restrictions that will advantage one community only. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister and say to him that this country will be a far better place to live without such restrictions that militate against people of colour. In supporting this Bill I want to plead that agriculture should be open so that we can have better participation by all the communities in South Africa. I support the Bill before the House.

Mr Chairman, I agree entirely with the hon member for Red Hill when he says that the artificial division of agriculture into own affairs is absolutely nonsensical. Not a single Minister of the Government of this country or the subordinate Government of the country has any control whatsoever as to where the rain is going to fall and anyone who knows anything about farming will say that without life-giving water there can be no agriculture. Therefore to try to separate agriculture into own affairs is stupid. Unfortunately this is the stupidity that is perpetrated in this country of ours.

Having said that, one must acknowledge immediately the great role played by the co-operatives in the development of agriculture in this country long before we had this nonsense of group areas. One must give credit to the farmers and the farmers in those days were basically the Boers. The Boers were the people who grew the food that fed the country. Most of the Boers in those days were very poor. They struggled with the land to eke out a living for themselves and their families and endeavoured to sell the surplus. It was the poverty of the Boer farmers that made necessary the initial establishment of the cooperatives.

The co-operatives have played a brilliant role in helping to develop agriculture as a very important industry in this country. It can be said that with the one exception of Zimbabwe, South Africa is the only country in Africa which is not only self-sufficient in food but which exports food to other hungry parts of the world.

For this one has to give credit to our farmers, mainly the Boers, but also Indian farmers—the English speaking people of Natal—because the S A Sugar Association is also a kind of co-operative. It produces goods for us and sugar for export which brings in essential foreign currency.

We then have the various wool growers who also, through their co-operative, help to export wool which brings very valuable money which sustains this country. Therefore, one would be reluctant to tamper with the system of co-operatives which has existed very successfully in the past.

The hon member for Camperdown posed the question as to how many co-operatives were liquidated. He tells me that only three have been liquidated in the history of this country.

One very important co-operative is the Koöperatiewe Wynbouersvereniging van Suid-Afrika and here I want to be very critical of the hon the Minister of Agriculture—I am dealing with the co-operatives and not the next Bill—the hon the Minister made one mistake by not seeing to it that that co-operative sent samples to this House before the Bill came to this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not uninterested in the aspect of removing all restrictions in this field of agriculture, but unfortunately this Bill does not deal with that aspect. For that reason I should like to refrain from belabouring the issue.

Firstly, co-operatives play a very vital role in the economy of the country. For that reason it is extremely important that the State ensures that the financial infrastructure is sound. In order to ensure that the financial matters of the co-operatives are above board it empowers the hon the Minister to exercise over-all control over their finances. This is necessary and I want to welcome the Bill.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to thank hon members for their support for this very important Bill before the House. I want to say to my friend the hon member for Red Hill who was making the point that agriculture is not open, that as far as this Act is concerned there is no colour bar at all.

Land is the problem.

Well, land may be a problem, but I think that is a matter for another debate. We can discuss that and I am quite prepared for us to debate that point.

I must say that as far as the policy of the Government is concerned we believe it is essential that more land should be made available to the Indian agricultural community of South Africa. The hon member knows that I am in favour of that and we are working on that.

I first of all want to thank my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture for his assistance. He made the statement that the co-operative movement is very important for the restructuring of agriculture. I am fully in agreement with the hon member on this point.

I cannot see agriculture developing in this country without a very sound co-operative movement because it is part and parcel of all farming activities. I also thank the hon member for Camperdown who is always in opposition to me as far as agricultural matters are concerned, for the very good contribution that he made.

He said it was the basis of self-help. That is exactly the aim of agriculture and the co-operative movement in itself: Better farming and selfhelp. It is a system by which ordinary farmers— poor and rich farmers—can mobilise their ability and their capital in one organisation, to bargain in the market. The co-operative movement, therefore, is also part and parcel of our marketing activities in the field of agriculture. That was quite a good remark.

I must say that this is a very drastic measure because it affects the autonomy of co-operatives. This is linked to the carry-over debt scheme and is therefore affected by the State guaranteed credit scheme. I must say that it is only cooperatives with obligations in terms of the State guaranteed credit scheme that are affected, not all the co-operatives in South Africa. At this point only 32 out of more than 400 co-operatives are affected by this measure.

Hon members will notice in the relevant clause of the Bill that only co-operatives that are linked to the State-guaranteed credit scheme are involved. The position is as follows. Whenever the capital position of the co-operatives is sound, it is possible for them not to be affected by this measure. They are free to reserve their funds as they wish.

We hope that in the coming years better climatic conditions will prevail, which I believe will be the case. We have had a great deal of rain. I believe we are out of the drought cycle in South Africa. We are now moving towards much better climatic conditions. I believe it is quite possible that most of the 32 co-operatives affected by this clause will move out of this position and regain their autonomy as part and parcel of the private sector in South Africa. I thank you for your support, Sir.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act of 1957 differs substantially from the requirements of the Wine and Spirit Control Act of 1970. The Wine and Spirit Control Act of 1970 lays down stricter requirements, but these restrictions apply only to spirits manufactured in the RSA. The object of this Bill, therefore, is to amend the Wine and Spirit Control Act of 1970 so as to regulate the production and marketing of these products and to bring about some uniformity in the trade.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, as the Wine and Spirit Control Act of 1970 stands, no definition of a wholesale trader is given, and no limit to the quantity of supply of spirits by members of KWV. The fortification of wine by certain persons is also not indicated.

