laid upon the Table:

Bible Society of South Africa Amendment Bill [No 104—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Home Affairs and National Education).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

Mr Chairman, before the debate commences, I wish to make just one statement and to refer very briefly to a number of matters. I shall try to be brief, since the time which has been made available for this debate is very limited. I hope that the hon members of all the parties will use their influence to persuade the Whips to make more time available for this debate next year. When one considers the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry administers 30 pieces of legislation and that trade and industry in South Africa are responsible for approximately 40% of the gross domestic product, I believe that a more lengthy debate on these important matters would be justified.

On 14 November 1984, the Competition Board decided, in terms of the provisions of section 10(l)(c) of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, 1979, to investigate certain types of business agreements and arrangements and business practices which in the opinion of the board are commonly adopted for the purpose of or in connection with the creation or maintenance of restrictive practices. The purpose of this investigation was to recommend to the Minister of Trade and Industry, if it was justified, that he should declare illegal and prohibit those types of agreements or practices in a ministerial notice. I am able to report this afternoon that excellent progress has been made with the investigation. Hon members have probably noticed that wide publicity has been given to this matter in newspapers and magazines. A questionnaire has been sent to a large number of people, organizations and bodies in the private sector, asking for information and comment. Many interested parties have also been interviewed.

A draft report has been completed and all that remains to be done is the final editing and the translation of the report. At its most recent meeting on 22 May, the Competition Board decided that the following agreements or practices should be declared illegal and prohibited: resale price maintenance, horizontal price collusion, horizontal collusion on conditions of supply, horizontal collusion on market division and collusion in regard to tender. Careful provision is made for exceptions to the prohibition where these may be justified. The prohibition should not be applicable in cases where collusion takes place with a view to export or where it takes place in a group, for example, between two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same holding company.

Steps are also being taken to ensure that the prohibition will not prejudice the promotion of small business and that its introduction will not cause any disruption. A draft notice in which effect is given to the board’s decision has already been drawn up. Because the board attaches great importance to consultation with the private sector, it has decided to have that draft notice circulated for comment, too, before having its final recommendations formally conveyed to the Minister in the report. From the draft notice which the board will send out on Monday it is clear that this investigation could have a really meaningful effect on competition.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of the board’s investigation and of this notice. The Competition Board is in fact setting up new landmarks in the sphere of competition in South Africa.

A second matter which I want to mention briefly is the fact that the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Application of Industrial Protection Policy, under the chairmanship of Dr Van Der Horst, will be tabled today. The committee was instructed to investigate the procedures and other practices regarding the implementation of the industrial protection policy, taking into consideration the Government’s declared policy to use moderate and selective tariff protection as a primary protective measure. The report of the committee contains several recommendations which cover wide field and to which the Government is at present giving attention, its views on this matter will be announced in the near future.

I also wish to express my regret at the fact that the report of the Decentralization Board was not made available to hon members before the commencement of this debate. The calendar year according to which the Decentralization Board works ends on 31 March, but due to the extent of its activities and the present staff restrictions, the report will only be available at the end of June. As from next year, as a result of the computerization programme which is taking place in respect of the board’s activities and which is progressing well, the reports will be made available to hon members in time for them to prepare themselves for this debate and to acquaint themselves fully with the latest position regarding decentralization matters. Therefore I offer my apologies and explanation to the Committee and I trust that hon members will understand. I want to give hon members the undertaking that next year the situation will be dealt with in a different way administratively and that hon members will receive the latest report in good time.

Nevertheless, I should like to report very briefly on the progress which has been made with regard to regional development in the industrial sphere in terms of the regional development policy during the past year. In spite of the generally unfavourable economic climate in the country, there has for the third successive year been an increase in the number of applications for the establishment of regional industries approved by the Decentralization Board. This means that during the three years since the introduction of the scheme, 3 183 applications have been approved, involving a total investment of R4 800 million and the creation of 212 742 job opportunities.

As far as these job opportunities are concerned, hon members must bear in mind the fact that the proliferation effect has not been taken into consideration in these calculations. According to the inquiry into industrial strategy under the chairmanship of Dr Kleu—I am referring here to the report which is generally known as the Kleu report—it has been calculated that at least every job opportunity results in the provision of at least 2,3 additional jobs. Furthermore, if one bears in mind the fact that every employee supports up to four or five dependents, the provision of this number of job opportunities has a ripple effect involving well over a million people, and according to that estimate, it may even affect more than 2 million people.

In this connection the hon member for Walmer raised the objection in previous debates that we were dealing here with approved applications but not with actual hard figures relating to established new industries or the expansion of existing industries. The problem which I had with the hon member and which I tried to explain to him on a previous occasion was that the Decentralization Board was unable, due to the extent of its activities and the staff restrictions, to make all the figures available in time. We trust that as soon as the computerized programme has been put into operation, it will be possible to obtain a variety of figures in a short period of time in order to furnish hon members with information. This has not been possible up to now.

In response to the hon member’s repeated requests in this connection, and in the normal course of the board’s activities, figures of this nature have been compiled. I am able to inform the Committee, therefore, that it is in fact possible to provide certain statistics in this connection with regard to the three years during which the scheme has been in operation. Although these statistics may not be correct to the nearest decimal comma, I believe that they provide reliable figures in this connection.

The statistics which have been compiled from the records show, in the first place, that the position regarding the actual establishment of industries varies considerably from one region to another, but that the figures available in respect of the first two years, that is to say, the applications received during the first two years, vary from 32% to 61% as far as actual establishment is concerned.

I want to warn, though, that one should not draw too many inferences from these figures at this early stage. There are several factors that should be taken into consideration in evaluating these figures. In the first place, in the case of many of these industries, it takes time to do the physical planning and the viability studies and to put the industry into operation. After approval has been granted by the Decentralization Board, it still takes a considerable time before all investigations have been concluded and that industry is physically brought into being and put into operation. That is why the Decentralization Board allows applicants a period of at least two years during which to establish themselves. This indicates that a reasonable period has to elapse before such an industry can reasonably be expected to establish itself and to become operative.

A second point which should be borne in mind is the fact that a project is only recorded as an established industry when the first claim for decentralization concessions is received. After having been established, many industries are in operation for a certain period before the full capital investment has been completed, and since industries are anxious to use the full capital investment as a basis for applications, industries sometimes wait for two years after becoming operative before submitting their first application to the Decentralization Board.

In the third place, it must be borne in mind that the rate at which the infrastructure and especially factory buildings have been made available has inhibited the establishment of new industries in many regions. Examples could be quoted of cases where the establishment of industries has been inhibited by a lack of infrastructure. Furthermore, one must not lose sight of the fact that we have been influenced by less favourable economic circumstances during the past few years and that many industrialists have postponed the establishment of industries because of the high interest rate and the decline in the demand for consumer goods in particular. In view of this background I believe that the percentage figures to which I have referred are very encouraging. One may assume that as soon as the economic climate improves, the pace of establishment will also accelerate.

