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

The fact that there is a crime situation which is of concern to ordinary law-abiding citizens in South Africa, is, of course, a matter which I believe is a reality and is not even open to debate. Secondly, I think it should be common cause among all the parties in this House that a serious crime situation does exist. Perhaps it is not inappropriate to point out that, insofar as crimes of violence against persons are concerned, taking into account the total population of the Republic, at least one crime of violence is committed against a person every minute of every day. Two crimes involving the property of persons are committed every minute of every day. If we take that as a basis for the seriousness of the situation, I do not think anyone can ignore it. There may be differences of opinion on the causes of, the responsibility for and on the consequences of the situation. There may also be differences of opinion on the steps to be taken to deal with the situation. However, I do not believe there can be any question of dispute on the existence of the situation.

The causes of our high levels of crime are perhaps many and include among other things the following. Firstly, there are social causes, particularly pertaining to a continuing high level of unemployment and, no doubt, the breakdown of old established values. These values relate in particular to family life and increased urbanisation with all its problems, including inadequate housing and other matters which clearly contribute towards the social causes of crime. Secondly, I think the question of the inadequate numbers of the Police Force needs to be taken into account. When we look at the position of the number of police per capita of population, bearing in mind the size of the South African population and the problems which South Africa has, we see that the figure is approximately two per thousand of the population which does not compare favourably with other countries in similar situations in the world. The figure I have quoted is an approximate one because accurate figures are not available to us at the moment.

While we speak of the police in this context, I think it is necessary to point out that there are thousands and thousands of South Africans who are appreciative of the services of the police in fighting crime. These people are also appreciative of the acts of bravery of many policemen in the performance of those duties where they themselves risk their lives in order to safeguard the persons and property of other individuals. That must not be allowed to go unsaid in a debate of this nature.

I do not think one can escape the reality that one of the problems in relation to crime and the availability of police has been the necessity in the minds of the authorities to divert police from ordinary anti-crime activities in order to deal with unrest-related activities. There is no doubt that that has had a bearing on the level of crime in South Africa.

The third point that I would like to mention is that I think among certain sections of the community there is in fact not only a loss of respect for law enforcement agencies but in many cases also a loss of respect for the law itself. No doubt it can be argued that some of this loss of respect is the result of political activity. However, some of it is due to a state of mind in that certain people who have been imprisoned or have been punished by a court no longer regard crime with a degree of social opprobrium. I think urgent steps are needed to ensure that the status of the courts in South Africa- which is under attack—is maintained and that the normal values in respect of attitudes towards crime and punishment are restored in the country.

One cannot allow a situation to develop where people regard punishment by the courts and the commission of crimes as no longer deserving of social opprobrium, because once that happens the law enforcement agencies are tremendously handicapped in their task.

There will doubtless be real differences on the issue of responsibility, but the way in which I should like to approach the debate is not to argue as to who is to blame, but rather to argue as to what can be done in a sufficiently meaningful manner in order to make an impact on crime and the fight against it in South Africa.

The consequences of a high level of crime are there for all of us to see. The rich, and in some cases the perhaps not so rich, are turning their homes into virtual fortresses with electronic devices, burglar alarms, burglar-proofing, dogs and guards—many of whom are often armed—in order to protect themselves. Many of the elderly are afraid to venture outside their homes during the day, let alone at night, in some areas. Insurance premiums have risen and continue to be subject to pressures in this regard. The security industry is a booming industry in South Africa. Anything which is related to the security of people and property appears to be in a boom situation.

The truth is that crime has become a fearful, spreading, social disease which has to be fought and combated.

What is perhaps equally important is the effect of the increasing crime rate on the very stability of the country. A high crime rate causes loss of respect for authority at all levels. It helps to breed dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in State agencies, irrespective of who or what the Government is. The reality is that crime is a destabilising factor and that a high level of crime is the handmaiden of revolution.

The most important issue which I believe we should debate today in these circumstances is how to deal with the situation. Sociologists will tell us that unless the underlying social problems are removed, crime will continue to escalate. They are correct, and the need for social action is vital. Better housing, adequate social services, facilities for recreation and streets which are lit and walkable, both during the day and at night, are all among anti-crime measures which have to be adopted.

Perhaps the most important social measure to take, is to create more gainful working opportunities for an ever-growing population. If the unemployment problem is not solved the crime problem will also not be solved. Tragically, despite all that has been said and written about the issue of unemployment, the impact has still not been adequate.

Unemployment on a large scale combined with urbanisation, unfulfilled aspirations and political agitation are the ingredients of a time-bomb with a double detonator. There are at least two results that can stem from this.

There appears to be a kind of laissez-faire attitude towards this problem. The destabilising impact of the whole unemployment problem on our society has not yet been fully realised by the people of South Africa. This is something which needs very urgent attention.

When we turn to the more direct, short-term methods of dealing with crime and some of the additional law-enforcement measures which should be considered, there are a number of matters which I believe we should deal with. There needs to be a mobilisation of resources to deal with the crime problem. It is definitely not enough for the effort to come only from the authorities. It needs to be an effort of both the public and the private sector. The police alone cannot deal with the problem of crime. There needs to be a reassessment of the relationship between the police and the public and of the contribution the public can and must make in the fight against crime.

Of course, we need to look at the Police Force as well, and I have already indicated that I think that the size of the Police Force is utterly inadequate. The plans that are presently afoot to increase the size of the Police Force are I think being implemented at too slow a rate. As I have indicated, the per capita ratio compares unfavourably with comparable countries.

I think there also needs to be a distinction between unrest-related crimes and other crimes. I think the two activities should be separated; they should be perceived publicly to be different, and the forces dealing with crime should not and need not be diverted to deal with unrest activities. I believe that we should try to deal with the two situations separately, and they should be perceived by the public to be separate.

The next point I would like to raise is that there needs to be a public relations activity—I have referred to this before—to improve the relationship between the public and the police. There is a need to return to the perception of the policeman as a protector. People must see the policeman as somebody to whom they can look for help, as somebody to whom they can look for protection. I believe that policemen who belong to an area, are part of that area, who get to know the area and its people and build up a relationship with the residents of the area will be far more effective and will in fact invoke a far greater interest by the people in their own protection.

There have been times that I can remember when policemen have been in an area for 10 to 15 years, who belong to that area, form part of it and who are respected in that community. They grow up with that community and they are part of the whole life of that community and help to improve and protect it.

The hon the Minister knows my views in regard to neighbourhood police stations. I believe that we need to have more neighbourhood police stations. We need to look at those neighbourhood police stations as places where people can go for assistance, and they should regard them as their own.

The other matter which I think is not really open to dispute by those who have examined it, is that the police need to be used to greater advantage. One only needs to look at the delays in the courts of law—the repeated adjournments, the waste of policemen’s time in having to come to court again and again because someone wants a postponement of a trial. Time is wasted unendingly by those who have detected crime and have to keep on going back to court in order to be there at the convenience of some other person. The reality is that the proceedings in our courts have to be speeded up so that our policemen can be used to greater advantage.

The other matter concerns the nature of the work which policemen still continue to do, work which could be done by other people so that the policeman can be released for other duties. Everybody talks about the bobby on the beat and policemen patrolling the streets, but the policemen are in many cases doing the jobs of typists, stenographers and clerks, jobs which could be done by other people so that the policemen could be released for far more important duties in their actual fight against crime.

Then there is another question which is perhaps a little contentious but which needs to be faced, namely the question of local police forces and the utilisation of para-police organisations for anticrime purposes. I believe that this needs to be re-examined; it needs to be reinvestigated. If the private individual can hire security firms to look after his person and property, why cannot a local authority have such anti-crime protection forces paid for by the ratepayers and the residents?

What is happening at the moment is that the rich are able to afford this kind of private protection, while the ordinary citizen does not get it. I believe the hon the Minister should investigate this matter further. The local police forces also need to be looked at. I want to put the following question, Sir. Is it more important that an able-bodied man serves traffic summonses or that he assists in preventing crime? The real question is to establish what the taxpayer wants. I believe the taxpayer does not want this diversion of economic activity from where it could be used far more productively.

I come to the question now of public co-operation which I believe is vital. Just as the policeman is wasting his time in court with endless delays, so the individual—the potential witness—often looks the other way in order to obviate appearing in court because he knows that he is going to have his time endlessly wasted in court. Here, Sir, it is in the common interests of the public and the police that the whole issue of how this is handled be investigated. People can come along with the idea of a night court, of an immediate trial or a hundred and one other things but even in the ordinary processes of our courts of law the reality is that cases are unnecessarily adjourned and postponed.

Furthermore, Sir, the Police Reserve plays an important role. I believe the Police Reserve should be strengthened. A major recruiting campaign needs to be launched and afterwards to be maintained. Let me refer here, Sir, to something which I find more that upsetting. I want to refer to the 1986 report of the Commissioner of Police, which is unfortunately the latest report available. Referring to the Police Reserve it states:

I want to say to the hon the Minister of Law and Order that I do not believe there is a single person in this House who will not support him in voting more money in order to enable the Police Reserve to be used to full advantage. Not only is there not one person in this House who will oppose it—there might be one, but I hope not— but among the ranks of the public he will also find overwhelming support for the voting of that money. I for one would not like to see such a statement again appearing in the annual report of the Commissioner of Police. I am sure, too, there is at least one hon member on the NP side who will support me in this particular statement.

What about your party?

My party is with me on this issue. The hon the Minister of Defence need not worry about that. [Interjections.]

The next matter with which I want to deal is the question of the concept of the Neighbourhood Watch scheme. I think this Neighbourhood Watch scheme should be propagated on a national basis. The marking of goods, the encouragement of people to help their neighbours, the reporting of crimes or of suspicious circumstances—all of these need to be propagated as being in the public interest. All these things need to be encouraged as being for the public good. We need to be reminded that each one of us is indeed our brother’s keeper. If that can be propagated, we can indeed help to fight crime from a public point of view.

Incentives to utilise anti-theft devices and protective equipment should be given. Insurance companies give incentives to home owners and vehicle owners, and I believe the Government should consider doing the same. Cars manufactured in the future should compulsorily have anti-theft devices installed before they are delivered.

There are many other suggestions that can be made. What is required, however, is a determined, co-operative effort against crime by the Government and the public. I believe the country should be mobilised to deal with crime before it reaches the level where it will endanger not only the individual and his property but also the very stability of the State itself.

Mr Chairman, while I fully associate myself with every responsible and constructive suggestion to fight crime, I cannot do otherwise as an officer in the Police Reserve. I find it strange though that a motion of this nature should originate in the ranks of a party that has time and again been shown to be soft on law and order. [Interjections.]

I am sure statistics will show that in most categories of crime the incidence thereof has actually decreased, and that although the hon member for Yeoville rightly voices his concern, his motion could well be construed as being misplaced and seen as undermining public confidence in the SAP, the security forces and the Government.

I am not saying that the hon member for Yeoville has played any part in efforts by certain members of his party to undermine wilfully the authority of the State and to hamstring the police at every turn.

That is a most irresponsible statement.

With few exceptions, the arguments advanced in this House by the hon member for Yeoville are usually cogent and deserving of respect and attention. He is clearly a patriot and his concern in regard to crime and the security situation has not gone unnoticed. Yet it is also true to say that members of his party have time and again blamed the Government entirely for the situation, have exploited cheap political opportunities at the expense of the SA Police and have insisted on dividing law and order into segments that suit their particular political philosophy, if I may call it that.

What are the facts, Sir? Extremist elements of the PFP opposition—and the hon member for Yeoville knows exactly whom I am talking about— have trekked to Dakar to play footsie-footsie with the ANC, the actions of which are one of the prime causes for the increase in crime. The whole climate of protest and demonstration which the PFP encourages moves on to other criminal situations. Who exactly have been responsible for smuggling into South Africa the vast number of Soviet handguns, rifles, landmines and the like, all of which have contributed towards the rising incidence of crime? The answer is obvious the ANC-SACP alliance, the very alliance with which members of his party are in love. It is simplistic in the extreme …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member who is now unfortunately on his feet entitled to say that members of this party are in love with the ANC and the SA Communist Party?

Order! Will the hon member for Bezuidenhout kindly repeat what he said?

Mr Chairman, I referred to the ANC-SACP alliance and said “The very alliance with which members of his party are in love”—in cohorts with.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the words “with which members of his party are in love”.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: In giving his explanation, the hon member for Bezuidenhout used an even stronger term. He meant to say “in cahoots with” and instead said “in cohorts with”. I submit that that is an even stronger expression and that he should withdraw it.

Order! The explanation given me by the hon member for Bezuidenhout was that he had said that members of the PFP were in love with the ANC-SACP alliance, and those were the words I asked him to withdraw.

Yes, Mr Chairman, but he then used the words “in cohorts with” by which I understood him to mean “in cahoots with”. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Bezuidenhout say that the PFP were “in cohorts” or “in cahoots” with the ANC?

Yes, Sir, I did say that.

Order! Then the hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is simplistic in the extreme to speak gravely of crimes under a generic heading, because their causes have to be examined. Unemployment has also been cited as a reason for the increase in the crime rate, but how has this come about? We have to find the reason for this in disinvestment and sanctions which are the prime reasons for thousands of people having been discharged from their employment and which are vociferously encouraged and applauded by churchmen, politicians and others inside South Africa who should know better. The PFP has contributed nothing but division and discord, subjecting the police to a barrage of insults and untruths inside this very House and also outside. It now wants the very people it has attacked mercilessly over the years to come to its rescue …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think you heard what the hon member said, Sir, as clearly as I did.

Order! To be quite honest, I find it very difficult to hear the hon member. What is the point of order the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central wishes to raise?

The hon member for Bezuidenhout said that hon members on this side of the House are being constantly insulting and, I think, constantly telling untruths in this House about members of the Police Force.

Order! The hon member for Bezuidenhout may continue.

They now want the very people that they have attacked mercilessly over the years and whose responsibility and dignity they have seldom, if ever, praised or defended, to come to their rescue.

In the past few weeks we have seen brilliant examples of police work in uncovering the perpetrators of murder and other serious crimes. The SAP has skillfully scored successes against the ANC-SACP alliance in the past year and will continue to do so. The force’s record in its 75th anniversary year is something of which it can be proud. The PFP may care to recognise this grudgingly.

The Government is not unaware of the crime situation. Currently a committee under the chairmanship of the Commissioner of Police is sitting urgently to resolve certain problems which I and other hon members raised in this House during the past session. The police, as I have emphasised time and time again, cannot be everywhere. I have made repeated appeals for people to be vigilant and to come forward and join the Police Reserve and Neighbourhood Watch. How many members of the PFP or NDM have responded to this call? Instead of making common cause with the Government on an issue of this nature, the PFP consciously torpedoes every constructive move made in this direction, while their supporters stand in the wings braying their approval. [Interjections.]

In an effort to combat savage attacks upon the elderly, the SAP has set up special mechanisms for the registration of such persons and regularly visits them to ensure their welfare. It has set up rapid reaction units in the fields of car theft, robbery and child abuse, to mention only three. Did those suggestions come from the PFP?

Another factor leading to crime is the drinking pattern of today’s society, which also contributes greatly to the crime rate. Let me emphasise that a high crime rate is not unique to South Africa; almost every country suffers this scourge. The society of the world has become unfriendly and people are no longer their brothers’ keepers.

Crime and all its causes have to be combated by all people irrespective of race, colour, creed and political affiliation. A bomb will not spare a particular person just because he is a member of the PFP or an Independant. This, as everyone will concede, is the problem we are confronted with today.

The safety of every human being in the streets is at stake. The public should be made more conscious of safety. All hon members of Parliament must unite in common cause with the Government and come up with constructive suggestions as opposed to carping criticism, and all parties must go back to their supporters to plead for help in this struggle. One cannot divorce a crime with a political flavour from the general crime pattern. Rather than moaning, the PFP and independents should give thanks to the SAP for the fact that the crime rate is not higher than it is.

I call upon all hon members on the other side of the House to join in all efforts to combat crime without covertly or overtly sowing division in the ranks of the security forces and doubts in the mind of the public.

I am certain that in the near future the Government will offer further effective ways of combating crime, but ultimately it is up to every citizen to contribute positively by reporting anything suspicious or untoward and joining the Police Reserve or crime watch organisations.

Our geographical area is far too big for the bobby on the beat which, as I have said before, is a romantic notion inherited from the London bobbies who do not carry guns. Given the fact that vicious criminals of all races exist in our midst, the bobby on the beat would be no real solution even if he were armed. I am convinced that the solution lies largely with the community itself. It is time that people shook off their apathy. They should take the fight to the criminal, and report suspicious goings-on to the police. In short they should wake up, because the days of the noninvolvement of ordinary citizens are over. Security depends on the eternal vigilance of all.

For the reasons I have mentioned, I cannot lend my support to this motion as it stands.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to say that I have no objection to the wording of the motion of the hon member for Yeoville, and I am supporting it. I am also saying this with regard to much of what the hon member said in his motivation. It gained my acceptance as well as that of this side of the House.

However, I want to say that I had the privilege, last week, of attending a police symposium in Pretoria. One of the aspects that was discussed there was the interaction, if I could generally refer to it as such, between the public and the police, and co-operation in the fighting of crime.

A very meaningful symposium was held, but in the end one thing was very clear. The Venda Commissioner of Police was present and he had to give an introduction with regard to one of the subjects that was being presented. He also spoke about the problem of facilitating co-operation between the police and the public. I know that the hon the Minister of Law and Order and his Deputy Minister were not present at that stage, and therefore I am now going to enlighten them.

When this commissioner made his introductory speech, he said that he had been transferred from the SAP to Venda and had taken police officers of other population groups with him. He had then found that he did not have co-operation; that there was no co-operation between him and the public. On the contrary, people avoided the police. What did this commissioner say in the end? He said: “ … and Sir, what did I experience? The day I got rid of all the other policemen, all the foreigners, and the day I made my policemen all Vendas; from that day I had the full co-operation of the public and was able to control crime completely.”

What are you trying to say?

If the hon member does not understand what I am saying, he understands very poorly.

I am mentioning this because it is essential that co-operation can and should exist. However, in the complex situation in which we find ourselves in this country, I want to say in general that until such time as we create the situation in which population groups have been separated, in accordance with CP policy, we shall never succeed in getting total co-operation, in keeping with everyone’s desire and need to make the public and its protectors under the law proper partners in this matter.

It has been said that causes must be sought for this unrest in our country. We must find those causes, we must know what they are all about. There is one thing we must not overlook. One of the things that we must face squarely and must not try to run away from is the fact that this increase in crime—here I agree with the hon member for Yeoville—has a racial basis.

We must not shy away from the fact that the increasing crime rate has a racial basis and that these violent murders, burglaries, thefts and all the gruesome occurrences we read about every day, is a question of Black against White and not White against Black. What is the reason for this? Even if it is disconcerting that it developed in the following way, we have to expose it.

In the first place, it is clear that this tremendous increase in crime only began to gain momentum after 1984, according to a researcher at the HSRC. It is ironic that it began at precisely that stage at which the Government began to reform. The two go hand in hand. If the hon members are thinking that this is a statement I am making, they should read what the HSRC investigation said in this regard. These were their findings. The hon members should take note of that. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon members for Brakpan and Turffontein want to have an altercation, they must do so elsewhere.

When the reasons for the increase in Black on White violence are analysed, the following becomes clear: In the past, we also had burglaries and murders. In the past the motivation for those acts was either financial need, or something of that nature. They were material motives. [Interjections.] An extra dimension has now been added, namely that the Black man finds it justifiable on the basis that it is a semi-political act.

Hon members are asking me what evidence I have for this. Let me tell them once again that the HSRC conducted an investigation in this regard, and I am quoting them when I make these statements. [Interjections.]

The Black man is now justifying his actions as semi-political actions. He is decriminalising them, if I may call it that, if it is a Black man who is committing an act against a White man.

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

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

The Black man sees his actions as part of the struggle against the system. That is what has been found. The problem arose the day the Government said they were bringing the Coloureds and the Indians into the legislature and the executive and they were going to follow the path of power sharing, but they were not going to do the same with the Blacks. From that day this situation began to develop, and from that day the frustration began to build up among the Blacks.

There are many other possible reasons for the increase in crime, and I want to mention a further reason. It is that we are finding ourselves in a situation in which the Government is creating uncertainty, because it is not applying existing laws. It is allowing a spirit of lawlessness to develop. We know the history of this matter— existing legislation on immorality, group areas and squatting, is simply not being applied. This is creating a spirit of lawlessness. It is giving the impression that the laws can be disregarded without any threat of punishment. In this spirit of lawlessness crime is being encouraged. This is another possible reason.

I now want to associate myself with what the hon member for Yeoville said. He said that the serious crime situation compelled us to take action and that we needed more police. We agree with that. He said we must expand the police reservist force. I agree with him. But what is the hon the Minister of Law and Order doing? In this very situation in which we must increase the number of reservists, he is dismissing them.

They are members of the AWB!

Let them be members of the AWB. [Interjections.] Do hon members know on what basis a person becomes a member of the police reservists? His character and his spiritual abilities are examined to ensure that he will be able to carry out his task as a police reservist. After he is found suitable, he is appointed as a member of the police reservists. Now the hon the Minister dismisses him, and what is his reason? I asked the hon the Minister to make the provisions of the Act in terms of which he was dismissing these men available to us. [Interjections.] I have not received a reply yet. Perhaps the hon the Minister will give us a reply today.

I am mentioning these things because I have in my possession a letter from a certain Mr Van Rooyen. The hon the Minister is also in possession of that letter. This is a very serious problem. Here is a man who is a member of the AWB and of the police reservists, if I understand him correctly. What does this man say? He wrote to the hon the Minister and told him that there were approximately 841 police reservists in the Northern Transvaal area.

He said that the hon the Minister had dismissed him, but that he was a member of an organisation that was not unlawful. He was only one, but more than half of those 841 people shared his sentiments. Was the hon the Minister going to dismiss all of them? The hon the Minister must listen to what this man is saying and reply to him. This man is saying that the question arises as to whether the hon the Minister now wants to reject them and become hostile towards those who are friends of law and order; that politically, they may differ from the hon the Minister, but he need not look over his shoulder and ask them where their loyalty lies when the issue is one of the protection of this country and nation; and that they will fight side by side with him in the trenches.

I want to ask the hon the Minister what the criterion is. Why, on the one hand, are laws not being applied—this is creating an impression of a government that no longer knows how to govern or to apply laws—while, on the other hand, there are people who are saying that they are legally there; they have done nothing wrong, but the hon the Minister is dismissing them. He is depriving these people in the Northern Transvaal, who find themselves on the borders of foreign states in which terrorists operate, of their protection. The hon the Minister must tell us why he is doing this. If members of those communities were not good enough to serve as police reservists, are they now good enough to serve in the Defence Force? The hon the Minister no longer wants them as reservists, but I am asking him whether they will be good enough to serve in the Neighbourhood Watch? Are they good enough to offer protection there? What is the criterion? Is it an unlawful organisation? If the hon the Minister wants to declare the AWB unlawful because there is something wrong with it, he must do so and act against the AWB. He must not dismiss that person whose spiritual qualities he accepted the day he appointed him. The person concerned did not even have the discretion to decide to which lawful movement he could belong. I think this is a serious matter that should receive serious attention if we are really worried about the situation.

We have heard about bars and wire fences, but that is not the solution to the problem. The hon the Minister is addressing the symptoms. However, he should address the cause of the problem, which he will then find in his own policy.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to congratulate the hon member for Krugersdorp on his designation as the new Deputy Minister of Law and Order. We have no doubt that he will make a great success of this new course he is pursuing. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon member for Yeoville’s motion is concerned, I cannot find much fault with it, except for certain aspects. I do, however, think it is necessary for us to examine it, analyse it and place it in perspective. I shall come back to that in just a moment, as I shall also be coming back to certain statements the hon member for Ermelo made here, ie that crime in South Africa takes place largely on a racial basis. I merely want to ask him—he need not reply; one of his colleagues can do so—what about Blacks against Blacks? What about necklace murders? Are they also committed on a racial basis? What about White men who rape Black women? In the terms in which he speaks, were those crimes committed on a racial basis? [Interjections.]

In regard to his motion, let me tell the hon member for Yeoville that this Government is in earnest about combating crime. That is not something he need have any doubts about. This afternoon the hon member used precisely the same arguments as those in connection with the motion he moved on 10 February 1984. On that basis I want to tell him that day in and day out we are conducting intensive investigations into the causes of crime in South Africa.

The Treasury permitting, each and every day we are looking into the conditions of poverty in which people find themselves. We look at poor housing conditions, unemployment—I could continue in this vein. That hon member cannot deny that not a day goes by in which this Government is not trying to improve the living conditions of all people in South Africa—the Treasury permitting, of course.

Let me say at once—we do not shy away from that—that the crime rate in South Africa is unacceptably high. At the same time I can tell the hon member that this is not a trend which is unique to South Africa—it is a world-wide phenomenon. I can, for example, refer hon members to an in-depth investigation instituted in Britain in 1979, and also one instituted in the United States in 1981, in regard to attacks on the aged. The figures speak for themselves.

This afternoon, as we could have predicted, the hon member for Ermelo once more made a great song and dance about the increased incidence of crime after the Government’s reform measures had gained momentum. Let me tell hon members that that is devoid of all truth.

The HSRC says so.

If one examines the previous arguments concerning the abolition of influx control, one sees that this is another aspect of hon members’ arguments about the increase in crime. We are all aware that urbanisation is a worldwide phenomenon. It is as old as man himself. We also know that after the increasing worldwide move towards urbanisation had gained momentum in 1920, crime increased accordingly. I also want to say that influx control was an illusion, but I do not want to elaborate on that this afternoon. Someone who hides behind the so-called abolition of influx control is living in a fool’s paradise. Crime can only be combated effectively in this country if, in the first place, the public co-operates and if, secondly, a salutory image of the police is conveyed to the public at all times. This afternoon I should like to thank the SABC and the Press for the positive role that some of them play in this regard.

Probably only the NP Press!

Yes, we definitely do not use the Patriot for that purpose.

We have the men, but we definitely do not have enough of them. The hon the Minister is giving attention to this and has already issued statements in that regard. What is more, day in and day out the command structure in the SA Police and the Ministry are looking into this matter. Let me tell the hon member for Yeoville that certain members in his party—I am not referring to him—can help to improve the image of the SA Police.

[Inaudible.]

I am not saying that hon member is involved, but the moment we want to expand our Police Force, there are members in his party who say that we are becoming a police state.

This afternoon I want to state that in their utterances the CP, and its ally, the AWB, are contributing to a process of polarisation in South Africa. Thus they are instrumental in the police being unable in many cases to proceed with their normal duties. [Interjections.] Let me tell hon members this afternoon that locally the AWB contributes to the process of polarisation just as an organisation such as Umkhonto we Sizwe also contributes to polarisation amongst Blacks and Whites in this country. Both these organisations incite emotions.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Umkhonto we Sizwe is a banned organisation, and the hon member is comparing the conduct of the Conservatives with the conduct of that organisation. He is alleging, in other words, that we are allies of a banned organisation. I am asking you to give a ruling on that.

Order! My impression of what the hon member for George said was that the conduct of hon members of the party to which they belong was such that they did not, of necessity, purposely or deliberately support Umkhonto we Sizwe in the action it took, but that their conduct had that effect.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, that is not how he worded it, because on the one hand the hon member made the allegation that if we joined with Umkhonto we Sizwe in stirring up unrest…

Mr Chairman, if it bothers him I shall withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for George has withdrawn the allegation.

Mr Chairman, the question is not whether it bothers me, but whether it has been withdrawn unconditionally or not.

Order! The hon member for George has withdrawn the allegation. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville is a finance man who knows that the Government employs the maximum number of policemen the Treasury can afford. As a finance man he would also know that if we were to extend the Police Force by an additional 1 000 members, we would have to recover that money in some other way or that we would have to scale down operations somewhere else. He must be able to tell us where we should make reductions so as to be able to afford that.

You should place fewer advertisements in newspapers.

When the Police Force appoints special constables, a cheaper type of policeman, members of his party are specifically the ones who start whining—again let me say that he is not the culprit; it comes from hon members of his party—about the fact that we are sending an inferior type of policeman into the field. The PFP will never be able to outbid the Government in its concern about crime.

†Therefore I now want to move the following amendment to the motion moved by the hon member for Yeoville:

*Only if we were ultimately to expand the Police Force to 87 000 men would we be on a par with Britain with a ratio of 2,2 policemen to 1 000 members of the population. The SA Police are adopting various corrective measures, and this applies to specialist services too. I need only refer to the expansion of the vehicle theft units to the present total of 39.

We shall, for example, have to give attention to making the aged more aware of methods they themselves can employ, and we shall have to get the community involved.

This year the SA Police Force is 75 years young, and it has a proud record of service to both South African society and the Western World, because since the SA Police Force came into existence in 1 April 1913 under the command of Col Truter in terms of Act 14 of 1912, it has always put the interests of South African society first.

In South Africa there is an enormous reservoir of goodwill towards the SA Police. The opposition groups cannot be permitted to destroy that. We need strong security forces to continue with the other campaigns in this country such as that of constitutional reform. The SA Police needs more support and less criticism.

We pay tribute to the members of the SA Police for long and uninterrupted hours of service, frequently rendered under extremely difficult circumstances. This service is rendered, however, with a positive attitude indicative of success.

May the men in blue continue to do what they have always done. They will receive all the support they deserve from this Government.

Mr Chairman, apart from displaying some supersensitivity to criticism of the Government, the hon member for George who has just sat down at least showed that he has an awareness of the problem with which South Africa is beset in regard to the growth in our crime rate.

I shall deal with certain aspects of the comments made by the hon member for George during the course of my speech, but I must tell him that quite clearly we on this side of the House believe that the complement of the South African Police Force needs to be increased and that funds have to be found for this purpose.

I think the hon member must also realise that when we on this side of the House accuse the Government of moving in the direction of a police state, it is an attack on the Government’s political decisions and it is certainly not an attack on the Police Force itself. That apart, the hon member made an effort to show an awareness of the problem in South Africa, and I can well understand why it was left to him to move the amendment which he moved on behalf of the Government rather than to the previous speaker in the Government benches, the hon member for Bezuidenhout.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout caused me to have a great deal of sympathy for the hon the Minister, because while the hon member was speaking, I felt that with friends like that the hon the Minister has no need of enemies. According to him, this motion, which highlights the real concern felt around South Africa for the increase in crime, was, to use his own words, “misplaced, undermining confidence in the South African Police Force”. That was an extraordinary comment, even by a new member of this House.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout then very soon dragged the debate down to a level at which he obviously feels totally at home. I do not want to spend any more time on him, Sir. He seems to be perfectly happy with the crime rate in South Africa; he seems perfectly happy with the situation. I wonder whether that is in fact reflected by the voters who reside in the Bezuidenhout constituency.

The motion highlights something which is of concern right across party lines throughout South Africa. It indicates that the crime rate has reached vast proportions which constitute a threat to the persons and property of people in South Africa, and therefore also to the stability of the country as a whole. There can be no doubt that there is a very grave concern about the growing incidence of crime around South Africa and a general concern about the security of the Republic as a result. We are living in an age where one finds double locks, chains on doors, alarm systems, security guards and neighbourhood watch systems wherever one goes in the urban areas of South Africa, and they have become the order of the day. We live in a society where people are more and more afraid to answer the ring on the doorbell or the knock at the door in their own homes, at night or during the daytime. Equally, Sir, in most of our urban areas people are afraid to leave their homes and walk outside at night. This is a reality. One is not trying to score debating points when one stresses these points; it is a reality of life in South Africa at the present time, and we ought to be disturbed about this sort of situation within our society.

Our society in South Africa is dominated by growing incidences of petty and not so petty crime, and this undermines the security and the entire fabric of the State. We have robberies, petty thefts, muggings, assaults, car thefts and thefts from motorcars. They occur on a daily basis throughout South Africa. It is therefore a thoroughly disturbing situation which must receive—we hope—the deep and earnest consideration of this hon Minister and of the authorities in general, in the interests of the security of the citizens of this country. This sort of escalation of lawlessness, lack of respect for the rights, possessions, property and lives of others has its roots of course in social conditions, as has already been pointed out. This is particularly the case in South Africa because of the vast economic imbalances in our society. We know that the increase in crime in most societies can be directly correlated with the social circumstances of the people, and where there is a vast difference between the circumstances of the haves and the have-nots, as in South Africa, or during times of depression or unemployment, misdemeanours and crimes are bound to increase. This is certainly the situation in South Africa at the present time. We can see the results in the statistics of crime which are provided in this House each year. This gives strength to the relevance and the topicality of the motion moved by my colleague the hon member for Yeoville.

In one constituency, an area stretching across the Berea Ridge in Durban, during the year twelve cases of murder, seven cases of culpable homicide, 42 cases of assault with intent, 175 cases of common assault, 646 burglaries, 58 cases of robbery with aggravating circumstances, 1 888 cases of common theft, 427 cases of theft of vehicles and cycles, were reported. These figures speak for themselves. There are lists and lists of them, not only relating to Durban, but to Johannesburg, to Bezuidenhout, to Cape Town, to East London, to Port Elizabeth and so on. These are figures which are common to most urban areas in South Africa. There are similar statistics which can be quoted in support of that statement. So, Mr Chairman, there is urgent need for action.

Whatever steps the hon the Minister has taken— whatever the police are doing—even he must concede that there must be concern at the growing rate of crime in South-Africa. There must be an indication that there is a need for the Government to take a new look at the entire situation in the interests of the stability of our society as a whole.

The PFP believes that in general terms there are certain fundamental rights which every South African citizen ought to have in this society. To name only some, there ought firstly, to be the right to the protection of a person’s life, liberty and property. Secondly, there ought to be the right to be safe from lawless elements, from physical assault and from the violation of one’s property. Thirdly, there ought to be the right to be secured from harassment, as well as from arbitrary arrest. Fourthly, there ought to be the right to live peacefully, in freedom and with a minimum of interference from agents of the State. These, Sir, would be fundamental rights in any society, and these are rights which we in the PFP believe ought to be sacrosanct in South Africa at the present time. We do know, however, that they are not. We know they are not sacrosanct indeed. It is a fact that these rights which should be the basis of the security of every citizen in this country cannot be guaranteed under our present political and social structures in this country. They cannot be guaranteed under those structures. We also know that real and lasting security can only be achieved when we have a new political and social structure in South Africa in the making of which all the people of this country are involved.