The non-fixing of certain prices for certain types of wine and the imposition of certain levies by the KWV are being provided for. This amending Bill now seeks to give a definite definition of “wholesale trader”, and the wholesaler trader is the KWV. This sets out: The situation with regard to the supply of spirit to members of the KWV for the fortification of their own products; the receipt of wine by certain persons; the fixing of prices for wine; and the imposition of certain levies by the said union. It also extends the power of the hon the Minister of Agriculture to suspend certain provisions of the Act and to regulate and empower the union to obtain certain particulars from its members regarding information on production and supply. The Bill also restricts the liability of the union and certain posts in respect of certain acts and omissions.

Finally, the Bill amends the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, 1957, Act 25 of 1957 to empower the Minister to prescribe requirements for certain spirits.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in terms of the existing law pertaining to the Wine and Spirit Control Act, the application of this Act is vested in the Winegrowers Co-operative Association— that is an English translation of “Ko-operatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging”—known as the KWV of SA.

The KWV is experiencing certain impediments inimical to the proper functioning and development of the wine industry as a whole. This Bill is aimed at removing those impediments so that the wine industry may develop faster and better than it is doing at present. Accordingly, in clause 1—this is what the hon member for Phoenix pointed out—as it stands, a wholesaler can only buy wine of a particular vintage. Clause 1 deletes that provision. The clause now provides that a “wholesale trader” is any person who buys during any one year a wholesale quantity—that means of anything.

It is interesting to note that this Bill amends section 3 of Act 47 of 1970, which was further amended by section 2 of Act 70 of 1972, section 1 of Act 26 of 1975 and section 3 of Act 44 of 1983. One fault of the South African Parliament is that we keep on amending. I think that ever since I have come to Parliament there has been nothing new; no new legislation addressing the problems of the country. We merely concern ourselves with housekeeping—with changing old Bills and adding on sections!

Clause 2 of the Bill is more important. As it stands, the co-operative may only supply spirits to winegrowers for the purposes of fortification in exchange for wine delivered by them for distilling purposes. If, for example, a farmer named Mr Van Zyl brings in 1 000 litres of wine for distilling in order that it may be converted to brandy or whatever by the KWV, then he in turn can buy from the co-operative that same amount of 1 000 litres. Clause 2 removes that impediment.

There is one more important point. There is a very important aspect of this Bill which is also a laudable concept.

South African wine prices are fixed according to alcohol strength. Certain overseas imports to this country are far inferior and in some cases contain only 40% of the South African product’s alcohol percentage. However, the price is approximately 10% cheaper and therefore there is an unfair competition with our wine-growing industry. This Bill makes it compulsive for even imported products to comply with the same regulations as our local products. That is the most laudable part of this Bill, which I welcome. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, before I proceed to comment on this very important Bill, I would like to say that I am pleased that the hon member for Phoenix has made a very sound contribution. The only thing he forgot to mention was membership of the AA. [Interjections.]

This Bill intends to amend the existing legislation that controls our wine and spirit industry. It deals in particular with the parent organisation of the wine industry, namely the KWV, which plays a very important role in production and distribution. The Bill empowers the KWV, as parent organisation and pioneer in the wine industry, to regulate, to update and to deal with the question of distribution, the quality and the price structure of the wine.

One of the clauses deals with the question of vintage. Vintage wine used to be a real problem in legislation and it seems as if the question of vintage has been removed entirely from the provision of the law itself. It is now very clear to the wine producer that the question of vintage can no longer influence the pricing of the wine.

Provision is also made for the KWV to sell spirits directly to the wine-growers. The qualifying terms upon which this is based, have been very clearly spelt out in that particular provision. The Bill also enables the KWV to exercise more effective control over the delivery of wine in bulk. The price matter has also been addressed. KWV also has control over the levies that have to be raised on wine. The wine-growers have to pay these levies and there are certain administrative functions in this regard which the wine-growers have to comply with. All these administrative functions are effectively dealt with in this amending legislation.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture saw the need to update this legislation and I think he should be commended for doing this. Wine as a product, and particularly the KWV, brings in a lot of foreign exchange. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, measures of this nature will open up the production and marketing of wine in South Africa. In this case we are dealing with the wine industry. I would like to mention that it is always a pleasure to deal with wine and spirits after the hon member Mr Thaver.

The reason we welcome the amendments contained in this Bill is primarily that what the Government wants to do in terms of its policy of deregulation is to give greater power—we spoke about the co-operatives a little while ago—to the Koöperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Zuid-Afrika, or KWV. In this way there will be a far greater measure of responsibility placed on that industry through its organisation. Better marketing is envisaged because of the bulk supply to other growers.

The other issue which was mentioned here, was the fixing of prices on a more market-orientated basis, and a good argument has been put forward in favour of that here. After all, South Africa has good vintage wines. One finds wine coming into this country from the overseas market and in this case there is unfair competition against our products. I therefore think it is a good measure.

The other aspect is to give the KWV the power to impose levies. I think that is also a good measure because it will then be able to view this particular matter more objectively rather than being told that the Government does all the imposing of levies. I think it is a good thing that the Government is being released from that type of involvement.

One last important point pertains to the control over the quality of wine that is imported into this country. At the present moment wines are being imported and there will be better control to ensure that the South African consumer is not given an inferior quality of wine. I think that is laudable because after all, competition is a good thing, but unfair competition on the basis of inferior quality is not good at all. I think that for that reason alone the amendments here are welcome. We on this side of the House welcome the amendments which make for much freer marketing in order to achieve all-round orderly marketing of the product in the future.

Mr Chairman, the Bill represents a progressive step, allowing the small producer an opportunity to conduct his business in the wine trade.

You are a whisky drinker. What do you know about wine? [Interjections.]

Well, under your tutelage I am learning all about the different qualities of wine and that is why I am very concerned about this Bill. I am not advocating that the poorer quality of wine must find the markets; on the contrary, the very high standards of South African wine should be maintained and improved upon. I do not want to over-emphasise the issue of imported wines being of poor quality. There is a distinct possibility that our wines could be of poorer quality.