A final point which I should like to mention briefly, in response to remarks made by the hon member for Walmer and sharp criticism from the PEP, concerns the allegation that the Decentralization Board is guilty of mismanagement and that there is large-scale abuse of concessions. This allegation is continually being made in various quarters. Naturally there are people who will climb on this bandwagon because they want to cast suspicion on the whole decentralization and regional development scheme. One may accept that. Criticism has also been voiced by industries and manufacturers who are now facing strong competition from decentralized areas. It is to be expected, therefore, that there will be criticism from those quarters. It is also true that the criticism has probably been justified in some cases. This is a scheme in terms of which large amounts are paid out to industrialists and stringent control has to be exercised in administering the scheme. However, the possibility of abuse cannot be ruled out. I invited the hon member for Walmer on a previous occasion to submit to me any evidence of abuse which may come to his knowledge. Then we shall have the matter investigated.

I am now able to report to this Committee once again that when money is paid out in terms of this scheme, it is done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. It is done according to accepted financial practice, therefore. This means that claims have to be certified with regard to the correctness of the documentation and that settlement takes place annually on the basis of audited certificates. Reconciliation of claims takes place at the end of each financial year on the basis of audited statements by external auditors. One certainly cannot expect the board to exercise more stringent financial control.

What is more, we send out inspectors, not only to investigate complaints, but also to conduct surprise inspections at the premises of industrialists in order to examine their books. The necessary control is in fact exercised, therefore, in order to ascertain whether claims are in fact being submitted in accordance with the conditions laid down. I am able to report to the Committee that there have been a number of surprise inspections by inspectors recently. One hundred and eleven visits have been paid to 29 regional industrial points in the respective regions of the RSA as well as the national States. In the great majority of cases investigated by the inspectors, it was found that they were strictly complying with the requirements of the Decentralization Board. In other words, these requirements are being strictly complied with.

Of course, there have been cases where this has not happened. I can tell hon members that in cases where this has not happened, matters are investigated further and the most severe measures will be authorized’ If necessary, these will include not only disciplinary action, but criminal proceedings as well. Under no circumstances can we allow any abuse of the concessions.

If hon members do learn of cases where abuse has taken place, therefore, I want to invite them to report this to us so that we may take action within the powers conferred on us. In this way we can deal with these cases. However, it would be undesirable for us all to start making wild allegations or to climb on a bandwagon which was originally meant to discredit the entire scheme.

May I please ask a question?

I shall allow that hon member to ask his question in a moment.

Let us bring to book these people who are guilty of abuse. Let us take the necessary steps to rectify the matter.

Before I give the hon member an opportunity to ask his question, I just want to mention, too, that we must bear in mind the fact that we are dealing here with a new scheme. We have to learn from experience here. In fact, we have already learnt from experience. Adjustments have to be made, and from time to time it is necessary to adopt more stringent measures of control I can tell the hon member for Walmer and other hon members in this House that we have made considerable progress in compiling a new manual. This will embody strong administrative control measures and legal powers which will enable the Decentralization Board and the Government to take strong action in order to ensure that any abuse is brought to light and that payments take place strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The hon member may now ask his question.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Minister. I would like to ask him whether an industrialist who is drawing R110 per month in respect of a certain employee as a tax-free wage incentive is acting in contravention of the law if he pays that employee only R50 per month.

No, Sir, it is not a contravention. However, to address the problem to which the hon member has referred, I can inform him that in the new manual we have provided for a new formula which will apply to labour incentives. The problem in the past was that salaries were included in the formula. We have now made a division between salaries and wages.

Can you make it retrospective?

No, we cannot make it retrospective. However, we will make it effective immediately on implemention.

Does that apply to the existing situation?

Yes, it certainly will. The moment it becomes effective, it will apply to all existing industries.

*In response to the hon member’s question I shall just refer briefly to a few matters which are discussed in the manual, without going into too much detail. The manual is a bulky document and it will become part of the legal agreement entered into with an industrialist in future. It will be possible, therefore, to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds of any contravention of specific provisions contained in the manual.

The definition of “industry” is given in the manual. In the light of practical experience, the term “industry” is being more clearly defined. Furthermore, calculation checks are being built in as part of the labour incentive to which the hon member referred. Thirdly, more attention will also be given to the considerations according to which the scheme as a whole or some of its elements may, after evaluation and in consultation with interested parties, be adapted to changing circumstances. Therefore it will be possible for these incentives to be scaled up or down after an evaluation of changing circumstances. This is also being embodied in the new manual and the hon member will know what that means in practice.

I have referred to control over the payment of incentives. This is being improved in the new manual to provide for the rectification of amounts. An even greater discretionary power is being given to the Decentralization Board to decide to what extent an applicant’s contribution enables him to qualify for the incentives. I should have liked to say more about this, but we can discuss the matter again at a later stage. I shall make a draft manual available as soon as possible to the hon member and to other hon members who may be interested, even though it has not been officially finalized.

Finally, I want to make an announcement about the more effective implementation of the policy of regional development. It has been decided to station regional representatives of the Decentralization Board in the various regions so that they may assist the industrialists in several areas. In this way, they will also contribute to the effective implementation of the policy.

It is a pleasure for me to announce, therefore, that regional representatives will be stationed in the various regions as from 3 June. The office of the regional representative for Region A will be in Cape Town, while for Region B it will be in Kimberley, for Region C in Bloemfontein, for Region D in East London, for Region E in Pietermaritzburg, for Region F in Nelspruit, and for Region G in Pietersburg. The formal opening of the offices will take place in the near future. Region H will be served from the headquarters in Pretoria. I believe that these regional representatives can play an important role in communicating with industrialists and the bodies involved in regional development. I believe that they will play an important role in promoting the objectives of regional development.

I do not wish to say any more at this stage. I shall react to hon members’ contributions at a later stage.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

I would like to start by endorsing what the hon the Minister said. It is perfectly ludicrous that so little time has been allotted to this Vote and it is not healthy for our economy that that should be the case.

Last week I spoke about our three million Black unemployed, our failure to reach even 50% of the growth target set eight years ago by the Economic Development Programme, and the five million unemployed we will probably have in 15 years’ time unless we are very lucky.

This is a statement of failure. When viewed against the President’s Council’s demographic projections it means nothing else than that it is impossible to maintain an adequate quality of life in this country unless we can improve our economy. Any government has two basic responsibilities, firstly, the quality of life of the citizens in that country, and secondly, the protection of the environment, so that this can be inherited by the next generation in an unimpaired state.

The South African Government has manifestly failed in the first of these responsibilities and cannot give itself too many marks either as far as achievement of the second responsibility is concerned. The Government is aware of the fact that its failure must not be measured in terms of the present situation but in terms of the effect that the current performance is going to have in 35 years time on a population of 80 million people in this country.