That, however, is basically a major problem. That is a political problem, a long-term problem which can be seen as the basis of the increasing crime rate in South Africa. For the shorter term, however, it remains vital that in this grossly imperfect society of ours individuals should be protected from crime and lawlessness. This is important, Sir. Whatever political changes may come about, it is important that individuals have the right to protection from crime and lawlessness.

We know that the SA Police, in the performance of their ordinary functions, carry out a very difficult and often dangerous task, and this needs to be recognised. Some of their tasks are related to the application of laws which are unjust and discriminatory, and the role of the Police Force has therefore become compromised in the eyes of many people, particularly because of this type of situation. Because of this, too, we believe it is imperative that the police be seen to be, in the first instance, non-partisan and apolitical in the execution of their duties; and secondly, that they be seen to be more and more involved in their primary task of combating crime and apprehending criminals. We believe that that is important, Sir.

They should also, in our view, be easily identifiable for what they are—as policemen looking after the interests of the general public as law-enforcement officers. We believe it is absolutely important that they be identifiable as such. Therefore one would say it is important that they are recognised as policemen. For that reason we would question the use of paramilitary-type uniforms, which are often used by policemen at the present time. We believe it is far better that the general public is able to identify these people as policemen. Admittedly, Sir, there are certain members of the Police Force—the detective staff, for example—who operate without uniform. Generally speaking, however, we believe policemen should wear uniforms which should peculiarly identify them as policemen. The more that is done the better. We believe it is absolutely essential that the Police Force be well disciplined. We believe they should be well trained and well equipped. We believe that in order to achieve that, they have to be well paid and adequately staffed.

In all this, training is vital. That is why when we express doubts and concern on these benches about the activities of “kitskonstabels” and that sort of thing, while we know that it is necessary to augment the strength of the police, we are concerned lest the Police Force be augmented by people who have not had the necessary training. I am sure the hon the Minister will concede that if there are policemen who have not been adequately trained, this fact can present a risk not only to the public at large but also to the good name of the Police Force as a whole.

Therefore, we believe that whatever other agencies are used—and in our present circumstances as the hon member for Yeoville has said it may well be necessary to make use of municipal police forces, forces outside of Government agencies— once again we have to take very great care indeed that they have the training which befits them to carry out the responsibilities which will be given them.

Unfortunately, Sir, my time has expired. I believe this motion calls for an urgent review of the situation and for a co-ordination of activities, and I hope that the hon the Minister will respond to this motion in a positive manner.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Berea has spoken because of the constructive ideas he has expressed. I nevertheless find it strange that his reaction to my colleague, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, was such a vehement one, because it seems to me as if it is a case of “if the shoe fits, I shall wear it”.

But you do not agree with the hon member for Bezuidenhout.

No, I agree with him wholeheartedly.

I also listened attentively to the hon member for Ermelo, who has again succeeded in using this debate for the purposes of CP propaganda. They are trying to indicate that their policy of partition and separation will reduce the crime rate. How nonsensical that is! Have those hon members ever thought of what a job the police would have if the CP’s policy of partition or separation were to be implemented? In the first place we would have to increase the SA Police Force tenfold, and even then not succeed in achieving our objective. We would, however, have one advantage; we would only have train those policemen to become cartage contractors, moving people to other areas so that the policy of so-called separation could be implemented.

One of the golden threads running through this debate thus far has been that it is with concern that one has noted the increase in crime. That is a concern we all share on this side of the House, but I do want to link up with certain relevant aspects. Before I do so, it is nevertheless necessary for us not to draw a distinction between one crime and another.

In this regard I disagree with the hon member for Yeoville. When a house is burned down during an unrest situation, or people are murdered, we must tell one another, without beating about the bush, that a crime has been committed. We must label it for what it is.

It would appear as if there has been a very sudden increase in crimes such as burglary, looting, murder and other crimes of violence since 1984. About this I agree with the hon member for Ermelo, but I really do not associate it with reform.

The question that arises is whether this increase did not take place as a result of the fact that criminal elements used the unrest situation for their own devious purposes. Houses are not burnt down without first being looted and plundered.

This brings me to the point that there are radical politicians and certain clergymen in the country who, by their utterances and their conduct, contribute towards creating a climate in which crimes of violence such as I have mentioned can flourish. The more the political situation is radicalised, the more the criminal benefits, because this leads to unrest and unemployment in which he can carry out his nefarious plans. The statements made and challenges issued by radicals such as Bishop Tutu—I mention Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche in the same breath—and Dr Allan Boesak create a climate of polarisation in this country that promotes violence. The tragedy is that this takes place under the cloak of religion and culture. I say “culture” because the CP prefers to see the AWB as a cultural organisation.

Left-wing and right-wing radicals, which both have the same ultimate objective, create a climate in which crime flourishes. People who walk around in public bearing arms are unacceptable to all moderate-minded individuals; they look like gangsters. They are not there to maintain law and order out of a feeling of love for their fatherland; they are gangsters.

The motion before the House, and the amendment moved by the hon member for George—of course I gladly support the amendment—have one particular aspect in common, and that is that stability should be the ultimate objective.

In this connection I would have liked to turn my attention to the hon member for Claremont, but he informed me that he would not be present here. So we shall discuss these matters with one another at a later stage.

I shall tell him.

I thank the hon member for that.

The actions of certain politicians distort the image of the police, presenting them as individuals who trample human rights underfoot. This creates a climate in which breaches of the law, ie crimes, are viewed in certain circles as deeds of heroism. Stone-throwing by so-called youths is represented as being legitimate because it supposedly involves the political rights of the oppressed.

We must ask ourselves what share certain radicals in this country have in allowing necklace murders, malicious damage to property and encroachments on human rights to take place. The condonation of this crime by people who make it their job always to be present at situations of unrest and then to try to brand the police as oppressors, is nothing if not a purposeful effort to undermine law and order in our country.

I do not want to dwell on this any longer, but I think the time has come for us to give serious attention to radicals who, by various statements and acts of theirs, create a climate in this country in which authority is challenged by lawlessness and crime perpetrated in the name of so-called revolutionary action. Those who have thus far made it their job to cast suspicion on the action taken by the security forces in combating crime in the Black residential areas, and even to ask for the withdrawal of the security forces, are callously offering up innocent Black people to criminals instead of trying to give them their so-called freedom.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon member for Yeoville and his standpoints over the years about law and order being maintained, and this side of the House, which does not disagree with any hon member of the House who is serious about the fact that stability should prevail on the crime front, appreciatively takes note of the strong standpoint adopted in this regard.

An increase in crime is a world-wide phenomenon, however, and in South Africa it can only be counteracted if we all agree to oppose it and to take a united stand. There I agree with all the previous speakers.

This brings me to one of the more disturbing phenomena in South Africa, ie the attacks on the aged which are apparently increasing by the day. This is not a trend unique to South Africa. When overseas trends are studied, it is revealing that crimes against the aged are a thorn in the flesh to police forces everywhere. As far back as 1979 comprehensive community projects were initiated in the USA with a view to protecting the aged against crime. In 1980 Assistant Commissioner Kelland of Scotland Yard expressed a very strong opinion about the increase in crimes against the aged in London.

When crimes against the aged are analysed, a number of important factors emerge. The obvious defencelessness of the aged makes them tempting and easy targets, whilst at the same time the illusion exists that the aged have large sums of money and other valuable articles stored away. There are also old people who are totally negligent—we have to say this—in regard to minimum security measures that have to be taken because they grew up under different circumstances, and one can understand this. They are also gullible individuals, making them easier prey to attacks and sharp practices. The inability, on the part of many of these old people, to do their own housework and gardening, compels them to employ strangers, a practice which is, of course, not to be recommended.

We must also take note of the fact that the life expectancy of our people is increasing, with the consequent increase in the percentage of aged in the population as a whole. It is interesting that whereas in 1969 6,7% of the overall population were elderly people, by 1980 the percentage had increased to 12%, and it is estimated that in the year 2000 it will have increased to 22%, and then many of my hon colleagues are also going to be in that category.

The phenomenon which is assuming alarming proportions and drawing a great deal of attention at present is the fact that elderly people are being attacked in their own homes. According to available statistics, in the first half of 1987 there were 116 cases of people of 50 years of age and upwards being attacked and murdered, robbed or raped in their own homes. We gratefully take note, however, of the fact that the detective branch of the SA Police is leaving no stone unturned to track these people down, and that a total of 65% of these cases have been solved.

There are a large number of elderly people living in several areas in my constituency, and that is why I gratefully take note of the special steps being taken to protect these people. The steps being taken by the authorities, at both the local and central levels of government, to enable people to safeguard their homes are welcomed with much gratitude and appreciation.

I have, for example, ascertained that police stations everywhere in the PWV-area and elsewhere have opened registers containing the names of elderly people and that they visit them as regularly as possible. In this connection let me refer to this pamphlet, 120 000 copies of which have already been distributed, something which I gratefully acknowledge. This pamphlet informs elderly people about security. We also have to thank—and here I associate myself with the hon member for George—the public media and the radio services. They have devoted a great deal of time to giving the police an opportunity to give the aged practical hints about arranging for their own security.

The establishment of protection committees for the aged, run by active senior citizens, is extremely promising. The police are also granting assistance in this regard; this is a task they have taken upon themselves.

I now link up, to a certain extent, with what the hon member for Yeoville said about the protection of the aged not being left solely to the police. It is also the task of every active member of the community and the next of kin and the children of such people. Our elderly people, who in many cases are our parents, also have a right to expect us to assume the responsibility of consistently looking to their security.

Mr Chairman, I fully support the motion moved by the hon member for Yeoville. I want to express concern and amazement too at the speech made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I want to express even greater concern and amazement at the fact that he finds it so difficult to support this particular motion before the House today.

I also find it amazing that the hon member for Germiston District actually agreed with everything the hon the member for Bezuidenhout said; at least, he said that he agreed.

The hon member for Yeoville gave a very clear account of the present crime position in South Africa. He was followed by the hon member for Berea who clearly indicated—and I want to stress this to the hon member for Germiston District— that this party is not trying to score petty debating or political points in this debate, or by raising this particular motion in this House today; we are obviously genuinely concerned about the dramatic increase in crime in South Africa.

I asked the hon the Minister for Law and Order a question in Parliament last week about the crime rate in the greater Durban area with specific reference to a number of types of crimes. The hon member for Berea has already made reference to the crime rate in his constituency, but I wish to refer to the crime rate in the greater Durban area in general in a little more detail. I believe that the figures for Durban are a mirror image of the situation in urban areas throughout the country.

The statistics reveal beyond doubt that the crime rate in this country is in fact soaring. The causes for this, as the hon member for Yeoville has pointed out, are obviously related to the political unrest and the unfortunate economic situation this country finds itself in at present, both problems which the Government has proven beyond doubt it is incapable of solving.

The crime situation in South Africa is extremely serious. The ordinary citizen does feel threatened and endangered and consequently the stability of the country is threatened; both points raised by the hon member for Yeoville in his motion before the House today.

With regard to the statistics I have received from the hon the Minister of Law and Order, I want to address violent crime in particular. It shows a horrifying increase over the previous years. We find, for example, that in the Durban area alone there were 1 557 murders and 885 cases of culpable homicide, while assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm stands at a staggering 10 473 cases.

This last statistic in particular shows an increase of 4 132 over the figure for 1986. That represents an increase of 65%. This increase in violent crime is obviously of tremendous concern. It must obviously too have a direct relation to the political situation in this country today. These figures are particularly high in the Black township areas and other areas on the outskirts of Durban itself. Here it is clear that a correlation exists between the violent crime rate and the political disorder and instability in this country.

We must look for example at the bloody clashes between Inkatha and the UDF in the Pietermaritzburg area, which are fast spreading to the neighbouring areas, including the greater Durban area. The hon the Minister of Law and Order and the SA Police have proved that they are unable to control the situation in Pietermaritzburg, and the hon the Minister’s recent decision to send in more of his “kitskonstabels” is unlikely to have any great effect in curbing the violence in this area. What is of concern and what must be monitored very carefully is the possibility that this violence may increase as a result of the presence of these “kitskonstabels” who are unpopular in the areas for a number of reasons well known to the hon the Minister but which he has chosen to ignore. The sad point, and the important point, is that many innocent people are being killed in the wake of political violence.

To return to the crime figures that the hon the Minister supplied to me, I must question the figures given to me with regard to the number of cases of rape in the greater Durban area. During the course of 1987, 1 201 cases of rape were reported in this area whereas in 1986 the figure had stood at 2 668. Obviously this is a dramatic decrease and would appear to be a positive sign that rape as a crime is being dealt with efficiently. However, I am concerned that this is not the case and that the true fact of the matter is that women simply are not reporting rape any longer because of a variety of factors, among which, I presume, are factors such as the unfortunate publicity and the degradation that often accompany a rape court case. If this is the case we must express our concern that such disgusting crimes are not being reported to the police as readily as they should be. Everything must be done to ensure that the number of rape cases is on the decline, and that the protection the police offer in this regard is adequate to ensure that this is the case.

We find that the cases of burglary and common theft are also horrifyingly high. I wish to quote the figures as supplied to me by the hon the Minister. Again they relate to the Durban area. There were 4 064 cases of burglary of business premises; 10 631 cases of burglary of residential premises; 2 320 cases of robbery; 2 959 cases of robbery with aggravating circumstances; and 28 763 cases of common theft.

These figures are staggering, particularly, as I say, when one takes into account that these figures are for the greater Durban area alone. The number of thefts of vehicles and cycles, may I say, also runs into thousands.

Many of the robbery and burglary related crimes can obviously be attributed to the economic situation in the country and the large number of unemployed people who are resorting to crime as a means of livelihood. The situation is drastic, however, and has to be controlled.

What we are actually talking about in this particular debate is the prevention of crime and the protection of the individual—the person and the property of the ordinary citizen. That is a point which I believe the hon member for Bezuidenhout missed completely. This party has long called for a return of the policeman on the beat as a means of preventing crime. There are simply an inadequate number of policemen in this country on patrol to prevent crime from taking place. This point has been made by both the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Berea.

It is not only here that the problem lies, however. Far greater consideration has to be given by the Government to the supply of an adequate number of vehicles to the Police Force in order for them to carry out their duties correctly and fully. There is at present a totally inadequate number of vehicles made available to the police and to police stations in order to patrol vast areas and to react immediately to calls for assistance and investigation. There are far too many instances where there are policemen on duty in police stations who are unable to respond to emergency calls because no vehicles are available to them. I wish to ask the hon the Minister today whether this point has been investigated fully and, if so, what the findings are. I also wish to ask him what he intends doing about the lack of mobility of his Police Force, particularly in the suburban and rural areas. This is a major cause for concern and I look forward to hearing his reply in this regard.

The Government has tried to some extent to solve the unrest situation and the high insidence of robbery and burglary in the township areas by introducing their “kitskonstabels”, but as I have already made clear during the course of this speech—other members of this party have also made the point on many occasions—these “kitskonstabels” will never prove to be a solution to the problem. They are, in fact, an unfortunate pointer to the fact that there are obviously not enough policemen to do the job of protecting the ordinary citizen. To attempt to overcome this problem by putting substitutes for policemen into the major crime areas and to expect these substitutes to carry out the important job of the prevention of crime and the enforcement of law is, I believe, a totally unacceptable approach to the problem.

A policeman is a person who has gone through a lengthy, rigorous and professional training in a wide range of skills. A “kitskonstabel” has nowhere near this kind of training and yet he is now expected to instill a sense of law and order into the most troubled areas in the country. Their training is inadequate and the selection procedures for these people also need very careful investigation.

Within the urban and urban-municipal areas themselves this party has in the past called for the introduction of fully trained, professional, municipal police forces where such forces do not exist already. These police forces would have the advantage of bolstering the SA Police Force in the urban areas in relation to particular crimes and criminal activity. I would like the hon the Minister of Law and Order to investigate this particular point a little bit more fully. I would like to continue in that particular strain, but unfortunately my time is up.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no problem in supporting the motion, as moved by the hon member for Yeoville, although we do so for completely different reasons, as I shall indicate in a moment.

On this occasion we should also like to congratulate the SAP on its 75th anniversary.

I should like to illustrate by way of a short anecdote the reasons why we support this motion—in contrast to those of the PFP. In this regard I also want to refer to the hon member for George, who alleged that the abolition of influx control measures had nothing to do with the increase in the crime rate in South Africa.

A few months ago I arrived home one evening at 11o’clock. There was a Black man sitting on the corner of the street in which I live—I have a comer plot. Contrary to what that side of the House might think, I walked up to him and asked him courteously whether he was waiting for me. His answer was no, he was not waiting for me. I asked him if he was waiting for one of the neighbours in the area. His reply to that was also “no”. I then asked him to say precisely what he was doing there. He told me he did not need to tell me or anyone else what he was doing there. I then informed him that I would then have to call the SAP, to which he replied that the SAP did not have anything to do with the fact that he was sitting there either; that he had a right to sit there. Mr Chairman, he could, of course, have been a Black man sitting there quite innocently. He could, however, also have been a burglar or someone who was contemplating committing some crime or other in that area.

And if it had been a White man?

It was not a White man; that is the point. [Interjections.] If it had been a White man, I would also have asked him what he was doing there, at 11 o’clock at night, on the comer of the street in which I lived. The important point is that that is the kind of uncontrolled situation we have in South Africa.

Crime has increased because there is no longer any control over what people do in South Africa. Since we are faced with a Third-World situation as far as many of the inhabitants of South Africa are concerned, let me say that it is essential to re-establish control—as was previously the case—over what people do. In my constituency crime has increased by more than 300%. The police are doing a mammoth job. It should be borne in mind, however, that we have a small Police Force which cannot actually do its job as it would like to.

In 1986 there were 30 067 White posts and 25 167 Black posts available. Let us examine how these posts were actually filled. The actual SAP establishment was 26 563 Whites, as against 22 458 non-White members. The hon member for George says that to reach parity with a country such as the United Kingdom we would have to increase our police strength to 87 000, and he then asked where the money would come from? Let me suggest where that side of the House should obtain the money. They should not have produced a simple little song that cost this country R11,5 million. Secondly, they need not place advertisements for propaganda purposes. They can simply make use of their ordinary newspapers to get their propaganda across to the voters.

During August 1985 it was decided that approximately 11 000 posts in the SAP would be filled. I seriously want to suggest to the hon the Minister that an imaginative programme be introduced to augment the police establishment. It has become essential for the strength of our Police Force to be increased drastically for the purposes of combating crime and terrorism. It is essential for police officers once more to be a visible presence, and within easy reach, on our streets.

One of the main reasons why the numerical strength of the police is what it is, and why our Police Force cannot be expanded to full strength, is the question of salaries. Let me tell hon members what a detective told me during the election on 6 May 1987. He told me that he had to maintain himself, his wife and one child on a salary which, after deductions, was a little more than R500 per month.

What is included in his deductions?

The question is not what his deductions are. The question is: What person in South Africa can live on a salary of a little more than R500 per month. I do not want to call that a salary; it is much worse than that; it is a starvation wage. [Interjections.]

What is more, the Government makes it impossible for the police to do their job. Let me mention one specific example. [Interjections.]

Order! No, hon members will have to converse far less loudly, if they need to converse at all. [Interjections.]

†Order! When the Chair is giving a ruling, hon members are expected to pay attention. The hon member may continue.

I am saying that what this Government is doing is making it impossible for the police to do their job. Let me mention a few examples to illustrate this. The first example relates to squatters. I previously referred to this telegramme sent by the Divisional Commissioner of the West Rand to the District Commissioner of Vereeniging. I pointed out that that telegramme stated that until further notice the police should ensure that no action was taken against squatters in the Vereeniging, Grassmere and Pinetown areas. What is that if not that offenders should not be prosecuted because the Government has instructed the police not to take action?

A second example relates to the groups areas legislation. Of course, that side of the House has, for a very long time now, abandoned the Group Areas Act, but let me mention this example from the days when the Group Areas Act still applied. In my constituency I can mention numerous examples of voters who telephoned the police and asked them please to take action against people who had contravened that legislation. Do hon members know what the police told the voters about that? They said: We cannot because our hands are tied.

Today I am asking hon members on that side of the House who, other than the Government, has placed the police in a position in which their hands are tied. Those hon members must be honest with this side of the House for once and put their cards on the table. They must tell us where the instruction comes from telling the police they are not permitted to take action because their hands are tied.

In regard to ordinary criminal charges, hon members are free to ask the man in the street what happens when he lays a charge. On more than one occasion he is told that the police cannot give immediate attention to the charge, because they do not have sufficient vehicles at their disposal. Who must make those vehicles available to the police?

The Government must do so, of course, with more funds and fewer stupid little songs that they produce.

Next I want to refer to the abolition of pass documents. The abolition of these identity documents and the abolition of influx control measures have, of course, increased the crime rate in South Africa.

When Were they abolished?

The hon member for George would do well to listen to what I am saying, because he has already had his turn to speak.

The HSRC report points out that the increase in the crime rate is tragic in its proportions. In my view this can be directly correlated with the abolition of influx control measures and the abolition of identity documents which have to be carried on one’s person.

When were they abolished?

Let us look for a moment at the staffing of police stations. If one walks into a police station in the rural areas at any time of the night, for the most part one only finds them manned by Black policemen. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether his wife would be prepared—if he were not at home—to go and lay a charge at a police station in which she was not served by her own people and was not made to feel comfortable. [Interjections.]

What is more, the decision-making authority should be placed more in the hands of the Police Force and less in those of politicians.

I want to mention a final example, because my time is limited. It was the saddest thing imaginable that an investigation such as the Uitenhage investigation ever took place, because in doing that the Government placed the Police Force and law and order in the dock. Directly after the Uitenhage investigation, stricter measures had to be implemented and a state of emergency proclaimed. It is the saddest thing imaginable that the Police Force was “charged” by the Government in this Uitenhage investigation. I do not even need to mention the fact that television cameras from all corners of the globe were permitted access to unrest situations for a period of months. Those television broadcasts were permitted, to the great detriment of South Africa, and only after the damage had been done, did the Government intervene and were the police given the power to prohibit those television cameras.

The CP salutes the SA Police, and that is why we support this motion. We salute the SA Police and every policeman doing his duty in difficult circumstances, and in particular we salute those who have lost their lives whilst actively serving. We also think, in particular, of the four policemen who recently lost their lives in Middelburg. We join the Police Force in saying: in arduis servimus—we also serve in difficult times.

Mr Chairman, I want to say at once that I agree entirely with the motion that was moved by the hon member for Yeoville earlier this afternoon and I also agree with the cogent reasons that he advanced when he moved that motion. Having said that, I want to say that I particularly agree with one of the statements he made and that was that unrest-related crime should be handled in a different and separate category from ordinary crime. I wish to raise this matter with the hon the Minister, because I believe if the matter that I am about to raise is not resolved, the hon the Minister is going to have a great deal more difficulty in the future than he has had in the past, in maintaining law and order.

I refer to the case of the Sharpeville Six. Yesterday we requested Mr Speaker to allow us half an hour so that we could discuss that case in Parliament, but that request was not granted. Later this morning the PFP caucus, its management committee meeting, agreed to support the plea for clemency for the six people concerned which I had already made to the hon the State President some months ago. It also authorised the hon leader of the PFP and myself to seek an urgent meeting with the hon the State President on this matter. We have delivered a written request to the hon the State President and we are awaiting the reply. Because this is the last opportunity to record in this House what we feel about this matter, I am raising it now, because it would appear from Press reports that the six are doomed to die on Friday.

I therefore raise this issue with the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and I ask him to use his influence with the hon the State President to use his prerogative to grant a reprieve to the Sharpeville Six. There are six young Blacks—five men and one woman—sitting in death row in the Pretoria jail and they are doomed, unless the hon the State President will exercise his prerogative to grant a reprieve.

I do so in spite of the fact that the Sharpeville Six were brought to trial in a court of law and were found guilty; and though they were allowed to appeal and the appeal was not granted. I still believe there are cogent reasons why they should be spared the hangman’s noose. I happen to be, in principle, against capital punishment, and I do not think it is very good for South Africa that we have the unenviable record of hanging more people than all the countries in the Western World—and there are not many today—which have retained the death penalty, put together. We hanged 164 people last year, Sir.

This particular trial, however, has a special significance firstly, for the Black community in South Africa, and especially for those people living in Sharpeville, which is the scene of the massacre that took place on 21 March 1960. There are enough martyrs in South Africa; our history abounds with them, and I believe to create more martyrs, to fuel the flames of anger already burning in every township throughout the country and in every Black homeland, is sheer madness. Secondly, although I am aware that the Government has decided to ignore the reaction of the outside world to any events within South Africa, I have to point out that hanging these six young Blacks at a time when world opinion of South Africa is at its lowest level and when further far-reaching punitive measures are perilously close, is I believe reckless in the extreme and very provocative indeed.

The case of the Sharpeville Six has been highlighted around the world. Pleas for clemency have come from many quarters—through diplomatic channels as well as from influential individuals. I believe that their death on the gallows will result in the same terrible notoriety as did the death of Steve Biko, though I admit that the circumstances are very different.

Thirdly, although I am not a lawyer—and here I therefore talk on my own behalf and not on behalf of the caucus or the legal luminaries in that caucus—I have had many years of studying law-making in this House, of analysing proposed laws and the practical application of existing laws. I have read excerpts from the court record and the petition submitted to the State President, and it is clear from these documents that there was no causal link between the brutal murder—and it was a brutal murder—of the deputy mayor of Sharpeville on 3 September 1984, and the six young people who have been sentenced to death for that murder. Common purpose appears to be the basis of the sentence which has been passed on them, and I believe …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to raise this specific issue when we are discussing a motion of a completely different nature?

Order! I have been considering this very matter, but I have allowed the hon member for Houghton a certain amount of latitude in this regard on the assumption that she will eventually tie up her argument with the motion under discussion.

Sir, I tied my argument up with the motion at the beginning of my speech by saying that the hon member for Yeoville had said that unrest-related crimes must be treated differently and placed in some other category to that of ordinary crime, and I ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order to use his influence to obtain a reprieve in a case which goes outside ordinary crime and is unrest-related. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. Finally, I want to say that these people will not go unpunished—they will of course go to prison for life. I want to emphasise this fact because many people think that when a death sentence is commuted no punishment is then inflicted on the offenders.

Mr Chairman, I am extremely amazed at the stand taken by the hon member for Houghton in relation to the issue she has just discussed. The people of whom she talks are convicted criminals. They had a fair trial, and they are going to pay the highest penalty. I do not believe the hon member for Houghton is very well informed. She is her party’s official spokesman on law and order, and if she is a loyal citizen of this country she will support the police and the courts of law of our country, and she will also be in favour of justice being done in this regard.

I should like to bring her back to the realities of this case. On 3 September 1984 Mr Jacob Dlamini, the deputy mayor of the town council of Lekoa, was murdered outside his house in Sharpeville, near Vereeniging. A mob of about 100 people had attacked his house, first by pelting it with stones, thus breaking the windows, and then hurling petrol bombs through the windows, setting the house alight. Mr Dlamini’s car was removed from the garage, pushed out into the street, turned on to its side and set on fire. As his house was burning down Mr Dlamini fled and ran to a neighbouring house. Before he could reach it he was caught by members of this mob who took his pistol away from him and then assaulted him. Three members of the mob threw stones at him and battered his head with stones. Thereafter he was dragged into the street where petrol was poured over him and he was set alight. He died there.

The post mortem report revealed that the deceased had still been alive when he was set alight, and that he had sustained two sets of injuries. I believe an example must be set. We cannot carry on allowing these people to roam the streets and to intimidate the moderate Blacks who are only too willing to co-operate with us in taking this country into the future. These Blacks have been repeatedly maltreated by their own people, and they always admire the strength of a leader. The hon member for Houghton said the time had now come for us to look at our reputation in the eyes of the outside world and to enhance that reputation by commuting this death sentence. I should like to ask the hon member what reputation we have in the eyes of the outside world.

Not a very good one indeed!

Nothing we can do will satisfy the outside world. I am sorry, Sir, but we simply cannot allow this death sentence to be commuted. Justice must take its course. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, a very interesting debate has been conducted here this afternoon on the motion moved by the hon member for Yeoville. It is true that there has been an alarming increase in crime. It has virtually no limits, nationally as well as internationally. However, I want to congratulate our Police Force on its 75th anniversary this year. For 75 years our policemen and women have been carrying out their duties under the most trying circumstances. They do so in order to keep our country safe. A great compliment to them is the fact that their success rate in the solving of serious crime in South Africa far surpasses the achievements of Scotland Yard.

A great deal has been said this afternoon about the various causes of our rising crime rate. Those of us on this side of the House are worried about this increase in crime. One of the major causes of this is the breakdown of family life—the absence of those strong family ties that give children a sense of security. The greatest problems in this regard occur among the Blacks in our urban areas. A great deal has been said this afternoon about the problems of urbanisation and unemployment, and I do not wish to discuss them again. Young people are faced with conflicting values and find it difficult to tell right from wrong. However, crime is not limited to urban slums. It occurs at all levels of society. In the USA, which is one of the wealthiest capitalist countries, there is one of the most extensive and best organised crime networks in the world.

Youthful misconduct often leads to adult crime, especially when parents have lost control of their children. Unfortunately, financial and material status is very important in modem society, and one is judged on the basis of one’s material possessions. The freedom of the individual is part of our modern way of life, and the permissive attitude adopted by most people is a major contributory factor to the increase in crime. Responsibility is no longer considered important, therefore, and is no longer exercised.

The Press and magazines contribute to this tendency by their sensational reporting. Murder cases, assaults and acts of brutal violence are described in detail, and the impression is created that when one is angry with someone, one simply grabs one’s pistol and shoots him. Moreover, are too many irresponsible people not in possession of too many firearms? I am glad that legislation is going to be introduced to address this very problem.

There are two very important elements in our society, the police and the Press. When these two work together as partners, all is well in our country, for the function of the police is law enforcement and that of the Press is publication. They provide the public with information and they interpret developments in politics, among other things. Nevertheless, certain sections of our Press are opposed to the police and try to discredit them. I thank those journalists who always support our police and always give them good publicity.

Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This is attributed to the fact that the Press and the police co-operate very closely and no denigration of the police is ever allowed.

The tragedy of the bobby, who is such a traditional figure in England, is that the liberal Press in England has now caused young people to lose confidence in the police. When terrorism is accepted and when terrorists are regarded as freedom fighters, there is definitely something wrong with our world.

A great deal has been said this afternoon about the standpoint that we as the public should adopt, and I strongly support what has been said. We as the public should stop being apathetic. We should get more involved and we should reach out more to our fellow-men; in this way, the burden of the police will also be lightened.

I want to congratulate our police this afternoon. I want to convey my heartfelt thanks to them for what they are doing for us to keep our streets safe for ordinary people.

I should also like to convey my thanks and appreciation to our hon Minister for his dedication and enthusiasm in performing his task. He is an inspiration to us. I also wish to congratulate the newly-appointed Deputy Minister. We trust that he will find great fulfilment in this new task which has been entrusted to him. Here he is sitting next to me. It is a privilege to be able to congratulate him. [Interjections.]

It is a great privilege for me as well to support the amendment moved by the hon member for George.

Mr Chairman, I should immediately like to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed to the hon member for Krugersdorp—on behalf of the NDM as well. He has been a friend of mine for many years and is someone of great ability. I am sure that his appointment can only be an asset to the Government.

I also want to associate myself with ideas expressed here by the hon member for Edenvale, including those in regard to support for the police and their job of maintaining law and order. My experience, in any event, is that the point of departure of the police is, virtually without exception, that of helping the community wherever they can in order to prevent and combat crime.

The prevention and combating of crime, and particularly the apprehension of criminals, is an integrated function within the framework of the State, and when speaking of that aspect, we must not simply look at the expenditure of funds on the police themselves. We must also look specifically at an area in which I suspect considerable problems exist, that of the financing of the offices of Attorneys-General, and here I am thinking of infrastructure, equipment and manpower, with a view to actually, in regard to the crime that takes place, punishing offenders, restoring confidence and setting an example, and in that way contributing to the combating of crime.

In the spirit of the hon member for Yeoville’s motion, which is a very positive, necessary and timely one, I also want to make a contribution in regard to the ability of the community, of the private sector, to make its own contribution. Various hon members referred to various ways in which action could be taken in conjunction with the police. Co-operation is probably the quintessential aspect; mutual co-operation in the sense of the community co-operating with the Police Force.

In the Randburg area, which I represent, there are several community action campaigns supported by the police, and then there is also police involvement in these various organisations when it comes to training, support, etc. I am not merely thinking, for example, of the A-reservist groups, but also specifically of the B-reservist groups. Incidentally, if the community is really involved as a community, in spite of what other hon members said here—particularly the hon member for Bezuidenhout—the community is not organised as a party-political group. It is organised on an overall community basis, as the contribution of the B-reservist groups in Randburg illustrates.

I am thinking of the Neighbourhood Watch Committee under the guidance of someone like Mrs Gaye Nielle and B-reservists under the guidance of Capt Sarel Steyn; these are people who are really involved across party-political boundaries. There is also the other phenomenon that comes to the fore, and that is the establishment of private-sector security agencies. I am thinking of several of these agencies which also, in conjunction with, and in support of, the police make services available to members of the community at a price.

Against the background of these developments in my constituency, I approached the commanding officer at Randburg to make enquiries about comparative crime statistics for the years 1986 and 1987. I do not have enough time to quote at great length, but I do want to refer to car theft and theft from cars. The decrease in car theft from 1986 to 1987 was 8,45%, and that for theft from cars was 18,32%.

Burglaries on business premises decreased by 3,86%. Nocturnal burglaries to private dwellings showed a decrease of 16,93%, whilst burglaries during the day decreased by 3,33%.