The large wine co-operatives should not monopolise the wine industry. There should be free competition between the trader and the producer, which would ultimately benefit the consumer.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members on both sides of the House for their support for this very important Bill. I think it is also important that I say that hon members are aware of the fact that we are moving towards a more market-orientated production system with regard to all agricultural products in South Africa, and especially the wine industry.

This amendment is based primarily on the fact that there have been changes to the marketing system and circumstances were such that these amendments became necessary. Most of the amendments are of a technical nature and I do not think there are any important principles involved in the Bill. Most of the amendments are of a technical nature. I therefore want to thank hon members. I must say that most of these amendments were discussed with all the various sectors in the industry.

Not only the KWV was consulted, but also the industry as a whole and businesses. This is a very important amendment and I therefore thank hon members for their contributions, not only in the standing committee, but also during this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Water Act, 1956, requires the submission of reports to Parliament on proposed Government water works or on works to be constructed by other bodies with the aid of a State loan or subsidy. The submission of reports to Parliament is only made if the expected construction costs exceed a prescribed amount of R10 million. Owing to inflation, this amount had to be adjusted by amending legislation on several occasions. Legislation costs time and money, which both give rise to further inflation. In order to obviate a routine of amending this legislation it is proposed that the section involved be amended so that in future the Minister of Finance may determine these amounts.

The Bill also proposes the extension of the power of the Minister of Water Affairs, relating to the deregulation of control over Government water works to the private sector, the authorisation of irrigation boards and water boards to raise loans, and, with the approval of the Minister of Water Affairs, to render services outside the areas for which they were established.

Finally, the Bill makes provision that no subsidy for water works shall be granted unless the Minister approves the construction of the water work concerned before the construction of the water work has commenced.

Mr Chairman, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, to me this Bill and this department brings back memories of the first standing committee on which I served as a member of Parliament. The first standing committee on which I served was the Water Affairs Standing Committee and the first Bill which we discussed concerned water affairs.

Over the years we have had several White Papers. Every time I wondered why these unnecessary technical impediments could not be removed. As it stands, in terms of the Water Act, Act No 54 of 1956, whoever undertakes a water work has to get an assessment and a quotation for that particular water work. The problem is that it may initially be estimated that a water work will cost below R10 million and a tender may go out for that amount. However, water works that are now built take years to complete. I know certain dams, like the Midmar Dam in Natal, took seven years to build. During the course of that time, escalations take place due to inflation and price increases. Immediately when the cost reaches R10 million, the Department of Water Works or the Water Board or the Minister himself will stop work and report to Parliament what happened and why this increase came about. They tabled a White Paper on this—quite a few White Papers were tabled through the years on water works. A recent one was on the Steenbras Dam in Cape Town. A White Paper on that issue was also tabled. Then Parliament authorised the extra expenditure announced.

I think I can safely say that all the amendments in this Bill are to a large extent technical amendments that remove the silly impediments that waste Parliament’s time, eg having to go through White Papers and having sittings of standing committees to get Parliament to approve the relevant expenditures. This is merely a technical Bill that enables Government water works to operate more effectively. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Act Amendment Bill sets out to amend the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Act, 1950.

No, you are speaking on the wrong Bill!

Mr Chairman, I am sorry. May I withdraw from this debate?

Order! Yes, you may withdraw.

Mr Chairman, regrettably the hon member for Phoenix is somewhat confused as to which Bill is being debated. The Bill that we are debating now is B 24 of 1988.

Water as an essential commodity for the sustenance of life is a subject which is indeed of interest to all the inhabitants of our country. The Water Act, 1956, is the legislative mechanism regulating the development and utilisation of our generally scarce water resources and careful attention to its amendment is justified.

In times of an over-abundance of water such as we are experiencing at present, we can be sure of one thing and that is that we will experience water scarcity again somewhere in the future. It is therefore reassuring to see once again that continued efforts are being made to improve the provisions of this Act in order to ensure that it will at all times provide the necessary regulating machinery to satisfy the ever increasing demand for water in our country.

The amendments proposed in the Bill under consideration today are of a more administrative nature, as was eloquently explained by the hon member who spoke before me. It is aimed at facilitating the important work of the State in the planning of water source development. I refer in this connection in particular to clauses 1, 6 and 8 which refer to the submission of the so-called White Papers on water works in terms of sections 58,157 and 162 of the Act. Although these White Papers always make interesting reading one must be realistic and accept that they cannot be required for an excessive number of relatively minor works. The proposals in terms whereof the submission of White Papers will in future be automatically confined to the larger and more important water works are necessary but will not in any way result in a lessening of control. I support these proposals.

It is also satisfying to note that as a result of the proposed amendment to section 69 of the Act, private enterprise will be afforded the opportunity to take part in the development of the recreational potential of our State dams. This amendment is indeed welcome.

In conclusion I want to support the other proposals to amend the Water Act, 1956, relating to loan management by irrigation and water boards as contained in clauses 3,5 and 7 as well as greater flexibility which the proposed amendment to section 110 will afford water boards.

This Bill is therefore supported in its entirety and I wish my colleagues the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs well in their administration of this Act.

Mr Chairman, yet again we have in this House a Bill which proposes to amend certain impediments, resulting in a much freer use of facilities. One proposal which has been mentioned by the hon the Deputy Minister is that the hon the Minister now is able to give much better usage by delegating to any person the use of water works for recreation purposes.

I think that this was a bit of red tape as many people used to say. This will result in much better usage of the facilities that South Africa has. The other interesting amendment in this particular Bill is also of course because of our market related interest. It is better for the water boards to go for a loan on the open market. In this way they will be able to get loans at a reduced interest rate as opposed to a fixed interest rate as is happening now. In this case there will be a saving which could be passed on to the consumer in the future.