Which sectors of the economy can therefore be expanded to accommodate the flood of new recruits which must result? Government planners have looked at agriculture and come to the conclusion that our frail ecology yields reluctantly to much sweat and effort. Consequently the scope for expansion in this field is small. They have also looked at mining and are conscious of the tremendous benefits that mining has brought to our economy, but have also noticed that mining is trading under increasingly difficult circumstances, competing with Third World countries which must sell their products at any price because they have no other source of foreign exchange.

Employment in the manufacturing industry grew at more than double the pace of employment in mining in the 10 years between 1970 and 1980 despite the fact that in that particular period it was not doing well at all as far as the export of manufactured goods was concerned. This was the motivation behind the formulation of an industrial development strategy. The Kleu report correctly identified the need for balanced economic development through the promotion of secondary industry. It is, however, no credit to this Government that from the time of the appointment of the Kleu study group it took eight years before the White Paper which we now have in front of us emerged.

If the PFP were to come to power tomorrow, it would confront the same problems which the Government faces. It would do so with the same commitment to the free enterprise system but with a far clearer idea of what constitutes such a system. [Interjections.] The PFP believes that a system which prevents citizens from selling their labour in the best market, which prevents them from moving around, from buying and selling property freely and which by law prefers one section of the population over another either socially, politically or economically, cannot possibly be described as a free enterprise system.

What are the problems which this Government has identified in creating growth and jobs? It has identified the burgeoning population with escalating expectations; a shortage of skills and entrepreneurs; a shortage of capital for development; competition from other industrialized countries; a limited domestic market; and inadequate technology.

In addition to these the PFP would identify a whole further set of problems which the Government has either not acknowledged or has simply glossed over. There is a need for competitiveness because if we are going to sell our goods in a cut-throat foreign market, we have to be competitive. However, the Government ignores that. There are also the disadvantages of selling into a hostile market. Anybody who ever traded with Zimbabwe would realize what the problems are of selling into a hostile market. There are also the disadvantages of having a geographically limited market because we have been cut off from important markets for political reasons. There is also the problem of the terms of capital acquisition from a hostile market. In the past we got a lot of our capital as equity; now it comes as short-term loans. There is the difficulty of acquiring technological skills which also used to come in with equity capital. There is the problem of subsides within the context of GATT, bilateralism and the growth of protectionism, all in a fairly stagnant world economy. Finally, there is the need for the workforce to identify with national goals. If it does not do that it will not be prepared to make the sacrifices that the workers of other countries are prepared to make. Unless this set of problems is realistically tackled, the Government has no chance of solving those problems which it has identified.

The PFP’s industrial strategy would start therefore with a political statement of intent. This would state that it was the Government’s intention to negotiate a constitution under which all were citizens and had the same rights, but that certain measures would be built in to ensure that there was no domination of one group over another. That is the starting point of one’s industrial strategy.

The theme that should run through any industrial strategy like a golden thread—and Government does not seem to understand this—is the theme of competitiveness. That is where security lies. There are limits to the degree to which one can subsidize exports. All those aspects of the political economy which affect competitiveness adversely must be dealt with and be eliminated or their effects reduced.

Hon members must consider for a moment those issues which the Government cannot tackle unless it does it my way. They must bear in mind that it has identified that exports are going to be the avenue for growth in the economy. That is a very rough game. The export business is a game for the world’s first teams. If one is only nearly good enough, one is a loser. [Interjections.] To win one must capitalize on every advantage one has. Firstly, if the markets of most of Africa, the East, the Middle East, increasingly North America and Eastern Europe remain closed to us, we are at a disadvantage. Secondly, if workers in Japan and Korea can identify with national goals, and ours regard themselves as oppressed, we are at a disadvantage. Thirdly, if we sell into hostile markets, our prices will always have to be lower than anybody else’s by quite a margin and we are at a disadvantage. Fourthly, if we have to pay more for capital, have to develop our own technology and are excluded from international scientific and negotiating structures, we are at a disadvantage. When we add to these our national disadvantages of a limited domestic market, shortage of skills and entrepreneurs, chronic shortage of capital, deteriorating terms of trade in our traditional resources and inadequate technology, we realize the degree to which the policies of this Government have handicapped the South African industrialist.

I do not want to give an impression that this new White Paper is not valuable. It performs a useful function, but I do wish that commissioners appointed by the Government could have been more challenging in their attitude to Government philosophies. They could make a far greater contribution. The White Paper is rather a “motherhood” document. It pays lip service to almost every economic concept that has a modicum of credibility anywhere. What can one do in such a case? There is always something to back up any particular philosophy. One has to match what the Government says against what it does.

Its commitments to the free enterprise system and market related decision-making are negated by restrictions on the mobility of labour and the Group Areas Act. Section IV of this particular document fails to address that adequately. The Government’s new urbanization policy is quite inadequate. It leaves Government way behind the game, and that is not managing change. Influx control must be abolished and a planned urbanization strategy pursued. In this respect cognizance should be taken of the recent work of prof Jan Lombard who identifies urbanization as a third force, additional to exports and import replacement, for economic growth. Of these three, which are not mutually exclusive, it would generate most employment. This urban engine, he calculates, will increase consumer spending by over 150% in the next 15 years and lower the capital intensity of production. What extraordinary irony that we should now seek salvation in something we have resisted at the cost of every civilized standard for years!

In section 6.20 the Government says it is “mindful of the importance of the private sector’s free access to adequate capital”, and yet, for the past five years almost half of total net investment has been taken by the Government and used increasingly ineffectively.

In section 9.2 the Government commits itself to a market oriented economy with sound competition. In practice it has repeatedly overridden the recommendations of its own Competition Board. I take cognizance of what the hon the Minister has said today, and I am very pleased at the news that he has given us that some of the recommendations of the Competition Board are going to be backed. However, we cannot get away from the fact that 6% of the firms in the country own 85% of all fixed assets today. That is the degree of concentration that has been achieved.

Finally, we must deal with section VII which covers the decentralization of industry, firstly, because nothing illustrates the Government’s propensity to say one thing and do another more than its actions under this programme; and secondly, because this now represents 55% of the hon the Minister’s total budget.

This is the biggest single economic strategy upon which South Africa has ever embarked. It is considered a great success by the Government because of the figures involved. I wonder if this will be proved and whether it will finally turn out like that. It involves commitments into the unforeseeable future which nobody has attempted to quantify.

The Government says that it stands for the evaluation of economic alternatives by cost benefit studies but has embarked on this project without such studies. The Government says it stands for market-related decision-making but has distorted the market by massive subsidies to achieve ideological, not economic, goals. The Government says it stands for the abolition of direct controls but has achieved exactly what it wanted to achieve by indirect controls. The Government says it stands for sound competition but has so bedevilled the market-place with ill-considered decentralization subsidies that it is ruining many proven firms in the urban areas whose profits have formed our historical tax base.