So if there is real co-operation between the police and the community, we can reduce the crimes committed.

In conclusion let me just state that quite a different picture, actually a more complex one, emerges as far as the Black towns are concerned. There the key is—and I want to appeal to the hon the Minister—the involvement of the community through its leaders, as in the case of my constituency. Specific efforts should be made to involve Black community leaders rather than to isolate them.

Once again I associate myself with other hon speakers in thanking the hon member for Yeoville and expressing my appreciation for very positive contributions concerning this motion in the House.

Mr Chairman, I want to add something just briefly to what the hon member for Houghton said. It is mainly in response to what the hon member for Edenvale said.

It must be clearly understood that our reason for raising this matter is clemency. We are not suggesting that the Appellate Division was incorrect in its decision. That is not what we are suggesting. I must say at the same time that we should realise that the decision which the Appellate Division took was an exceptionally far-reaching decision, a decision which has been the subject of considerable controversy among learned legal men. It was a decision which the Appellate Division took after 30 years of conflicting findings on questions of this particular kind of common purpose. It was the first time that the Appellate Division had found that people could be guilty of murder without any proof that any action on their part had contributed in any way to the death of that person. It is an exceptionally far-reaching decision, a decision that will be the subject of debate and of criticism for many years to come, both in this country and in legal circles elsewhere in the world. We believe that if ever there were a case where people should be spared from the gallows in terms of the merits or the demerits of the actual legal finding, in terms of whether it is a borderline case or not, whether it is an unusual decision or not, then this is one of the best examples of this particular kind of decision. [Interjections.]

Yes, I too am opposed to the death penalty, but that is not my reason for making this plea. I accept that the laws of this land say that if a man is found guilty of murder and the judge is not able to find any extenuating circumstances, the judge is bound to sentence him to death. I accept the law in spite of my personal views against it. We do not ask for clemency because we are against the death penalty.

I must say that my initial reaction to the way in which the hon member for Edenvale stood up and addressed this House was that this was almost a bloodlust approach to this subject, and it took me aback. [Interjections.] I actually found it frightening and quite horrible. That is not my reason for addressing her on this subject, however. I believe that if she feels that this particular execution should serve as an example, I think she has the wrong end of the stick completely. [Interjections.] If she says it must serve as an example, I presume she means that this execution should deter others from doing what these people did. [Interjections.] I can tell the hon member that if this execution is carried out it will have exactly the opposite effect. These people will go down in history as martyrs, and they will serve as inspiration for further revolutionary action in this country. [Interjections.] That is not why we are asking for clemency. That will be one of the consequences of this execution. We ask for clemency because five men and a woman will go to the gallows on Friday on a decision which we believe is controversial in the extreme. We believe that if ever there were a case for clemency, this is it.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the hon member for Krugersdorp on his promotion and welcoming him to the Department of Law and Order. I should also like to thank my present Deputy Minister, the hon member for Johannesburg West, very sincerely for the valuable service he rendered to us.

I should then like to thank the hon member for Yeoville for the motion he introduced here today, and for the responsible way in which he stated his case.

This gave the House an opportunity to discuss this very important matter and to try to gain a better perspective on it. In the course of my speech I shall make further references to what he said, but at this stage I just want to make the point that while I was listening to him, and also to hon members for Berea and Durban North who asked for more policemen, it occurred to me that this was the best proof we have that we in South Africa do not have a Police State. We have fewer policemen in proportion to the population than all of the other countries in the world.

There are a few other observations I should like to make in regard to the hon member for Yeoville. I agree with him that we must have respect for the courts, for our legal institutions. We must also have respect for the laws of this country. The hon member helped me by saying this, for at the moment we are having problems with people who have no respect for the laws of the country; who participate in marches and demonstrations. I thank the hon member for Yeoville for the standpoint he adopted here. In respect of these matters we in this House must set the people outside an example.

The hon member also discussed the reasons for the high crime rate. He said unemployment was one of them. He is right; it is true. I only wish the sanction instigators could have heard him today, people like Bishop Tutu and Reverend Boesak who advocate that sanctions should be instituted against South Africa. I wish they could have heard today that it is not only the Government that adopts this standpoint, but also responsible members of the Opposition who say that one should not carry on in such an irresponsible way on the issue of sanctions; sanctions which result in unemployment and which will cause the crime rate to soar even higher in South Africa.

The hon members for Houghton and Claremont referred to the so-called Sharpeville Six. The hon member for Edenvale has already discussed that matter and I do not want to comment on it any further, but what are the facts? A competent court heard the evidence, which was subsequently submitted to the Appeal Court for consideration. The Appeal Court is made up of people for whom I have very great respect, and after they had considered the evidence, they took a decision. Far be it from me, therefore, to interfere politically in this decision. I want to say that in this respect we must also set the people outside an example and show respect for the institutions of this country. The highest court in South Africa, the Appeal Court, made a finding, and far be it from me to interfere in it.

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

No, Sir, I really have only a few minutes at my disposal, I really cannot reply to any questions now.

The hon member for Losberg also jumped on to the bandwagon here this afternoon and spoke the biggest load of rubbish I have heard in a very long time. [Interjections.] Inter alia he objected strenuously to a division commissioner of the Police having sent a telegramme to his policemen in which he said that they should not take steps against certain squatters. Did it ever occur to the hon member that there could have been a good reason for that? The reason was that those squatters, through their legal advisers, had obtained a court interdict prohibiting police action against any one of them. That means that the police may not take any action before the interdict has been disposed of. That hon member professes to be a legal expert but it seems to me he has never heard of a situation like this. [Interjections.] He denigrated the police in regard to this matter. He ought to be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.]

The hon member went on to say that the abolition of influx control measures was the reason for the high crime rate. He went to talk about the abolition of identity documents. How he arrives at that conclusion the Lord alone knows. Has no one ever told him that identity documents have not been abolished. In fact they have been introduced for all the people of South Africa.

What other facts are there? If we consider the crime rate in South Africa which as I said has risen, we see that during 1984 it had already risen considerably. It then rose sharply, particularly during 1985. When were the influx control measures abolished?

July 1986.

Yes, the first of July 1986. The hon member is replying to his own question. The crime rate began to rise sharply two years before that time, but he alleged that that was why the crime rate had risen. We really do not have time for such foolishness in South Africa. [Interjections.]

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

I cannot reply to any questions now. I only have a few minutes. I sat here listening to the hon member all afternoon.

The hon member for Ermelo also said a great many irresponsible things to which I should just like to refer briefly. He said crime in South Africa had a racial basis. He then alleged that Black people and members of other population groups committed more crimes against the White people. The SA Police have statistics in this connection from which I should like to quote briefly. These are reliable statistics and the facts cannot be called into question.

It is significant that the number of murders, rapes and assaults committed by Whites on Whites is far higher than those committed by Blacks on Whites. These statistics are as follows: 3,4% more Whites were murdered by Whites than Whites by Blacks; 121,8% more Whites were raped by Whites than Whites by Blacks; and 115,7% more Whites were assaulted by Whites than Whites by Blacks.

But that hon member recklessly kicks up a fuss about this very sensitive matter. He goes around telling these stories about a very sensitive racial matter as though they were the Gospel truth. These, however, are the facts. I think the hon member ought to be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.] What did he do? In this connection he was merely stirring up racial hatred in South Africa. He is bringing it to a head. The hon member ought to be ashamed of himself.

The hon member also reproached me in a high and mighty way because of the members of the AWB who were dismissed from the SA Police. At an appropriate time the hon member will receive a full reply in this connection. However, I just want to ask the hon member on whose behalf he is acting. Is he speaking on behalf of the AWB? Is he speaking on behalf of the Grand Council of the AWB? It seems to me that that is what he is doing. [Interjections.]

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to come back to this motion, and in particular I want to thank hon members on this side of the House for their positive contributions. I should specifically like to thank the hon member for George for his amendment. I also want to thank the hon members for Germiston District, Edenvale and Bezuidenhout for the truly positive contributions they made.

I also want to tell the hon member for Randburg that the speech he made here this afternoon is the best one I have heard him make in a long time.

I want to thank hon members for their congratulations and good wishes to the SA Police on their 75th anniversary. We appreciate these words, and look forward to the next 75 years which will be full of challenges for us.

The police are ordinary people who are full of faults, but we are capable of doing extraordinary things. This is so because we are a dynamic, well-disciplined force and we are motivated and prepared for our task. We see our task, our calling, as one of protection and of service to this country and its people. This has been a guideline to us for 75 years, and it will remain our guideline for the next 75 years. The same applies in respect of crime prevention and the combating of crime in our country. I should like to state categorically, so that there can be no misunderstanding about this, that the incidence of crime in the Republic during the past three or four years has for us been unacceptably high and that the SA Police have accorded it the highest priority. Particularly during 1985 and 1986 there was an alarming increase in most crimes. I am saying this to the hon members for Berea and Durban North, who tried to imply that we were not concerned about this increase in crime.

I want to point out, however, that in most cases the police are only able to deal with the symptoms—that is crime—and not the deeper-rooted real causes of crime. We as police are frequently able to do very little about these deeper-rooted causes.

Yet the increase in crime is a source of concern, not only for South Africa but for almost every country in the world. During October 1986 the SA Police were represented at a conference in Italy, at which representatives of the police forces of 38 countries reflected for 10 days on ways and means of preventing crime in an effort to halt this increase in crime.

All the representatives at that conference declared unequivocally that crime was increasing at an alarming rate. Consequently it is not only increasing in South Africa—it is a world-wide phenomenon, of which we must take cognizance. But that is no reason for complacency and self-justification on our part. The SA Police are striving throughout, at all costs, to keep the seemingly inevitable upward tendency under control, to try to halt it and even if possible to try to reverse it.

Crime is a completely detrimental phenomenon and places an unendurable burden on the society which has fallen victim to it, as well as on the Exchequer. That is why constant reflection on positive steps to keep crime under control is of the utmost importance to us.

The disturbing increase in crime during 1985-86 in the RSA can be attributed to various factors. The greatest contributory factor is undoubtedly the unrest situation which prevailed throughout the country during the aforementioned period. Statistics we have at out disposal prove this fact. The extraordinary increases began in October 1984 and levelled off slightly after the announcement of the partial state of emergency in July 1985. After this state of emergency was lifted crime again began to increase rapidly until June 1986, when the full state of emergency was declared. During the period between August and October 1986 the upward tendency stabilised, and since January 1987 a downward tendency has been observed in respect of certain crimes.

During the unrest period unrest-related crimes contributed directly to an increase in crime statistics. It is important to note that the unrest situation hampered normal policing activities to such an extent that the normal crime investigations and crime prevention activities could not be given the rightful share of attention they deserved. This had a considerable effect on the crime rate.

The actual combating or control of a crime situation by a police force is largely dependent on the utilisable members. The primary component is manpower. This includes members who can perform purely pro-active services, as well as those who make an indispensable contribution through efficient crime investigation.

The criminal’s certain knowledge that he is going to be caught, and his subsequent removal from society, is one of the most important crime prevention activities. We have a problem in this respect. We are not offering any excuses, but we do not have a sufficient number of people.

However, the necessary steps are being taken to try to remedy this situation, for example the recent appointment of the De Witt Commission, which under the direction of the Commissioner of Police is investigating all facets of the Force. We are taking cognizance of everything that was said here this afternoon. That commission will investigate it. Increasing the numerical strength of the Force is accepted policy and has been accorded a very high priority, but ultimately every police force must be an affordable institution for a country.

In view of this the world-wide accepted philosophy of total community involvement emerges prominently as an essential component of crime prevention and crime control. Society has a responsibility to look after its own safety in the first place and take basic preventive measures.

Consequently the South African Police are purposefully engaged in involving the law-abiding public as passive policing partners in crime prevention activities. This implies the motivation and education of the public as regards voluntary conformity with the law and rendering of assistance in crime-prevention projects. Neighbourhood Watch systems are probably one of the most important instruments we can utilise to help us in this connection.

During 1987 an almost constant three-year increase in burglaries of White dwellings was for the first time reversed into a consistent decrease, which is still continuing. Although it should not be seen as the only factor, there is little doubt that the Neighbourhood Watch systems have so far made an exceptional contribution to these decreases.

Besides the abovementioned actions, the South African Police are also taking the following steps. We are activating and utilising the police reservists. We are establishing specialised units which concentrate on a particular type of crime. We are using thousands of police students to launch crime-prevention programmes. We are utilising riot units that are not busy to help in crime prevention and mopping-up activities. We are mobilising members in uniform and in plain clothes to do foot patrols during peak hours, particularly on Saturdays, in business centres.

All the foregoing purposeful steps have ultimately begun to produce results and I should like to furnish a few particulars in this connection. Let us consider the figures in regard to reported crime in the RSA. As far as A crimes are concerned, the 1987 figure, compared with the 1986 figure, displays a slight decrease of 2,58%.

As far as serious crimes are concerned, the January 1987 figures, however, still indicate an increase of 0,7% compared with January 1986. In February 1987 there was again an increase of 1,1% compared with the previous year. In May 1987 there was a decrease of 9,5%, and according to the latest figures at my disposal this tendency continued until the end of 1987.

In July 1987 there was a decrease of 16,37% compared with the previous year in regard to the burglarisation of business undertakings, something which is very important to our business community. In October 1987 there was a decrease of 20,93% compared with the same month in 1986, and in December 1987 this was followed by another increase of 12,42%, compared with the corresponding month in 1986.

Let us consider the burglarisation of dwellings and compare the 1987 figures with the 1986 figures. In July 1987 there was a decrease of 16,80%; in October a decrease of 20,41% and in December 1987 a decrease of 12,73%.

Although we succeeded in getting the rising trend of crimes of this kind under control the figure is still far too high. It must be brought down further, and I want to give hon members the assurance that we are purposefully continuing with our efforts to contain this and other kinds of crime even further. We are not going to relax; we are going to work even harder and more astutely.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I want to dwell for a moment on the situation in regard to the so-called crimes of violence, something that is causing grave concern. As we have indicated, the violence associated with the riots and unrest during 1985, 1986 and 1987 caused this type of crime to continue to increase to a disturbing extent. This was in contrast to other types of crime relating to property. There we made encouraging progress, as I have indicated. I want to mention a few examples. As far as robbery is concerned the 1987 figures show a constant increase compared with the 1985 figures, and although there was an improvement during 1987 there was another increase of 9% in December 1987 for example.

In the case of assault with the intent to inflict serious injury, the picture is even worse. Here the number of cases rose from 109 755 in 1986 to 120 799 in 1987.

In the case of murder there has also been a constant increase since 1985, and also during 1987. In Natal, in which even more serious rioting and unrest occurred for months, we find the following trends: Murder increased by 53%, robbery by 45% and assaults by 4,1% during the last six months of 1987. Now the hon member for Durban North is saying on the one hand that we must remove the special constables there. On the other hand he is saying that these people are helping to combat crime, and that is true! We must take away these specially trained constables, but it is these special constables who are giving the radicals a hard time! They are destroying the radicals, and some hon members just cannot endure that in South Africa! They are advocating that we withdraw those people.

These high figures are completely unacceptable, and it is clear that purposeful steps will have to be taken to try to get the violence under control.

Apart from normal police operations it is obvious that we will have to clamp down unmercilessly on the instigators of unrest and on the ensuing violence. If we do not do so this revolutionary violence is going to re-occur in this country, with an accompanying increase in terrible violence. The hon members of the PFP agree with me on this point.

Who are these instigators of violence? Leading the pack are the SACP and the ANC. Not only do they propagate unrest and ungovernability in South Africa; they also put these things into operation cold-bloodedly and purposefully, and no responsible person can ignore the evidence we have at our disposal in this connection.

It is there for everyone to see. Because they are sitting abroad as banned organisations they are finding things difficult, and that is why they are using fronts and hirelings—in the words of Lenin: “useful idiots”—inside the country to foment, propagate and promote unrest and violence, including crimes of violence here. Besides the irrefutable information the SA Police has, this is confirmed by the United States Information Service publication Problems of Communism of July and August 1987, from which it was clearly apparent that these front organisations were the public arms of the pro-violence organisations, the ANC and the SA Communist Party.

In view of this it is astounding that people, including members of Parliament and spiritual leaders, advocate and even insist that steps should not be taken against these people and organisations. A moment ago the PFP agreed with me that these people’s actions led to crimes of violence and murder in South Africa. Hon members must now support me in our actions against these people. Do these priests not hear the words of these people? They say:

Or do they not hear what else these people say? They say:

Sir, surely words have meaning. Surely words have meaning for our people as well. Do we not understand these things?

Mr Chairman, I want to continue, but I am being told that my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to thank those hon members who have participated in this debate. I also want to convey my congratulations to the newly appointed Deputy Minister. I wish him a successful term of office. I also want to say to the SA Police on their 75th anniversary that I hope they will have a very happy year. I also want to thank the hon the Minister for taking the trouble to prepare a detailed reply to this discussion.

Having said that, however, I must add that I reply to this debate with a degree of sadness, because I thought the purpose of this motion was to draw attention to a problem which all of us agreed existed. I hoped we would debate the causes and remedies, and that we would be able to find a degree of consensus in relation to this matter. If we cannot, as has been displayed here this afternoon, find consensus on an issue such as this, how are we going to find consensus on anything in South Africa? That is why I treat this debate as an example of the degree of unhappiness on the part of those of us who describe ourselves as being in the centre of South African politics and who, while seeking consensus, are frustrated when we try to find that consensus in our country.

The one side, I believe, was typified by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I regard him with great sadness for a number of reasons which he knows. He would not accept the bona fides of the motion. He would not accept that there were those of us who want to help combat crime, and he looked for a cheap political advantage. It was even more sad coming from him, as he was a police reservist with considerable rank. He then always received my support, and he, I believe, acted then for altruistic reasons. Today, Sir, he demonstrated a completely different spirit.

The other factor which I find disturbing, Sir, is that some of us begin now to blame crime in South Africa on the process of reform, as the CP tried to do. I find that an unbelievable situation. I must tell you, Sir, that when you ask the average South African he will tell you that when he is assaulted he is worried about being assaulted, not about the colour of the person who is assaulting him. When his goods are stolen he is worried about his goods that are stolen, not about the colour of the person who steals his goods from him. Cannot we accept the fact that crime is crime, irrespective of who commits it or against whom it is committed? If that is not accepted, I simply cannot see where we are going.

The question of finance also arose in respect of this issue. The hon member for George raised it, as did the hon the Minister. The reality is that South Africa has to get its priorities right. If there is no law and order in South Africa, there is no South Africa. Reform is not possible when law and order break down. I want us to ask the public of South Africa whether they are not prepared to pay for greater protection against crime. I believe the answer will be that they are indeed prepared to pay. They are paying now, Sir. Those who are rich are paying. Those who are poor, however, cannot pay, and it is the duty of the community to provide the same protection to all, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the CP is supporting this legislation. We want to thank the department for a very clear memorandum on the already clear objectives of the amending Bill.

True to the Christian principles on which this country was founded, the CP is reconfirming its unequivocal opposition to every form of gambling. We associate ourselves fully with our church’s opposition to gambling, which is increasing in various forms in public places. In this regard we must refer especially to the relatively easy accessibility to games of chance that exists for young people, often with quite fatal results. It is essential that something be done in this regard. Therefore, we welcome the indication given by the hon the Minister that by means of the penalty determination in respect of the sections mentioned in the memorandum, stricter action ought to be taken against people who are found guilty.

In his introductory speech, which was delivered in the House of Representatives, the hon the Minister mentioned the fact that there was an increasing tendency for well-intentioned organisations to offer prizes and then set a question that was so easily answered that in reality it did not require the use of the intellect at all. It is actually a game of chance that is being concealed to a certain extent in an attempt to avoid the stringent restrictions of the legislation.

What about car competitions in the Patriot?

The position is that as far as these competitions are concerned, whether they appear in the Patriot or in Rapport, or are advertised by small schools in the rural areas, we have no fault to find with the method or the idea behind them, namely to raise money for a worthy cause. [Interjections.] I do not know why there is such a flutter in the dovecote, because we want to agree with the hon the Minister. In fact I am trying to indicate by what I want to say, that we agree with the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] I think those members are so out of touch with one another and with the hon the Minister that they often do not know when a logical argument or conclusion is being advanced. I am referring particularly to the very knowledgeable, intelligent and brilliant hon member for Hercules. [Interjections.]

We are just trying to introduce a little humour. [Interjections.]

That hon member does not even know what the definition of “humour” is. He should look it up. [Interjections.]

I just want to make the point that no matter how well-intentioned these attempts to raise funds for worthy causes may be, an appeal must nevertheless be made in this regard. We want to support the appeal that the hon the Minister made in the other House, namely that when such competitions are organised, it should be ensured that they really test the knowledge of the contestants, and that the result of the competition is not determined by a gambling exercise. That is all that I want to say on this matter. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, with reference to the example of a car competition in the Patriot, would the hon member consider a question such as who the Member of Parliament for Roodepoort is to be a test of the intelligence?

That is the same type of question as who is the State President of South Africa? That is the type of question we think should not be allowed.

Thank you, thank you very much, that is all we wanted to know.

My hon friend here says that a good question will perhaps be to ask who the hon member for Jeppe is, because I do not think anyone knows who he is! In other words, there will have to be a degree of knowledge and some research will have to be done to establish who the hon member for Jeppe is.

After Koos ran away we all know who the MP for Jeppe is.

Order!

In a lighter vein, I want to ask the hon the Minister who is dealing with this Act to look into the actions of the hon the Leader of the House with regard to gambling, because I have an idea that his actions when he called the by-elections in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke may have bordered on an infringement of the Gambling Act.

With these words we support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Brakpan for supporting the Bill. I really do not want to go into the sideswipes and witticisms of that side and I shall therefore say nothing further about them.

The reason for this amending Bill is quite simply that there were not enough sentencing mechanisms to enable magistrates to mete out punishment. The prison sentence remains the same and only the increase in the fine is relevant, and that is exclusively as a result of the decrease in the value of money.

It is a pleasure for this side of the House to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, at first glance this legislation purports to do no more than increase the penalties which may be imposed on those who conduct or participate in lotteries or games of chance. The prohibition and the increased penalty also apply to newspapers which advertise or promote such lotteries and games of chance.

The motivation given by the hon the Minister for these increased penalties is twofold; firstly, to keep up with inflation and secondly, because the offences in question are on the increase and stiffer penalties are therefore required to combat the offences effectively.

If this was all there was to this amending legislation, I would say, so be it. I do not believe, however, that the hon the Minister is being entirely frank with us as to the real reasons for this amending legislation, or possibly he does not fully understand the effect that this legislation will have.

It is my belief that this legislation—and I am referring to the amending legislation before us and not the Act—will make it almost impossible for welfare organizations and educational institutions to continue raising funds by the now well-established form of competition where a ticket is bought, a simple question or two— requiring no skill whatsoever—is answered and either the winning tickets or the finalists for the prize are determined by chance—by random selection, equivalent to drawing the winning ticket from a hat.

I know the hon Minister may argue on this point and say there is a lot of skill in some of these, but that is not the case. In almost every instance where there is a fund-raising competition one canbet one’s bottom dollar that that bottom dollar is in with a chance.

Order! I have a problem with the hon member’s argument. I have a problem relating it to the amending Bill under consideration. It seems to me that the hon member is now discussing the merits of the principal Act.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that?

Yes, the hon member may.

Mr Chairman, with respect, the amending legislation introduces substantially increased penalties. In the case of people participating …

Order! As far as I can see, that is all it does.

The increased penalties have the effect that where one imposes a penalty five times higher than under the existing legislation on any person who participates in a competition, one could very well kill all chance of that competition taking place. Anybody who previously had doubts as to whether or not it was a legal competition may have decided to take a chance, but now, when Parliament shows its intent to deal with these crimes, as the hon the Minister said in his speech, because these crimes were increasing and we had to stamp them out, which is why there is now a five times higher penalty, people who would have bought tickets from Operation Hunger may very well turn around and decide that if they are going to be liable for a R1 000 penalty, they are not prepared to go ahead with it. That is my argument.

Order! I have no fault to find with the argument now being advanced by the hon member. If, however, the hon member wishes to discuss the question as to what constitutes gambling and what not, I cannot allow him to continue.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I may have to touch on that as the hon the Minister did in his Second Reading speech, because that is relevant to the reasons for increasing the penalties.

The hon the Minister has denied that he intends curtailing the activities of fund-raising organisations.

He said that the increased penalty was not intended to do that. He said:

That is what the hon the Minister tells us. Then he immediately goes on to issue what he terms a friendly warning to these institutions, however, and his friendly warning is that “the provisions of the Act are also applicable to them”.

I agree with the hon the Minister. I say he is quite right. The law does apply to these institutions. What he does not, however, seem to appreciate is that the law imposes an absolute prohibition on what these welfare and educational institutions are presently doing. The fund-raising competitions which they run fall four-square under the prohibition contained in the Gambling Act. The legal authority quoted by the hon the Minister states:

I challenge hon members to show me one fund-raising competition held in this country by any of the welfare organisations where that test may be met. I know of no raffle or fund-raising competition which can meet this requirement. We all know that even where questions involving skill are posed on the competition form the seller of the ticket will almost invariably supply the answers rather than have a man leave the ticket table saying that he does not know the answers and will therefore not give them the R10. Then the little lady sitting behind the counter will provide the answers and write them in. In practice, therefore, regardless of what the organisers of the competition have done, if one were serious about prosecution one would have a good case in law to say that these competitions were in fact illegal. Very few people would buy these tickets if their own intelligence determined their chances of winning.

The hon the Minister’s bland assurance that the legislation is not aimed at welfare organisations cannot be accepted. If he believes in the worth of these charities he cannot keep legislation on the Statute Book and increase penalties which clearly make criminals of people whose sole purpose is to raise funds in order to help the less privileged.

As I have already said, the new legislation imposes a R1 000 penalty on any person who buys a ticket in a lottery. This will act as a major deterrent to any person who has any doubts about the legality of what he is doing.

Despite what the hon the Minister says this Government turns a blind eye to the millions and millions of rand poured into the homeland casinos and the pockets of the Sol Kerzners of this world.

Has the hon the Minister stopped to consider why the Mafia, men of the Pallazolo ilk, have recently become so interested in South Africa and our homelands? I suggest the enormous rake-offs in homeland gambling are obvious attractions to this type of leech.

Order! I do not think the hon member should pursue that point.

Fortunately I am finished with that point, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

What skill is there and what charity is served by the punters on our racetracks? Yet this is a legalised form of gambling; it has the blessing of the Government, no doubt due to vested interests and the advantage to the tax man.

But there is a difference.

Yes, there is a difference; there is a decided difference. [Interjections.] The Government overlooks the fact that the paypackets of a large section of our working class, whose families can least afford it, are squandered on bookies and totes. Would it not be far better to direct the gambling instinct …

Order! Again I feel the hon member should not pursue that argument.

Mr Chairman, fortunately I am finished with that point as well. [Interjections.]

Would it not be far better to direct the gambling instinct—which is not an evil in itself—which many of our citizens have, towards legalised competitions and State- or charity-run lotteries? Would it not be better for South African charities and the underprivileged citizens of South Africa to receive the very considerable benefits which competitions and lotteries are able to generate?

I want to use the example of the best known and most successful fund-raising and benefit-bestowing organisation in South Africa. I refer to Operation Hunger. This organisation plans to raise R22 million during the current year towards the most worthy cause—the fight against hunger. Every day of the year this organisation feeds 1, 2 million people. I want the House to consider that figure. Every day 1,2 million people who need food, people who would otherwise starve or die of malnutrition, are being kept alive by this worthy organisation.

The hon the Minister stated in his Second Reading speech that lotteries—and by necessary implication this kind of fund-raising project—were “in conflict with the spirit of our Constitution”. I refuse to believe this. I refuse to believe that the work being done by Operation Hunger, that the work the other organisations are doing by running competitions like these is in conflict with the spirit of our Constitution.

Lotteries and sweeps are used all over the world and in South Africa almost exclusively for much needed charitable purposes. If there were any other effective legal forms of fund-raising available to organisations such as Operation Hunger I have no doubt they would have adopted them. The truth is that people are prepared to wager a small stake in the hope of a large prize. While many of us have a charitable spirit, the prompting provided by a financial incentive helps to unleash our generosity.

I cannot accept the hon the Minister’s argument that this legislation will curtail backstreet gambling and all the so-called evils which flow from these activities. It is precisely because gambling, lotteries and pools have been criminalised that those who have a gambling streak have to hide in alleyways.

If the hon the Minister really wants to stop backstreet gambling surely we have the ingenuity to frame our laws in such a way as to prohibit this very limited activity. He would, however, be greatly assisted in stopping backstreet gambling if he were to channel the gambling instinct, which most of us have, into legal lotteries conducted in the open, the proceeds of which could have unending benefits for those in need in our society.

Despite my view that the legislation does make criminals of the good Samaritans, like Operation Hunger, they need have no fear. I do not want to put them off their projects.

I can give them the assurance that the hon the Minister will clearly not take action against them. He said so in his Second Reading speech. He said that he did not intend the legislation to affect them. In spite of the fact that it is illegal, he will turn a blind eye.

If he does not intend turning a blind eye then he must tell us that he intends prosecuting the University of Stellenbosch because in this weekend’s Argus they advertised a competition with a substantial prize. The questions that had to be answered were all given in that little square. The sort of questions which were asked, were: What are Stellenbosch students commonly known as? Anybody who does not know what a Stellenbosch student is a Matie is a bit of an idiot. I would say answering that question requires no skill. However, in case one did not know the answer, it tells one in the competition form what Stellenbosch students are commonly known as. In another question they want to know what name the welfare organisation run by the University of Stellenbosch is known by. Again in the form it tells one exactly what the name of the welfare organisation is.

I am satisfied that as the law stands it is quite apparent that all these organisations, which only do good and which we should all encourage, are in fact performing illegal acts. For that reason I believe that we should not pass this particular legislation and I wish to move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, you will notice that I have limited this to registered welfare organisations and educational institutions, because it is not the intention to suggest that gambling should be thrown open to everybody. However, I submit it is the intention that these organisations should certainly be allowed to operate legally. Legislation like this should not go through unless they are, in fact, allowed to operate legally.

Order! I regret that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon member for Groote Schuur as the proposed amendment goes far beyond the amending Bill. It would substantially broaden the debate and, in fact, proposes an amendment to the principal Act. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on the subject? I submit that the amendment is in order. The reason why I say this is that the amendment chooses to do no more than decline to pass this particular legislation. It does not in fact try to amend this legislation or the principal Act. All it says is that we are going to decline to pass this legislation until other legislation is introduced in terms of which the principal Act will be amended. We are not purporting to attempt to amend this Bill before the House. We are merely declining to pass it. We also say that the condition on which we will eventually pass it, is that other legislation should be introduced. I submit therefore that the amendment is perfectly in order.

Order! I have given the hon member my ruling on the point. If it is the intention merely to vote against the amending Bill the hon member and hon members of his party are of course free to do so. He does not need an amendment to vote against the amending Bill. I refer the hon member to Joint Rule 31 on public Bills on general affairs. I quote:

Therefore, in terms of my ruling, the hon member in moving an amendment is confined to the amending Bill as it stands and not the principal Act.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this? It has been the case in the opposition for many years that when it refuses to pass a Bill it wishes to give the reasons why it refuses to pass the Bill.

For years we have submitted reasoned amendments in regard to Bills to which we object because of an overall principle embodied in the main Act. One can think of many occasions when this strategy was used to express displeasure and to reject a Bill. With respect, I submit that our amendment states that this House refuses to pass the Bill. Purely as an aside it then continues to the effect that the reason why this House should refuse to pass the Bill is because we find certain things in the main Act unacceptable. Therefore, Sir, I would also submit that Joint Rule 31 which you have read out, would apply purely to effective amendments to the actual Bill. This is not an amendment to the Bill. This is simply qualifying the reason why we wish to vote against the Bill. I submit that this strategy has been used on very many occasions in this House without being ruled out of order by Mr Speaker.

I would therefore request you to reconsider your decision in this regard and perhaps return to it at a later stage.

Order! The proposed amendment clearly seeks to have the principal Act amended.

No, Mr Chairman, with respect, it does not.

The wording of the amendment moved by the hon member for Groote Schuur is clearly to the effect that the Gambling Act should be amended so as to permit the establishment and conduct of competitions of chance by registered welfare organisations and educational institutions. It is therefore quite clear to me that whether this is a strategy or not, in terms of the wording of the proposed amendment I cannot allow it. That is my ruling.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this particular point for a last time? The proposed amendment reads:

I would suggest that that is in order and the reason why we wish to decline to pass the Second Reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill is that we shall not do so unless and until such time as legislation is introduced to amend the Gambling Act. We are not seeking in this amendment to amend the principal Act. It indicates a period of time until an amendment is brought about. It sets a time limit to our opposition. We are, in other words, happy with this amendment, but what we are saying, is that we are going to vote against it because of certain side effects. When those side effects have been cleared up we shall be happy to vote for this legislation.

I think it clearly sets out that we are not seeking to amend the principal Act with this amendment, but that we are suggesting to the hon the Minister that he should seek to amend the Act.

Order! The effect of allowing the proposed amendment would be that other hon members would then be entitled to discuss the amendment. In other words, if the proposed amendment were allowed, the debate would be broadened to deal with the whole underlying principle of the Act. The debate would then be broadened far beyond the amending Bill that is presently under discussion and consideration. Therefore I repeat that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I should quite like to argue about that amendment. Without arguing though it had been moved, I want to say that it is a very feeble amendment.

The hon member for Groote Schuur made a noble attempt to justify himself after the ill-considered statements he made when this Bill was announced. As a result, he had to seek justification afterwards. The best proof of this is that the hon member for Sandton supported this Bill on the standing committee. According to my information the hon member for Sandton …

Your information is wrong.

At least he did not propose this amendment.

To put the record straight, I did not support the Bill on the standing committee.

Sir, I apologise if my information was incorrect, but the fact remains that the hon member for Sandton did not propose this amendment. The hon member for Sandton at least had the insight not to raise this objection.