The other aspect which also needs to be mentioned here is that the Minister no longer has to come to Parliament with amending legislation but can continue with the work and at a later stage this Bill will enable the Minister of Finance to make the adjustments to overexpenditure. These escalations do create problems. In the end the burden of the escalation is passed on to the consumer. The amendments will to some extent ensure that a very large escalation does not take place because of the time factor. In this case the department can continue with its work and can avoid spending time on drawing up legislation for all their expenditure. The same applies when it has been approved for subsidy purposes. In this case the Minister had problems and had to make certain amendments. These amendments now will give him free rein to ensure that the work continues and not to burden the consumer with the escalations again.

We on this side of the House support this measure and we believe it is another move, having listened to other amendments, to allow the Act to be better utilised so that greater benefit can accrue in the end.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all the hon members who have supported this Bill. Firstly, the hon member for North Coast pointed out the unnecessary amendment of legislation to meet escalating costs and then referred to the greater flexibility of privatisation. I should like to thank the hon member for his support in this regard. The hon member for Camperdown said that these are technical amendments aimed at streamlining the administration of the Water Act as a whole and I thank the hon member.

The hon the Deputy Minister for Local Government also said that the amendments are of an administrative nature and I should like to thank the hon member for the good wishes he extended to the hon the Minister and me.

The hon member for Red Hill referred to the benefits deriving from all the proposed amendments in this Bill. I should like to thank all hon members who supported this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it has been said that South Africa is a land of extremes. This is true when it comes to water. We have either too much or too little. At present we have floods which are causing havoc throughout the country. In recent years we have also experienced crippling droughts, the effects of which were felt throughout the economy.

It is in these dry and hard times that water recovered through the purification or treatment of effluent constitutes an important source of water which can be utilised in the RSA. In order to optimise the utilisation of water resources on a regional basis the Water Act of 1956 was amended in 1981 to vest the power to purify, treat or dispose of effluent in water boards established under the Water Act of 1956.

It is proposed in this Bill that the same powers be vested in the Rand Water Board for the same reasons. I have no problems with supporting this proposal but I would like to point out that the entire area of the Transvaal now falls under regional services councils that have commenced operations. This means the entire area of supply of the Rand Water Board falls under established regional services councils or under regional services councils that will be coming into operation in May or June this year. The status quo of the Rand Water Board and the overall controlling body has been maintained. The Rand Water Board currently consists of nine members appointed by the Minister of Water Affairs. It is proposed in this Bill that the membership of the board be increased to not more than 12. As no members of colour serve on the present board I propose that members of other race groups also be represented. I would like the hon the Minister to give this House an assurance in this regard.

With this proviso I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to apologise to the Chair for picking the wrong topic. Because there is so much water around us I really became confused. I hope the Chair will understand.

This Bill sets out to amend the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private Act) of 1950. The objectives of the Bill include defining “preferent consumer”. In this case “preferent consumer” means any regional services council established under section 3 of the Regional Services Councils Act, 1985 (Act No 109 of 1985).

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister with regard to the composition of the board and I want to reiterate the facts emphasised by the hon member for North Coast. We do not have a clear definition of the members that will serve on this board although it is stated that the board shall consist of 12 members. I want the hon the Minister to think about these 12 members. Are they all White members or do they fall within the ambit of the regional services councils?

The Bill further sets out to make other provision relating to finance and the composition of the executive committee; to determine the rate of interest in respect of payment in arrear for water supplied; to determine rates chargeable for water supplied to consumers; and to adjust the maximum amount the board may borrow by way of overdraft from any bank.

The Bill further makes provision to meet amounts payable in bills current at any one time; to empower the board to purify, treat and dispose of effluent; and to provide for all incidental matters relating thereto.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, having studied the Bill before this House today, and having read the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech in the House of Assembly on 10 March 1988, it is clear to me that this Bill is a necessity to enable the Rand Water Board to function even more efficiently in the future. The three-tier tariff structure is being replaced by a two-tier structure. This proposed amendment resulted from the fact that several new local authorities in the supply area of the board, that previously formed part of the area of jurisdiction of a foundation local authority as described in the Act, have come into being.

In practice this results therein that these new local authorities no longer qualify for the benefit derived by the other foundation local authorities. They have subsequently had to pay more for their water.

The foundation local authorities will now pay only slightly more for their water; approximately 2,9%. On the other hand, however, the existing privileged consumers and these aforementioned new local authorities will have their water tariffs reduced by approximately 6,1%.

However, this is not the only reason for revising the three-tier structure. The demand for water in the supply area of the Vaal River is growing constantly, and the State has built a number of water transfer schemes to meet this growing demand. These actions by the State, that have cost several million rands, benefit all the consumers that buy water from the Vaal River, and it is only fair that they all contribute.

I have mentioned water transfer schemes, and as hon members are aware, Natal is exporting water to the Vaal River catchment area to keep the life-blood of industry available in the PWV complex.

There have been many debates about the fact that the Tugela basin exports its life-blood to the Vaal, but these debates have not resulted in a fair sharing of our resources. This is what the Tugela Vaal scheme is all about, namely that in this country we are one country, and our resources should be shared, and shared where the need is greatest.

They share power with us.

Yes, that is true; they share their power with us, therefore I do not see that there is anything wrong with sharing our water from the Tugela River with the PWV area.

In times of drought it is a lifeline. In times of surplus water it gives the assurance that should the position in regard to the water supply be reversed, there will still be water available.

Water is a liquid that holds many advantages, but it also has the ability to destroy everything that stand in its way, as has been so graphically illustrated in recent times. I refer to the flooding in the Free State, the Northern Cape and Natal.