The priority which this programme enjoys is obvious from the Budget. It has been increased by 250% over the amount budgeted this time last year to an amount of R521 million. This must be seen in the context of an austerity budget which attempted to keep the increase on last year’s expenditure below the inflation rate. However, it is only the tip of the iceberg, because as a result of these incentives the private sector has been induced to spend R4,8 billion over the past two years—in fact I think it is more now according to the latest figure the hon the Minister has given me. This is the “great success” of this scheme. I believe that pudding is going to be proved in the eating.

The origin of this strategy was ideological. Without viable independent Black states, apartheid stands stripped of all respectability, and the result was that the hon the Prime Minister who I believe never had the slightest idea how the wealth that he spent was created, issued instructions that enough money be flung at the border industries policy to make it a success.

Private investment, triggered by incentives, commits a national resource just as much as Government expenditure does. In 1983 and 1984, as I have said, the amount was R4,25 billion. The total net investment in manufacturing for those two years was R8,14 billion. That means that 52% of the money is being allocated in that fashion. Industries that depend for survival on subsidies financed by the RSA’s tax base, now have to supply the growth that the country needs.

I believe we are going to find that it simply fails to do so. One cannot invest discretionary capital unproductively and produce the kind of growth that one wants, particularly that proportion of it. Can it make any sense to tax existing industry which requires no subsidy in order to establish similar new industries located in unsuitable areas and which depend on subsidies to survive? These new industries are then able to undercut those industries which are now being taxed to subsidize them. The whole thing is absolute crazy!

It was not my intention to discuss the decentralization scheme at length. The House well knows my views on the subject. Unfortunately, however, it would appear that the State President’s authority lies behind this and, in consequence, I do not think anybody in Government ranks questions this scheme in any way.

The cost of the scheme is to be measured in three different ways. Firstly, there is the direct and rapidly escalating cost that appears in our budget. It is important to note that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance had the following to say about the controls exercised on the expenditure of this money:

I believe that is very serious criticism indeed coming as it does from the most prestigious of all the standing committees.

Secondly, there is the far greater amount which the private taxpayer is induced to invest as a result of incentives. This is just as much a part of our national capital as the amount which comes directly from taxation.

Thirdly—and I believe this to be the greatest expense in respect of this scheme—there is the long-term damage to the competitiveness of South African industry resulting from a disproportionate share of growth taking place in areas chosen for ideological and not sound economic reasons. It makes no sense for the Government to produce a White Paper promoting a strategy largely based on export when simultaneously its decentralization policy would have the effect of increasing the cost structure of all South African industry and not simply the industry that is being decentralized. The effect of this flagrant interference in the market mechanism will be seen inflation, lack of growth, high unemployment and, above all, a lack of competitiveness against the products of other industrialized countries. This will also be the case, of course, on our own domestic markets.

The Government has failed to come to terms with the necessity to be competitive. South Africa depends on foreign trade for approximately 65% of its GNP. The Government’s industrial strategy is to push this percentage up by expanding our industrial production through exports.

Change the content, not push it up.

Yes, but one pushes it up too. This is pie in the sky unless we realize that we must capitalize on every advantage that we have and attempt to eliminate or reduce our disadvantages systematically.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Walmer had consistently kept his speech at the level at which he ended it, he and I could have found much common ground. At the close of his speech he referred to that which can be eliminated and that which can be used to advantage. I have no fault to find with that and agree with him. I shall come back to that later when I make my contribution in that regard.

In the course of his speech the hon member made two differing assertions. The first he made was: “When the PFP comes into power”.

†Be that as it may. Let me ask him whether he means that, if they come into power, everything is just going to change immediately. Does he think that the problems that exist today are going to change immediately? If he believes that, he is very naive.

However, I do not think he is that naïve. As we say, Sir, talk is cheap. [Interjections.]

The second remark I should like to refer to is his remark that nobody in Government circles ever questions the scheme. I presume he is referring to the decentralization scheme. Just after that he goes on to say, however, that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance made certain critical observations. [Interjections.]

*The hon member who has just made that interjection does not know what it is all about anyway.

I come back to the hon member for Walmer. Surely one cannot at one moment say one thing and then immediately afterwards in one’s argumentation negate one’s previous assertion. As far as that is concerned I therefore just want to say to him that any statements from Government circles and any scheme the executive introduces are open to criticism. We will immediately bring any faults in them to the attention of the hon the Minister or whomever. Therefore, the hon member need never fear that, if any Government member thinks that the Minister ought to introduce changes, that will not be brought to the Minister’s attention. In the NP positive actions by the Government are discussed openly and one can freely make one’s contribution in respect of them.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to make use of the opportunity also to put a request to the hon the Minister. We recently received this White Paper from the hon the Minister and I want to congratulate him and his department on it. I should like to request that we be given shortly a purposeful and detailed five-year plan between set dates and containing preplanned goals to give effect to the White Paper we have before us today.

Since this is the first debate on this Vote the hon Deputy Minister is attending in his new capacity, I also wish to congratulate him on his appointment. He was not a member of our study group, but he immediately filled his new post with great success this year. We should like to wish him well. We also wish to thank Mr Sarel du Plessis, the new Director General, for his informal approach. His appointment this year was immediately a great success. We and the public sensed it at once and we wish him every success and express the hope that we will have him with us for a long time.

I want to return to the hon Minister’s White Paper on which we have already congratulated him. As early as the 17th century the then Prime Minister of Louis XIV of France, Calbert, introduced the principle of laissez faire. I am not saying that it is now the last time it will be mentioned, but I am saying that it can introduce a totally new element or sphere in the economic situation in South Africa. I believe, however, that the measure of success achieved with it will depend upon the way in which it is implemented.

Let us just consider the present situation in South Africa. After the Carlton Conference a euphoria existed and there was talk of an upswing, of good intentions and of co-operation, which involved the private sector. The same went for the Good Hope Conference. I want to say respectfully that I think that those initiatives were lost to some extent. In my opinion we are at present confronted with four important problems. Firstly, we find a measure of uncertainty in the business world, in the private sector. Secondly, there is a certain lack of confidence. Thirdly there is the contributory factor of political unrest. Fourthly it is said that there is a lack of communication. I want to say respectfully to the hon the Minister that I do not believe that that is entirely correct. However, it is no use our simply saying it is wrong and leaving it at that. I think we should make an effort to overcome those political problems and I think we can succeed in that. I believe that, with his background, the hon the Minister is the right person to tackle that. That is why I mention it.

On the other hand there are the economic problems requiring our attention. I refer for instance to the worldwide downturn in the economy, the falling gold price, the weak rand, inflation, living standards that are too high, low productivity and too much money in circulation. Those factors gave rise to the difficulties we are experiencing at present and, as I said, we will have to give them our attention in order to improve matters.