Furthermore, the fact remains that the hon member for Groote Schuur implied in his argument that the amendment was allegedly aimed at welfare organisations and schools and that the intention was to discourage them from organising certain competitions. I think my information in this regard is correct. On the standing committee a request was made by a magistrate who had tried many of these cases. It was stated very clearly in the submission to the standing committee that the malpractices which were being referred to were offences in terms of section 2 of the Gambling Act, 1965, which states that no one may sell, give away, buy or possess a ticket in a lottery or sporting pool or have an interest therein, and furthermore, prohibits the performance of any act that seeks to acquire a ticket in a lottery or sporting pool from any source in the Republic or elsewhere.

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

I just want to conclude, please.

Furthermore, it was concerned with a submission from the department that motivated the magistrate to say:

With reference to a series of cases which he had tried, he continued:

Sir, the present deterrent value is really rather low. The intention of legislation passed by this Parliament is, on the one hand, to mete out punishment in accordance with the sense of justice of the community, but on the other hand also to act as a deterrent. If it is to act as a deterrent, the punishment must be sufficient, and surely the hon member can understand that a fine of R200 is insufficient. Hence the proposal that it should be increased to R1 000. As a matter of fact, the House of Representatives argued that we should have a provision which would enable us periodically to increase the fine by way of an announcement in the Gazette, because they said that their community was being ruined by parents who gambled and did not take sufficient care of their families. The same applies to those who create, maintain or manage these opportunities; we must mete out a very heavy punishment to them. Does the hon member not understand that?

It is very clear that the hon member spoke and aired his opinion too soon, and is now trying to justify himself by arguing that the legislation is aimed mainly at welfare organisations and schools.

I made it very clear in my Second Reading speech that that provision—the provision in section 6 of the principal Act—that places a restriction on the playing of games of chance, has been on the Statute Book for years. It was not created for the first time now. That is another reason why the hon member’s amendment is completely inappropriate. It is stated very clearly in section 6 of the existing Gambling Act, 1965. It is in no way a new creation in terms of the legislation under discussion. [Interjections.]

In my Second Reading speech I reacted specifically to this hon member because, of course, he launched another premature attack in the newspapers with his allegations that we were planning to clamp down on innocent organisations with the proposed new legislation. I therefore considered it necessary to clarify the matter. For this reason I dealt in my Second Reading speech with the meaning of the concept of a game of chance. In that speech I said inter alia [Hansard: Representatives, 18 February 1988, col 1514]:

Order! I regret that I cannot allow the hon the Minister to dwell on the merits or demerits of a lottery now.

Mr Chairman, if you will allow me to complete this sentence it will become clear to you that I had to reply to the hon member for Groote Schuur in this regard in order to refute this fallacy he was noising abroad, namely that we were clamping down on innocent schools and organisations. This hon member presented a tremendous argument here today, and I believe I should do my duty by reacting to it. With your permission, Mr Chairman, I shall just complete my sentence. I quote again:

What did we say then? We issued a friendly warning and appealed to people, for goodness’ sake please to test people’s knowledge in their competitions. That is what we said. By that we did not suggest that we would or would not prosecute people. We merely stated what the law provided. We also made it clear that the legislation at present before the House was not specifically aimed at such matters. I want to place it on record again. At the same time, I also want to place on record the appeal that I made, one which I believe I was entitled to make especially in the view of the hon member’s speech, namely that competitions in South Africa which involved games of chance had to be considered and examined by those who organised them with a view to including a test of contestants’ knowledge to prevent the possible committing of an offence in terms of the provisions of this legislation. That is all that I am going to say about the matter at this stage. Mr Chairman, you will no doubt concede that I could not have made it clearer than that.

Furthermore, I want to point out that there is something else which is not being affected by this legislation. The then Minister of Justice, Mr John Vorster, stated the case in this House as follows on 26 March 1965 [Hansard, vol 14, col 3557]:

Mr Chairman, I want to make it clear once again that the present legislation is not intended to change that. However, what do we intend? We intend to convey a clear message to all and sundry that this legislation is not out of date. It is still being applied and the public must take care to act within the framework of the provisions of this legislation.

What else are we saying? In the spirit and disposition of our Constitution we are saying that we expect the public to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow; to collect earthly possessions by means of knowledge and brainpower and labour and diligence, and above all to build a character which we should all be proud of if that could be the character of our people and our nation.

I want to thank the hon member for Brakpan for his support. Of course it is true that neighbouring states offer opportunities. We disapprove of that, but for other reasons we allow easy access to these states, and for very good reasons that access and the traffic back and forth must be maintained. I think the hon member will appreciate that.

The hon member should not be too quick to see certain election activities as gambling. It is a fact that one’s luck can change very quickly. Therefore, I want to advise the hon member not to gloat over that too soon.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North aptly stated his case in a few words.

In conclusion, I want to give the hon member for Groote Schuur the assurance that his words did not fall on deaf ears. After all, he has a soft spot for organisations. We have an even softer spot, because we advise them to remain within the framework of the Act, and the hon member is obviously encouraging them.

Mr Chairman, does the hon the Minister agree with me that without the inclusion of skill competitions such as those organised by welfare organisations, would be illegal?

Order! I am afraid the hon member is again going way beyond the scope of the Bill under consideration.

Mr Chairman, if I rephrase the second part of my question, I think it will fall within the ambit of the legislation.

*Does the hon the Minister agree with me that if skill were not included, there would definitely be a restriction on the large scale fund-raising of these organisations?

Order! I am afraid that that is not in the Bill either. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

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

Mr Chairman, this committee stage is concerned with the inclusion in subsection (1) of a paragraph (1) which reads as follows:

It is my privilege in the first place to announce that the CP supports this insertion. This does not, however, remove certain problems, which I want to present briefly to the hon the Minister.

Firstly, when the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister is read, the impression could arise from it that this amendment or insertion of paragraph (1) only applies to the so-called TBVC states and not to other states as well. I say that because the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech refers every time to the TBVC states and not to other states as well.

The question therefore arises which judgment or order is under discussion in the insertion of paragraph (1). Is it solely the judgment of a TBVC state or does it also apply to any other state?

I read clause 2 (1) of the relevant amending Bill:

From that it appears that the hon the Minister has designated in the Gazette any state, in other words any country and not only a TBVC state, as being a country in which a foreign civil judgment may be enforced.

I want to accept that the Second Reading speech puts it somewhat narrowly and that it therefore means that precedence is given to clause 2. In other words it could be applicable to any state; in other words, any judgment or any order from a state other than a TBVC state that is under discussion here.

We have a second problem concerning the insertion of paragraph (1). At this stage it is perhaps an abortive question, yet it is a valid question because it pertains to paragraph (e) of clause 5.

Paragraph (e) reads as follows:

1. (e) that the enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy in the Republic;

Our side of the committee wants to know why it was necessary to insert paragraph (1) and not to let paragraph (e) suffice? It seems to us that paragraph (e) would have sufficed without the insertion of paragraph (1). One could argue that if a judgment were to be in conflict with the public policy of the Republic, as set out in paragraph (e), it would at the same time be a judgment which in terms of any law could not be recognised or enforced in the Republic. In other words, paragraph (e) already covers the situation the hon the Minister and the department wanted to obviate by inserting paragraph (1).

With these two reservations regarding the arguments which I presented here and to which I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reply, this side of the committee supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I find it somewhat strange that although the Official Opposition do not essentially have any objections, problems are being experienced by the lawyers on that side of the House in applying a proper legal interpretation.

With all due respect, I want to say that the first point of objection that has been raised is not really going to carry any weight.

If one considers this Bill in its entirety one finds that it could be interpreted much more widely. I think the hon member for Losberg is perhaps incorrect in binding the hon the Minister to his introductory speech on this Bill. [Interjections.]

The second point the hon member for Losberg raised, namely that paragraph (e) placed it beyond all doubt, might perhaps be true, but we want to say that this amendment was in fact introduced to remove any confusion. Because it brings about legal certainty, I think it is a significant amendment that the hon the Minister wants to make.

It is also something to which the Chamber of Mines drew attention and was specifically done as a result of the operation of the Protection of Businesses Act, Act 79 of 1978. It would be unwise for the legislature to propose that this legislation should be isolated. That is why it is being moved and reference is made in the amendment to “any law”.

It is possible that when this legislation is applied, other laws may arise which might be in conflict with it when a judgment is made or when application is made for it to be set aside. That is why the department also indicated—and I think it is also very significant in terms of legal certainty— that it should be brought home on a continual basis to the clerks of the court who have to apply this legislation, which laws they have to take into consideration.

This is a significant amendment, and one which will bring about legal certainty. Therefore we gladly support it.

Mr Chairman, we can dispose of the amendment very concisely. I thank the hon member on our side of the committee who has just resumed his seat, the hon member for Swellendam, for an instructive explanation of the motivation for the amendment. It is correct. He put it succinctly and there is hardly anything for me to add.

As far as the scope of the legislation is concerned, it is true that a designated country may be involved in the arrangements for which provision is made in the legislation. That applies to any country which is so designated, and not necessarily the TBVC states. It is true that I referred specifically to them in my introductory speech, but it was also clearly stated there that the legislation was a result of negotiations that had taken place with them. They are therefore already committed to participating in this, in that they will pass similar legislation in their Parliaments before it subsequently becomes applicable, to them. Consequently those are the prerequisites for every other participating state outside the TBVC countries, namely to pass similar legislation in their Parliaments. The picture will be completed when such a state receives the necessary recognition from us by designation.

I therefore place it on record that I give the hon member the assurance that he is correct in his analysis that it may include any other country which acts in this manner, and not necessarily the TBVC states only. I want to tell hon members on our side of the committee that on this occasion the hon member for Losberg was correct.

As far as the question concerning the amendment itself is concerned, namely why the amendment was necessary in the first place, I want to remind the hon member once again that the Bill was considered by the Chamber of Mines. They drew our attention to the implementation of the Protection of Businesses Act. Consequently the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology could play a specific role in the imposition of a judgment or an order; as a matter of fact, a judgment or an order given outside the Republic and arising from certain actions or transactions, regardless of differing legal provisions, cannot be enforced in the Republic except with the consent of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. It is therefore possible that such a judgment or order can be rendered invalid by virtue of his refusal to consent to its implementation.

In order to ensure legal certainty concerning their proposal, and also in accordance with our own judgment, we are adding this paragraph, as the hon member on our side said, to ensure complete legal certainty. With that we also ensure that the hon member for Losberg does not tell us that in a subsequent round our legislation is defective.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr Chairman, we support the Third Reading of this Bill. There are just two questions that I would like to ask the hon the Minister and perhaps elicit from him certain assurances.

Firstly, I believe this legislation is going through on the basis of reciprocal legislation being passed in the states to which this legislation will eventually be applicable. I believe this is very important, because I do not think it is correct to place citizens of foreign states in a better position in regard to civil litigation than our own citizens. I would like the hon the Minister to give us the assurance that, prior to designating the countries that are going to be so designated in terms of this legislation, he will ensure that the proper and full reciprocal legislation has been passed by such states.

The second point that I would like to mention, is this. I note that in terms of clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill certain forms of protection are given to judgment creditors. These are forms of protection in terms of which a judgment can be set aside or not registered if it has not been properly obtained in the country concerned. I believe laws of this nature should only be enacted where our Government is satisfied as to the standard of justice being handed down by the courts of the country benefiting by such laws. I would like an assurance from the hon the Minister on the following question: Are steps being taken by the Government to monitor the courts of the states which are going to become reciprocal states in terms of this legislation? Can we have the assurance that this law will only be enforced while high standards of legal conduct obtain in the courts of the countries concerned and that the Government will monitor that situation?

Mr Chairman, naturally the act of designating a country will be the ultimate result of legislation enacted with a similar effect in the participating country or the country to be designated. I think it stands to reason that no designation will ensue unless similar reciprocal legislation has been passed.

As to monitoring the quality of justice dispensed in any country to be designated, however, that is to my mind taking it a bit too far. What we are actually dealing with is a comprehensive situation encompassing also the training of legal officers and officials in the country to be designated.

The hon member has been party to drawing up legislation with a beneficial effect upon the quality of training in other countries. We encourage two-way traffic between and among the professions that are practised in various countries and in our own. It is possible through influence and encouragement, also as far as legal qualifications are concerned, to ensure that a quality of justice comparable to ours is dispensed in a country to be designated. I do not think the hon member will dare to mention any country in question which he thinks is allowing justice of an inferior quality. I am sure the hon member is not suggesting that at all.

Nevertheless, since it is an academic question, I reply to him in an academic way. Yes, we are concerned about the quality of justice dispensed in neighbouring countries. However, we are satisfied that they are equally concerned and that they do take the necessary steps to see to it that their quality and standards are comparable to ours. May I say that they even strive towards improving ours.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to take part in the discussion of this important Post Office budget. This is an essential service for everyone, be they left-wing, rightwing or moderate. One has no option but to make use of telephones, letters, telexes etc.

At this stage I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister on his budget address, since positive attempts have been and are still being made to maintain a better balance between operating expenditure and revenue. In the same breath I want to say that I welcome the announcement that there will be no tariff increases in the Post Office in the 1988-89 financial year. I also want to ask that parity be introduced this year in respect of all posts, irrespective of race or colour. This must be done not only in respect of salaries but also in respect of medical and leave benefits.

Here I want to refer specifically to medical benefits, and I do not wish to make political capital out of this. In the Post Office there is Posmed for the Whites, with a membership of 48 847, Sanitas for the Indians with a membership of 1 848, Pro Sano for the Coloureds with a membership of 8 969 and Bonitas for the Black people with a membership of 7 330.

The latter three schemes—Sanitas, Pro Sano and Bonitas—are controlled and administered by Medscheme. As the hon the Minister has already mentioned, Posmed is an autonomous body which controls everything itself. However, for how long have these other bodies existed and when will they become autonomous?

I should like to single out disparity as an example of discrimination for hon members. Posmed, the medical scheme for Whites, pays 100% in hospitalisation and theatre fees, with a maximum of R12 000 per member per annum. Pro Sano, the medical scheme for Coloureds, also pays 100% for hospitalisation and theatre fees and I have no fault to find with this. That is equal treatment. However the difference lies in the fact that a member of Pro Sano is entitled to a maximum claim of R3 000 per annum; a member with one dependant, R6 000 per annum; a member with two dependants may claim a maximum of R7 500; a member with three dependents, R7 800; and a member with four dependants may claim a maximum of R8 500 per annum. I wish to point out that a White person, classified in terms of the Act, may claim a maximum amount of R12 000 per annum for treatment. Five Coloured members working for the same organisation may not, however, become ill. They often work under more difficult circumstances and this certainly contributes towards their needing more and better medical services. They are only entitled to treatment up to a maximum amount of R8 500 per annum.

Bonitas, the medical aid scheme for Blacks, provides that a member with five dependants may claim only R5 330 per annum for medical treatment. At this stage I do not wish to talk about medicine bought at pharmacies. I hope that there will be some understanding for my argument, and it will not help the hon the Minister to perform an egg-dance. This department subsidises all the medical aid schemes by R2 for every R1 that a member contributes. Therefore the hon the Minister can and must ensure that parity is introduced here.

I should like to mention certain statistics to hon members relating to the contributions received by the various medical schemes during the 1987-88 financial year of the department. Posmed received R44 415 907; Sanitas received R1 915 872; Pro Sano, R4 997 551 and Bonitas R3 058 514.

A further difficulty is that in towns and cities where the greater part of the population resides there are no post offices. Sometimes there is only a small sub-post office and in some instances there is a mobile post office. This indicates that in every respect Whites are given preferential treatment because they do not need to go a long way, since all the business facilities are within their reach. Once again this reflects a discriminatory aspect, namely that the mobility of the White staff as far as promotion is concerned is better because their post offices are larger. In 95% of cases a Coloured staff member cannot become a postmaster of a grade 1 or large post office.

I am pleased that the hon the Minister made a strong statement about privatisation and deregulation in his budget address. This will mean that in future, posts and telecommunications will undergo a transformation. I trust that this will eliminate the considerable degree of cross-subsidisation to some extent. However, let me warn that privatisation and deregulation should not give rise to preferential treatment for Whites because then we shall make a mess of the whole exercise. Personally I believe that the cost structure balance within the cost structure itself must be rectified, rather than making use of crosssubsidisation. It is true that this could entail an increase in postal tariffs. However, it could also mean that telephone tariffs could be reduced.

I now wish to refer to the postal service itself, where the greatest losses are suffered, and in particular postal sorting services, in which White labour is used intensively. Very modern equipment is used to cut costs. In this service the department could definitely make use of staff with lower educational qualifications and of people of colour.

As regards both the transportation of post and bulk post, this could be the first step in making use of both competition and privatisation. On page 4 of his speech the hon the Minister has the following to say:

That is important, Sir, and I should like to know whether the hon the Minister communicates with the various trade unions and whether they are being kept informed and will also make inputs. The question is really whether they were consulted in the matter, because where unions and trade unions are concerned, everyone is affected.

Mention is also made in the speech of the fact that in the current financial year there will be a decline of approximately 1,8% in the establishment. My question now is this: Is this purely as the result of staff that are going to reach retirement age? Is it due to staff being transferred to the homelands, or are some of the staff going to be dismissed?

As we all know, the financial situation of the Post Office is far more favourable owing to the upswing in the economy. I also wish to praise the department since the total expenditure—that is to say, the operating and capital expenditure— will be approximately 2% lower than the amount budgeted for initially. Although in his budget address the hon the Minister explained that many investors found that it did not pay to invest with the Post Office—for very good reasons; because it was better to invest with tax in mind—nevertheless my appeal is that we continue with these services in the interests of the poorer people in the rural areas, where there are no banks. This is an essential service. People no longer keep their money in trunks, because there are dangers involved. Therefore the Post Office must act as the bank in the smaller towns and in the rural areas.

There is something else I should like to know. There have been complaints recently in certain newspapers that the Post Office conveyed their staff in open trucks in the rain, wind and hot sun. I hope that the hon the Minister has investigated and rectified this matter.

I now come to another point. As far as I know, Holland is one of the countries in the world which maintains a more or less equal balance between revenue and expenditure. I do not know of other postal services—here I am not referring to the telecommunications section—in the world that have been privatised. I therefore suggest that an effort be made to tap the experience of outsiders in other countries. These are essential services, and privatisation must be effected with the utmost circumspection.

Sir, I want to conclude by asking that the department, together with the private sector, invest more in the training of engineering technicians instead of administrative staff. We in South Africa have an acute shortage of technically trained staff. This also means that we must pay them well. These professional people are being lost to countries overseas and to the private sector, and we must do everything possible to retain these people.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know how one conducts a debate on a matter such as the postal service without an opposition. The Post Office offers employment to thousands of our people but the Official Opposition uses any excuse not to be present in this House and its members are once again conspicuous by their absence today. The Official Opposition looks like a burnt-out athlete to me, somebody who has nothing left, who is bankrupt and decides rather to sit at home on the verandah in the sun. They are exhausted and burnt out, but the cause of the people cries out above political differences among us. It is a pity that only one member of the Official Opposition should be sitting like a fowl on show in the Opposition benches. Nevertheless I hope that those who conduct poultry politics will come to their senses one day and realise that it is of greater importance to belong to a party than to be a loner. For the rest I wish to confine myself to the cause of my people rather than to elaborate on this matter.

I should like to concentrate my efforts in the debate on the operating expenditure as regards Post Office staff. I poked about here and there and made enquiries on how those people felt about the matter. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister from the start on the great appreciation which was expressed in respect of promotions which were announced. One has to mention these matters because sometimes, when things do not go right, we make a great deal of noise and quarrel violently in this House. I believe, however, in the saying “One must give credit where credit is due”.

In the first place, great appreciation is being expressed regarding the regional director, Mr R de Villiers. Mr De Villiers has concentrated on ensuring that numerous promotion posts are opened up and people in Cape Town are boasting about certain promotions as well as post offices which have been upgraded. We appreciate what is being done for our people in this respect. I have heard as well that the Mitchell’s Plain post office has been upgraded to a grade 1 post office, which means that this post office and its staff are on a much higher level now.

I also want to say something about the different types of bonuses to which I referred last year. I had always been under the impression that these bonuses were used to promote certain people or to promote a person from one notch or grade to the next. It has been brought to my attention, however, that, when a person is recommended for promotion, a submission is made and that such a person’s case has to be based on sound reasons. If that is the position and the bonuses are not merely distributed left, right and centre, but only granted with good cause, I want to thank the hon the Minister for this.

A further point I wish to touch upon is that very few of our people make use of available sports facilities. A considerable amount is budgeted for this purpose and it is a pity that they have not yet become popular among the people. Nevertheless I believe that they will make use of the facilities in future. Many people are rather diffident about using the facilities, however, because they are afraid of what Sacos may say. I feel that if money is voted for purposes of sports facilities, the opportunity should be used regardless of what Sacos feels about it.

†The hon the Minister has made certain projections in his Budget and I want to congratulate him for having lifted the Post Office to a much higher level. He indicated that the applications for services should decrease by 14%; I think he ought to be commended for that.

Last year I had an interview with somebody who paid me a personal visit with regard to a public telephone. I pointed out that in Bishop Lavis we had only two public telephones. I was promised by this department that a third one would be installed. However, I am still waiting for that to be done. I trust that the third public telephone will be installed in the near future.

Sir, I must also mention that it was brought to my attention that Coloured typists have been appointed. I want to thank the hon the Minister for having started to allow our people to fill positions of that nature.

*In addition, it has been brought to my attention that certain members of staff have been promoted to the position of so-called postal inspectors. These postal inspectors are like the auditors who go from post office to post office. I understand further that a postal inspector is not only to be used to visit non-White post offices; he will also visit White post offices and do the same work as his White opposite number. If that is the nature of promotions—that is to say that they are not linked to colour but are merely related to the work a person does—I think this is praiseworthy. Consequently I should like to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention that we are quite satisfied with that aspect of affairs.

As regards the technical side—we mentioned this in the standing committee too—we feel that more and more money should be voted for training at tertiary level. At present money is not being voted for the University of the Western Cape because there are no students of civil engineering there. I feel, however, that more vocational guidance counsellors should be sent around, inter alia to schools, to recruit people for a career in the Post Office. Recently I was asked to request that school children receive vocational guidance in good time about careers in the Post Office so that they may come to an early decision if they want to embark upon a career in the Post Office. I know this has been done before, but I do not know whether such vocational guidance is still being offered. I wonder whether the hon the Minister’s department sends people to schools to give information to scholars in good time to enable them to choose the right subjects with a view to Post Office disciplines. The Post Office offers many careers from which they may choose and I feel it is of the utmost importance that more recruitment be done in this regard among scholars in our non-White schools.

Sir, I should like to thank the hon the Minister for what he has done so far for the non-Whites in Posts and Telecommunications.

Mr Chairman, we should like to wish Mr Ridgard, who is retiring, and his wife a pleasant and prosperous period of rest. He served the Post Office for many years and we were privileged to have been able to have him at the head. We also wish to congratulate Mr De Villiers heartily on his appointment. We hope he will be prepared to assist us at all times when we call upon him to do so.

We want to thank the postal service heartily for Coloured people’s promotions. It is good to learn that our people have been promoted. These promotions were made regardless of race, class or colour; qualifications were the only criterion. If it proceeds like this, we shall always want to combine forces to see that the Post Office goes from strength to strength. I hope this system of promotion—regardless of race, class or colour— will be continued.

Pay phones are a profitable operation to the postal service. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister and his department to see that more pay phones are installed in our areas. One finds that there are no pay phones even in some hotels. We request that the Post Office instal pay phones at our primary and secondary schools and colleges too. As a result of apartheid and the Group Areas Act our people were removed from towns. They live in isolation and sometimes have to walk for kilometres to reach a telephone. During the previous Budget I made an appeal that these telephones be installed. I was surprised to hear that not a single pay phone had been installed at towns I had mentioned. This afternoon I am appealing anew that active steps be taken to instal pay phones in our communities throughout the country. According to Post Office expenditure and income, one finds that pay phones are an enormously profitable operation.

Our people have to walk great distances to reach post offices. This is not of their seeking, but is caused by apartheid and the Group Areas Act.

Our people were removed from certain areas but the facilities were not removed with us. The facilities remained in the towns and we had to do without them. That is why we want to insist strongly that post offices be erected at various towns or that mobile units be provided. [Interjections.] If there is no land or accommodation for a post office at the moment, surely our people cannot wait a long time until such land is reserved for them. A mobile unit provides the speediest solution for our people. They can use this until such time as a post office is erected.

We also expect that more doors be opened to technicians from the Coloured community. The Post Office should continue along present lines and ensure that what is given to Whites and done for them is also given to our Coloured people and done for them.

One of our hon members has already referred to universities. Unfortunately our universities do not have some of those facilities but we should be sincerely grateful if a channel were created to make funds available to Coloured, Black and Indian universities as well to enable more children from our communities to come forward to receive technical training and training in the postal service.

We want to tell the hon the Minister that we hope there will not be an increase in postal tariffs in 1988. We are grateful that the hon the Minister did not introduce such an increase at the beginning of the year, but we should like to see this apply throughout the year and even next year.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my sincere thanks to hon members who participated in the debate for their contributions. I think good speeches were made and many positive thoughts emerged. I thank hon members for the good research and homework they obviously did in this regard.

Right at the outset, however, I want to say—as hon members mentioned too—that we are taking leave of the Postmaster General at the end of this month.

Mr Ridgard has 44 years’ service in the Post Office behind him, the last three of which he served as the Postmaster General. I think all hon members will realise that one devotes a major portion of one’s life to one’s work. Hon members will probably also understand that it demands enormous sacrifice of any person when he becomes so closely involved in an organisation. This does not apply only to him, but also to his wife and family. That is why I know I have hon members’ wholehearted support in saying that we greatly appreciate the work the Postmaster General, Mr Ridgard, has done, as well as his loyalty toward the organisation, and that we wish him and his wife everything of the best for the more tranquil time they will now spend.

I wish to congratulate Mr De Villiers once again on his appointment as Postmaster General. He has also been associated with the tradition of the Post Office for many years and will undoubtedly continue this tradition.

I think I said this last year, but I wish to repeat this year that all hon members of this House also share in the management of the Post Office. This share is clearly demonstrated by the debate on the Budget that is taking place in this House. This share does not stop here, however. I have already indicated that my office and that of the Postmaster General are open to hon members at all times throughout the year and I am very pleased to be able to say that good use was made of this. As a result we could immediately examine and where possible solve problems which occurred throughout the country, as they do in any organisation. I invite hon members to continue using this opportunity because it is their right and even their duty.

The hon member for Wuppertal made a good speech containing evidence of thorough research. I want to tell him only a few things about the medical schemes which illustrate the matter from another angle. Perhaps we could then continue the discussion to remove any obscurity. In the first place I do want to remind him that Posmed is an independent medical scheme which is registered as such in terms of the Medical Schemes Act. It was instituted many years ago and is a persona in its own right. The department therefore has no powers to act prescriptively as regards Posmed. We cannot prescribe whom it may have as members. Posmed has certain assets and they belong to its members, so it is a totally separate institution from the Post Office. Posmed was established in 1922 and has 49 000 members. The department subsidises Posmed to exactly the same degree as other medical schemes.

In this regard I also want to mention that Posmed, Sanitas, Pro Sano and Bonitas compare favourably with one another as far as contributions to the schemes are concerned. I wish to emphasise, however, that Sanitas, the scheme for Indians, Pro Sano, the scheme for Coloureds, and Bonitas, for Black people, are independent private undertakings controlled by Medscheme which operates a number of medical schemes. Consequently it is impossible for the Post Office to become involved in those schemes. I invite the hon member to conduct a comprehensive discussion in my office in the presence of the officials involved who are skilled in this regard so that we may determine what may be done to solve these problems.

All these schemes are autonomous and benefits obviously depend largely on members’ contributions to the schemes. Some benefits are better, but then contributions are obviously higher. We therefore find that this has an historic background too. The schemes themselves determine the benefits and that is why benefits differ. The schemes themselves determine the members’ contribution. The department’s contribution by comparison is exactly the same as regards any of the schemes.

On the subject of staff associations, I should like to tell the hon member for Wuppertal that we obviously do not have trade unions yet, but there are staff associations and there is good liaison with these associations. Every staff matter is discussed with the staff association involved throughout. We are also conducting a fresh investigation into the labour situation and relations between management associations and staff associations. We are currently deeply involved in attempting further improvement of a very good basis of relations. I can therefore assure the hon member that we are giving the matter serious attention.

The hon member spoke informatively on privatisation. I am in full agreement with most of what he said; it indicates that he investigated and considered the matter thoroughly. In the first place I agree with the hon member that there should be no cross-subsidisation; it would be preferable to make an adjustment somewhere in the department concerned. Of course, this will cause growing pains too. The De Villiers Commission is specifically concerned at the moment in paying in-depth attention to the matter. Figures are being extracted and the entire matter properly investigated. The hon member is quite right in saying that tariffs will possibly rise if cross-subsidisation is eliminated. Nevertheless it is being subsidised by telephone utilisation at present and telephone tariffs are unreasonably high at the moment. Consequently this is a double-edged sword. The hon member adopted bold standpoints in this regard. I believe that one of these days we shall be in a position to lay the details on a table and then decide how to handle the pattern further.

I took note of what the hon member said about open lorries and shall write to him about this.

I also want to thank the hon member and the hon member for Bishop Lavis for noticing that the department does not wish to discriminate and that the contrary is true, which is that the department is actually intent upon eliminating all discrimination. I am highly appreciative that these two hon members recognised this. It was good to hear this because, as hon members will realise, when one works hard at something and does not receive recognition for it, one becomes disgruntled at some time or other. Hon members therefore went about it the right way by giving a little recognition to what we are doing.

I want to make some slight mention of figures to hon members. Let us merely examine the increase in staff numbers since 1970, because this speaks volumes. Here we have to remember that the department is one of the largest employers in the country. From 1970 to this year the number of White workers, regardless of massive expansion, increased by only 40%. Against this the number of Coloured employees in Posts and Telecommunications increased by 213%. The Coloured population group is therefore entering this field to an increasing degree. This applies even more to Indians because the number of Indian workers increased by 433%. The number of Black employees increased by 117%. Hon members should also look at the newspapers when we advertise posts. No mention is ever made of population groups and all applicants are judged by the same yardstick regardless of race and colour and I, as someone behind the scenes, can tell hon members this.

I want to remind hon members of what I said last year. Hon members should note this carefully. During the discussion of my Vote last year, I said in this House that no sphere of employment was reserved for any specific population group. I added that if hon members thought we were hiding behind this to keep people out of posts, they should come to discuss this with me. If this is not done, neither I nor my top management know about it. Hon members should speak frankly so that nothing which we do not want to take place takes place behind our backs. We can then ensure together that these problems are eliminated.

†With regard to what the hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to in connection with bursaries and with employment details of Coloured employees, I may point out that there are more than 1 000 employees occupying ranks in which promotions take place. The highest ranks achieved …

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the highest post is which a non-White may hold in the Post Office.

The highest post a non-White can hold in the Post Office is that of Postmaster General.

At present.

At present, if there is a capable person with the necessary experience, he can hold that post too.

Yes, but what is the highest post which a non-White holds at present?

I am getting to that now. They are the following three posts: Postmaster Gr I, at a salary scale of R38 000—R42 000; engineer and chief technician. Those are the highest posts held by Coloured people at present. If any worker exhibits the necessary merit, initiative, dedication or loyalty, he can be appointed to the highest post; it depends upon the person concerned. The same criteria that are applied in the private sector or in any civilised country are also applied in the Post Office. Sir, it would appear that hon members are not interested in the debate.

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

Sir, I shall reply to all questions as soon as I have completed my speech.

The hon member for Wuppertal said with justification that a person should be cautious regarding privatisation. He also said he was unaware of any country in which the postal service had been privatised. The hon member is correct in that we have to acquire knowledge overseas and that is what we did last year. We obtained a great deal of first-hand information and this is all preparation and part of the investigation we are carrying out with a view to privatisation. It also forms part of the De Villiers Inquiry and we expect that we shall obtain very useful information from this inquiry. We have already learnt a great deal from the mistakes other countries have made in privatisation. The hon member is quite right. Privatisation is not an easy matter, but a person can facilitate one’s task considerably by learning from other people with the same problems and by making use of their expertise.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to a third public telephone and I hope sincerely that this telephone will be installed. I have taken note of the problem and will find out why it has not been installed yet.

Do him a favour.

No, I am not doing any favours, the hon member deserves it.

I have already replied to most of the questions of the hon member for Bishop Lavis and now wish to refer to technical training. If hon members examine the Budget, they will note that almost R7,725 million has been appropriated for training. The lion’s share of this is for technical training. The hon member’s suggestions as regards vocational counselling and what subjects should be taken are very good recommendations. I should like to have discussions, in co-operation with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the Ministers’ Council involved, on how the Post Office can furnish schools with practical and effective information in this regard on a continuous basis.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Rawsonville for welcoming all promotions regardless of race or colour and assure him that we shall continue this process. We shall continue it purposefully and not discontinue it. The hon member must please contact me if he is aware of any undertaking which the Post Office has not honoured.

The next point is the question of pay phones and in this regard I merely want to say that the profit on telephones is trifling.

I took note of his words that there were too few telephones and that they should be installed at more places. Of course, this is not a need in certain suburbs only; the same request is put to me in the House of Assembly. Nevertheless I shall consider this seriously.

The idea of a mobile post office is a good one. Our department makes use of this to a limited extent. It is true, however, that mobile post offices are useful—especially in growing areas where we simply cannot keep up with capital expenditure—and we definitely take note of the hon member’s request in this regard.

The hon member referred to the fact that tariffs were not increased. On introducing the Budget I indicated that there would not be an increase in tariffs and I want to tell hon members that this obviously applies as regards the entire year.

I thank hon members for their positive contributions. We shall probably continue this discussion in the Committee Stage and during the Third Reading debate.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question with regard to the structure within the Post Office? I accept that it is a non-racial structure, or that that is the hon the Minister’s intention with regard to the future. However, what I find strange is that not a single Black—when I refer to “Black”, I mean someone who is not White …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not believe the hon member wishes to put a question; I think he wants to participate in the debate. [Interjections.] There will be many further opportunities when he may speak. [Interjections.]