The floods in the Vaal and the Orange Rivers in the past three weeks are proof of this. What is more, it is not only the major rivers that come down in flood. For example, our good old Klip River near Ladysmith is a relatively small river, but once it is in flood, as it has been several times this year, it disrupts and destroys. Human lives are lost.

The State, by means of the dams it has built, has provided means to harness the force of the water, but it can never be eliminated. The local authorities and inhabitants of low lying areas must be careful as regards development in areas subject to flooding.

In many areas of this country, some of the under-privileged communities in particular are suffering because of this lack of foresight, in that low-lying areas have over the years been identified for housing, when these areas ought never to have been so identified. In many parts of the country we are now paying the price of this lack of foresight by former planners.

In some cases there are high-risk areas that demand urgent attention. Reports on the floods in Ladysmith have been compiled and I hope to attain them within the next few weeks for further perusal.

On behalf of Ladysmith I now want to appeal to my colleague, the hon the Minister, to kindly expedite this report which all the people of Natal who are sympathetic towards our problems, are looking forward to. We have daily enquiries concerning this report.

I may have strayed slightly from the contents of the Bill before us and I would now like to return to it.

This was a junction.

Yes. Ladysmith is an important junction. As I come from this town I think I am at present allowed to deviate somewhat. [Interjections.] The other matter which I would like to refer to is the proposed expansion of the board from its existing membership of nine people to 12. The hon member for North Coast made mention of this, as did the hon member for Phoenix.

Earlier on I mentioned the number of new local authorities which have been established over the past few years. RSC’s have been established as well. There are several RSC’s in the supply area of the board and it is only fair to increase the size of the board so as to pave the way for even better representation on it. Having worked in close liaison with the hon the Minister for the past few months, I am sure that he will give careful consideration to the nominees for the vacancies which have to be filled once this Bill becomes law, which it surely will. In my opinion appointment to the board should be on merit alone. While it is desirable that all race groups be brought into these boards which administer the affairs of the country, we should not detract from the fact that the most important criterion should be merit, when deciding on the membership of these boards. I am sure the hon the Minister will give us the assurance today that these appointments will indeed be on merit.

Mr Chairman, does the hon the Deputy Minister foresee any problems with the supply of water, when he states that he has nothing against diverting water from the Tugela River to the PWV-area? Does the hon the Deputy Minister realise that there is tremendous development in the Tugela Basin, so that we may eventually not have sufficient water there?

Mr Chairman, knowing the hon the Minister as I do, I believe that the question of water supply is in very able hands. I do not believe that the hon the Minister will in any way deprive the Tugela Basin of water which is to be used in the Transvaal. I would like to assure my colleague the hon the Minister here, that the question of water supply for the Tugela Basin will at all times be under control.

Our water is for everyone.

Yes, there is enough water in Natal. More than enough.

Good progress.

The Rand Water Board has an important task to fulfil and I trust that its new power regarding purification and treatment of effluent, which is envisaged in the Bill, will be utilised as successfully as it has undertaken its other functions in the past. In the Bill provision is made to remove unnecessary burdens and to improve the daily administration of the board. This is a positive step. I support the Bill and I wish the Rand Water Board all of the best in its endeavours.

Mr Chairman, to an increasing extent water recovered by means of the purification or treatment of effluent constitutes an important source of water which can be utilised in the Republic. In order to optimise the utilisation of the available water resources on a regional basis, the Water Act, 1956, was amended in 1981 to vest the power to purify, treat or dispose of effluent, in water boards established under the Water Act, 1956. It is proposed that the same power be vested in the Rand Water Board for the same reasons. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, those selfish Afrikaans-speaking hon members of this House are really self-centred. They are jealous of my speaking Afrikaans.

We are very proud of you! [Interjections.]

They must remember that in 1985 and 1986 I did not know how to say “good morning” in Afrikaans.

Good morning!

Now they feel jealous. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, I should like to come back to the Bill.

I specifically welcome the provision to include members of Black local authorities on the controlling body of the Rand Water Board. Membership of the board is to be increased from 9 to 12 and I take it that those three extra members will be members of those Black local authorities.

Furthermore, I also welcome the provisions contained in this Bill to replace the three-tier tariff with a two-tier tariff whereby, once again, the poorer Black local authorities will benefit.

I do not want to go into detail about the various rates levied here. I must commend the hon the Minister on having accepted the amendments that were put forward in the standing committee. He accepted them willingly and without any qualms, which I also do. This is a very good Bill. It is an enabling bill. It brings the process of water purification into line throughout the country, and I support it.

Mr Chairman, this Bill deals with a completely new situation in South Africa, in keeping with the constitutional changes that are taking place.

When this House once debated the Regional Services Councils Bill, different attitudes were expressed towards the establishment of the regional services councils. Some were realistic, others were based on political considerations and yet others on ideological considerations. The regional services councils are a reality in certain regions in South Africa and they will become a reality in that part of South Africa in which there was some resistance from certain quarters, namely our liberal province of Natal.

Before I deal with the role of the regional services councils—one aspect of the amendment in particular deals with the accommodation of this new structure at a lower level of government—I want to say that it is correct to state that we are living in one country as one nation within one boundary using one supply of water. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the usage by the Witwatersrand of the water from Natal.

I had the opportunity of being briefed about the issue by the officials of the water institutes of this country and I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Natal, especially the Tugela basin, is not disadvantaged in any way as a result of the Transvaal getting water from the Tugela. Of course, the hon the State President, in association with a joint planning council of the government of kwaZulu, has placed a very high priority on the development of the Tugela basin. I believe, as my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture quite correctly stated, that the development of the Tugela basin will give Natal, and especially the kwaZulu region, the underdeveloped area, the impetus it requires.