I want to say at once that, since we are at present faced with certain Third World circumstances, in the first phase of development we will have to concentrate on agriculture. In this connection I differ with the hon member for Walmer who said that agriculture does not provide development opportunities. If he reads the article I have here by Dr Erskine, who is also from Natal, he will see there that 89% of the Whites now live in the metropolitan areas, 73% of the Coloureds, 91% of the Indians and only 38% of the Blacks. I believe that that demonstrates why we should view agriculture as an integrated part of our economic development.

I should like to congratulate the National Productivity Institute on this very interesting article. I should like to make mention of the four tables appearing in this article. As regards the average gross domestic product South Africa appears 10th on a list of countries including Norway, Japan, Greece, France, West Germany, Canada, the United States, Australia and Great Britain. Norway is at the top of the list with 3,75 and we are 10th with 0,55. However, if one applies the same data to the economically active part of the population, South Africa immediately moves up to 5th place and Australia, the USA and Canada are lower on the list. If one considers the real growth over the period from 1972 to 1982, South Africa moves up by a further place to fourth on the list.

A comparison is also drawn between capital expansion and productivity. In the period 1972-82 labour intensity rose from 98 to 110,4 while capital expansion dropped from 107 to 83. One must also take into account the fact that the nominal contribution wages made to manufacturing costs rose from 5,9 in the period 1960-70 to 15,8 in the period 1970-82. To me that indicates that in our scheme of things the human element is being wasted. In my opinion we will therefore not be able to switch, in one phase, from the rural situation in which we find ourselves to a manufacturing situation. Those things that are easiest and cheapest to rectify, must be tackled first and in that regard I agree with the hon member for Walmer.

If we can do all this, we can arrive at a five-year plan. Before I say anything more about the five-year plan, I want to mention that, if one is to review the activities of the department over the past year, one can congratulate the hon the Minister. If one looks at the Government’s commitment with regard to expenditure …

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

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for his friendliness.

As regards the Government’s role, in the past year it spent more than R1 million on exhibitions abroad. The hon the Minister has already indicated that the department administers 38 Acts, while the activities of at least 17 boards had also to be co-ordinated. So one can go on. The amount voted in respect of industrial services has increased by 51% this year, while the amount voted for the stimulation of secondary industries was increased by 17,95% and for decentralization of industries by 34,74%, for internal trade and consumer affairs by 11,48% and for export promotion by 35,74%. I believe that that demonstrates the importance the Government attaches to this situation.

Considering a further aspect, I am inclined to say that, now that we have the Kleu report and the Government’s White Paper, the scene has been set and we are on the eve of tremendous development. Yesterday I attended the congress of the AHI, and found there a spirit of cautious optimism. People tell one the worst is over. They see light ahead in the tunnel.

If we now proceed in a positive frame of mind, I suggest that we draw up a report in which we first set out our priorities. Having done that, we must decide on what is required if we are to achieve the priorities we have in view. We must determine what capital and labour are required. We must establish what technology it will demand.

At the same time we can also investigate what can be eliminated. Let us eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. Let us eliminate a lot of these unnecessary boards we have. Let us reduce those costs by which we do not profit. [Interjections.] I hear an hon member refer to the House of Assembly, but that might as well be retained.

We must involve the Department of Manpower in this exercise. Many of the First World requirements which we want to apply to situations peculiar to the Third World must be eliminated. They must be eliminated so that our requirements will be in line with the circumstances prevailing in practice. We must also review our curricula so that, instead of producing so many academics, we train artisans who can provide us with the technology we require.

We must also see whether we cannot use to advantage all the time we waste. We must influence our people to use their time in the best possible way and to good effect.

Having said that all these factors must be brought together, I want to add that we must at all times strive to co-ordinate, but without interfering. Co-ordination is exactly what the private sector want from us. They say we are really in the best position to judge matters overall.

If we are able to get rid of those things by which, as I say, we do not profit, it will be a great step forward. Let us eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations. We are at present reflecting on the future of our provincial councils, but let us make use of this opportunity to look once again at our business hours and trade relations.

There is also the question of our overseas trade offices. The hon the Minister has more offices abroad than the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At this stage I should like to pay tribute to and thank all the people there deserving our gratitude. Those people sometimes have to do their work under difficult conditions. The question can nevertheless be raised whether they are effective. Should we not look again at how effective they are? Should certain adjustments and transfers not perhaps be made?

There is also the question of population growth. Family planning costs us nothing. We know that the growth rate of our population is too high. That is a basic factor.

Let us start with the basics that cost us nothing. We must determine our priorities and, as the hon member for Walmer has said, we must apply what we do have as well as we can. I believe that if we determine our priorities and have a detailed plan available, we will be able to place the country on the road to success again.

Mr Chairman, all there is left for me is to say to the hon member that I have great appreciation for what he said and agree entirely with it. The points he touched on are really vital points. The hon member raised a number of matters, one of the most important in my opinion being that farming must be looked at again, and particularly the small farmer, the farmer producing a commodity in certain regions. There must first be a commodity in a region before one can successfully decentralize in that region.

As long ago as 1967 I visited Transkei with the then Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I saw there that there are grandiose schemes involving large factories which are being erected there. It is like having a rugby player playing golf or a game to which he is not at all suited. The first thing I requested at the time is that large sisal plantations be developed and that the services of Japanese and such people with a knowledge of cotton farming be obtained so that on such farms raw materials can be produced for which factories can be set up. The planting of ordinary food products, cabbage and the like, must also be undertaken, but then there must be a co-ordinator who buys up that cabbage once a week and distributes it, which will earn the producer R10 or R20 per week.

I want to say to the hon the Minister and his department today that we have no fault to find with what they are attempting to do. However, in South Africa we shall have to realize that we do not have sufficient capital available to set up and try to develop unsuited industries only to find in the long run that they are not successful. In certain respects I can agree with the hon member for Walmer and I want to say to him that he led me to cast my mind far back today.

†He said that when the PFP came to power they would have a political statement of intent. I think that is what people have always thought was wrong with the NP. They said that the NP did not practise economies but first looked at the political situation in South Africa and only then at economics.

*I understand the hon member’s point, but as regards decentralization, the Government is confusing me today. Like the State, I saw decentralization as an attempt to settle particularly the Blacks in decentralized areas and to develop those areas. I even accepted that getting people there permanently would cost a lot of money at the outset. Now I find that the same Government has a new approach, namely that the central business districts now be opened to all and that people of colour and particularly Blacks can also purchase land in urban and other areas and enjoy freehold. It now appears that the Government is making laws which are in conflict with its own policy.

If one looks at the Carlton Conference and the advice of people like Mike Rosholt Uncle Harry and others …

This Uncle Harry or Big Uncle Harry?

No, Big Uncle Harry, not the small one. It has been suggested that people must be allowed freedom of movement. Economically speaking that is probably true. Anyone who has studied the economy knows that good economic results are obtained only after some 100 000 people are concentrated in an area. The larger the area, the more sales and the linking up of other smaller factories are facilitated. In South Africa, however, urbanization has also led to great costs being incurred and that is why the Government of this country has already been on the road of decentralization for many years—quite correctly, I believe. In earlier years it received barely enough support from the side of the Government, but today a definite course is being followed.