Order! It certainly looks as if the hon member for Haarlem is making a speech. Does he wish to put a question?

Mr Chairman, with respect, if the hon the Minister gets up here and dictates to you, he is doubting your integrity as Chairman.

With regard to what I was saying, I simply wanted to qualify what I meant by “Black”. [Interjections.] Hon members must please keep quiet; this is a serious matter. My question is …

Order! The hon member can raise the matter in the Committee Stage. I think that would be the correct thing to do.

Sir, in the Committee Stage matters with regard to constituencies are dealt with. I want to ask a question concerning remarks made by …

Order! The hon member can do that in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask a few questions with regard to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1989. I should like to ask something with regard to the subdivision “Staff expenses” under “Operating expenditure”—that is item 1.1.2.1 which deals with overtime.

There is an increase of almost R6 million under item 1.1.2.1 “Overtime” under “Staff expenses”. Is the recent flood damage also being budgeted for here? How was this figure arrived at? Does the department work according to a set formula?

I note that under the heading, 1.1.2.9 “Territorial allowances”, there is a reduction from R2 016 000 to R1 818 000. That is a tremendous decrease and I want to know what it is attributed to. If it is because locally trained staff is now being used, I have no problem with that. If the territorial allowance includes luxury houses and subsidised cars this allowance must be done away with.

I believe that more economic sacrifices can be made. I see that under 1.1.5.4 an amount of R75 000 is budgeted for the “Post Office Sports Association”. I was informed that all sports complexes of the Post Office have been opened to all races. I do not doubt this, but apparently no non-White member has joined since it was opened. I take it that the non-White component does not know about this. I want to know in what centres of the country these sports complexes are. I also want to know if tournaments are organised for the staff as is the case in the SADF.

I now come to item 1.12—“Miscellaneous”. An amountofR50 000 is appropriated in 1.12.1.8 for the “Cape Provincial Administration for the development of the area in the vicinity of the historical Post Office tree at Mossel Bay”. I take it that some of this money was allocated for the Diaz festival. I would like the hon the Minister to comment on this.

I now come to “Telephone services”, a subdivision on page 9 in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. Here I am referring to item 4.1.6. There was a tremendous increase of R11,7 million under the heading, “Directory advertisements and entries”. For the information of hon members I just want to mention that this is the Yellow Pages. Is this item being used to deposit funds into various sports sponsorships so that they can avoid boycotts? If this is the case I have no problem with that. However, if these amounts are paid in by the Treasury we should like to see a more specific analysis. Very few Coloured people are given the opportunity to make use of these funds. I should therefore like to be given certainty in this regard. In the rural areas there are talented people who are sports enthusiasts. If they could also go on tours abroad I can assure hon members that this country would have no better ambassadors. Give the Coloured rural areas a chance also to experience countries abroad through this channel. There are enough sponsors in the cities.

I want to dwell on my constituency for a moment. I cannot understand what criteria are used to determine whether manual exchanges can be automated. All telephones within a radius of approximately 100 kilometres are automated. However, there are still places which play the “number please” game. I therefore want to ask that places such as Citrusdal, Clanwilliam, Graafwater and Lamberts Bay should be higher on the list of priorities. This will contribute to preventing some people from eavesdropping on the conversations of others. This will also establish better relations.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to point 1.7.1.1 on page 24 of the memorandum. There an additional amount of R560 000 is appropriated for “Theft, fire, accident, etc”.

This is an increase in respect of theft, fire and accidents. I should like to hear from the hon the Minister what steps have been taken to curb this expenditure that increases every year. I feel it is time that positive action was taken.

†I also notice an increase in item 1.7.1.3—“Irrecoverable debts in respect of telecommunication and postal services rendered”. What is being done in order to offset this amount? Item 1.7.1.4—“Motor-vehicle accidents”, also reflects an increase, and I want to know what is being done about this increase. Has the department made use of the necessary provisions in order to train its drivers so that people become more accident conscious?

I now wish to turn to page 13 of the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, RP15-1988. First of all, however, I wish to apologize for something with regard to the lower income group which slipped my mind and which I want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. Nearly 30 000 people are earning between R250 and R500 per month. This is a substantial number of people who definitely fall in the lower income group. I feel that there are ways and means to lift these people out of this. When one looks at the existing structure, one sees that there are three or four bonus schemes by means of which these people can perhaps be assisted. In these times a person can hardly subsist on R250 per month.

The hon the Minister has stated that there will be no increases, but it is also imperative that the department see to it that the workers do not starve to death on a salary of R250 to R500 per month. I ask the department to look into this matter if possible, because these people are definitely in the lower income group. I see that 7,99% of the employees are earning between R6 000 and R10 000 per year, that is R750 per month. More or less 33% of the employees earn between R10 000 and R15 000, while the percentage of people in the lower income group is much the same. I feel the time has come to do something to upgrade the worker in the lower income group to enable him to earn a better salary.

I also want the hon the Minister to tell me—I do not know if it is possible at this stage—what steps have been taken with regard to irrecoverable debts and what steps have been taken to prevent the willy-nilly damaging of Post Office equipment. I think it is time that people who do things like that should be taken to task.

Mr Chairman, I should like to confine myself to my constituency. Nederburg Post Office in Paarl would very much like to know in what category it falls. I, too, should like to know how one goes about upgrading a post office.

The reason I ask this is that the Nederburg Post Office building is leased by the Paarl municipality and the space in this post office is really very limited. I also wish to ask that land be obtained so that a post office may be built in Paarl East. Our community is growing and I think that the present post office no longer satisfies the needs. I therefore request that premises be acquired so that a post office can be built for my community there.

I do not know how often the main post office of Paarl comes to empty the coin boxes of the telephones, but what causes my community a great deal of inconvenience is the fact that when those coin boxes are full, no calls can be made. Our people then have to walk for kilometres to get to a coin-operated telephone. I should like to make a friendly appeal to the Post Office to see to it that the coin boxes are emptied as regularly as possible so that the telephones can stay in operation and so that our people can make good use of them.

I sometimes find it inexplicable when I hear that the new telephone directories have been issued but when I get to the Post Office, there are none left. I think that every lessee is entitled to a telephone directory. For example, when there are a thousand lessees there must be a thousand telephone directories available and not merely 700 or 600; otherwise there will necessarily be dissatisfaction.

I should be much obliged if it could be ensured that telephone directories are made available for all lessees, because every lessee pays for the convenience of having it. If one does not have a directory in one’s home one has to approach the neighbours, and in that way one can easily make a nuisance of oneself.

In the discussion of last year’s budget I made an appeal for coin-operated telephones. For the Paarl East area in my constituency alone I requested between 12 and 15. I received a letter from the department requesting me to indicate the points. I deemed it necessary to approach certain businesses to establish whether the coin telephones in their cafes, shops, hotels or supermarkets had been installed. Thus far there has been no reaction to my enquiries. The matter was simply left at that. People in the community have approached me again and wanted to know what decision has been taken in regard to the telephones. I want to ask whether the hon the Minister could not have the coin-operated telephones installed in my constituency in Paarl as soon as possible.

When one applies for a telephone it takes months before one receives a reply. The manager of the Drakenstein Hotel in my constituency does not have a telephone in his home. His wife is ill. He is free once a month. Unfortunately he does not live in my constituency, but he is the manager— and a very good one too—of the Drakenstein Hotel that is situated in my constituency. In my opinion it is essential that I should mention this case, because this person is engaged in upliftment work in my constituency in the hotel. He has the people who use the bar in the hotel under control, and accordingly I should not like to see him leave Paarl. I want to make representations to the hon the Minister to see to it that if necessary more prompt action is taken when applications are made for telephones.

At present there is only one coin-operated telephone at Rawsonville. The telephone cubicle is closed at a certain time with a heavy padlock. Then, when inhabitants of the town want to use the telephone, it is closed. When a traveller to the north passes through the town and wants to use a telephone, the telephone cubicle is closed. I should very much like to know why the telephone cubicle is closed.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member.

This gives rise to problems and frustrations. If the postmaster thinks that undesirable elements may damage the telephone, it must be seen to that such people are caught. However, we cannot afford to put a big padlock on a public telephone cubicle. It is meant for the general use of the public and if a layabout abuses it, he must be tried, and the court will deal with him. However, I do not think it is right to close telephone cubicles when the post office closes.

I request that another telephone cubicle be provided in the Coloured town of Rawsonville so that that facility, too, can keep pace with population growth. At present it is inconvenient for those members of our community who live in remote places. They have to walk for kilometres to use the telephone in the town.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my people in the Orange Free State I, too, like some of my hon colleagues, wish to ask the hon the Minister to do certain things.

According to my information a telephone exchange is to be constructed at Botshabelo outside Bloemfontein. The relevant details are as follows: Closing date for tenders—May 1988; expected completion date—1989; expected expenditure for the 1988-89 financial year—R262 000; and estimated cost of construction—R980 000. It is important for me to know whether this tender is to be an open tender. In other words, I want to know whether the private sector will be permitted to tender. I regard this as very important, because this will provide work for our people in that region.

There is another matter which I regard as very important. The Post Office at Welkom is to be renovated. The place is to be enlarged and repaired, and an amount of R632 000 has been budgeted for this purpose in the 1988-89 financial year. Now, it is important for me to know whether, in the course of this renovation, the separate sides for Whites and non-Whites are going to be done away with. If they are to be retained we are simply going to waste more money. I hope that the separate sides will be done away with. The expected completion date of the project is 1989, and the estimated total cost is R3 396 000.

I wish to ask, specifically on behalf of the people in the Free State rural areas, that the hon the Minister consider automating our telephone services there. We are saddled with the problem that some of those people struggle when, for example, they want to contact their MP’s and so on at night. As someone who worked at the National Road Safety Council for a number of years—I worked there for five years—it causes me great concern to note that an amount of R2 million was budgeted for the 1987-88 financial year, while for the 1988-89 financial year R2,5 million was budgeted. The increase therefore amounts to R500 000. I have before me some figures that I should like to quote. The regions are indicated here as well as the number of accidents, the distance travelled in kilometres and the average accident-free distance travelled. The figures are as follows: South Eastern Transvaal—29 970 000 kilometres travelled, 427 accidents, 70 187 accident-free kilometres; Witwatersrand—444 753 000 kilometres travelled, 1 004 accidents, 44 574 accident-free kilometres; Eastern Cape—19 017 000 kilometres travelled, 274 accidents, 69 405 accident-free kilometres; Orange Free State— 11 250 000 kilometres travelled, 102 accidents, 110 294 accident-free kilometres; Northern Cape— 8 862 000 kilometres travelled, 70 accidents, 70 accidents, 126 600 accident-free kilometres; Northern Transvaal—49 857 000 kilometres travelled, 1 266 accidents, 39 381 accident-free kilometres; Western Cape—34 961 000 kilometres travelled, 478 accidents, 73 140 accident-free kilometres; Natal—38 270 000 kilometres travelled, 568 accidents, 65 307 accident-free kilometres.

I am concerned about these figures and in my opinion it is no excuse that more accidents occur in areas like the Witwatersrand which are more densely populated. After all, a driver becomes accustomed to the circumstances to which he is exposed daily. I should also like to know from the hon the Minister how many vehicles are in use in the various regions. Once I have these data I can make further calculations. According to my calculations the majority of accidents occur in the Northern Transvaal, followed by the Witwatersrand, Natal, Western Cape, South Eastern Transvaal, Eastern Cape, the Orange Free State and, finally, the Northern Cape.

Sir, when I left the NRSC before the election at the end of 1984, we regularly presented refresher courses at the post offices. I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether this is still the case and whether the NRSC is still invited to present these courses to post office workers. This is of cardinal importance. I wish to know whether the accidents occur in the mornings or in the afternoons, or perhaps when the people are working overtime. I want to know whether they make use of other routes and become negligent, because they know that their seniors are no longer on duty. As regards the issue of accidents that take place with unauthorised vehicles, or on unauthorised routes, it is important to know— without discriminating—whether Black or White people are involved here.

I want to know with whom this should be taken up. We must know exactly who the target group is. If they are Whites then we know that the hon the Minister will resolve the matter for us, but if it is our people then we can approach them. For example, I could ask the National Road Safety Council to focus more on that specific region. They could then send out more of their people for the purpose of training in the Post Office. I regard this as very important, Sir.

Next I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether those drivers have been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. If any of those people drive under the influence of alcohol while on duty, then that is a major problem. We shall have to put a stop to that immediately because when I look at this section of the budget next year I should like to see a decline in the amount budgeted for vehicle accidents. I know that there are more vehicles every year and that one must take that into account, too, of course.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much.

Since there is such an accumulation of vehicles at the place of work, minor accidents can sometimes take place. I should also like to know from the hon the Minister how many accidents have taken place in every region on the open road or in the city.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said that there was no discrimination in his department. He said that everybody was appointed to the various positions on merit. Now, Sir, it could be that as a Coloured, one is appointed as a postmaster in a Coloured area or, as a Black, in a Black area. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, there is still discrimination. The department still appoints Coloureds in Coloured areas and Blacks in Black areas. They are not being appointed in any areas, and I feel that that should be the case. Coloured or Black persons should also be appointed in White areas—not only in non-White areas.

Furthermore, I want to say that as long as the department has a pension fund for Whites only, there is still discrimination. Sir, we were told that that is a private matter. To me it is not a private matter, because the Post Office is involved in this. I am not going to accept the statement that that is a private matter.

I want to turn to the affairs of my constituency. I did not want to take part in the Second Reading debate because I would have just got cross with the hon the Minister. Therefore, I rather turn to constituency matters.

I want to thank the hon the Minister’s department, and especially a Mr Ubsdell from the Transvaal. Last year during this debate we mentioned certain problems which we experienced in our constituencies. Sir, if the whole department could work like Mr Ubsdell does, we would not have any problems. The moment he received our speeches, he went through them. He then phoned us and asked, for example, where we wanted the telephones or postboxes that we had mentioned in our speeches. He handled all our problems. If we have any problems in our constituencies, we contact him. The hon member for Newclare, for example, had a problem and I gave him Mr Ubsdell’s number. [Interjections.] Within a day he had a telephone. I have not met Mr Ubsdell personally, but I suggest that the hon the Minister appoints him to the position of Postmaster General because he is a real worker! [Interjections.] Sir, I want the hon the Minister to make notes again this year and pass the information on to Mr Ubsdell.

We have a problem in the Lawley Post Office which falls in my constituency. This may be one of the best and most well-kept post offices, Sir, but we have a problem with the staff there. There is a White woman working there who is very prejudiced towards people of colour. She just sits in her office. There is also a Black woman who works there, and this woman should be getting the salary which that White woman is getting. The White woman just sits in her office and the Black woman has to see to everything that is being done at that post office. She has to run to the counter to hear what the customer wants. Then she has to run to the office to tell the woman what the customer wants. Then she has to run back to the counter, take the parcel out of the box and give it to the customer. That White woman gets paid to do a job, but she is not doing it.

Is the Black woman a cleaner?

She is a cleaner, but she is doing the work of a post office clerk. I would like the hon the Minister to look into this. I want him to reprimand that White woman and to tell her not to discriminate against people of colour. That post office might be situated in a White area, but 99% of the customers are not Whites.

When one applies for a post box, one has a problem with this woman. If one happens to be non-White, one’s application is placed at the bottom of the list, whereas if one is White, it is put on the top of the list. The hon the Minister must please look into this. There are going to be problems at that post office.

Just remove the woman, chair and all!

Yes, they should just remove the woman, chair and all.

†I now come to the Kliptown Post Office. We have a problem there, because we are sitting with a post office that has to serve a very big area. It serves half of Soweto and the whole of Eldorado Park. That post office cannot cope anymore, because it is situated in the wrong place. It is situated on the periphery of the area, and people have to walk almost eight kilometers to get there. This post office building is being hired from a private person, but there is a site in a more central area in Eldorado Park where they can have a post office erected. They can also have a post office erected in the Klipspruit area. People should not have to go from one point to another to get to a post office.

I now come to the Noordgesig area which is going to be proclaimed as a Coloured group area. Hopefully this will happen within the next three months. For many years the people of Noordgesig have not had a post office. These people have to go to a post office in Soweto. It is not that they mind going into Soweto, but it is very far for them. These people are approximately five kilometers from the Post Office. It is therefore very difficult for them to get there. I hope the hon the Minister will see to it that those people in the Noordgesig area will also get a post office.

The hon the Minister is planning to erect a post office in the Ennerdale CBD area. The hon the Minister is going to find that the post office there is too small for the community. That community is getting bigger by the month. Families are moving in by their hundreds. The post office that we are putting up in the CBD is not big enough to serve that whole area of Ennerdale. They are now starting with phase one of the Lawley area, too. This falls in the Ennerdale area. There should be a post office out there, too. Instead of renovating the one in the old Lawley area, the hon the Minister should have a new one built out in the Ennerdale/Lawley area.

Since the hon members of the opposition are not present here today, the people of Riverlea asked me to speak to the hon the Minister. They also want a post office at Riverlea. Their nearest post office is in Langlaagte. I want the hon the Minister to ask Mr Ubsdell to have a look at this. He can report back to the hon the Minister with regard to the feasibility of having a post office out there.

*There is little that remains to be said. I thank the hon the Minister for having listened to me.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank the hon the Minister for his positive response to my submissions in this House last year. I am most grateful for the sprucing up of the post office at Schauderville.

This does not solve the problems that exist there.

The post office is very small. The hon the Minister has acknowledged this and the erection of a departmental building is long overdue. This post office is so small that a queue of eight people will stretch from the counter to the door. The ninth person will find himself outside in the street and all the people behind him will have to brave the weather outside, be it rain, wind or sunshine.

It is also gratifying to see that the department has become a viable department and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on this achievement. It is nice to see that there are departments which are viable. As a direct result of this, we will not have hikes in postal tariffs and we are grateful for that as well.

A very serious plea has been made here this afternoon for the erection of a new post office in Schauderville. I want to give the hon the Minister the assurance that, as a member of the management committee of the northern areas of Port Elizabeth, I will assist with the procurement of an ideal site to accommodate this new post office.

Furthermore, the erection of a new post office in West End, viz the Saltville Post Office, has been planned, and I am grateful for that. That project will get off the ground one of these days. The residents in that part of Port Elizabeth are delighted with this news, because this is something they have been waiting for for many years. They are looking forward to the opening of the new post office in that area.

I would like to know how far the Department of Posts and Telecommunications has got with negotiations for the procurement of sites for the erection of post offices in the Booysens Park and Chatty areas. It will be highly appreciated if this could be expedited, as thousands of residents in those parts of Port Elizabeth are being seriously inconvenienced because there are no post offices there.

I now want to turn to pensioners. It is common knowledge that the department is only acting as an agent for the paying out of pensions. We accept that, but I want to read an article which appeared in The Evening Post of 22 July 1987 under the heading “Pension payouts slated”. I quote:

Some time last year it was suggested—probably it will be suggested again this afternoon—that it might be convenient for the pensioners to have their pensions channelled via a bank, building society or any other financial institution. I think it is a very safe method and I hope and trust that the hon the Minister will see what he can do in the form of recommendation to the relevant department.

With a large number of pensions and grants being paid out at the Schauderville, Gelvandale and Saltville post offices, I want to know if it would be possible to bring in extra staff from other post offices to expedite the paying-out process. These queues form there for the best part of the day, and the pensioners cannot stand this, because they have to brave the elements through summer and winter.

Let me now relate something in a lighter vein. On Sunday the 13th of this month I was waiting for my flight from Jan Smuts to Cape Town. I wanted to phone my wife to tell her that my flight would be delayed by one and a half hours. I proceeded to the telephone and inserted a R1 coin because that was the smallest denomination that I had.

A rich man! [Interjections.]

I only spoke for a short while because I just wanted to tell my wife that my flight would be late. The call cost me about 20 cents and I stood there anticipating that I would get some change. [Interjections.] I did not want to be so brazen as to say that the postal authorities are ripping people off but I was ripped off by this machine! [Interjections.] I hope machines will be devised which will cough up the change if there is any. [Interjections.]

Finally I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for providing the facility of direct dialling to Mecca. It has been a sore point for many years that one had to book a call and wait for a long time. This step has been well received in the Muslim community throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to talk about aids: The acute income deficiency syndrome. This is becoming most prevalent in Port Elizabeth where it is the local version of aids according to the Eastern Province Herald of Saturday 12 March. To a certain extent, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications plays a part in this acute income deficiency syndrome. I say this because in Port Elizabeth there seems to be a comparative lack of promotional opportunities vis-a-vis Brown and White. I am going to be completely parochial today by confining myself exclusively to Port Elizabeth.

In a city where one practically has an equal number of Brown and White people, one finds a disproportionate number of post offices. As a matter of fact, whereas there are only three post offices to serve the entire so-called Coloured community of Port Elizabeth, there are more than 30 to serve the Whites. I want you to know, Sir, that I am being extremely tolerant and generous when I describe the Saltville venture as a post office. How the post office officials there still manage to do their work properly is nothing short of a miracle. I must compliment them on performing a strenuous task so well under very trying conditions. One can only hope that these conditions, as the hon member Mr Solomon said, will soon be something of the past.

This disparity in the number of post offices has, as a direct result, a disparity in the number of senior post office personnel. It is obvious that whilst one will have 30 postmasters in the White post offices in Port Elizabeth one will have only three postmasters in the northern areas of Port Elizabeth where, incidentally, the so-called Coloured people of Port Elizabeth reside. What is applicable to the rank of postmaster will also be applicable to all other senior posts in the post office.

Why is there this discrepancy in the number of post offices? Is it because of discrimination? Or are there other reasons? I want to suggest that we endeavour to rectify this “imbalance”.

I know that we have been through the exercise before, but let us once again take a long, hard look at the Korsten Post Office. What are the facts? It is a post office situated in a free trade area. It is manned by so-called Coloureds but right at the top it is controlled by Whites. Thus the Port Elizabeth version of aids starts again. Why can all the positions at this particular post office not be occupied by “Coloureds”? Let us take a look at other factors. The people who are being served at this post office are predominantly not White because the entrepreneurs in the area are not White, and, because of the fact that any business done with the Korsten Post Office by the factories in the vicinity is done via Black employees. Therefore one finds them at the counters of the Korsten Post Office. Why, under these circumstances, are the top positions reserved for the privileged ones? I feel that the time has come for a change. Mr Chairman, as we are striving for a South Africa—as was said earlier by the hon the Minister—where merit will be the only criteria that will apply, it is right that we should remove all and every instance where it appears that a person is advantaged by the colour of his or her skin. Let us show the world, let us show everyone, that we are serious about this.

Still with Port Elizabeth, and more particularly this region, in mind, Sir, allow me a quick glance at the regional office situated there. Like the hon member for Klipspruit West, I would like to know how many persons of colour are in senior posts at the regional office. Or is this, too, a closed shop? If it is so, let us immediately desist from such practices. Let us do what is right and treat a man according to what he is worth.

Although we still have points of distress at certain levels locally, let me not hesitate to pay tribute to the improved service conditions which have been brought about at national level. We have taken note of this. Like the hon member for Bishop Lavis, I too want to give credit where credit is due. We want to express our appreciation for what is being done at national level. I want to emphasise this, and I want to encourage the Post Office to keep up the good work and carry on with reform. I would like them to take a leaf out of the book of the victorious Eastern Province Nissan Shield Team who did not allow anything to sidetrack them in their journey to the Nissan Shield—not even a draw, or wet weather, or umpires, or the sponsor. I urge them to keep on going.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for having given me the opportunity to take part in this debate.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by quoting from the “Standard Encyclopedia of Southern Africa”. I am looking at a photograph of an inscribed stone. The stone is described in the encyclopedia as a “post office stone left at the Cape in 1625 by Edward Wilson, surgeon of the ship ‘Star’”. The writer explains that—

That is history.

The hon member should just open his ears and listen. If he did not study history he can do so now. [Interjections.] I want to continue quoting—

Further on the article reads—

Did you take history?

Mr Chairman, if the hon member wants to deliver my speech he is welcome to do so. I want to carry on quoting:

The Post Office can be proud of its achievements which were reported recently. I am interested in and encouraged by what has been taking place.

The postal authorities are to be complimented on the extraordinary improvements made recently, especially in view of the totally new ground that was broken in the highest echelon of the Coloured postal service.

There is, however, still much scope in the process of upward movement. For instance, an employee with 45 years’ service who retired recently had only reached the second stage, as senior postman.

Admittedly, this employee may have had shortcomings, but surely an employee of such long service should at least have advanced to the inspector grade. More often than not an employee, at this stage of prolonged stagnation, becomes so disillusioned and discouraged that he does not respond to the annual request to apply for promotion. Such cases should be canvassed with a heart to heart pep talk, with a view to ending this stalemate.

Mr Chairman, I was gratified when it was reported to me that two of my recommendations had been implemented. This was one of the biggest decisions ever taken by the Postmaster General and the hon the Minister. These related to: (a) the appointment of the first two Coloured northern and southern suburbs control inspectors in the history of the Post Office; and (b) the appointment of a Coloured Assistant Postmaster at Cape Town, and of clerical and uniformed staff at Zeederberg. In this regard I want to thank the hon the Minister and the Postmaster General as this was one of the most important things ever to happen in the history of the Post Office. We can all be proud of this achievement.

Presumably this person who has been appointed as assistant postmaster was one of the few officers with a diploma; but there may be others who can easily overcome what may be quite surmountable obstacles. They may just be in need of a pep talk to lift them out of their feeling of self-satisfaction or to remove whatever is clouding their vision.

Sadly, the report in a newspaper that the position of the old-timers, the old civil pensioners, would be drastically improved on a percentage basis over the next ten years, turned out to be a rumour that had been based on a misconception. The old-timers had eagerly been awaiting news of an improvement and so they became utterly despondent after they were told of the misconception. Can this matter not be taken up again so that some joy can be brought to these pensioners? We should also include those who rendered very long service and who missed out on equal pensions or equal pay by just a few months. Some people paid pensions for 45 years and now receive only R400 per month. I would like the hon the Minister please to consider improving their position.

With the rapid growth of Coloured townships in urban and rural areas, investigations should be carried out more frequently with a view to providing the necessary services. The need for a village for Coloured pensioners—this has already been envisaged—cannot be stressed enough, and I trust that the hon the Minister will attend to this matter urgently. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, of course it is not possible for me to reply to each question that was put. I shall try to reply to as many of them as possible. Hon members may rest assured that I shall consider those questions to which I shall not be replying and shall reply to them either by letter or by conveying the replies personally to them while we have a cup of tea together.

I once again want to thank hon members sincerely for the their contributions. It is clear from their input that hon members of this House also have a contribution to make with regard to the control as well as the direction in which the important department of Post and Telecommunications is headed. Hon members should realise that it is with appreciation that we note the interest they have in the various regions they represent. We welcome the fact that these inquiries are directed to us and I must say that the inquiries and contributions are made in a very good spirit. That is something that really helps a great deal.

With regard to overtime let me tell the hon member for Wuppertal that the amount for which provision is made at present will be adequate to carry the additional expenditures. The budgetary provision is based on historic information with due allowance for any unexpected unusual circumstances. The hon member referred to the flood disaster, amongst other things, and asked if that overtime would also be taken into account. That will of course be done in appropriate cases.

In order to reply to a greater number of questions I shall keep the replies as brief as possible. As far as area allowances are concerned I can just say that the Witwatersrand allowance is being phased out.

As far as salaries and fringe benefits are concerned I just want to leave a certain thought with hon members. Since 1 June 1987 complete parity for all population groups has been achieved with regard to the salaries and fringe benefits, amongst other things, of all population groups. This applies to amongst other things, salaries, retirements, pensions, leave and leave gratuities, bursaries and fees, conditions of appointment, service bonuses, uniforms, railway concessions, the subsidisation of contributions to the medical schemes, housing subsidy schemes and loans and working hours. I have tried to highlight the most important aspects in this connection, but hon members should take note of the fact that in every respect, taking into account all the circumstances, this is being dealt with as speedily as possible. As far as I can determine all service and fringe benefits are now on par with the exception of, for example, camp allowances, camping equipment and team foreman allowances.

It will therefore be clear to hon members that urgent action must be taken in this regard.

The hon member for Wuppertal asked various questions about the sports associations of the post office. I want to inform the hon member that an amount of R75 000 has been allocated to the sports association of the post office for the present financial year as well as for the next. This sports association organises a sports tournament in the various regions every 18 months. This allocation is chiefly meant to cover hotel and transport costs.

The sports association is also an autonomous body. Three years ago this association decided to open its membership to all the population groups. However, it would appear that members of certain population groups are not desirous of joining. I want to emphasise for the benefit of the hon member that this organisation is open to all population groups.

There are recreational facilities at Crown Mines in Johannesburg, in Boksburg, Milnerton in the Cape, Derdepoort in Pretoria and in Port Elizabeth. I hope I have replied to the hon member’s question in this regard.

I now come to the hon member for Bishop Lavis. While the information on page 13 of the appropriation document is factually correct, the format in which it is presented could perhaps be confusing. The salary category of R3 001 to R6 000 is chiefly applicable to unskilled workers of all population groups. The salary category should, however, read R4 500 to R6 000 as no one in the department earns less than R4 500 per annum.

Over and above that, this group receives assistance with regard to medical and pension funds contributions. At the larger centres they receive subsidised canteen facilities as well. In many cases salaries are also supplemented by overtime remuneration. The department continually examines the market-relatedness of minimum wages and makes adjustments where necessary. Minimum wages were in fact adjusted on 1 October 1987. It is a fact that there are people in our organisations, as is the case in many other organisations, who earn so little that one really wonders how they can survive. This is something with which hon members and I have a great deal of sympathy. Our hearts go out to these people.

However, the fact remains that the department has to be effective. To be effective, the level of productivity has to be as high as possible. To achieve maximum productivity there have to be skilled people. The organisation that is modelled on productivity is the one that can pay the highest salaries. The workers who are more technically inclined are also the people who can earn most. [Time expired.]

Schedule, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the Whips for allowing me to say a few words.

Firstly I want to thank the hon the Minister for the compensation for damages that the department paid out for the losses suffered by one of the farmers in Genadendal in my constituency. I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the problem he solved in Waenhuiskrans where people opened one another’s post. Furthermore I want to thank him for the housing which is being built for his workers in Bredasdorp. They really are beautiful houses.

I should also like to address a request concerning Struisbaai to the hon the Minister. As the hon the Minister allows pensions to be paid out at a shop in the White area, my people have to walk a distance of up to 6 km. I should like to know if those payments could not take place at the shop in the Coloured area.

Another matter which really causes concern is the question of a clerk who worked in the Post Office at Bredasdorp. In 1984 I received the complaint that he was paying out too little pension money to people. I received sworn statements and sent them to the police. Nothing has happened yet. This clerk nonetheless received promotion in 1986 and then became a postmaster in Napier. In 1987 I again received a complaint that he was paying the people too little. I once again obtained sworn statements and handed them to the police. I want the hon the Minister please to look into the problem.

I should also like to address a request concerning Bredasdorp. The people there used to receive their pension payments at the Post Office, but now suddenly they are being served in a small room. They are soaked to the skin there. It is also cold and there are steps which people have to struggle to climb. I want the hon the Minister please to look into the problem at Bredasdorp.

The hon the Minister spoke of funds for sport. There are quite a few workers who participate in sport at Bredasdorp and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the sport control board of Bredasdorp may approach the department for funds to upgrade their sports grounds, because they really are struggling there.

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to be able to participate in this debate on the Post Office. As hon members know, the Department of Post and Telecommunications is a very big business, or at least, a provider of a very great service. I should like to thank the official of the department who is sitting at the back, as well as Mr Ridgard for the hard work they do for the public of South Africa. The floods caused much damage in our country and I know the Post Office will have to incur many expenses to provide the necessary services once again.

I agree with the arguments raised by other hon members in the House, but when I look in the direction of the opposition benches, I see hon members of the Official Opposition are not present. It seems to me these hon members do not have problems and do not even want to say thank you for the tremendous work that the Post Office does for this country. [Interjections.] One of the arguments of hon members here is that parity should triumph.

The provision of housing and pensions as well as the provision of housing for retired workers of the Post Office should also receive attention. There are Post Office pensioners who would like to buy houses.

I ask the hon the Minister to see to it that cheap housing is provided for these people or that it is made easy for them to obtain houses.

My voters have noticed that there is not sufficient staff in the Heidedal Post Office. I want to ask the Minister to please see what he can do about this.

A telephone service is extremely important for the entire community of this country. We must provide it.

When I look through the documents and see how many accidents take place in the country I want to call upon the staff of the Post Office and the Police to see to it that the vehicles of the Post Office are examined. It is the taxpayers' money that is being wasted. The vehicles should not be handled so recklessly. [Interjections.] Some officials drive as if they are taking part in a race at Kyalami.

Order!

It is the property of the community and the officials, Whites, Coloureds, as well as Blacks should be trained properly before the vehicles are entrusted to them.

I once again want to thank the Post Office staff for their hard work.

Mr Chairman, as a starting point, it is surprisingly obvious that the word “privatisation” itself is too closely related to the country’s notorious inflation and immediately creates the nagging fear that it appears on the horizon to stoke the aforementioned flame.

It is an indisputable fact today that private enterprise and the commercial world are overwhelmingly responsible for the ever rising cost of living, either because of greed for more and more gain or because of poor management. Our country is blessed with a tremendous reservoir of cheap labour and yet these very people are cruelly affected by the ever spiralling costs.

This new Governmental brainwave is suddenly thrust upon this cosmopolitan country with a large section of illiterates and below the breadline inhabitants. It brings to mind the time when this country went over to decimalisation, absolutely against the run of play. The older generation and the vast hordes of illiterates are still struggling with this advanced system that was followed by another equally bad change to the metric system which was and still is baffling to a vast majority. [Interjections.] There are just a few more things I want to bring up since I do not have much time.

There is enough time.

I am pleased to hear that there is enough time.