I made a remark when the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture was speaking that Natal may lose water to the Transvaal, water which it may not require for its own development and use, but in return the Witwatersrand area reticulates electricity power. In a time of need, one must undertake a study of our electricity supply system in this country. If the level of supply in a particular area is affected, within a short space of time we are able to connect our electricity supply from any part of South Africa to any other part of South Africa where the need exists.

We are worried about housing, economic development, health services and welfare, but many people do not take into consideration the tremendous improvement South Africa is undergoing, as compared to Third World and underdeveloped countries, not only on the African continent, but other countries in other continents as well, in respect of the extension of the supply of fresh water to its population. I think every new area to which fresh water supply is extended, constitutes an addition to the type of reforms we are undergoing in this country. Our Administration attaches a very high premium to extending a fresh water supply to people who do not have this. One finds in Natal, in particular areas that are not far away from the metropolis of Durban, that people find it extremely difficult to get fresh water. In the areas around Stanger, Tongaat, in Nemona and in Umzinto people find it extremely difficult to obtain fresh water for drinking purposes.

Here I come to an issue which is very relevant to the Bill we are discussing, which is commonly referred to as the in-city tariff and out-of-city tariff. This is why the establishment of the regional services councils is of tremendous benefit and assistance to underprivileged and underdeveloped communities in this country. I would like to quote from the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister of Water Affairs on this Bill. He said, and I quote:

If one compares the area under the jurisdiction of the Rand Water Board with, for example, the area under the jurisdiction of the Umgeni Water Board, one cannot explain the difference to people. I could draw an example from the people of Germiston, where on one side of a particular line one pays one type of tariff for water and just across the road disadvantaged people have to pay a higher tariff. We are now doing things on a regional basis. Gone are the days when we must look at things on a parochial basis. Therefore the establishment of regional services councils appears to be an adequate answer to the regional problems. The hon the Minister said, and I quote:

Here is one example where underdeveloped, poor and underprivileged communities are now getting an advantage and becoming privileged consumers.

I want to express the wish for the benefit of those who are living in the urban areas as well, that we should get rid of this two-tariff structure in a further process of change. We must give consideration to doing away with this concept as well as the practical application of an in-city tariff and out-of-city tariff, because we cannot explain the situation to the average man in the street.

Areas where out-of-city tariffs apply are really the semi-rural areas where people live because of the history of this country, the economics of this country and because they are poor. They do not have the opportunities. Let us take Durban for example. There is a massive informal settlement in Inanda. Those people will have to pay out-of-city tariffs if the water tariffs are corrected. They will then say that all the giants across the road who are able to afford an out-of-city tariff, receive preferential rates.

One of the great achievements of this Bill is that the users of water in areas under the jurisdiction of the regional services councils will be regarded as privileged consumers. I think this amendment will definitely benefit the underdeveloped regions and the underprivileged people of South Africa to a large extent. We should not complain about the benefits received by the area under the jurisdiction of the Rand Water Board. That area is not only the industrial heartland of South Africa but the industrial heartland of the whole Southern African region on which not only the people of South Africa rely but the people of Southern Africa as a whole. They rely on this area for prosperity, growth and a living.

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had to say on this particular Bill. I think we should stop confusing what is envisaged in this Bill with the whole question of regional services councils. I think it needs to be placed on record that nobody opposes the concept of rationalisation as regional services councils. However, the manner in which regional services councils are constructed in terms of the legislation is what this side of the House opposes. We will continue to oppose the creation of such structures.

So you do not agree with the concept?

We are not discussing the question of RSCs here. We are talking of areas where preferential treatment will be given to certain consumers. The concept of RSCs is something quite different. This debate must not be used to try to suggest that everybody is suddenly madly in love with the way in which RSCs are structured in South Africa.

We must also put the record straight that we who come from Natal are fully aware of the attitude of the majority of people in Natal to regional services councils. We are fully aware of what the Kwazulu government has to say about it. Negotiations in that direction have not been finalised. They have not accepted it. The structure of RSCs is based on the concept of ethnic local authorities. I want to put the records straight.

I do not think that a debate like this should be used as an opportunity to try to market RSCs by saying that the Opposition, by supporting the preferential consumer tariffs, is supporting the structure of RSCs.

You are doing that in fact!

I cannot help people who have difficulties with comprehension. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with another aspect as well. I accept that water is a commodity that belongs to all the people of South Africa. I accept that water should be made available to the PWV area—I accept that.

It would be naive for people to say that there is an abundance of water in the Tugela Basin area. If water is in fact pumped from the Tugela River it would help the drought-stricken farmers in the Nanuti area. So it is obvious that some people are not cognisant of the facts and what happens in that particular area.

What I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister is that there is water in the Tugela area and whilst it is possible to pump water out of the Tugela into the Transvaal, the hon the Minister should think very seriously about getting water out of the Tugela for what I would submit is agriculturally fertile ground in the Nanuti area. The problem there is the lack of rainfall and to supplement it the water could in fact be pumped out of the Tugela and farming could be done on a large scale on an irrigation basis. This would bring a lot of relief to that particular region.

I believe that if water were to be provided that region has a capacity to produce food for the people of South Africa. I should like those who do not understand the area to inspect it, to talk to the people in the area and the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in this particular Chamber. He will indeed be able to invite them and to confirm what I am saying.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member deny that just as water is an important component in the R.S.C., it is also important in the drought-stricken area of Namibia?

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister answers his own question.

If the less fortunate people are going to obtain water at a better price, we welcome it. However, we sincerely trust that the RSCs as the agents who are going to be selling it on a regional basis, will not structure their tariffs in such a way that they are out of the reach of poor people.

Mr Chairman, I think everyone knows that Paani-dhan is probably one of the most important duties that any individual has to perform, ie the giving of water to any person who is thirsty.