We agree that there are problems, particularly in respect of the cash amounts that have to be paid over. One must not blame the Government for that. Today I blame the free enterprise sector who abuse every opportunity they are given.

It is scandalous that, when the Government opens the door to development, these people descend like black crows, so much so that one must continually be on one’s guard that they do not rob one or try to use every possible loophole. That does the spirit of free enterprise in this country no credit and I honestly think strong action must be taken against this.

The hon the Minister today made a statement about the Competition Board. Only in one respect do I not agree with him, namely insofar as he allows these people a means of escape. One should not say to people that exceptions will be made. What is more, the loopholes in terms of which those exceptions are made, should be closed.

Another problem we have is the position with regard to wholly-owned subsidiaries. In a country such as ours in which one can almost say that all business undertakings are owned by seven or eight large groups of companies, the wholly-owned subsidiaries do not present a problem when it comes to price maintenance. An entire industry can for instance be controlled by way of secondary shares. That is why I want to repeat that there must be no exceptions whatsoever. They must be permitted only when a company applies to the department for assistance and submits its reports to the department.

I believe that the hon member for Vasco was right when he said we must draw up a five-year plan, particularly in the light of our high unemployment rate. Although there is no longer any school-feeding, it is shocking that in a city like Johannesburg the municipality must make available approximately R1,2 million to feed White children. That demonstrates the extent of the problems our economy is experiencing. As a result of the interest rate of 25% and the inflation rate of 16% investment must be 41% higher if we are to break even. A further consequence is that at present new factories cannot be erected without substantial assistance. For those reasons I say we will have to give serious consideration to means of speedily solving the problem of increasing unemployment.

The greatest problem today certainly stems from the fact that outside this department the State is unfortunately applying different policies. This department says that labour-intensive undertakings must be created. The SATS, on the other hand, says: We are mechanising and paying off 43 000 people. These people then have to make their way in an economy which cannot provide them with work. The Department of Foreign Affairs provides finances for the national states, but this department does not have sufficient say or control over the expenditure. [Interjections.] Because South Africa is economically a single entity, this department should be relied on to a greater extent when industrial grants are made to any of these states.

Unfortunately my time has expired. I just want to say that I agree with the hon the Minister that we should get more time to discuss his Vote. I just want to say thank you to the department and especially to Mr du Plessis. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to continue the line of thought expressed by the hon member for Langlaagte when he talked about unemployment in South Africa. In recent years, many facets of our economy have been highlighted by various organizations and people as being facets of the economy which could counteract unemployment. I should like to break a lance on this occasion for the informal sector in the economy as an enormous source of employment in South Africa.

The informal sector of the South African economy is closely bound up with the Small Business Development Corporation, the State’s concept of privatization, the involvement of the Government in the economy, and the concept of deregulation in our economy. Every hon member in this Committee has had to deal on more than one occasion with people in his constituency who feel aggrieved because they want to embark on some economic activity or other in their homes and there is a municipal or government regulation which prohibits them from doing so.

I think it is very important that we should follow up the outstanding initiatives of the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry, his excellent department, Mr Sarel du Plessis, the very able Director-General of that department and all the officials, and that we should make a concentrated attempt—I might almost say it should be a ruthless attempt—to make laws against laws in South Africa. I do not wish to discuss the aspects of deregulation, because there are other hon members on this side of the Committee who are going to do so.

The Financial Mail of 24 May 1985 contained an article which in my humble opinion was one of the most illuminating articles on the subject of the informal sector which had appeared in any South African publication for a very long time. It is estimated—highly scientific estimating methods are used—that the turnover of this sector is approximately R40 billion in terms of the value of services and goods. When one considers this, one suddenly realizes what an enormous source of jobs we have in the formal sector in South Africa.

In the USA and in England, it is said that 20% of all economic activity takes place in the informal sector. In other contries such as Israel, it is said that the contribution of the small business sector to the total economy is probably close to 100%. In a country such as South Africa, the informal sector plays an important role in creating jobs and in generating wealth and prosperity.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister on this occasion that in our Black states in particular, but also in our urban areas, we should do everything in our power to ensure that organizations and individuals that are “illegally” employed at the moment—because the informal sector is going beyond the rules—are assisted in starting small businesses. Eventually we can then help them to become participants in the larger formal economy.

In my constituency there is a lady who is in my opinion the best wedding cake decorator in the entire country. She has written books on the subject that have been distributed internationally. Unfortunately, she was cheated with regard to one of her beautiful books because she was unable to retain the international copyright on the book. This lady really had to battle to obtain permission to bake wedding cakes at her home. She was placed in a very difficult position by the municipal restrictions, for example.

I believe that we live in a world in which there is a great need for our housewives in the urban areas to be afforded the opportunity of participating in these economic activities from their homes. In order to do this, we must get rid of these foolish municipal restrictions, this regulation by various authorities, and even certain laws of Parliament.

I want to refer to another example in my constituency. A shopkeeper applied for permission to bake bread. Thereupon the Wheat Board told him that he was not allowed to bake that kind of bread in his shop because there was no need for it. If a man wants to bake bread and he is able to sell it because the public is prepared to pay even R10 for it, I want to ask why we want to prevent that man from proceeding with his economic activities. [Interjections.] In the present difficult climate, there is a great need among our White women who are caring for their children at home to supplement the family income. There are all kinds of economically profitable activities in which housewives can get involved. I am thinking of dressmaking, baking, running a crèche and various other economic activities. I should like to break a lance for our housewives and ask that they should be allowed, in spite of the regulations, to do everything in their power to become participants in the economy of South Africa by way of the informal sector. [Interjections.]

When one looks at the role of the informal sector in the Black states, one sees that something tremendous is taking place. Approximately 12 million people live in the national states and in the independent Black states. When one looks at the amounts allocated to those states last year, one is astonished at the fact that the Department of Statistics is able to state that two million people in the national states and in the independent states were economically active. I want to point out, for the sake of interest, that the total amount given to the national states by the Department of Inland Revenue last year as being the income tax paid by their citizens outside those states, and the amount collected in the states themselves, amounted to only R262 million. As far as company tax is concerned, the Department of Inland Revenue did not collect a single cent in those states. Moreover, almost nothing was paid over to the national states as a result of company tax. As far as general sales tax is concerned—and those states do not have the legal power to collect this—the Department of Inland Revenue, which collects this tax in the national states, collected absolutely nothing there last year. Only R16 million was paid over to them.

When one considers these things, bearing in mind the fact that the contribution of the South African economy, added to that of the independent and national states, to the total gross domestic product in 1981, was 97%, as against the 3% of the Black states, one realizes that in order to have kept 2 million people in the national states economically active, the informal sector must have made an enormous contribution. This also becomes clear when one considers the small amount received by the national and independent states from the RSA as a Government appropriation—it was approximately R1 800 million. There simply are not 2 million economically productive people in the government sector and in the formal sector in the national states. Therefore the informal sector must be making an enormous contribution.