†How many people today are daily cheated by the cents and millimetres which are not even accepted by vastly advanced countries yet. Now this inexplicable scourge of this uncalled for “passing the buck” is going to be thrust upon us as if outside specialists and economists could not do the trick in the existing set-up. Let us now get down to brass tacks and take the Post Office for example. Let us picture this mighty, age-old organisation suddenly being taken over by an outsider with no post office experience or background. Can we imagine the impact on those who started from the bottom and sacrificed all to progress in the service, and when they reach the pinnacle, they lose out to a slightly better degreed outsider with no experience whatsoever in the postal sphere.

The same applies to those with the rank of regional director right down to those with the rank of postmaster. We must look into this matter carefully and ensure that the titles of those people who have sacrificed a lot of their time over the years—they are people with no degrees—are not taken away from them as that will send them right into their graves.

I now want to move on to the uniformed staff, the people who started from the lowly grade of messenger. The two “cherries at the top” came recently, namely the assistant postmaster at the Cape, the third highest regional post, and the control inspectors. Therefore, a more highly qualified inspector, coming from nowhere, can apply successfully, causing a bottleneck and utter frustration for those within reach of a lifelong ambition. No, Sir, let us second experts and economists to the top administration, but only after privatisation has taken place.

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of this important budget debate. I want to thank all the hon members who participated in this debate very much. I am going to talk for a short while in order to give the hon the Minister more time to reply to hon members.

Many hon members asked me to thank the hon the Minister and his department because their doors are always open when they want to discuss their problems. Allow me on behalf of hon members to wish the retiring Postmaster General, Mr Ridgard, everything of the best. We hope that he will enjoy a long and tranquil retirement with his family. Under his leadership many of the problems experienced by hon members in their constituencies were solved promptly. I also want to wish Mr Johan de Villiers, Mr Ridgard’s successor, everything of the best and good luck. We know that he is a very capable person.

I believe that the estimate will bring prosperity for the year ahead and that the hon the Minister and his department will see to it that the stipulated guidelines that he has spelt out here will be maintained. I want to thank the hon the Minister for the open and honest way in which he replied to hon members’ questions. I trust that the questions to which he could not reply will receive written answers later on. I want to give him the assurance that everyone who participated in this debate did not criticise merely for the sake of criticism. This criticism should be regarded as constructive and it should be accepted, because I do not think we are here to score points at each other’s expense. We want to make it clear to the electorate that we are here to keep institutions such as the Post Office, with its tremendous communication network, and the hon the Minister always on their toes so that money is used in the right way. When all is said and done, it is the taxpayers’ money after all.

There are other important questions that I wanted to put as well, but they will keep until the standing committee sits again. I am sure these matters will be discussed there.

In conclusion I wish the Post Office staff God’s richest blessings and wish them everything of the best for the difficult year ahead. I also want to request that all staff who deal with the public will always act in a friendly and polite manner towards them.

Mr Chairman, I have already said a few words about Mr Ridgard and the designated Postmaster General. However, I should now like to associate myself with the hon member for Wuppertal as far as the Post Office staff is concerned and join him in expressing my gratitude to them for the work they have done during the past year. They worked under great pressure in many areas. I am specifically referring, as other hon members have done, to the flood damage that occurred, making it necessary for them to work overtime and under pressure to restore the service as soon as possible. Therefore, there is great appreciation on my part and on that of this side of the House for the efforts made by the Post Office workers, and we are very proud of them.

Sir, if you will allow me I shall deal with a few more cases during the Third Reading. I should just like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the starting notch—at present this amounts to R4 500 per year—applies only to beginners. Everybody is promoted annually according to this scale. Moreover, if they excel in their jobs they may qualify for special salary increases. Earlier promotion opportunities are also available to those who pull their weight. We are constantly endeavouring to be as market-oriented as possible in order that we may retain the good workers for the Post Office and prevent them from being taken away from us by the private sector. Therefore, I can encourage any young person to consider a career in the postal services and telecommunications.

I want to tell the hon member for Rawsonville that the post office in his area, which is too small, will definitely receive the attention it deserves. As far as the coin-operated telephones are concerned, unfortunately it is true that these telephones are exposed to theft as well as vandalism. This costs us large amounts every year. Consequently it is essential that coin-operated telephones be located in protected areas as far as possible. We are not trying to inconvenience the consumer. It is news to me, however, that these telephones are being locked and I shall make enquiries about this. I think that is wrong; they should not be locked.

I have also taken cognisance of the hon member’s request as far as the installation of more coinoperated telephones in Rawsonville is concerned. One will, of course, have to consider the cost and the turnover. However, all these matters will be looked into.

The upgrading of the service in Paarl East is not on our programme. However, we shall consider the matter again. As far as the Nederburg post office building is concerned, we shall have the situation investigated and shall send the hon member a letter in this regard. I should like to remind the hon member for Rawsonville of the letter I wrote him on 1 September about the post office in Paarl East. I have a copy of it with me in case the hon member did not receive the letter.

The hon member for Opkoms referred to the buildings in Botshabelo and Welkom. I can confirm that tenders will be called for for the erection of the buildings and that contractors of all races are free to tender.

It is not the department’s policy to provide separate counter facilities for the different races. This will not happen at the Welkom building either.

The hon member for Opkoms appears to be an expert on the Road Safety Council and road safety operations, and I welcome this. We can make very good use of the hon member in this regard. The hon member raised some very important issues and it is gratifying to see a man who knows his subject. I can assure the hon member that I shall attend to the various matters he raised and I shall write to him in this regard. I am quite sure that we shall approach him in future for further assistance in this very important matter.

I am very pleased that the hon member for Klipspruit West did not remain angry with me and is smiling again. I am very pleased about that. [Interjections.] At present we are investigating the possibility of obtaining rented accommodation at Ouden …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, for an additional post office in Ennerdale. I have taken note of what the hon member said in this regard.

†The hon member for Klipspruit West referred to additional post office facilities in the Kliptown area. A post office for Eldorado Park is being planned and I want to tell hon members that it has been included in the major works programme. The expected date of completion is March 1990. That is not so far away.

The hon member Mr Solomon referred to the Saltville post office. The estimated completion date for this post office is April 1989. The hon member also requested that pensions be paid through a bank. I looked at some figures this morning and it is interesting to note that in the 1986-87 financial year 9,3 million pension warrants were paid by the post office. The amount paid in that year—those are the latest figures available—was R924 million. It is a very large undertaking and only an institution like the Post Office, which has branches and offices spread throughout the country, is in a position to render this extremely important service. Many pensioners do not have bank accounts because the expense involved in opening an account is considerable. Very often the whole amount will have to be withdrawn from the bank as soon as it is paid in. Therefore, to a large extent, payments into a bank account would simply shift the point of payment of the cash. If the post office savings bank is used, it merely means a shift to another counter. We will consider the paying of pensions into Telebank, once the facilities of this system are adequate. We believe that Telebank will still play an important part and that it will enable us to render this very important service to pensioners without taking their money away. At present Telebank does not have the capacity to cope with the large-scale processing of these social pensions. The general upgrading of Telebank and other accounts of the post office savings bank is a matter that will be looked into by a task group we have appointed to study the division of the Post Office into business units. I have, however, noted the hon member’s request.

The hon member Mr Solomon also referred to pay phones and the question of the return of change. Of course, the hon member must remember that only unused coins are returned and that no change is given! [Interjections.] However, Sir, I would have made the same mistake.

I do not want to reply to all the questions which the hon member asked now, because I did not answer all the questions which other hon members asked. They may think that I favour him more. [Interjections.] However, I want to say something about the post offices at Booysens Park, Chatty and Schauderville. Booysens Park is served by a mobile unit. Representatives from the region are negotiating with the city council about the acquisition of a suitable site. I can also advise the hon member Mr Solomon that a site has been obtained for a post office at Chatty, and that the expected date of completion of the building is June 1991. [Interjections.] The general position in the Schauderville area is being investigated and the hon member will be furnished with a written reply in this regard.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp made a very earnest appeal which I most certainly took to heart. It was delivered without any rancour or anger and spelt out very clearly what the position is. The hon member asked me to investigate the imbalance which exists. He asked me to take a long and hard look at the particular matter. He did so in such a manner that I have no alternative but to investigate in the way in which he made this appeal—in a reasonable, fair and objective way. I am very pleased to have been approached in this way. I will most certainly respond and have the necessary investigation carried out. If the hon members’ facts are correct, and the Brown and White population groups in Port Elizabeth are evenly spread, but that one group has far fewer post offices than the other, that situation must be rectified.

One must, of course, also take the historical background into consideration. One cannot forget history or ignore it completely. However, we shall most certainly look into the matter. I have a note here according to which four new post offices are being envisaged in the Coloured area in Port Elizabeth within the next three years. That is already on the drawing board.

I have taken note of the other points made by the hon member. He also said that if a post office served a particular region where the clients came from all the population groups, it seemed fair that the staff should also represent the various population groups. I agree with that. That is obviously the case in town centres or places where a particular spread of the clients, as far as race groups are concerned, is evident. We will most certainly look into the matter in order to ensure that in those cases the staff will also be representative of the various race groups.

Here again, I want to appeal to hon members to take the historical background into account. To give an example, in a White residential area it is good policy to have White staff behind the counter. I also think it is good policy for various reasons to have Coloured staff behind the counter in a predominantly Coloured residential area. The fact is, however, that we are entering into many CBDs and industrial areas where the clients are found to be from all race groups, and we must act accordingly.

I have noted the various points that the hon member for Strandfontein mentioned. I thank him for the various issues which he brought to my notice. I am very pleased that he has also found that we are making headway. I have taken note of his request that we must continue with the progress that we have been making. I thank the hon member for the contribution he has made.

*I now come to the hon member for Genadendal. I shall inform the hon member in writing about the progress we are making. I have noted the problems that the hon member is experiencing in Struisbaai. I shall send him a detailed reply to the various requests he addressed to me.

I also want to thank the hon member for Heidedal sincerely for his contribution. I have specifically taken cognisance of the staff shortage problem. I shall take this matter up with him again. During the Third Reading the hon member for Wuppertal expressed the sentiments of all hon members—including myself—who took part in this debate as well as hon members who did not take part. He said that we should regard the highly technical, economic and financial organisation that posts and telecommunications comprises, as a business that we are trying to operate. As is the case with any business undertaking, ofcourse, we should finance all these services from the profits we make.

We do not receive money to pay for these services from the Treasury or from the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. Our finances have to come from the revenue derived from postal and telecommunication services. This capital has to pay for all services. I think the hon member has sketched the necessary background and I want hon members to take cognisance of this. We shall have to look at these things from a business point of view. Efficiency is very important. We must not spend too much or too little money. One must always maintain a balance.

It is impossible to keep politics out of any debate, but in this case it should be introduced only in small doses. That is exactly what hon members have done. I want to thank them for the spirit in which this debate took place.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

It is evident that the motion before us this afternoon is a non-controversial one. Its principal aim is to reduce the retiring age by affording teachers an option to retire. As such, I am sure that it will receive wide support.

Provision already exists in terms of the Government Service Pension Act, 1973, Act 57 of 1973, for those teachers who are appointed to their posts before 24 June 1955 to elect to retire after attaining, in the case of male teachers, the age of 60 years and in the case of female teachers, 55 years. This regulation does not apply to permanent teachers whose pensionable service commenced after 24 June 1955. They could retire from the service of the department on attaining the age of 65 years. I wish to point out that whilst those teachers who elect to do so should retire at 65 years, others should be allowed to retire at any time between the ages of 60 and 65 years, should they so wish. I am not differentiating between the retirement age of males and females, as parity is being implemented in the salary scales of males and females.

Most persons who have reached the age of 60 years would confirm that at that age they are on the decline. Furthermore, a large percentage of them experience the hazards of old age, infirmity and invariably poor health that undoubtedly affect their performance at work. They cannot give their best at that age. A cursory survey would reveal that many of the teachers who have attained the age of 60 years, are unhappy in the service. The consequences of flogging dissatisfied persons in the service are only too obvious. The pupils would not benefit to the extent that they should and these pupils would lose out. This state of affairs should not be allowed to prevail. In some fields of service the wide differences in the abilities of the employees do not matter much. For example, if a person produces 1 000 shoe boxes per day as opposed to someone else who only produces 600, these shoe boxes are not adversely affected. This is not so in the education of a child. If the teachers do not come up to reasonable expectations of performance as a result of age, the pupils are the victims. Hence their interests must also be safeguarded. I am not for a moment unmindful that scientific, technological and medical conditions have contributed in increasing the present lifespan of man, but despite this fact the following words in Psalm 90:10 have come true:

The complexities of modern living, however, inflict strain and stress on life. Life is no longer without its emotional and psychological tensions. As my friends in the medical field will confirm, teachers in particular have more than their fair share of tension. The period during which a person receives his pension should be made a happy one, free of trouble and sorrow before the silver cord of life snaps. They should not remain in service until they have one foot in the grave. There are many cases of teachers who on retirement at 65 years do not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of hard-earned labour. A large number of them have passed away within the first five years of their retirement. A survey carried out in the United States of America advocates early retirement, where persons going on retirement five years earlier may prolong their lifespan by 10 years, as opposed to those who retire five years later.

I want to point out that lowering the retirement age to 60 would offer the teachers an option to retire between the ages of 60 and 65. Experience has shown that not everyone aims to retire at the age of 60. Imagine what would happen if any indication was given of a new salary scale next year. It is quite natural that teachers would delay their retirement. Those teachers who wish to continue until they attain the age of 65 have the right to do so. Of course, there will be certain persons who have no cause to retire earlier and who wish to derive the maximum benefit in the way of gratuities and pensions by remaining in the service for a longer period. However, the motion accommodates others who, for various reasons, do not wish to remain in harness until the age of 65. There is every indication that they would be happier to retire on pension from one to five years sooner.

An important factor that requires emphasis is that some people are burnt out at the age of 60. If permitted to do so, they could retire with honour and dignity instead of struggling on in frustration or being dismissed ungraciously.

In the main, the retirement of persons at the age of 60 would not reflect adversely upon the profession in so far as manpower needs are concerned. At least that would be the case in most departments. It has been established that all of the 337 839 members of the pension fund for temporary workers may retire at 60. Of the 460 994 members of the Government service pension fund 58,4% may retire on pension before their 65th birthday. That means that 76% of the members of both funds may retire before the age of 65. These are the figures as at November 1987.

There would be certain advantages to implementing the motion as proposed. This arrangement would open up more job opportunities for younger people who are unemployed in view of the present economic crisis. This new arrangement would also provide scope for the upward mobility of younger persons in the profession who would fill the promotion posts that would fall vacant resulting from the earlier retirement of teachers holding those promotion posts.

Let us look at the issue from a financial point of view. The salaries of the younger teachers would be lower than the salaries paid to those older teachers who retire, as most of those retiring would be on the maximum of their grade. It is appreciated that the matter of costs is an important factor as more money would have to be found for pensions and gratuities for an increased number of teachers retiring earlier. Adequate arrangements could be made to meet this situation.

It must conceded, Sir, that the option to retire between the ages of 60 and 65 is not only in the interests of teachers but, even more so, in the wider interests of education, and as such, it merits favourable consideration.

Judging from the consultations I have had and the numerous inquiries I have received, I am pleased to indicate that there is general support for the motion. This motion deserves the necessary consideration of the hon the Minister of National Education. With his genuine concern for education in the Republic it is expected that he will resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all concerned. I am convinced, Sir, beyond all doubt that the adoption of the motion would have a salutary effect on the education of the children of our country.

Mr Chairman, personally I do not have many qualms about the motion moved by my colleague, the hon member for Cavendish. However, I wish to propose as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, a teacher’s job is an onerous and demanding one, especially after 55 years of age. Contrary to popular belief a teacher puts in many manhours after normal school hours in the form of extra-curricular activities such as preparing students for debates, sports and plays. A teacher’s weekend can also be taken up with the giving of extra tuition to weaker pupils in his class.

After the age of 55, the human body tends to give in to many illnesses.

Speak for yourself only.

These teachers tend to coast along and are unable to give of their best. In response to the hon member for Reservoir Hills I would like to say that he gives me the impression that he is an imbecile.

You are a stupid fellow.

Order! Did the hon member for Reservoir Hills say that the hon member for Allandale is a stupid fellow?

Yes, Sir, any man who calls me an imbecile is stupid himself.

Order! What did the hon member for Allandale say?

Mr Chairman, I said that the hon member gives me the impression that he is an imbecile.

Order! The hon member for Allandale must please withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I will withdraw it if he is not.

The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES. Order! The hon member for Allandale must withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills must withdraw the words “You are a stupid fellow”.

In the circumstances, Sir, I have pleasure in doing so.

Mr Chairman, consequently pupils may suffer from this indifferent attitude or the lack of dedication. Because teachers are compelled to retire at the age of 65, when in most cases they are not enjoying good health, they are afraid that the presently allowed sick leave with full pay—that is, three months in a cycle of three years—may not tide them over during a prolonged absence. Therefore, most teachers protect themselves against such an eventuality by accumulating their long leave. Such a practice is counter-productive. If such long leave is taken by many at the same time there will be chaos in some schools.

If one retires at the age of 55, State expenditure will also be reduced accordingly, because pension is calculated on a person’s last salary. The salary a person would earn at 55 would be lower than that at 65.

By allowing teachers to retire at the age of 55, there will be a greater opportunity to employ a larger number of newly qualified teachers who are presently unemployed—I think this might be about 500—who will be seeking employment in the years to come.

If a P1 or S1 principal who at 55 years of age—say it is in 1988—retires, his pension will be calculated on his final salary of say R3 400 per month. The starting salary for a D-grade qualified teacher is approximately R1 123 per month. At least two teachers could therefore be employed for every one teacher who retires.

If a teacher retires at an earlier age he will be in a position to serve his community with his knowledge, wisdom and expertise on a voluntary basis. By allowing teachers to retire earlier they will stimulate the economic growth of the country. A teacher may invest his gratuity and his pension instead of its being shared by his family on his death. In this way he will receive some returns. This is an indirect way of injecting capital into the economy for circulation, resulting in economic growth and indirectly contributing to the State taxes.

Section 6 of the Government Service Pension Act, No 57 of 1973, carries certain stipulations regarding the ages for retirement. I quote as follows:

Section 6 (2) reads as follows:

Before I come to subsection (3) I want to say that subsection (2) invariably means that a member of the Police Force can serve for 22 years and thereafter go on pension. Subsection (3) reads as follows:

1. (a) in the case of an officer of the general duties branch of the permanent force, with effect from the date on which he attains the age of—
   1. (i) fifty-one years, if he is a lieutenant and was born on or after the first day of January, 1922;
   2. (ii) fifty-one years, if he is a captain and was born on or after the first day of January, 1921.

If a teacher is appointed at the age of say 22 he will have to serve the department for approximately 43 years before he retires. I once again prevail upon the hon the Minister of National Education to allow teachers the right to retire at the age of 55.

Mr Chairman, I support the hon member for Cavendish’s motion that persons employed at the schools mentioned shall have the option to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. I want to emphasize the word “ option”. We are not asking teachers to retire at the age of 60 years but giving them the option to do so. Some teachers will elect to go on teaching until they are 65 years old if they are fit and well. There will be others who will want to vary their retirement age between 60 and 65. The fact that they are granted the option is the important factor.

Some might come to Parliament!

We should also consider that on an average a teacher serves for 40 years. That is a very long time. This 40 years of service involves vigorous work and much stress and strain.

Unlike other professions where people sit at their desks and carry on with their clerical work— pushing the pen as we say—teaching demands much more.

We are living in changing times and in changing times one has dynamic situations in the classrooms. As a result the children of today are exposed to different environments which are very demanding in the sense that the teacher is challenged to meet different situations at different times. That is why the profession is dynamic. The situation inside as well as outside the classroom is different and so the teacher has to adapt himself. If one considers the situation in 30 years’ time the teacher that has been trained to cope with the present situation will have to cope with different situations in 30 years’ time. This is further evidence for saying that the profession is dynamic and that teachers have to adapt themselves to the varying situation.

An hon member said that some of these teachers are “burnt out”. I agree with him. I would go further and say that they are virtually a spent force at that age. We need young blood in the profession; give the youngsters a chance. There are hundreds of young teachers willing to come and serve and we should exploit that, not only in the classroom but also, as hon members mentioned, in the extracurricular activities which are so much part of the school curriculum.

From experience I can tell hon members very few people ever see a good life of retirement. Many of these teachers become very, very sickly people. This is more so today than ever before, not only because of their situation in the classroom but also because of frustrations caused by unfair promotions where they do not get the opportunity to be promoted because of favouritism. In the Tongaat election teachers who took part there were given principal’s posts. That could also bring about a lot of resentment and build up a lot of tension and stress.

It would be interesting to find out whether anybody has conducted a survey to show statistics in respect of persons between the ages of 55 and 60 who have died.

Who what?

Who have died. Who have passed on from this earth between the ages of 55 and 60 as a result of various factors.

We know for a fact that many teachers suffer from tension, hypertension, stress, diabetes, heart disease, etc. We hear daily—I have had quite a number of calls—from teachers who would like to be boarded on account of ill health. Some of them are very, very sick people because the better part of their life has been spent in this noble profession.

I should like to quote a few cases where people have died. Mr A S Govender, the principal of Clare Hill Secondary, died a couple of days after his retirement. There was also Mr Sewamber, principal of Willow Park who, after 40 years of service, died soon after his retirement.

I feel strongly that the option should be given to the person to retire at the age of 60. I would like to make the point that while we are fighting to be able to give a person the option to retire at the age of 60, a uniform system of employment for all professional persons and the teaching profession should be adopted. There should be no discrimination in the conditions of employment in the teaching profession.

I wish to recommend very strongly to the hon the Minister of National Education that he consider this option in a serious light.

Mr Chairman, we have heard this afternoon about the stresses and strains involved in the teaching profession, and reasons put forward for earlier retirement. The proposals put forward both by motion and by amendment tend to give the very same reason for early retirement. The proposal is both desirable and acceptable. The view that all teachers be given the right to elect to retire at the age of 60 or 55, or at any time thereafter, and have a uniform rate of contribution to the pension fund for all, is a good one.

However, what are the implications of such a move? The implications are various but I shall come to that a little later.

First of all, in these matters it is necessary to have a clear picture of what the position is at present in respect of the retirement age of our teachers. I think the hon member for Cavendish has to a great extent spelt this out very clearly. However, one of the main principles in teaching being repetition for the purpose of impact, I am going to repeat some of these things. Repetition helps to create an impact on the minds not only of adults but of pupils especially.

At present, any person who commenced teaching in a permanent capacity before 24 June 1955, as mentioned by the hon member, shall have a right to exercise the option to retire, in the case of a female, at the age of 55 years and, in the case of a male, at 60. Persons appointed subsequent to 24 June 1955 can retire only upon attaining the age of 65 years, the compulsory retirement age.

Now, whereas we take cognisance of the fact that a certain dispensation was allowed to these fortunate people who started in the profession before 24 June 1955, those unfortunate people who started thereafter…

… were penalised.

… were, in a way, penalised for having started their careers in the teaching profession later in life.

There is, however, always a provision for them. Much stress has been laid today on the tension and hypertension that a teacher suffers from. I think that both the hon members for Cavendish and Merebank stated that.

It was only a passing remark.

I am tempted to say that the hon member may recall that a teacher found an easy way out before going into 40 years of service and joined, say, some other institution in order to spend his life more happily there. [Interjections.] However, he has given me an inkling that I as the Minister must look at that loophole very carefully so that in the future it is not abused.

A person may apply to be retired in terms of the so-called “burns-out” clause on attaining the age of 60 for males and females if they do not have the option to retire at an earlier age, as mentioned earlier. However, those persons who have the option to retire by virtue of their appointment before 24 June 1955 can apply to retire in terms of this clause upon attaining the age of 50 for females and 55 for males.

There is of course that provision, the “burns-out” clause, and various people, during their lifespan, find that they are not able to continue. If they cannot do justice to the profession that is the best alternative; otherwise they are doing an injustice not only to the profession but to the child in the classroom situation.

I agree with that.

All such applications for retirement in terms of this clause are subject to the approval of the Minister in charge, whoever he may be. The benefits payable under this clause are the same as those for normal retirements.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister what happens if this burnt-out teacher does not retire voluntarily? Would he be dismissed?

There is a provision that if he is found inefficient, the Minister has the right to have him retired. That is in terms of the Act. The provision to that effect can be found in the Act. A person might be retired on account of ill-health, on account of the abolition of his post or a reduction, rearrangement or reorganisation of the staff of the school in question. He can also be retired on account of his unfitness for his duties or incapacity …

Mr Speaker, I should like the hon the Minister to give a definition, or some further clarification, of the term “burnt-out teachers”.

Mr Speaker, I think it is amply clear from what you have heard this afternoon, but I shall clarify the matter further. A teacher is regarded as being “burnt-out” if he has become inefficient in the classroom situation as a result of his health becoming poorer, so that he is not able to give of his best and do justice to the classroom situation.

The definition is accepted.

Thank you.

If one’s discharge will, in the opinion of the Minister, promote efficiency or economy in the school in question, one may be discharged.

It is therefore not entirely true that teachers cannot retire at the age of 50 in the case of females and 55 in the case of males, or for that matter at the age of 60 in the case of both males and females—many do and my department gives maximum co-operation to enable those who qualify to retire early, to do so, so that we can get younger and more efficient people into the classroom situation to do justice there.

I want it recorded that it was this department that spear-headed a move to allow all CS (college and school) educators to retire at the age of 60 years. We took the initiative. As a first step the department prepared a draft Bill in 1986, as many hon members will recall, proposing that the “burnt-out” clause be applicable to all CS educators.

This was proposed for some important reasons. Firstly, the department saw the amendment as a measure to allow burnt out teachers to be replaced by newly qualified teachers who were unemployed. Secondly, such a measure would allow all such teachers to enjoy the same rights, whether they commenced teaching before June 1955 or not. Thirdly, public servants presently enjoy this right and I therefore ask why teachers should not enjoy the same right.

Unfortunately this draft Bill had to be referred to the different State departments for comment. It was eventually decided that such an amendment affected conditions of service of educators and, as such, the hon the Minister of National Education had to pilot such a Bill and therefore it was referred to the House of Assembly. Of course, my colleague the hon the Minister of National Education is here this afternoon. He was prevailed upon by all other Ministers of Education to pursue this matter and I leave it to him and to his good judgement to give the House news of developments in this regard. He should be able to do so very soon. My department has done all it can do at this point in time in order to make it possible for CS educators to retire at the age of 60.

There are time constraints but I will only take a few more minutes. We must exercise great caution if any change could create problems for sister departments—I am referring to Black and Coloured education. Earlier on I mentioned that the acceptance of such proposals would bring about implications in the economic sphere, the position of the pension fund and the opportunity to buy back pensions. These things have to be kept in mind. In the past teachers were allowed to buy back pensions up to the age of 16, so that their eventual emolument would improve. Both the lump sum amount as well as the annuities improved tremendously. We have all read in the press that the pension fund is to some extent in the red. However, I understand that that is being sorted out. While Indian and White education departments are sufficiently staffed with qualified teachers, and at the same time are able to relieve those who are burnt out without affecting the standards and norms in education, it would not be the same for the other two departments. If, for that matter, a person had reached the age of 60 and he was still hale and hearty and was not burnt out…

Like you and me.

Correct. Like the hon member. As I was saying, that teacher would still be able to give of his best.

His expertise must be respected. Those who are benefitting from his input would certainly be the better for it. However, if that expert were to be replaced by a newcomer, then even if that newcomer were to have two or three degrees or diplomas he would not have the same number of years of experience to his credit to do the same kind of justice to the classroom situation as the older man.

My plea, therefore, is that whilst we are making an appeal in respect of some education departments, this is a general affair and if this comes about it will have an impact on all the departments at the same time. [Interjections.]

There are various other points that I could have raised but suffice it to say at this moment that I should like my hon colleague here to give the House his views as to what the implications of such a move are. Since this measure affects conditions of service, a national policy in the best interests of the country as a whole is needed.

I shall support any move aimed at effecting changes that will enable educators to retire at least at the age of 60 or sooner if they can be classified as burnt out or unable to continue to do justice to the schools.

Mr Speaker, what does the proposer of this motion ask? He asks—and I support this very strongly—that the retirement age should not be mandatory but that it should be voluntary and optional at the age of 60.

Being a former headmaster and a man who has taught for many years—a man who has been permitted by a power far greater than himself to stand here and deliver this speech—and being healthy and of sound mind and body, I am one of the fortunate ones. However, I am sad to say that a number of my colleagues have passed on. In fact, most of my colleagues have passed on and I think I am living up to the Biblical age of three score years and ten.

In his speech, the hon the Minister said that he was compassionate and that he was very concerned about those teachers who were burnt out, so to speak. I know of cases where very sick teachers, who were mentally and physically ill, were kept on tenterhooks for nearly two years before being boarded. I shall write to the hon the Minister and give him the names of those teachers who have still not been boarded.

As a matter of interest, may I ask the hon the Minister how many teachers applied for boarding last year, how many cases are pending, and how many have been granted? These are very important questions, and I need an answer in this regard. [Interjections.]

I am very interested in the question of retirement. In asking for optional retirement at the age of 60 I very strongly support the motion. Moreover, the question of retirement concerns the parliaments of most Western countries.

In support of my argument, let us see what Canada does insofar as retirement is concerned. Let us see how Canada deals with retirement cases. A report on retirement policies in Canada concludes that the most popular period for retirement seems to be between the ages of 60 and 64. I refer to the Canadian Health and Welfare Report of 1977.

Let us take Great Britain, a great country from which we have also inherited many problems. The current State pension age is 65 for males and 60 for females, but civil servants are entitled to draw full and occupational pension at 60, provided they have accumulated at least 25 years of pensionable service. A representative national survey carried out in 1977 showed that more than 40% of all retirements in recent years took place before the State pension age of 65. This means that 40% retired at the age of 60, took their pay, went home and enjoyed the sunset of their years.

In Australia there has been a dramatic increase in the retirement of men aged 60 to 64. Retirement among this group rose from 25% in 1974 to 51% in 1983. This development signifies the beginning of early retirement on a large scale in Australia.

Coming back to our beautiful country, I want to make a case for this optional retirement at the age of 60. Taking the average of Canada, Australia and Great Britain, I come to the conclusion that 60 is a reasonable and good age for retirement.

Let us look at the mandatory age of 65. Teaching in particular is very demanding. An honest teacher has to put in a number of hours, both inside and outside the classroom. Even if his wife insists, he rarely goes to bed before 10 o’clock at night. Preparation, marking, assessment of the pupils’ work, analysis, all these things take time. This makes teaching a very arduous and difficult vocation, although we say that it is a very noble profession, but I do not see where nobility enters this issue. The teacher is also confronted with the constant updating of new methods.

I do not know if it will interest hon members if I tell them how I learnt to read. I was taught the alphabet, A, B, C, and so forth. I had an old stern schoolmaster with a stick, and I had to learn to recognise these letters, learn word-building and so forth. Over the last 30 or 40 years methods have changed. One has to update methods. How does one do this? By constant reading.

As one progresses in age, the routine and the physical demands—and I know most teachers also have extra-curricular duties such as involvement in sports training—all add to the burden on the teacher, physically as well as mentally. As the years pass and the teacher gets older and older, he is no longer able to deliver the goods as he did as a young and enthusiastic teacher of perhaps 20 or 30. I make an appeal that we must seriously consider the removal of the mandatory retirement age and make this optional at 60 for those who wish to retire.

Able men like the hon the Minister, the hon member for Cavendish and myself can carry on, even for three score years and ten. The point is that we want the hon the Minister to consider this honest appeal.

I had a master who used to travel all the way from Tongaat. He had no interest in the recent election because he passed on. [Interjections.] Although this man was mentally still able to teach he was physically gone. His body lingered on and on for three years before he passed away. What I am saying is the following: Let us give the option to those who want to retire earlier.

Incidentally, I read in the legislation on retirement in Canada that any prescription of retirement is an attack on a person’s individuality. The State has no right to prescribe because as an individual a person has the right to do what he wants to do with his profession. There is therefore no real legislation on this subject and a person can retire whenever he feels like it.

In summing up I want to say that all that I ask of the hon the Minister is to consider the question of optional retirement at 60 for the people who worked for many years to impart their knowledge. We would feel happy if these good masters could enjoy the physical life that is left to them. They are the ones who man the classrooms and teach generation after generation. Everybody who is here in this House today is here because of the good and hard work done by dedicated men and women who laid the foundation for their education.

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion as moved by the hon member for Cavendish. In doing so I also oppose the amendment moved by the hon member for Allandale which is riddled with contradictions and ambiguities. The hon member did not know in which direction his train was moving. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I do not have enough time to take any questions.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture also contradicted himself. Firstly he said that burnt-out teachers ought to be boarded if they do not retire voluntarily.

Bring them to Parliament! [Interjections.]

At the same time he said that the expertise of those older teachers cannot be replaced by younger teachers. There is a contradiction in his statement.

People ought to retire when they are still fit and not when they are burnt out, useless and have become spent bullets or punctured spare wheels. If one retires too late one only experiences suffering instead of enjoying one’s sunset days.

The hon the Minister mentioned the existing provisions for the retirement of burnt-out or useless teachers—I am not sure exactly what he called them. It is then that retirement means to put such people out of circulation. When a person is burnt out or suffering from illnesses, what enjoyment can he still get out of existing in this world? If a person wants to retire at 60, let him retire to enjoy the rest of his life.

The hon member for Phoenix mentioned mental exhaustion as the primary cause of teachers becoming redundant or useless. I would agree with him in every respect. The present-day trend— particularly amongst the group I come from—is for teachers to be harassed by politicians. They are hounded by politicians to go and canvass and collect votes for people. They are told, “if you don’t do this, I will do that”.

Teachers today, particularly among the Indian South African teaching fraternity, are labouring under a very heavy strain. If somebody can do something about that I shall be very pleased. I am talking from experience as there are members of my immediate family who are teachers. I am bound by being a public and not a private family representative, to raise the fact that harassment based on political grounds is tremendous among Indian teachers today. All this gives rise to mentally exhausted teachers who become burnt out and are only fit for the dustbin.