It is God who provides the water and water is a necessity. We know that in the peri-urban areas there are a large number of—I am using the word which is in current usage—Indian people who pay for water. Yet their Black fellow residents who do not have piped water, come and take water from the standpipes free of charge because it is part of Indian culture that anyone who wants water, gets it free of charge because water is God’s gift.

For that reason, and other sound reasons, there can be no reasonable objection to the waters of the Tugela being pumped upwards over the Drakensberg into the Vaal. What I think is important to remember, is the fantastic engineering feat that went into that particular project.

When I was first told about this project by a professor at Natal University, my mind boggled. It did not seem possible that water could actually be made to flow upwards. That is precisely what was done and oddly enough, without adding to the cost. From what I was given to understand, water is pumped up and this costs electricity. That water then flows down again and on the downward path that water produces electricity which compensates for the electricity consumed during the upward journey. That was very clever. I think it is time we took a few minutes off to compliment the engineers who conceived this project and those who approved it—obviously it was the civil servants and politicians who approved it. I am not going to compliment this particular hon Minister for having thought up the project because I am sure it required skilled engineers and engineering architects to do so.

This is a great development in this country and it is an idea we can export to other parts of the world.

From that point of view one part of South Africa made “dhan”, it gave some of the water it had to another part of South Africa that needed that water. I can see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Similarly, it seems such a pity that so many cusecs of water are washed into the Atlantic Ocean via the Orange River when theoretically and technically it is feasible for that water to be brought down into the Karoo. All that is required is money. If only we did not have this stupid system of apartheid which wastes hundreds of millions of rands a year, some of that money could be used to benefit all the people of this country. So I think we should get rid of apartheid and apply the resources of this country to bring water to all the parched areas.

The reason why we opposed the Regional Services Councils Bill, and why we are not particularly enamoured of the Regional Services Councils Act, is that they seek indirectly to entrench apartheid through having racially organised local authorities, perpetuating the present system and intensifying and entrenching apartheid. We hate apartheid not only emotionally. We hate it because it is counterproductive, it is destructive and it wastes the assets of this country in a divisive policy, whereas those assets could be used, as I said, to bring the waters of the Orange River down to the Karoo to the farmers there. We are told that if that land has enough water it could be very fertile land, which would also produce additional food apart from providing for animal husbandry.

Anyone who tries indirectly to support this system of separate local authorities by devious tendentiousness is a supporter of apartheid and stands condemned as that.

Mr Chairman, I refer to one of the points raised by my colleague the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The hon the Minister will recall that during the time of drought in South Africa, an expert from the United States of America arrived in South Africa. His main observation was that in South Africa it would be an expensive and futile exercise to dam water to the extent to which this has been done so far. This is because the evaporation of water in sunny South Africa is higher than in many other parts of the world, and there would be great evaporation. He ended by saying what my colleague said: What South Africa will have to do is pipe the water before it gets into the sea, and pump it back. There will have to be a network of rivers linked to one another. I am glad that in the report which was presented to the Cabinet some time ago this scheme is being envisaged in the linking of resources.

With regard to the Bill we are debating here this afternoon, I think this is again an attempt to reduce interference by the Government itself and the Minister, and to allow the water boards to operate on a more market-related basis. I think this is being achieved here and we should not be making an issue of the regional services councils.

In the fourth paragraph of the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech it states that the reason a lower, two-tier tariff was achieved was that the more consumer local authorities are incorporated, the cheaper the commodity becomes. It is not really necessary to add the RSCs. Of course, the concept of regionalisation is no problem at all so the issue here before us is really the achievement of a lower tariff and the combination of more local authorities in this regard. I think it is to be welcomed that the hon the Minister is to allow for the extension of the jurisdiction of these water boards in the future.

We have dealt with the previous Bill amending the Water Act in terms of which the hon the Minister has allowed for the jurisdiction to be extended. In that way this is made far more feasible as far as the Bill is concerned.

The other aspect which I think it is important to examine, besides the matter of the use of the testing facilities and so on, is that it also allows the board itself, through the repeal of section 33, to determine from time to time, as circumstances require, that it will be able to work on a much freer basis; that is to say, freer of all the restrictions under which the board operates.

Clause 6 deals with interest rates. Where interest rates are subject to frequent changes it is essential that the provisions of the Act applicable to interest rates must be flexible. Again, I think this is important because interest rates on the market can fluctuate, and I think that this gives the board a much better working basis in its efforts to rectify its interest rates in future. This also applies to section 48(2) of the Act, which prescribes fixed rates of interest. The amendment will enable a more flexible approach to be adopted as far as the interest rate is concerned. In terms of this the board will determine the rate of interest from time to time, taking into account the prevailing rates of interest that are mentioned.

I also wish to say that powers are also being granted as regards the limit to its borrowing power, which will obviate the need for the Minister to adjust these limits in future. The reason why we should make a contribution is that today we have seen four pieces of legislation, all of which facilitate the application of the legislation by the people involved to ensure that the maximum benefit will accrue to the consumer in the end. I think this is encouraging, and I hope that we shall also take steps to try and reduce those powers and to make this more flexible so that ultimately the end-user will benefit.

We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the fact that no fewer than eight hon members have taken part in this debate shows that there is great interest in water affairs. I as the responsible Minister am very glad that that is the case.

I think that the debate has ranged rather widely at times, as you must have noticed, since a number of matters that were raised in the course of the debate in fact have nothing to do with the Bill under discussion. However, it is just as well that we consider these matters, if you so permit, Mr Chairman, since ultimately it is a matter of supplying water for the whole of this country. I believe that within a decade or two we in South Africa will be in the position of having a completely integrated water system in terms of which all the various catchment areas will be interconnected. When this is so it will no longer be the case that we will have Natal water, Witwatersrand water, Orange Free State water or Cape water; it will just be a matter of water for wherever it is needed. I think we are slowly moving in that direction.