Precisely in view of the need which exists in the national states, I want to plead that we should do everything in our power to encourage the informal sector, for that is where people must gain their experience which will eventually enable them to enter the economy. That is the sector where we sell the economic system to the poorest and most unsophisticated people, to those who show initiative. Nothing in our economic system is so conducive to initiative as the knowledge on the the part of the unsophisticated person that he is able to contribute his share and to struggle even beyond the scope of the rules and regulations to care for his family, and that at the same time, he is making a contribution to economic development in his state.

When I say that we must make a law against laws, I want to make a plea here today, specifically with regard to the informal sector. Sir, we can privatize, we can help the Small Business Development Corporation in South Africa, and we can do whatever we like, but if we do not enable this informal sector to flourish in a dramatic and dynamic way, we cannot combat unemployment and we cannot meet the need for employment on this low level of the economy.

What I am saying now may run counter to what many of my hon colleagues believe, but I believe that in the short term—within the next few years—we can provide work for millions of people in our cities if we do not regard the search for work in South Africa as a crime. I am referring in this regard to influx control, and I just want to state the simple fact that there is an enormous amount of work for Blacks in our urban areas—as subcontractors or people doing odd jobs such as building jobs. Those who own a motor vehicle could perhaps transport people from one place to another. If the occasional odd job is done, I believe that generally speaking it will serve to promote our system. It will also help to provide job opportunities, thereby providing people with a livelihood.

I therefore thank the hon the Minister and the Department for the fact that one knows and understands, on the basis of what they say, that they adopt a very sympathetic attitude towards the problems experienced by the informal sector in South Africa. I believe that with our positive approach to the informal sector, we have the right recipe, and we express our thanks for what is already been allowed.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to follow up on a couple of points made by the hon member for Innesdal. The first one concerns the informal sector of trade and industry in our country. I could not agree with him more. It is vitally important to get as much informal business going as possible. Informal business is needed particularly in the Black areas where it will not only bring them into the free enterprise system and get them to appreciate the benefit of the system but also provide jobs at the cheapest possible rate per job. The other point is, of course, that one cannot really get moving in the free enterprise system without considerable deregulation. This was a point that the hon member also made and I agree with him very much, not only in respect of the informal sector but in respect of all business generally. We are really in an impossible situation with all the rules and regulations with which people in business have to comply.

This department has an enormous variety of activities. Apart from the administrative and financial branches, I think there are about 14 other branches. To endeavour in a few short minutes to cover all the activities of this department would be quite impossible. However, there are certain points I think should be highlighted. To start with, as I conceive of them, the major points are to promote and maintain a healthy industrial structure; to build and expand sound international trade relations; to promote competitive trading conditions in South African domestic trade; to protect our consumer interests and ensure that they are not unduly ignored; and to promote a proper attitude to the free market system. These are some of the functions and it seems to me that, although these are their main functions, the other functions are also very important. I will in fact touch in particular on one of those functions a little later on.

Frankly, I feel that the department—and not necessarily through their own fault—are not able to achieve their objectives very successfully. The hon member for Langlaagte put his finger on the spot at one stage when he indicated that the conflicting State department policies are a major cause of trouble. Now this is of course perfectly true. Let me just illustrate a point. The disinvestment or divestment campaign is one question in point. The department is not responsible for that; it is the policies of the country that people have picked upon as being the reason for advocating disinvestment. The trouble we have in selling our products to, for example, Scandinavia is also not the fault of the department. In fact, I believe one way or another they are doing a pretty good job in still getting the stuff in. However, the policy of the country is making life difficult for us. So, they can work as hard as they like trying to boost our export trade, but unless there is a review of our overall policy, I am afraid they are not going to be as successful as they would want to be. [Interjections.] When one looks at this department, one cannot therefore say that even if they have not been successful it is not to a very large degree their fault because so much of this is a matter of Government policy.

One point that I want to make in this regard is that the department and the Ministers must surely know this. Do they really make a sufficiently tough effort in persuading the Cabinet to modify certain aspects of policy to allow them to achieve success in the job for which they have been paid?

Let us look at the internal situation. Because of the poor financial situation we have dozens of businesses folding every week. Every business that closes down puts a few more people out of work, and that further-reduces the cash turnover of other businesses remaining and trying to operate. Many of these businesses are in trouble because of a temporary cash-flow problem largely caused by the present economic situation in South Africa. I wonder if any consideration has been given to having a good look at this matter. It would perhaps be considerably cheaper to rescue the odd business of this type here and there from folding, than to spend a lot of money creating another business for new jobs. In many instances it would only require a relatively small sum of money to get these businesses back on their feet, but there is no way they can get that money in an economic manner to be able to recover. Many of these businesses have got into difficult financial circumstances through no fault of their own but through other businesses folding and owning them substantial sums of money. Many of these will ultimately come to light, but in the meantime they have had their cash flow ruined and they cannot keep operating. Those firms close down and more people are put out of work.

In many instances good, sound, otherwise potentially productive businesses would be able to keep people in employment and keep on producing if they were given a little financial assistance. When one takes into consideration the massive sums of money being expended on decentralization, one wonders which of the two systems is going to be, certainly in the short term, of more benefit to South Africa. I cannot help but feel that a certain amount of cheap money should be made available, particularly to labour intensive businesses—this again is another point that was made by the hon member for Langlaagte, I think—because we cannot afford to have large numbers of people drawing unemployment benefits. We cannot afford it, not only in terms of the money that is going out but also because these people will be on the streets doing nothing, and I believe this is one of the reasons why masses of people are available to join these crowds and create all sorts of unrest. I believe that considerable benefit could accrue to the State and to the public in general by serious consideration being given to judicious assistance in this regard. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister could give me an indication whether anybody has given this some thought.

There are many other angles from dealing with ordinary business that one must consider, but I am afraid that I do not have any more time.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Umbilo has brought up a very important subject, especially at this time, namely the effect the recession is having on business. I agree with him that today many businesses are finding themselves in financial trouble. I would like to put it to him though that a lot of them need to find themselves in financial trouble because in my view some of them have not been operating quite correctly in the past. Now that the squeeze is on, they are beginning to feel the breeze, as they say.

He asked whether it was possible for the Government to assist, in some way or other, those businesses which are having a temporary cash-flow problem. I believe some R30 million has been given to the Small Business Development Corporation to assist such businesses. I would therefore like to assure the hon member that the Government has taken cognizance of the problem and is trying to do something about it.

But that is for new businesses.