Therefore, in supporting the motion I say that we have to bear in mind that the provision for burnt-out teachers to retire voluntarily or to be boarded is useless. We have to make provision for a teacher to be able to retire between the ages of 60 and 65 while they are still fit and able to enjoy their twilight days.

Mr Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague the hon member for Cavendish, I must say that the wording of his motion merely states or requests the status quo. If I am wrong I ask to be forgiven, but there appears to be some confusion with regard to the motion as well as the amendment. The amendment only differs from the motion in the period of retirement; that is all. Let us be absolutely clear as to the present state of affairs with regard to the retirement of teachers.

As things stand the compulsory retirement age is 65 for both male and female. Then there is an optional retirement age—this has been mentioned by the hon the Minister—for those who began teaching before 24 June 1955. According to this law, male teachers can retire at the age of 60 years and females at the age of 55 years, so what is new about the motion?

It has been made clear by the hon the Minister that provision has been made and is being made for this.

Then of course we have a third option of retirement and this of course is with the approval of the hon the Minister. This falls into two categories; those who started teaching before June 1955, in which case males can retire at 55 years of age and females at the age of 50 years. This is the same as laid down in the Public Service Act and the Commission for Administration Act. All this is contained in section 15(1), (2) and (3) of the Indians Education Act. As for the amendment moved by the hon member for Allandale, I support it. However, I wish to go one step further and wish to make the following suggestions. These suggestions were made by me without fail during the Vote: in Education and Culture during 1986 and 1987. I shall do the same today.

I suggest that the compulsory age of retirement age of 65 be retained but—and this is a very big but—that the optional retirement age irrespective of commencement of service be as follows. I suggest that for males that retirement age should be 55 years. For females it should be 50 years. I shall motivate my suggestions. Productivity is the first and this has been mentioned by other hon members in this House. It is a well known fact that productivity—not necessarily intelligence or nimbleness of mind—declines or starts to decline after the age of 50 years.

If the teachers have to deal with all responsibilities they have to deal with, one finds that at that age they become frustrated. This frustration is reflected in their performance. Teachers, particularly Indian teachers, have 20-23 hours of teaching time a week, excluding extracurricular activities. One cannot expect a reasonable level of performance from these people, particularly from those who have been teaching for 20, 30 or 35 years.

One finds that White teachers spend a great deal of time with their pupils on Saturdays. They can be found organising sporting activities almost the whole day. However, all this is part of their meaningful contact time. Compare this with the non-White or Indian teachers. We see them doing 23 actual teaching hours a week. The ex-teachers in this House can correct me if I am wrong.

The White teachers—or even the Black or Indian teachers—in private schools do not operate, as has been mentioned, under the same duress and stress as Indian teachers in Government schools. The private school and White teachers are not under constant scrutiny and do not have to deal with assessments, supervision and all kinds of other things teachers have to do. They, the Whites, have a relatively stress free life compared with our teachers. I am not begrudging them this because that is the way it should be.

Last year the Minister in our House emphasised two aspects of education. He mentioned a new sports policy in which a healthy body and a healthy mind were important for the overall development of the child. Now, I fail to see how a 55-year old running around the sports track or doing swimming with the boys can help. Many of these teachers, as has been mentioned by the hon member for Merebank, are suffering from heart complaints, asthma or arthritis.

The other important aspect was computer assisted education. Computers have been installed in most, if not all, of our secondary schools this year and, since the trend in education today is to be assisted by computers and new technological aids, we find that the older teacher is totally at sea. Since the whole object of education is the child, he is exposed to a wide range of knowledge in today’s world, and requires physical and mental development. The older teacher is not able to do justice to that child’s development.

Let us look at this matter from a medical point of view. Firstly, the number of teachers applying for early retirement will in fact diminish because they will be able to make use of the option of retiring early and need not then apply for boarding on medical grounds. Most of the teachers I have seen in my medical capacity have been in their fifties. They have come to me not because they are too old or are infirm, but because they are mentally and physically sick of the system in which they feel trapped. Many of them would like to spend their money on going to Mecca or to India. They would also like to pay off the bonds on their homes and they would like to send their children to university.

Many of these public servants in their fifties do not enjoy very good health but they are not ill enough to be boarded, and it is often a struggle for them to continue teaching. In fact in the Indian community we have a peculiar state of affairs. We have qualified teachers walking the streets, unemployed, and these teachers are young, as has been mentioned. They are young, they have young ideas, they are computer literate and they have other new, innovative skills. However, they are kept out because the profession is full. The profession is full of old timers who are eagerly awaiting retirement, but who cannot leave because their pensions are keeping them there.

My last point in motivation is the fear of a mass exodus of retiring teachers. Now, this might not be entirely true for the Indian teachers, but more so for the Blacks. This is a fallacy. The hon the Minister should remember that people who wish to leave too early will lose certain benefits because pensions are service related as far as years are concerned. There are 114 000 Black teachers and only 11 000 Indian teachers. However, of those 114 000 Blacks, fewer than 10% are fully qualified.

Therefore, to retire early would not benefit a lowly-qualified teacher who has not been teaching for a long period.

Before I conclude, I want to know from the hon the Minister what the significance is of 24 June 1955. This date appears in section 15 (2) of the Indians Education Act, Act 61 of 1965. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this date was arbitrarily arrived at, or does it form part of a formula? Why was this particular date the cut off date?

If we look at the same Act we see that it has not been amended in the course of time, and it stands a very good chance of becoming obsolete. For the Act to apply, that particular person had to be bom in about 1935 or 1933. Today that teacher would be 55 to 65 years old, or even older. Thus in two to three years time the Act will not apply to anyone, because all who started teaching before 1955 would be 60 years or older.

In conclusion I wish to state that I do not only speak for the teachers. All public servants as a whole and their conditions of service, including their retirement and pensions, must be reviewed. This being so, I feel that we must subject the pensions laws as a whole to review.

We have had many calls for the establishment of joint select committees into bribery and corruption since the beginning of this year. Let us now call for the establishment of a joint select committee to investigate pensions for all public servants.

Mr Speaker, this is not a matter which really involves party politics. It does not involve any question of political principle. It does, however, involve matters of practicality.

The present system is rather harsh, particularly on women teachers. This applies to women teachers regardless of race. This is so because until recently, if a woman teacher married, she had to resign her job. She would then remain a temporary teacher, year after year. This applies to White, Coloured, Black as well as Indian women teachers.

Many of these women who had started off as teachers well before 1955—because of the rule that existed until about 10 years ago that they were obliged to resign their jobs and then eventually be reappointed—lost the advantage given to male teachers who were in employment before 1955. That is an anomaly, which, with respect, ought to be rectified without delay. It is an injustice perpetrated by all of us males upon our women and it is wrong that that should continue.

In so far as the other practical matters are concerned, I am tom between two schools. The one is that it is a good political point to say that teachers should be allowed—or they should have the option or the right—to retire at the age of 60 or at the age of 55. It would be easy for me to thump that particular tub, or beat that particular drum. Of course, however, one has to have cognisance of the fact that the hon the Minister of National Education does not run the entire state. He runs a particular department dealing with education. Before he can do anything of the kind that he is asked to do by the motion, he would have to get the support of his Cabinet colleagues. Most of his Cabinet colleagues also run other departments. Thus, what applies to the teaching profession would have to apply to other employees, be they professionally qualified employees or clerical employees. This is so because one cannot make fish of one State employee and fowl of another.

I am therefore concerned about this, in view of the difficulty in which this motion will place the hon the Minister. As I said, this is not a party political matter at all.

Therefore, if teachers were allowed to have the right to retire at age 60 or 55, doctors working for State hospitals and provincial hospitals should have the same right, as should architects, surveyors, draughtsmen, nurses and clerks.

If that were to be allowed, this terrible spectre of which Dr Andreas Wassenaar keeps warning us may in fact become a reality. If there should be tens of thousands of people retiring in droves because legally they are entitled to do so, the pension fund can indeed go bankrupt. If this should happen to the pension fund and the Government does not vote many millions of rands to bolster it, we could be in a predicament. At present Parliament legally can do so, but the country would not have enough money. The losers would then be those State employees who have not as yet retired. Therefore, as legislators we also have to bear this in mind. I am not opposing the motion, because I think there is a great deal of merit in it as well as in the amendment. However, the practical implications have to be borne in mind. This situation may well refer down to municipal employees and then commerce and industry might suffer the same strain. The ripple effect would be tremendous.

Reference has been made to burnt-out teachers, a colloquial expression actually used when referring to those teachers who have been certified by psychiatrists as being emotionally and psychologically unable to continue their work. They are no longer physically or intellectually competent to do so. These people do not just retire, but they are boarded. They have to be certified by a medical panel. It is therefore a misnomer for anyone to believe that any teacher who says he is burnt out will automatically retire.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture made reference, in an indirect way, to the hon member for Merebank, stating that a loophole has to be closed. I would caution him not to rush in. No one should legislate for the particular; legislation should rather be for the general. The particular case to which the hon the Minister of Education and Culture was referring, was the election of the hon member for Merebank. Many people quite wrongly give me credit for the fact that this hon member was elected. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is actually the person who really is entitled to this credit. He gave a warning in advance which enabled me, on behalf of the hon member, to take countermeasures which made it possible for the hon member for Merebank to be duly nominated. The hon member should really give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a present.

Coming back to the motion, my submission is that this is an issue on which all of us should really, as the Zulus in Natal say, Hamba kahle. Wag ’n bietjie—go slowly.

Mr Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to follow these two hon members in this House, when both of them have made such pertinent and relevant points in relation to the debate—in this case concerning the pensionable age of teachers.

Much has been said about the definition of burntout teachers and personnel in any work situation. These stresses and strains are not limited to the teaching profession alone. They obtain in various other professions as well. Largely it is the metabolism of the individual which dictates his own conscience as to what is good for him and what is not in his interest.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, when one speaks about burnt-out teachers and the boarding of those teachers there are, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills has quite rightly pointed out, certain factors to be considered. These factors are largely medical and we have a team of medical people on the panel who normally examine the applicant and then issue the necessary certificate if the applicant has to be boarded.

I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills touched on another important aspect, namely finances. If we were to consider reducing the pensionable age to, say, 55 years or perhaps even lower in the case of females—the modern trend is to reduce the pensionable age simply due to the modern-day living standards of people throughout the world—then we would need to look at the implications of financing. As the hon member quite rightly said, it would be very difficult to find that finance, particularly in an economic situation such as the one obtaining in South Africa at the moment. I do agree, however, that thorough consideration must be given by my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, to the present Acts which govern pensions. Perhaps a committee could be set up to investigate the feasibility of the points that have been raised by various hon members in the debate this afternoon.

I am constrained by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, and the hon the Minister of National Education also suffers the same constraints. He has to find the money for the kind of provision that has been demanded in this debate. I believe it is now up to my hon colleague to look at the situation and to see whether or not it is possible to appoint a committee from the three Houses to look into this issue of pensions and the pensionable age. I think that enquiry would perhaps bring forth a report which we as Parliamentarians could look at. With those words I want to say that as Minister of the Budget, I shall, as suggested by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, go very kahle on this issue.

Mr Speaker, I had expected the debate to continue for some time and I must immediately give notice that I shall definitely not talk for the balance of the time allotted to the motion. I shall not remain on my feet for one and a half hours. [Interjections.]

I think the fact that the debate did not take up all the time necessarily allowed for it shows the balanced way in which this matter has been approached in this House today. Hon members have stated their views and I really think that the whole problem has been highlighted from all sides in a very effective manner. I want to thank all hon members for their participation.

Before replying in detail to some of the points made by certain hon members, I should first like to make a general background statement on the whole issue.

May I in the first instance say that I think that on an occasion like this it is fitting to thank the teaching profession for their dedication and hard work. All hon members who participated stressed the particular demands to which the teaching profession is subjected, demands which are made upon all teachers by the particular circumstances under which they work and the constant need for high performance required of them. I would like to associate myself with the appreciation expressed by hon members in this regard.

At the conclusion of this discussion it would maybe be a good idea to start with a factual summary of the situation as far as the retirement age of college and school-related educators— briefly referred to as CS-educators—is concerned. I would also like to demonstrate to hon members the present position, the complexity thereof and the fact it really is a very sensitive one which requires that it be handled with the greatest wisdom and circumspection.

Firstly, let me deal with the factual situation. In this regard I would like to thank the hon the Minister of Education and Culture for his very clear exposition of the status quo with regard to his department and the important perspectives advanced by him. I also thank other hon members, like the hon member for Montford and others, who analysed the status quo, for the study they have undertaken in this regard.

If I am to summarise the factual situation I would like to say that CS educators employed by the provincial education departments in terms of former provincial ordinances may elect to retire with pension at the age of 60. This is regarded as a vested right by those who enjoy it, with regard to which certain assurances have been given in the past. For all other CS educators, as well as persons employed in terms of the Public Service Act, the retirement age is 65. The retirement age of CS educators is a matter which is directly related to their salaries and conditions of employment. According to the Constitution Act, the latter is a general affair, as has been quite rightly pointed out. According to section 2(1) of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, 1984, the Minister of National Education has the responsibility to determine a general policy in this regard.

Order! Hon members cannot hold a discussion in the aisles.

Mr Speaker, I have received representations with regard to this issue, which definitely falls within the purview of my responsibility, from various sources. I have received representations from the Ministers’ Council of this House with regard to this very matter. I have also received representations from the two other Ministers’ Councils and from the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. I have also received representations from more than one organised teaching professional body. Therefore, from a wide spectrum, with regard to educators, representations have been made which have more or less the same effect as the motion before us.

These representations have been referred to advisory bodies constituted to give advise to the Ministry of National Education and I have received advise from these bodies about the retirement age of CS educators. This has resulted in a situation where I can state today that I am at present negotiating with the responsible hon Ministers in the Cabinet in order to finalise general policy in this regard. In other words, the first point that I want to make is that the matter is receiving serious attention and we have reached a stage where I am now in negotiation with colleagues without whom I cannot do anything.

Obviously the hon the Minister of Finance is involved. Obviously the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office entrusted with Administration is involved because all the other employees in the public sector basically fall within the purview of his responsibilities. Obviously the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is involved because he administers the pension fund. Negotiations are therefore at the order of the day before we can reach any final decision.

Insofar as the intricacies of the matter under consideration are concerned, I would like to draw the attention of hon members of the House to the following: It is a well-known fact that there is a considerable shortage of teachers in departments of State responsible for education, particularly for Blacks but also in regard to the Coloured population group. The fact that such a shortage exists would seem to favour a retirement age of 65. In the case of the departments of State responsible for the education of Whites and perhaps also to a lesser extent in the case of Indians, the same shortage of educators is not experienced. A retirement age of 60 in the latter departments therefore would appear more reasonable.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister the following: Taking into consideration the argument put forward in the last two sentences, is he suggesting an own affairs retirement age?

No, I am dealing with the intricacies of the matter. I am trying to point out to hon members that we are not dealing with a simple question of which the answer can be a simple “yes” or “no” until such time as we have negotiated in an effort to sort out these intricacies and to reach a formula which accommodates all the aspects that I am raising now just by way of argument.

I would therefore say that the one conclusion which we can draw is that the present situation and the existing rights of a particular group of educators apparently support a differential approach. This logical conclusion from the factual situation complicates the formulation of a general policy regarding a common retirement age. That does not mean that we are not striving towards it and that we are not looking at it seriously.

The financial implications for the pension fund should also be considered carefully when decisions are taken with regard to the retirement age. The issue is again complicated by questions such as who will pay for the financial implications of a lower retirement age. Should the State carry the additional financial burden, or should only those who benefit from a lowering of the retirement age, foot the bill? One would only be able to give a meaningful reply to this question after the completion of present investigations into and an assessment of the pension fund which I have been informed is in the process of taking place.

The question also arises whether representations for the lowering of the retirement age of CS educators to 60 could be considered in isolation from similar representations received from other sectors of the Public Service. The hon member for Reservoir Hills highlighted this point. Coordination is necessary. At the same time it is clear that a decision about the common retirement age of 60 for all public servants and educators could have a profound effect on the financial position of the pension fund. It will affect both the benefits payable to members and the contributions made by members to the fund.

What is clear at this stage is that the lowering of the retirement age is an extremely complex and sensitive issue.

Before any definite decision can be taken, in-depth negotiations will have to be concluded. In addition to the general considerations already stated by me and by other speakers I want to say that particular attention will also have to be given to the following.

Firstly, any decision will have to be weighed up against the manpower needs of the country. We are dealing with an imbalance in manpower in this country. There is dire shortage of well-trained, highly qualified men and women on the one hand, and on the other, we have surplus of semi-skilled and unskilled labour. I just want to state this as a fact. The retirement age and the decisions with regard to that may either have a stabilising or a destabilising influence on this situation where there is an imbalance.

Secondly, any decision that is taken must be within the means of the country.

Thirdly, a balance must be struck between what the person earns at this stage and his deferred income; that means his income after his retirement.

All these factors which I have referred to must be taken into account and they are in the boiling pot at this moment. I therefore wish to make an earnest appeal to the organised teaching profession and to hon members that we should ensure that negotiations will be concluded as soon as possible. I want to appeal to the organised teaching profession to participate in such negotiations. This should be done, as I am sure they will do, with responsibility and circumspection.

From my side I wish to give the assurance that I have already given serious attention to the representations that I have received from many quarters. I have entered into negotiations with my hon colleagues and I trust that a decision can be reached soon.

This brings me to a few specific remarks made by hon members. The hon members for Cavendish, Allandale and most other hon members who participated in the debate, referred to health problems, infirmity and other factors which may affect the productivity of teachers nearing retirement age. The problem of the so-called burnt out teacher is effectively being debated by lit-up politicians!

I admit that this is a problem. This problem is not unique to the teaching profession; it is experienced by all employers in the public and in the private sector.

What do you do with a burnt out politician?

I said a lit-up politician. [Interjections.]

While admitting this, I want to say that this is not only a problem affecting people between 60 and 65 or between 55 and 60 years. I think it might occur more regularly at a higher age but in many instances it is also a problem at 40 or 45 and at 50 or 55. I would therefore suggest that this problem should be addressed in future negotiations and discussions. It should be addressed in conjunction with the negotiations in regard to retirement proposals and the representations which have been received.

It has been addressed in the public service to a certain extent by amending legislation. I am not suggesting that it should be done in the same way with regard to the teaching profession, but I think there seems to be a consensus arising from this debate that there is a problem that must be looked into very, very carefully.

We must see how we can address this problem of a person losing his drive or for other reasons no longer being productively employed although he or she might not yet have reached retirement age, regardless of what the retirement age might be.

The hon members for Allandale and Merebank also stressed that the teaching profession is a very demanding profession, and that teaching is a very demanding task. I want to say once again that I fully agree. We must, however, also give recognition to the fact that the present conditions of service with regard to the teaching profession do recognise the special circumstances and the special demands made upon teachers. Thus we find that in the teaching profession there is special provision for long leave, and that teachers have a unique dispensation with regard to ordinary leave. All this is well deserved and justified because of the particular stresses and strains referred to by so many speakers.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills joined issue with regard to the question of ladies who have lost their option to retire early although they taught before 1955. They were later re-employed and now no longer have the same option as their male counterparts. In this regard we must realise that there was a time when married women could not be appointed in a permanent capacity and that we have changed this system. However, this has resulted in a situation in which their permanent appointments caused them to be in a position where they were appointed in a new capacity from a current date—the actual date of their appointment. One cannot backdate that appointment to the original date of their first appointment as a teacher. This change was effected in terms of existing regulations and these regulations unfortunately did not make it possible for us to do this in a different way.

In conclusion I want to thank all hon members for the reasonable and reasoned basis on which they debated this motion. I want to thank the hon member for Cavendish for bringing this to the fore. I want to thank all the hon members who participated in the debate as well as the hon the Minister of the Budget, who was the last speaker. He requested a parliamentary commission. I must emphasize that I am not the Minister of Pensions and I say that if there were a need for a parliamentary commission, it should fall under that Minister because such a commission would have to address the pension problem in toto and not only the pension problems and the representations of teachers per se. At this point, however, the matter is firmly in the hands of the executive and the executive has a responsibility to consider the representations received and to reach a decision. We will do everything in our power to make sure that this is done as soon as possible. There are, however, certain factors delaying such a decision for which I think there should be understanding. We need to complete this investigation first, before we can really address our minds to this problem in a meaningful way.

I thank all hon members very much for their participation. I hope that in the next session we will be able to debate this matter on a much more certain basis, and achieve clarity on it.

Mr Speaker, I am glad the hon the Minister of National Education officially placed certain facts relating to the retirement age of educators before this House. One is that his Ministry and his department had officially received a request not only from the Ministers’ Council of this House, and that there was also discussion with the organised teaching profession on this particular matter.

In terms of the Constitution, education is an own affair. I think that Parliament did an excellent thing prior to the implementation of the new Constitution in passing general affairs legislation—legislation which today is regarded as general affairs legislation—which actually governs many issues, including the conditions of service.

Our education for members of the Indian community is governed in terms of the Indians Education Act, Act 61 of 1965, and I want to quote section 11, which is a very important section relating to the topic under discussion:

I honestly believe, contrary to what others may believe, that we really have one Minister of Education in this country, namely the hon the Minister of National Education. In spite of their being specified in section 11 of the Indians Education Act, Act 61 of 1965, the determination of salary structures and conditions of service is definitely not an own affair.

It is an excellent thing to have a standard policy, a national policy or a national norm. Therefore the hon the Minister of National Education suggested that this solution to this problem, which has been discussed previously in this House and has been discussed by the organised teaching profession, has to be a negotiated one among the various Houses, among those who are going to be responsible for the financial implications of the implementation of such decisions, when such decisions are made. It should also be negotiated with the various organised professions.

I listened very attentively to the hon the Minister of National Education, and he gave details of the data relating to the teaching establishment in Black, Coloured and White education and in the Indian education departments. Because of the history of the country, and because of the fact that the Indian community really started education in this country as a result of the process of self-help, the White and Indian education departments are different to those of the Coloured and Black communities. Therefore the White and Indian education departments have a situation in which there is in fact an oversupply of teachers. In Coloured and Black education there is an undersupply of teachers.

The hon the Minister of National Education indicated that the shortage of teachers in the Black education department favours a compulsory retirement age of 65. Of course, I asked whether he was suggesting that we make the retirement age of teachers an own affair. I think that in terms of the Constitution we must subscribe to a national norm, and I think that anybody—I am glad the hon the Minister of National Education did not suggest this—who suggests that each department should determine its own retirement age will be putting the clock backwards. I want to make it very clear that under no circumstances should our request to the Ministry of Education be misinterpreted to mean that we want to lower the retirement age of Indian teachers only.

I believe that in fact we do not have an over-supply of teachers in this country. Education is compartmentalised into Indian, Coloured, Black and White education. The hon member for Phoenix gave us details in respect of what happens in Canada. I do not know whether those legislators decided to peg the retirement age at that particular level because they got cold feet or because of the situation that prevails in that country.

There are many tricks of the trade and there are some teachers who want to become politicians. They can retire virtually overnight. They can circumvent that section of the Indian Education Act which compels them to give three months’ notice. For example, in 1984 a person suddenly discovered on a Sunday that if he notified the Director of Education that he had taken on another occupation, in terms of the Indian Education Act he was deemed to have resigned from the service. In a case like that the teacher does not forfeit his pension, although he is not in the active service. At the required age he will collect his pension. If he happens to be a member of Parliament and if he serves for more than seven years as such, he qualifies for double pension. [Interjections.] I am not casting aspersions on anyone, because I would have done the same had I been in a similar position. That is all within the terms of the law. The person who has done this, has not done anything irregular and cannot be accused of corruption etc. However, if he had lied to the Director of Education and in fact had not taken on another job, stating for no reason that he had done so, and if he were not able to produce his income tax certificate, that would have been another issue altogether. [Interjections.] I am only trying to point out that in terms of the Indian Education Act there are ways to retire at an age lower than the prescribed age of 65 years.

There is another important principle which was debated in some of the Western countries and especially in the USA. We should examine what prevails in that country, especially when we are examining a request for the lowering of the retirement age of teachers. Should teachers, for example, be put on a contract, possibly a five-year contract? A lot of contributors this afternoon mentioned productivity, efficiency, economy, etc. In relation to burnt-out teachers we surely can achieve efficiency if we seriously consider another route in order to allow these teachers to retire at an early age. We should consider the advisability of employing teachers on a contract basis. I know of one country where productivity will increase and efficiency will rise. The levels of inefficiency will be historically low. I am not proposing this, but merely suggesting that we examine it. Of course there is no burnt-out clause for members of Parliament. In one specific country teachers are allowed to retire at any time, subject to their having served a minimum period of 10 years.

Sometimes one may have a situation in which a teacher who teaches a particular subject and who has qualified in a particular field finds that there is an oversupply of teachers in that particular field who want to be of service to their country outside the teaching profession but who cannot retire due to the prescribed minimum age. In such situations one must consider giving them the opportunity to diversify.

For example, if one has an oversupply of biology teachers or physical science teachers in a particular situation and if there are certain teachers who want to give members of the younger generation an opportunity to gain employment and who want to branch out into industry, etc, then they must be given the opportunity to retire. I therefore want to recommend to the hon the Minister of National Education this afternoon— although it is not really his responsibility; it is actually the responsibility of the Minister in charge of pensions—that he examine the situation that prevails in other Western countries where they do not have a First and a Third World situation.

What we must also examine is whether the regulations are too stringent to enable those who are genuinely burnt out to be considered for retirement. I know that quite a number of hon members may be of the opinion that it is the Minister who decides in the case of applications made by teachers who feel that they cannot continue on the grounds of ill-health. However, the Minister is bound by the decision of a medical board. The Minister has absolutely no discretion in this matter. In this regard I think one area we could really examine is whether the regulations are too stringent to enable those who are genuinely burnt out to retire. I think we should seriously examine …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council what he intends doing about those full-time teachers who run full-time businesses?

Well, let me read the provisions of section 16 (e) of the Indian Education Act, Act 61 of 1965, as follows:

If he takes on another job and if it is established that he is conducting a business for gain without the permission of the Minister, then he may be contravening the provisions of the Indians Education Act, and if that is brought to the attention of the office of the chief executive director, a charge of misconduct may be investigated. Therefore, if a teacher undertakes any other occupation for gain without the consent of the Minister, meaning the consent of the head of the education division, he could be guilty of misconduct. As to the provisions of the Indian Education Act, of course, this particular clause exists in other legislation as well.

I was pointing out that we must very seriously examine the situation that prevails in other countries in the Western world and try to keep up with the times.

There has been quite a lot of discussion this afternoon about burnt out teachers or teachers who are inefficient.

When I was the chairman of the executive committee of the South African Indian Council, I asked the department to investigate the efficiency rating of our teachers, the levels of improvement in respect of promotions, etc. The situation exists that some teachers, even at the age of 65, are full of youthful exuberance. The very fact that three former educators are hon members of this House proves that after retirement a person need not be burnt out at the age of 65. Sometimes one might experience a tremendous shortage in a particular field and one might be compelled to make use of the services of such able, qualified and experienced educators. So, for example, the hon member for Phoenix can be of tremendous use to the education family in respect of the knowledge he can impart about the AA services.

We really discussed a non-controversial topic this afternoon. I am glad that my colleague, the hon member for Allandale, has submitted an amendment, which I support fully. I think one must give very serious consideration to the strong point made by the hon the Minister of National Education that sometimes we may be able to reach consensus. We might be able to reach an agreement and get a negotiated settlement in respect of the lowering of the retirement age of educators. However, one must also take into consideration the financial implications of such a decision. The most important question, according to the hon the Minister of National Education, is: Who is going to pay?

I want to say this afternoon that nobody from this side of the House cast any aspersion on hon members of the other side of the House in this debate. However, it is unfortunate that certain comments were made. I am not going to take issue with hon members, but I want to appeal to them search their own hearts when we are dealing with a topic which affects the lives of people.

If we succeed with our appeal, it will assist people, not only to retire early, but in respect of the desire to move up as quickly as possible in terms of the formula which is used to finance education in this country. We can only employ a certain number of teachers. On 31 December 1987 we were overstaffed—according to the record—by 600 without employing a single teacher. We have employed quite a few of those who qualified at the teacher training institutions this year, and the lowering of the retirement age will enable those who are qualified and knocking at the door to gain employment. Therefore I want to appeal that we take this issue with the seriousness it demands and not cast stones. May I remind hon members that we are capable of magnifying those stones and casting back rocks if there should be a repetition of this.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this afternoon to express my very sincere thanks to all hon members who participated and made useful contributions on an issue that is topical and should receive the attention of the authorities. I must express my thanks to the hon the Minister of National Education for his very elucidating speech and in particular for his assurances of continuing negotiations as far as he is concerned.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made certain observations and I would like to make a passing reference to some of them a little later. Before I do that, however, I want to make a particular reference to a statement made by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. He said that as matters stand, male teachers can retire at 60 and female teachers at 55 but I want to tell him that this is not the rule. It is only possible in exceptional cases such as cases where teachers are boarded because of ill-health or other specific reasons. Apart from such cases the rule is that the retirement age is 65 years. This cannot be denied.

Hon members on both sides of the House have made a case today for the lowering of the retirement age. We were very reasonable in our request in that we have indicated 60 as an optional age, so actually the implications are not as serious as they would be otherwise, eg if one reduced it to 55 or to any age. I do not think that in a profession like the teaching profession it would be advisable to reduce the retirement age to any age. Some people will then use the teaching profession merely as a springboard and move away to other professions. We also do not want the teaching profession to become a dumping ground. Some people hold this view very strongly. Those people should not be the ones who decide the destiny of a profession as important as the teaching profession.

I am very happy that the hon the Minister of National Education expressed his thanks to the teaching fraternity in no uncertain terms this afternoon because the teaching fraternity—if I may say so—is a special one. They render a special service in that they mould the generations of a nation. The input of those dedicated and loyal teachers determine to a large extent the quality of the men and women of a country. This applies to all the different race groups in this country. If a nation has to go a little beyond its normal practices the teaching profession is the sphere in which it would do well to invest. The benefits which will be derived will be incalculably vast.

Quite an issue has been made of teachers being burnt-out, but I do not think that this was the intention of the motion at all. We made a passing reference to teachers that might suffer from poor health or might be referred to as burnt-out teachers, but teachers who would be boarded would be those who would have to be certified in no uncertain terms as being permanently disabled. Teachers will not be boarded unless they are permanently disabled. A person may be very ill and be hospitalised but he may recover and be restored to perfect health. This will in no way affect his continued services. However, such a teacher will only be boarded if he becomes permanently disabled.

I must make reference to a few remarks made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I do not think the Indian community would be one with us or will acquiesce to lowering the retirement age of the Indian teachers. I do not think that the Indians are asking for a special dispensation as far as the Indian teachers as a category are concerned.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member aware of the fact that I did not ask for the lowering of the retirement age of the Indian people only?

Mr Speaker, I thought what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would emphasise is the fact that even if, as a temporary measure, in order to solve some of the acute problems in this country, a dispensation could be nursed and nurtured for surplus teachers—whether they are in the White department or in the Indian sector—to be utilised in Black or Coloured education, this would be necessary to promote the cause of education. I know that this is a sensitive issue.

Mr Speaker, does the hon member for Cavendish realise or know that we made this input but that Black and Coloured education have a problem with this.

Mr Speaker, I very courteously want to repeat that there is no hon member on this side of the House who indicated or implied that the surplus among the Indian teachers should be absorbed in the Black sector even before such negotiations have taken place. The Indian teachers’ aspirations have been raised so much with regard to the fact that they would be utilised in the Coloured and Black sectors.

We are not in agreement with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in no uncertain terms. This is no secret and I want to mention it in this House. When I went to some of the Black states at the end of 1986 and discussed this very issue with the Black Ministers of Education they were wary about it. They wanted their own people to be trained. They do not want to employ Indian or White teachers at the cost of not training and utilising their own teachers. This is therefore a sensitive issue.

The point I am making is that it is unfortunate that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture jumped the gun and made the announcements before the negotiations with those different departments have been concluded. [Interjections.]

There is another issue to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council unfortunately did not refer at all—here again I want to acknowledge our appreciation for what the hon the Minister of National Education has said in regard to teachers generally. The organised profession in the Indian community is at the present time aggrieved to such an extent that they are looking for a formula to seek trade union status.

I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture would do well to meet the teachers’ association in order to resolve those issues which are causing them such tremendous frustration that they are departing from the norms.

Once more I am happy that it is not the hon the Minister of National Education who made a great issue of finance. He indicated in no uncertain terms that co-ordination was necessary. There has to be consensus among all the departments and the various Ministers concerned. Unfortunately, however, this question of finance seems to be looming so large in the minds of our own Ministers that I am seriously worried. I know someone might pat them on the back and say, “You are good boys for being so wary about money”, but I want to emphasise that the question of finance is an important factor. It is extremely important that the welfare of a generation or more of our nation should be given no less consideration because the quality of the teachers and the quality of our education is priceless. We would do well to expand in this area.

I want to take this opportunity to salute all teachers in all departments because theirs is not an easy task. Despite tremendous odds and despite social and political frustration, I think we should acknowledge their tremendous contribution, their loyalty which the various departments still enjoy, their co-operation and the work that the teachers in each of the different departments are doing in the interest of the various departments, and the younger ones who will make up the next generation. I want to appeal to them to do this work, despite all the problems that affect them and their work, with a sense of goodwill, with a sense that the Divine Lord will reward them magnanimously for their share in building up a nation that has to withstand storms and tempests in this sunny South Africa. Lastly, although we have not yet voted, I want to say how pleased all of us should be that the hon the Minister of National Education, who has to make the final decision on this issue, has indicated in no uncertain terms that he will be giving top priority to bringing this issue to a close.

In conclusion I want to thank all hon members once again for the sentiments they expressed and the contributions they made. I hope some good will come of this soon.