In the mean time I can tell hon members that it is the policy of the Department of Water Affairs not to take water that cannot be spared from a catchment area or a river basin. We take only the surplus water. It is only the surplus water that will be pumped over into another system, since we think that the needs of a specific area or river basin must be the first priority as far as its water is concerned. Therefore hon members may rest assured that we will not pump more water from the Tugela Basin than is necessary. We shall only use water that can be spared.

A few interesting remarks were made concerning the Regional Services Councils. The debate on RSCs may not be quite proper here, except for the fact that these councils, which are a fait accompli, will be customers of the Rand Water Board. As we all know, the Rand Water Board supplies water in bulk to municipalities or local authorities and now also to RSCs. It is interesting to note that if we had not changed the three-tier price system, the new RSCs which are coming in as new customers would be at a disadvantage as compared to the founder members. Similarly, every new township or municipality buying water from the Rand Water Board would have been at a disadvantage compared to the founder consumers.

It is high time that we correct the situation. For many years these founder members have been subsidised—one could almost say—because they had very low water tariffs and they were in a position to develop their infrastructure. They are the stronger municipalities, servicing more affluent societies. It is high time that this is levelled off and the sacrifice that the founder members are making is not as great as the benefit that the preferential members will derive. In other words, here is a case where those who have to give up a privilege actually have to give up far less compared to the benefit which others stand to derive. Calculated on present tariffs the impact of the consolidation of the foundation and preferent tariffs into a uniform rate would be, that the foundation consumer’s rate of 35,45 cents per kilolitre and the preferent’s rate of 38,88 cent per kilolitre—one can see the difference between the two there—would combine to yield a single rate of 36,49. The foundation consumer therefore will pay an additional 1,04 cent per cubic litre of water. However, the benefit derived by the preferent consumer—these younger municipalities—is in the order of 2,39 cent per cubic litre of water. The advantage in this legalisation of the tariff is much greater than the disadvantage.

The hon member for North Coast referred to the extra members that will now be appointed to the board and he wants the assurance that some of these members will be people of colour.

The hon the Deputy Minister pointed out that these appointments would be made on merit. However, we are now dealing with a far greater area and in this new area that is now coming under the jurisdiction of the Rand Water Board there will be Coloured, Indian and Black communities. Naturally, I shall ask them to make their nominations and I shall make the appointments on merit. However, I cannot give an assurance today that there will be one or two or three or four, or whatever number of people of colour on this council. I am not going to do so, either, because we have people of colour serving on our water boards at present. However, they were not appointed on the basis of a fixed rule that there must be one or two or three or however many people of colour on such a board. They are there' because they were appointed on their own merits. This water board is a completely colourless board. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, it may comprise any number of members of colour. I am not going to be prescriptive. I am not going to give the House an assurance that there will be two or three or any specific number of people of colour. What I will tell hon members, is that as many people of colour as have the necessary merit and have been nominated by their communities, will be considered. That is far as I can go.

The hon member for Phoenix also referred to the board. The same answer applies to him.

I want to thank my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for his support for this Bill. He made a few very interesting comments on this Bill. I also think he went slightly beyond the scope of this Bill, but we will forgive him for that. I think my hon colleague was slightly out of order at one stage but as I say, as long as it has to do with water being made available to all the citizens of South Africa, I think it can be allowed.

The report to which he referred is, of course, another matter. It is a local matter and I can assure him that as soon as that report is made available I shall invite him and other interested parties to come and discuss it with me.

The hon member for Camperdown, whom I see is not here at the moment, surprised me by addressing me in Afrikaans.

*I think in future I shall also make a point of delivering parts of my speeches in Afrikaans here. It seems as if certain members of this House have a need of also hearing a few words of Afrikaans now and again. I appreciate the hon member for Camperdown’s neat effort at speaking Afrikaans.

†The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made a very valuable contribution, and I want to thank him for that. He said this Bill was in keeping with constitutional developments. Of course it is. The regional services council will, of course, also nominate its members as a consumer. Once again, if those members nominated by a regional services council have the necessary merit, we will consider appointing them to this board.

He made the statement that the Tugela Basin was not being disadvantaged. I agree with him about the pumping scheme.

He referred to an integrated water scheme and an integrated electricity supply system. This is the direction in which we will be moving in the future.

The hon member for Stanger had a bone to pick about the regional services councils.

I was merely responding.

Pardon?

Somebody thought it was enabling legislation for RSCs and I just had to set the record straight.

It is not an enabling Bill for RSCs but it enables RSCs already in existence to become consumers of the Rand Water Board.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown has broken the line.

Mr Chairman, I thought the hon member for Stanger was speaking.

He was interjecting.

Mr Chairman, I think the point made by the hon member for Stanger that the Tugela should be used to irrigate fertile agricultural land, is an argument which we have heard many times before, but it is also the policy of the Department of Water Affairs. I have already stated in this debate already it is the policy to use water, first and foremost, within a certain river basin, if there is a demand for it and it can be utilised. However, there is also a duty on the people living there to form their own irrigation boards and apply for that water. They can finally form their own irrigation boards by way of a White Paper to Parliament and get certain rights to use the water that is available.

I made a note that I must point out to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the Rand Water Board supplies water in bulk and that the municipalities and the local authorities will reticulate that water to the final consumer. What we are doing here is to give the municipalities a uniform water tariff so that when they want to develop their own municipal and industrial areas, the one is not at a disadvantage in comparison with the other because of differentiated water tariffs.

Concerning the hon member for Red Hill, I have made a note here that the debate ranged very wide and was sometimes not related to the Bill under discussion. He noted the interest rates which now give the board more flexibility. I think I understood correctly that he supported the Bill.

I want to thank all hon members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Wednesday, 16 March, at 14h15 for the delivering of the Second Reading speech on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.