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

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution by the words agreed to.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That all those who are employed at State schools, schools of industry, reform schools and certain State-aided schools on a fulltime basis shall have the right to retire at the age of 55 years.

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

Mr Speaker, I want to inform the hon members of this House that after the election of the Rev E J Manikkam as Chairman of this House in May 1987, the NPP were from the outset of the firm opinion that the office of Chairman of the House be reviewed. Subsequently the caucus of the NPP, with one exception, decided to review the office of Chairman. A fair opportunity was given to members to submit their names as candidates, and after a ballot, the caucus agreed that the Rev E J Manikkam be replaced as Chairman of the House.

Order! Will the Chairman of the House please take his seat in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a statement.

The hon Chairman may proceed.

Mr Speaker, for the purposes of the record, so that posterity may also take note, I should like to make the following statement.

My election as Chairman of this House—I refer to Hansard: House of Delegates, 18 May 1987, cols 4 and 5—was as the result of a motion moved by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, Mr P T Poovalingam, and I quote:

A division then took place, in which there were 23 votes in my favour and 18 against. Among those that voted in my favour were the hon member Mr S Abram, the hon member for North Western Transvaal, the hon member for North Coast, the hon member for Actonville, the hon member for Natal Midlands and the hon member Mr M Thaver. These were hon members of the NPP, and some of them were independent members allied to the NPP who subsequently, on that day, were sitting with Solidarity as the Official Opposition.

I also refer to Hansard, 18 May 1987, cols 5 and 6, in which the hon member for Reservoir Hills stated the following:

This was confirmed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as well as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I should also like to quote the then hon member for Natal Midlands, who is now the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs as well as the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture (Hansard: Delegates, 20 May 1987, col 77):

Mr Speaker, the most important statement of the then member for Natal Midlands is in column 78, where he says:

Then the hon member Mr Abram interjected:

Later the hon member for Natal Midlands continued:

Upon which the hon member Mr Abram interjected:

The hon member for Natal Midlands later stated:

Later he went on to say:

Then he continued:

He then said:

After this he stated:

Mr Speaker, I now refer you to the Hansard of Thursday, 21 May 1987, in which the hon member Mr Abram, a senior hon member and Chairman of Committees, stated the following (Hansard: House of Delegates, 21 May 1987, col 153):

That is the hon member for North Western Cape—

Mr Speaker, I am constrained by convention and parliamentary tradition not to take part in the debate this afternoon, and I want to respect that. If I do so, Sir, you will stop me immediately. I am a presiding officer in this House and I shall abide by the rules of Parliamentary tradition and convention.

I want to end on this note. I find it strange that a motion such as this should be on the Order Paper when I have not been accused of being guilty of misconduct. I have not been accused of being incapable of performing my duties efficiently.

With those words, Mr Speaker, I thank you and hon members of this House for granting me the opportunity to make this statement. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I take leave of this Chamber.

Mr Speaker, I rise in this House this afternoon to defend certain hallowed values, certain sacred conventions and traditions of Parliamentary democracy.

You expound them all the time.

Would that hon member keep quiet. Mr Speaker, at this stage I request the privilege of the hour.

Order! Is the hon member requesting the privilege of the hour?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, I stand here to defend certain hallowed principles, not to engage in any kind of personal attacks on personalities. I stand here not to defend or offend persons. There is a very sacrosanct principle involved in the motion, because it does not give the Chairman of the House the opportunity to defend himself.

It seems to me very remarkable that we in this House are about to enact a scene which took place over a thousand years ago. Today is the Ides of March and those who know their history will recall what happened on that day. Julius Caesar was stabbed in the back by his friends, his supporters, his lieutenants. When he saw Brutus, his most trusted lieutenant, raise the dagger, he said: “Et tu, Brute? Then let Caesar die.” That is the scene we are about to enact in this House today if this motion is carried.

I am not going to speak to hon members of this House today. I am not addressing them. They will decide at the end of the day whether they agree or disagree with me. I stand here speaking to the visitors in the public gallery, to the members of the Fourth Estate, for they also have residing in them massive powers. I speak here, through the Fourth Estate, to the international civilised community, all those communities in the civilised world that observe the same parliamentary tradition as we do in this country, a parliamentary tradition which is over 700 years old, possibly 750 years.

Today is a sorry day in the history of the birth, growth and development of parliamentary institutions as known in the civilised world, institutions which take as their springboard the mother of parliamentary democracy as enshrined in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This motion before the House asks very simply that the Chairman of the House be removed.

The submission has been made that the caucus of the party of which I am a member has decided to review the position. The hon member who proposed the motion and who is now missing from the House did say, “with one exception”. That exception was me. I made it clear—I cried out to high heaven—that I would object to this. I must of course necessarily …

Did you put your name forward?

I will.

I have indicated it in a circular letter addressed to all the hon members of this House. It was addressed initially to the hon members of the caucus of my party. Subsequently I released it to the hon members of the Opposition. Those facts were loud and clear—I did not operate under cover of darkness or by way of a secret ballot.

The most astounding, devastating and desolating aspect of the motion is that it stands in the name of the ruling side of the House. This is an unprecedented travesty of political conventions and traditions. Not even an Official Opposition in a House moves such a proposal unless it has sufficient grounds on which to nail a motion for impeachment. I want to know from the engineers and the architects of this motion where in the governments of the civilised world which derive their parliamentary institutions from the British system has such a motion ever been proposed?

If agreed to by this House the motion will create history for the civilised world, not only for this House. It will create pathetic and despicable history which will make civilised people hang their heads in shame as long as men engage in the search for an ideal system of government.

Have these gentlemen who propose to support the motion any grounds on which they can impeach the hon the Chairman of the House? Let us be honest. Let us not indulge in political deviousness and double or multiple speak. Let us not talk with forked tongues. The motion is an indecent assault on the office of the Chairman of the House and an impeachment of the incumbent. Have the engineers and the architects of this motion given any grounds to the hon the Chairman and asked him to do the honourable thing? Or did they decide that just because certain parts of the country are enduring devastation by floods the hon the Chairman of this House should be removed? Is that the level of the approach? Or is it because they do not like the brand of cigarettes the hon the Chairman smokes? Should he, therefore, be guillotined without the opportunity of defending himself and of telling this House why he smokes that particular brand of cigarettes and none else? Is that the political level of those who have devised the motion? Do they seriously believe that every hon member of this House is a political cretin, a political moron, a political mongrel, a political idiot?

I, for one Sir, must disillusion them. I am not a political idiot and that is why I have taken a stand against this motion. I am defending an institution. I am defending a principle. I am not defending a particular person. I am defending the status and dignity of an institution in Parliament. I am defending the right of a man to a fair and just trial—a right to which the meanest in the land is entitled.

Will this House allow itself this afternoon to be conned by this kind of political skulduggery? It is my submission, Sir, that the office of the Chairman in this House is much too hallowed to be treated in the cavalier fashion implied in the motion before it, nor is the incumbent of the office someone who can be turfed out at the whims and fancies of some hon members of this august Chamber whose motives will remain suspect until such time as they stand up as men and give their reasons for the proposal to remove the hon the Chairman and to justify their reasons.

The office of Chairman is an office which should always remain above petty political ambitions. Its incumbent must receive the same respect, reverence and courtesy as the Speaker of Parliament until he breaches that trust and that breach is proved.

It is because of my recognition of the special and distinguished status and dignity of the office that I shall move an amendment in the terms that I shall shortly set out and proceed to substantiate.

If this House resolves to “remove” its chairman from office in the cavalier manner in which the motion has been couched then it will commit, in the presence of the people in the visitors’ gallery, in the presence of the Fourth Estate, in the presence of the nation, and in the presence of the civilised world an act of political fornication, an act of political sodomy and an act of political murder unparalleled and unprecedented in the annals of parliamentary democracy, a democracy of which the people of this land are in some way heirs.

It is in order to protect, as far as I can possibly do so, this political heritage that I move as an amendment:

If the House agrees to this motion it will destroy an essential and vital part of a system of government which owes its origin to the Great Charter granted by King John to the barons at Runnymede on the banks of the Thames on 15 June 1251 and which has since been viewed as the basis of the constitution of England and which is also the source and origin of our own constitution.

This Charter provided some of the following rights: Justice is not to be denied to anyone; no person is to be condemned on rumours and suspicions but only on the evidence of witnesses.

In 1264 Simon de Montfort summoned a parliament which had the fullest representation possible in England at the time and which is looked upon as the germ of all modern parliaments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask this House, I ask those people who have formulated and presented the motion now before us and those in this House who are of like mind: Are they not denying justice to the Chairman of the House by failing or refusing to furnish just reasons for their proposal to “remove” him?

On what legitimate grounds, I ask, are they condemning the Chairman of the House, for the proposal to remove him from the Chair in the motion as it stands is condemnation without a fair trial. I say without any trial.

Where is the evidence for their impeachment of the Chairman? For their proposal is an impeachment and nothing less.

The Parliament of this country, the Parliament in which we are now sitting, also carries the heritage of the British parliamentary system. I know it is flawed; I know it has deviated in many respects from the spirit and the letter of the British system. I know it is not perfect, but where in the world is there a perfect system?

Those who criticise and condemn the current parliamentary structure and the changes wrought under what is known as the new constitutional dispensation overlook the fact that at no time has Parliament in South Africa been wholly acceptable to the country at large. It has always been and remains even now a White Parliament. I have weighed my words very carefully.

It was the Liberal English Government of Campbell Bannerman—I repeat, Liberal; not Tory or Labour—which gave its assent to the Constitution of the Union of South Africa in 1910. That Constitution, too, was badly flawed and illegitimate, for it brought the colour bar into the Government of the country, but it was the basis of the governance of this country for over half a century.

The British Government of the time had the opportunity and the means to tell the colonial governments in South Africa that they should not demand that the non-White people of the country should be denied their rightful place and their rightful share in the Government of the country on the grounds of race and colour.

However, in its haste to transfer power to the White people of South Africa, a Liberal British Government renounced, abandoned and denied its undertaking to the peoples of the world, as expressed in the words of the Natal Charter of 1856, that “There shall not be in the eye of the law any distinction of colour, origin, race or creed …”

This charter also provided that in the new Crown Colony of Natal every man over the age of 21, who owned immovable property to the value of £50, or who rented property to the value of £10 a year, was entitled to a parliamentary vote. I emphasise that it was a parliamentary vote.

In 1910 the British Government, assenting to the Constitution of the Union, also denied and abandoned its stand on Law 3 of the Transvaal Republic, which it claimed was one of the reasons for the war of 1899-1902. Law 3 contained the first efforts in the Transvaal to impose racial restrictions on the Indian people. The Indian people, claiming to be British subjects, turned to England for protection and there followed 14 years of defence by the British Government of the attempts by the Boer Republic to impose racial restrictions.

However, in 1902 after the Treaty of Vereeniging, perfidious Albion once again reneged on its undertakings to its subjects who were not White.

I refer briefly to the role played by Great Britain in relation to the non-White peoples of South Africa in order to remind this House …

Mr Speaker, with due respect to the Chair, is the hon member Mr Nowbath allowed, in terms of Standing Rule 125, to read a prepared speech? He is not quoting; he is actually reading his speech.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I refer briefly to the role played by Great Britain in relation to the nonWhite peoples of South Africa in order to remind this House and those outside it who refer to the “Boer Government” of today and to the “Amaboone” that the blame for the position of the non-White peoples of this country is not entirely the fault of the Afrikaner Nationalists, as is being made out by people both inside and outside the Tricameral Parliament. The blame lies at the door of all the White people.

The Tricameral Parliament is by no means perfect. The Constitution is racially flawed and fractured. I, too, am among those who have agreed to work within its limited perimeters as a starting point for a South Africa …

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath should discuss the motion on the Order Paper much more closely.

Thank you, Sir.

One of the vital institutions of parliamentary democracy, I repeat, is the office of Mr Speaker, an office that was made part of the Constitution of the Union of South Africa in 1910.

It is a sacred office. The Speaker of Parliament is the upholder of all that is sacred in Parliament. Once elected, Mr Speaker stands aloof from politics; he does not take part in politics. He does not attend to any duties in his constituency. No law prevents him from doing any of these things, but he allows himself to be bound by unwritten laws, conventions and traditions. That is the price his constituents must pay for electing to Parliament a man of such calibre and quality that Parliament is prepared to elevate him to its highest pedestal.

There was a time in England that when a Speaker stood for re-election, he was not opposed.

[Inaudible.]

That also applies, by convention and tradition, to this country, but I recall three instances when this convention was breached. The most recent will be recalled by the hon members of this House. The earlier occasion was when the hon Mr Jansen was in the Chair. As Speaker, he was opposed in an election. I believe that the first occasion—I speak from memory, Mr Speaker—occurred during the course of the second Parliament of the Union.

I refer to the fact that this position is sacred. It is so hallowed and so respected that when the constitution of this country was accepted, the word “Speaker” was not translated into “Spreker”. It was taken directly from its English origin. Thus we have in our constitution today as it stands, reference to “Die Speaker”, not to “Die Spreker”. I ask this House: Why was that done? Members are aware of the convention that governs the relation between Mr Speaker and the hon the State President. The hon the State President may not summon Mr Speaker. Once elected to his office, he is above that.

A similar unwritten provision also applies to the Chairman of this House, and I am of the view that the Chairman of this House—the position of his office—is of such a nature that he discharges much of the same duties and functions as Mr Speaker. It carries much the same responsibilities. He may not take part in party politics.

Once this is accepted then I say that the position of the Chairman of a House carries the same status and standing in Parliament as that of Mr Speaker, with, of course, certain constitutional limitations.

That ultimately the post of Chairman of the House should in fact enjoy the same status as the office of Mr Speaker, was foreshadowed by the predecessor in office of the current Speaker. I refer to one of the outstanding Speakers in the South African Parliament, the hon Mr J W Greeff, now Chairman of the President’s Council.

The hon Mr Greeff was Chairman of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders in the House of Assembly, which formulated the original Rules and Orders for the new dispensation. In reporting to Parliament he said on behalf of his committee:

I repeat: “On lines similar to the office of Mr Speaker. ” That was the intention and the view of Mr Greeff and his committee when they formulated these rules. That submission lends strength to my argument. We are now in fact dealing with an office which is not that much different from that of Mr Speaker. I hope that someday it will have its own status, possibly equal to that of Mr Speaker.

Having stated that, in my view, the position of the office of Mr Speaker and that of the Chairman of the House are similar, the same provisions must apply to the removal of a Chairman of a House. Even though section 60 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 simply states the Chairman of a House may be “removed” by resolution of that House, it seems to me that the architects of the motion and the engineers behind the proposal have simply looked at the words of this section and have concluded that the use of the words entitles them to remove a Chairman of a House by a simple repetition of the word “remove”.

In their haste to achieve their ends they have overlooked the fact that there are such provisions in law, as well as in the norms and standards which govern civilised life, as natural justice and the maxim audi alteram partem, which has so often been bandied across the floor of this House, as the right to have specific charges and allegations preferred so that a person can defend himself, these are all absent in the motion. Nor has the hon member who moved the motion made any submissions to the House as to why the Chairman should be removed. He only said that the caucus had decided that the position should be reviewed. If this were a court of law, I would be justified in saying that the charge is vague and embarrassing, bad in law and that the accused has no case to answer and, therefore, the matter should be struck off the record. A motion is defined in the dictionary, among other things, as a formal proposal in a deliberative assembly. This is a deliberative assembly. The word deliberation is defined as: weighing in mind; careful consideration; discussion of reasons for and against; debate; and avoidance of precipitancy. The dictionary does not directly define the word precipitancy. The word precipitate carries the meaning headlong, violently hurried, haste and inconsideration. This House is a deliberative assembly. Of this there is and cannot be any doubt. It is required to deliberate on motions which are submitted to it. The motion before the House is that the Chairman be removed, and the immediate question is whether this motion can be deliberated upon, debated, weighed in mind, given careful consideration, discussed with reference to reasons for and against it without headlong, violent, hurry or haste. I submit that the motion does not permit any discussion. All it permits is a simple yes or no vote.

In respect of the removal of the Chairman of the House there is no provision in the rules similar to those which apply to a projected removal of the State President or the Speaker of the House. Had it been the intention of the framers of the Constitution and those who voted for it that the Chairman of a House could be removed by a simple “yes” or “no” vote of the House, this would have been specifically written into the Constitution, for such a procedure makes a serious inroad into the rights of a citizen who holds any office in any organisation.

The office of Chairman of a House cannot be subject to the whims and fancies of the members of a House. A Chairman must be placed on his defence in respect of his conduct and his ability to perform his duties. That is his elementary right.

Of course, the Chairman of a House may be disqualified in terms of sections 54 and 55 of the Constitution. In all these cases reasons are given. Today the hon member for Isipingo, who moved the motion, has given us no reasons whatsoever for the drastic and far-reaching step that has been proposed by him. Even if at this late stage, without having furnished any reasons on the Order Paper when he gave notice of his motion, he had given some valid and just reasons when he moved his motion this afternoon, justice would have cried out that the matter should be adjourned to give the Chairman of the House as well as myself and other like-minded hon members of this House an opportunity and the time to consider the allegations and to prepare a defence.

If the Chairman is to be deprived of his office then I reiterate that valid and just reasons must be given, because his character, good name, reputation and dignity are being put on the butcher’s block. He must know why he is being removed.

If the House proceeds as proposed by the hon member for Isipingo it will throw the office of the Chairman, the office of the Speaker and the current incumbents, and Parliament itself into disrepute and contempt of not only the South African electorate and all the people of the country, but also of the entire international comity of civilised nations, for all of them have a vested interest in the current parliamentary structure of the Republic of South Africa. I maintain that all of them have a vested interest in it.

Such a step as the one proposed will give rise to insinuations, innuendo and imputations against the character, the good name, the honour, the reputation, the dignity and the conduct of the Chairman and his ability to perform his duties efficiently. The Chairman will have absolutely no way in which he can defend himself. This position is morally, ethically and legally untenable.

In fact at this moment in time there is sufficient evidence before the House that the Chairman enjoys the confidence of the House. On 15 February 1988 the Chairman of the House “named” the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Immediately, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council rose to his feet and affirmed the decision of the Chairman of the House by moving that the hon member be suspended. That happened on 15 February, if I recall correctly. The offending member was barred from the precincts of Parliament.

I want to know from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council what crime or offence the Chairman of the House has committed in the last three weeks or nearly a month. I want him to explain this to this House. He expressed his confidence. That was the measure of confidence which the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the leader of the NPP had in the Chairman of the House just less than a month ago! If the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had not risen and …

Order! I do not want to interrupt the hon member unnecessarily, but members of this House must be referred to as “hon members”.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had not risen and supported the hon the Chairman of the House, he would have been condemned. That would have constituted a direct vote of no confidence in the decision of the hon the Chairman of the House.

The matter does not end there. On 18 February 1988 …

Mr Speaker, will the hon member take a question?

If it is, Sir, within my ability.

Mr Speaker, would the hon member confirm or refute a statement appearing in the newspaper that he himself sought the position of Chairman of this House? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am not responsible for what is presented in the paper. That is a matter to be raised with the newspaper concerned.

Your letter was circulated.

Mr Speaker, I proceed.

On 18 February 1988 the hon member for Camperdown moved a motion of censure against the hon the Chairman of the House because of the decision taken by him to name the leader of the PRP. I looked forward to a defence by an hon member of his leader. I was looking forward to a debate on the subject. However, on 24 February that motion disappeared from the Order Paper.

On the instructions of his leader.

On his instructions. May I enquire whether I am not to suspect that the hon member for Camperdown, and now his leader— since he admitted to instructing the hon member for Camperdown—are in fact privy to this motion. That is why the hon member for Camperdown’s motion was withdrawn. They realised that they would have to show their hands in this House today. Therefore they could not force this side of the House to express confidence in the hon the Chairman of the House. I ask whether the hon member for Camperdown and the leader of his party are privy to this motion. I am entitled to draw that inference.

You are defying your caucus …

I am defying it. I have said so. I have proclaimed it to the whole world. I will take the consequences. I have said so.

This is the only conclusion to which I can come. This is the only conclusion to which this House can come, namely that there is something wrong somewhere. I will put it this way: Something in the state of Denmark is over-ripe. I ask both the hon member for Camperdown and his leader to stay in this House when the vote is taken and not to walk out.

They must be men and stand up to tell this House and the entire world where they stand. They must not walk out of the House.

The Chairman occupies his position because …

[Inaudible]

The hon member for Camperdown only succeeds in exposing his empty cranium.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

Mr Speaker, I have already said that I am not taking any questions. Does the hon member understand English?

You are a worried man because I exposed you!

I want to repeat that the hon the Chairman of the House referred in his statement to some of the things which the hon member for Reservoir Hills had said on the dates that he mentioned. The hon the Chairman of the House emphasized the fact that the hon member for Reservoir Hills said that he was not considering party affiliations. Is the hon member for Reservoir Hills going to take a stand today on the grounds that an hon member of the Official Opposition resigned from the party to become an independent and thereafter became a member of this party which is prepared to execute him? I want to know if the hon member for Reservoir Hills in the absence of any proven guilt, misconduct or inability to perform his duties will join the ruling party when the vote is taken. If he does so he must tell this House.

The hon the Chairman of the House has already referred to certain matters that I was going to refer to. He has done so most adequately and therefore at this stage I hope, trust and pray that the hon members of this House are all honourable men who will act honourably when this convention is to be voted upon. It is not a personality that is involved but an office of Parliament which has been placed on the butcher’s block.

When Brutus and his men were debating how to dispose of Caesar, it was Brutus who said that they should not butcher the man but carve him as a dish fit for the gods. When the men raised their knives and daggers, however, they butchered him.

This will be a similar act in respect of a tradition which is nearly seven and a half centuries old. If the hon members of this House carry the motion everyone who does so will be butchering a part of a Parliamentary convention.

I say so because I feel that this is not something to be played with—it is not a game of skittles. If the hon members fail to protect that convention, they must forever wear sack cloth and ashes. May the good Lord then give them the patience of Job to help them to make peace with their consciences.

Mr Speaker, in supporting the amendment moved by the hon member Mr Nowbath I may, in the course of my presentation, reiterate what has already been stated. Of course, re-emphasising some of the salient points could give some of my hon colleagues in this House time to rethink a decision that could have a ripple effect in the House of Delegates.

My opposition to the motion is merely one of principle. Nowhere in the civilised world have the steps been taken of removing a chairman who is a member of the ruling party and who has, to my knowledge, committed no crime, not acted fraudulently, not been declared insolvent, not been committed to a mental institution nor acted incompetently.

The Chairman of this House represents the Speaker of Parliament in his absence. To my mind this motion is tantamount to a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.

The NPP caucus has no discipline as only very recently the hon member for Isipingo, the mover of this motion, proclaimed that he was the leader of the cabal that ousted the NPP’s candidate Mr R Panday in favour of the opposition candidate, the hon member Mr A S Razak. No disciplinary action was taken on that occasion.

I subsequently openly declared to caucus that I supported the Rev Manikkam, the Chairman of this House, who stood for the caucus’s secret ballot with reservations. [Interjections ]

Order!

The Chairman of this House was asked to tender his resignation to the caucus, even before the secret ballot, which he refused to do.

The NPP and its leadership should have realised that it is only to the Speaker that the Chairman tenders his resignation. This clearly reflects the depth of ignorance of the party leadership as regards the rules on this issue.

Therefore Mr Speaker, I implore the NPP to reconsider as it is not too late to withdraw the motion and allow the status quo to remain.

Very recently the hon member for Camperdown—I am reiterating what my hon colleague Mr R S Nowbath has said—moved a motion of censure against the Chairman but to his credit sanity prevailed and he withdrew it.

In May last year, when dramatic events were unfolding in the House of Delegates, the hon member for Reservoir Hills very eloquently proposed the name of the Rev Manikkam against the candidate of the NPP, the hon member for Laudium. The hon leader of the Official Opposition equally eloquently supported the motion that was moved by the now leader of the PRP.

I believe that if today the combined opposition does not support the amendment they will be sacrificing their principles. The House of Delegates unfortunately has an unpredictable record and will not even abide by universal conventions as they merely seek political survival. They wish to have power and will go to immeasurable lengths to flout any convention.

I owe the NPP no moral obligations for even the promise of financial support which the party gave me at the time of my election four years ago has still to be honoured.

I take this stand in supporting this amendment and I am prepared for any disciplinary action that the party may wish to impose on me. I have just a word of advice to the leadership of the NPP. Should the motion not be withdrawn this party will have to gear itself to an early election because I predict that time is running out for the NPP. The House of Delegates is flouting before the world a prodigious convention, a convention held in very high esteem throughout the civilised world. Only those that have a conscience and adhere to principles will support this amendment. In my opinion no chemistry has been lost in opposing this motion.

Mr Speaker, I had not intended participating in this debate but since my name has been mentioned by three different hon members, it is necessary to ensure that it was not taken in vain.

I have listened attentively to the confession made by the hon member for Allandale and to the peroration by the hon member Mr Nowbath. I have also listened with great interest to the demands that Mr Nowbath quite correctly made on hon members to observe the conventions and traditions of Parliament.

Reference was made to a motion that sought to censure the chairman and this motion was introduced by my colleague the hon member for Camperdown during my enforced absence from this House. It is quite true that at my request that motion was withdrawn by the hon member. The reason for that is quite simply that I deemed it highly undesirable that any polemics should be cast upon a Chairman of the House and that whatever decision a Chairman of the House makes, it should be obeyed and respected. That was the reason. It is necessary that not only should hon members by their own conduct reflect well upon the dignity of the House, but they should enable the Chairman also to reflect the dignity of the House.

I never stand on my own dignity because I believe that a person who stands on his dignity tramples it. It is not good to stand on one’s dignity. It is one’s conduct that should reflect the dignity that should come from within.

I do not believe there should have been a long debate on the question of the position of the chairmanship of this House. That reflects adversely upon all hon members. It does not necessarily reflect upon the incumbent of the Chair, but the Chair is a sacrosanct institution and it should be regarded as such.

The hon member Mr Nowbath wanted to know which way I was going to vote. I was unsure, but after hearing him the decision has been made for me and in due course the way I vote will be reflected.

I want to refer to the fact that the hon member for Rylands—the Chairman of this House—who is not here at the moment, correctly read out from the Hansard of 18 May 1987 the laudatory words I often spoke concerning him when I proposed his nomination. When I said those words I believed them implicitly. I believed them 100% when I uttered them and when any man says what he believes to be true at the time he says it, I do not think anyone should criticise that. I certainly do not feel I should criticise it. I do not even want to give the impression that at this stage I am retracting any of those words, for this reason only: If I were to retract those words it would impugn the integrity of the chairmanship and it is not my desire to do so.

However, one of the traditions of Parliament and Parliamentary procedure is that a member of a party has to abide by the decisions of his party and—during session—the caucus of his party, comprising the Parliamentary members of his party. I am the leader of a very small party, but if any member of my caucus were to disobey a caucus decision, strong and stern disciplinary action would immediately be taken.

The hon member for Rylands, who is the Chairman of this House, belongs to the caucus of the NPP. It so happens that he was a member of Solidarity. After being elected chairman, he resigned from Solidarity, giving as his reason for doing so the perfectly acceptable reason—when he gave it to me, I found it perfectly acceptable— that because of the feelings and tensions that sometimes occur in this House, he deemed it undesirable to belong to any political party. He felt that he, as Chairman, should be an independent so that his impartiality would never be in any doubt.

Subsequently, however, for whatever reason—I do not know what his motives were or whether he came under any pressure—he joined the NPP and made himself subject to the decisions of the caucus of that party. When a man voluntarily joins a party and makes himself subject to the decisions of the caucus of that party, the inevitable consequences follow. I shall not carry that beyond merely making that observation, but it would seem to me when a party makes a decision, unless the members of that party either abide by that decision or those who disagree resign from that party, we should be making a mockery of Parliamentary traditions. I do not think I should say anything beyond that.

Mr Speaker, in my capacity as leader of the majority party in this House I would be failing in my duty were I not to place certain views and certain facts on record.

One cannot disagree with the rights of any party in this House to act within the terms of the rules and procedures as approved by Parliament. One must understand that there are changing situations. We change from one to the other and we change from the old to the new.

The hon member Mr R S Nowbath mentions the tradition mentioned this afternoon—the traditions of Parliament; what the office of the Chairman of the House really is and what it means.

I agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills in confirming this afternoon that the notice of motion given by the hon member for Camperdown was withdrawn on his instructions. One must not do anything to injure the dignity of the office of the Chairman of the House.

I think, however, it is my duty to place on record the fact that the basis of the resolution is not that the Chairman of the House has done anything wrong, conducted the affairs of this House improperly or is of unsound mind. I want to go back to 18 May 1987 and mention the fact that although at that time the Chairman of the House was a member of Solidarity, he was elected Chairman of this House by a majority vote. I stood up and congratulated him.

I want to say that yesterday’s notice of motion by the hon member for Isipingo should not be construed as having been given by an individual. It was decided upon by the party itself through a democratic ballot in the caucus. I do not want to respond to what actions we should take, because that is our domestic and internal affair. However, as the leader of the party it is incumbent upon me to protect and implement the decision of the caucus. However, it is also necessary for me to place on record that this motion has not been put to this House because the Chairman has done something wrong. I confirm what I stated on 18 May 1987, but I think it is necessary for me to place on record that this action is being taken because of fluctuating circumstances. It is through no fault on the Chairman’s part.

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

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Cader, D; Nadasen, P C; Nowbath, R S) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Main question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have indicated that I am on the cross benches. I presume these are the cross benches.

Order! That is not for the hon member to decide now. [Interjections.] Would the hon member please resume his seat and then address the Chair.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think it is fitting and proper before the business of this House proceeds that the hon member for Rylands resume his seat.

Order! The hon member for Rylands may resume his seat.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I second the motion.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I second the motion.

Question put: That Mr S Abram take the Chair of the House as Chairman of the House.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—34: Abram, S; Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Bandulalla, M; Bhana, R; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Ismail, A; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, NE; Lambat, AE;Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Pachai, S; Padayachy, M S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Rajbansi, A; Ramduth, K; Seedat, Y I; Shah, M S; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Jumuna, N.

NOES—4: Cader, D; Manikkam, E J; Nadasen, P C.

Teller: Nowbath, R S.

Question put: That Mr R S Nowbath take the Chair of the House as Chairman of the House.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—4: Cader, D; Manikkam, E J; Nadasen, P C.

Teller: Nowbath, R S.

NOES—34: Abram, S; Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Bandulalla, M; Bhana, R; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Ismail, A; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Lambat, A E; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Pachai, S; Padayachy, M S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Rajbansi, A; Ramduth, K; Seedat, Y I; Shah, M S; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Baig, M Y; Jumuna, N.

Mr S Abram thereupon declared duly elected as Chairman of the House.

Mr Speaker, I feel humbled by the faith and trust that hon members have placed in me by electing my humble self to the position of Chairman of the House.

As this position came up for review in the party of whose caucus I am a member I, along with others, made myself available. As I had acted as Chairman on various occasions I felt that I could try my luck. I am pleased that hon members of the House have seen fit to support me in this fashion. I want to thank all hon members and I want to thank all the officials. I also want to thank my predecessor for the service that he has rendered to this House.

I want to promise hon members that I will conduct myself as impartially as possible. I shall not permit party political affiliations in any way to influence the position that I am about to take up.

I want all hon members to go away this afternoon with the feeling that all of them will be entitled to the protection of the Chair at all times and I shall endeavour to do my utmost to protect each and every member of the House.

In turn I seek the support of all hon members.

It is a very difficult task to be in the Chair and to satisfy all hon members. I therefore appeal for the understanding of all hon members.

*I want to summarise briefly. We should act firmly but sympathetically when the duties of the new position have been carried out. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for the way in which you presided over this afternoon’s proceedings.

Order! This afternoon the House reached a decision in a democratic manner and in accordance with the rules of Parliament, which obviously we shall gladly respect. I have great respect for the hon member who has been elected Chairman of the House this afternoon. I want to assure him that he is welcome in the ranks of the Chair of Parliament.

†I am sure the Chairman will be a credit to the Chair and I wish him only the very best in his new position. On the other hand, I also wish to express my real appreciation towards the hon member for Rylands for his contribution during his term in the Chair. He performed his duties to the best of his ability and for me as Speaker it was certainly a pleasure to be associated with the hon member as Chairman of this House.

Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence also to place on record our appreciation to the hon member for Rylands for the manner in which he conducted himself in his capacity as chairman of the House. As I indicated on 18 May 1987 I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon member Mr Abram on the occasion of his election as Chairman of the House. I am pleased to note that he has reiterated what is the case and what should be the case in respect of the office of the chairman: That he is to be above party politics and to act with complete impartiality.

We have had the benefit of the experience of the hon member Mr Abram for the past three and a half years as the Chairman of Committees and on those occasions I am sure that no one, irrespective of the party to which he belongs had expressed any negative sentiments, or had complained in respect of the manner in which he conducted the affairs of this House. He has stated quite correctly that he will perform his duty above party politics and I can assure him of the fullest co-operation of all hon members on this side of the House.

Mr Speaker, it is obvious that the exercise in which I engaged was on a matter of principle, procedures, conventions and tradition. I think that every single hon member of this House is fully aware that at no time was I in fact aspiring to the Chair. I was out to defend a principle and to prove a point. I trust that from today the two parties will sit together and attend to the affairs of the community as one party.

Hear, hear!

I hope they will. My colleagues and I will of course be on the cross benches but I trust that this House will now be cleansed of all the allegations …

Order! Would the hon member Mr Nowbath please confine himself to the position of the new Chairman in this House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I said it was not that I was aspiring to the post of chairman. I have already expressed to the hon member Mr Abram that I was trying to drive home a principle. I have extended to him congratulations on his appointment as chairman and I am satisfied he will discharge his duty as Chairman of the House competently and without bias.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I would like to convey our congratulations to the hon member Mr Abram on his election to the position of chairman of this House. This side of the House will accord the co-operation he requires in his position as chairman of the House.

Mr Speaker, I rise merely to associate myself with the congratulatory remarks offered concerning the hon member Mr Abram, which have been made by my colleagues.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.