No, not only new businesses. The point I want to make is that I do believe that one thing that is going to come out of this recession is that a lot of businessmen are going to have to learn some very basic rules of being in business. I think that too often in the past, when money has been readily available, a lot of businesses have very unwisely overextended themselves. These people are now, as I say, going to get hurt. I am afraid it has to happen. If we are to limit the growth in our money supply to the correct level, it means that some people who relied on an excessive money supply in the past are going to get hurt in the process. Some people are, of course, going to be put out of work—temporarily, we hope—until the capital structure in the country can be so organized that…

What would you do if the sugar market collapsed altogether?

I want to tell that hon member that the sugar market internationally has collapsed. I in my business am faced with having to sell my B quota sugar cane at R6 per ton right now for the export market, whereas last year I was getting R22 per ton. It is this hon Minister who introduced the relevant measures and I am one of the cane growers suffering as a result, but I believe that he has done the right thing, because a lot of sugar farmers have to get off their bums and work harder at correctly managing their investment. It is as simple as that.

What price do you get for your A quota cane?

That is not the point. [Interjections.] A lot of farmers are going to feel the breeze because of high cane transport costs, and I am one of them. I may feed my B quota cane to cattle in future, because there is no profit in exporting sugar overseas.

I want to refer to a matter which has already been raised by some hon members, namely the White Paper on Industrial Development Strategy. I want to say to the hon the Minister that I believe that this is a very important document. I sincerely hope that in the coming months more and more people will take cognizance of the contents of this document. It must not only be read, but possibly there should be some seminars on it and more publicity should be given to it. Perhaps a discussion or talkshow on TV can be organized on the subject, because I believe there is an awful lot of good economic sense in this White Paper which needs to be disseminated much more widely than has possibly been the case so far.

The hon member for Walmer earlier on spoke about the decentralization programme. Digressing a bit, I just want to say to him that I agree with him, as does the hon the Minister, that some people have been abusing some of the concessions granted in that respect. I think the hon member must concede that the hon the Minister has already said that the rules are going to be changed in order to stop this abuse. The point I want to put to the hon member for Walmer is that, while we must accept that the Government has a responsibility in ensuring that the economy operates correctly, I firmly believe we also have to have a change of attitude on the part of the private sector in many respects. I believe there is an industrial and commercial morality which we must talk more about. I believe that the private sector has responsibilities. When the Government passes legislation or sets up incentive programmes, what is at stake is the improvement of the common wealth of the nation. Such measures are not introduced so that some entrepreneurs and businessmen can abuse them for their own personal benefit.

In that connection I want to refer again to the White Paper where the matter is set out very clearly on page 4 under the heading “Industry’s place in the economic structure.” Paragraph 3.6 refers to the utilization of capital. I quote from that paragraph:

The point I want to put to the hon the Minister in the time still available to me is that a lot of this has to do with the price formula of the so-called administered prices. I want to get back to my own industry. We know that every administered price has a formula and that written into that formula is a reasonable return on capital. Here I again want to refer to the morality of business. It has been in the interests of many industries whose prices are administered to overcapitalize because they get a guaranteed return on capital as a result of the price formula. All of us are going to have to pull in our belts if we want to put this situation right. For the information of the hon member for Umbilo and the hon member for Umhlanga who has left the Chamber I can point out that during the past year or two the hon the Minister has denied the sugar industry an adequate return on capital according to that formula to the extent that last year there was no return on capital. In the previous three years the previous Minister of Finance encouraged the industry to borrow to pay farmers a so-called fair price for their products with the result that the industry has gone into debt to the tune of R340 million.

Bad business.

The industry should have been wiser, and this is the point I am trying to make. The private sector has the responsibility to make sure that they do not overcapitalize.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Amanzimtoti made an interesting speech, but I am sure that he will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech in the short time at my disposal.

I want to take the opportunity of conveying certain problems experienced by my voters to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. In terms of numbers I represent the largest constituency in the country. Many of my voters are professional people, and I think I represent more professional people than any other hon member in this Committee. Many of these people are in private practice and this year I received a considerable number of representations from them. These people include consulting engineers, architects, city and regional planners etc.

We all know that these professions have always been subject to severe cyclical workloads concomitant with cycles in the economy. The problems experienced by consultants in a time of economic recession are often in their view compounded by the way in which the State economizes. In a time of economic recession one finds that the State economizes mainly on capital expenditure and expenditure on professional people outside the Public Service. As a result many firms doing mainly contract work for the State find that when the State economizes, their work comes to a sudden standstill. Certain State departments furthermore follow a policy of maintaining exceptionally large professional divisions. Thus, until only a few years ago, the Department of Water Affairs for example had between 400 and 450 professional engineers in its employ. In times of economic recession these departments give out very little work. One can understand that they want to keep their own staff gainfully employed during such periods. The problem is then that small firms in the private sector which are dependent on them do not receive any work.

During a recession the small, professional firm which we want very much to maintain and develop, is hardest hit. When I explain to these people that the State is economizing, they understand the situation. However, when I tell them that the State has withheld one third of the bonuses of its officials, they tell me that for the past two years they have not given their employees a thirteenth cheque.

Two State institutions that have been pointed out to me in this regard are the Department of Water Affairs and the SA Transport Services. To illustrate this point I want to quote figures given to me by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in regard to the Civil Engineering Department of the SATS. I am quoting figures in respect of the percentage of work done by the department itself during 1980-81 as compared with 1983-84. With regard to large new works—this is capital expenditure—the department spent 14% of the money itself in 1980-81, while in 1983-84 it spent 23%. With regard to the maintenance of buildings and structures it spent 57% itself during 1980-81 as compared with 60% in 1983-84. With regard to professional services it absorbed 50% of the money itself during 1980-81 as compared with 63% in 1983-84. I think that it is contrary to the Government’s policy of privatization for a State institution to be permitted to go on in this manner. We must not speak of privatization on the one hand and on the other hand allow State institutions to indulge in nationalization.

I want to make a few further remarks about privatization. It is undoubtedly true that the State has many monopolies. I can understand why it has these monopolies. At strategic stages in the past the State took the initiative of establishing certain industries. Without them the country would have developed at a much slower pace than it has.

It is now also the Government’s policy to privatize as far as possible. Many people see privatization as the taking of spectacular steps as was the case with the successful privatization of Sasol. However, I do want to issue a warning that the privatization of State monopolies can easily lead to private monopolies, and then one will not necessarily be any better off.

Instead of taking immediate, dramatic privatization initiatives such as the privatization of giant corporations, I would rather encourage the State to privatize many of the minor functions and services of the central Government, local authorities and State corporations immediately.

I want to mention the Government Garage as an example. There is a lot of strong competition in the transport industry. The State will not be creating a private monopoly if it privatizes the Government Garage. The same thing obviously holds good for the garages of the State corporations as well. We will certainly make many mistakes in the process but the sooner we start the sooner we shall have the opportunity of learning from those mistakes.

In conclusion I want to remark on the Competition Board. Privatization cannot be divorced from competition. Furthermore privatization in our country must be an ongoing process; it cannot be concluded in one phase. At present the State does not really have an instrument to deal with an ongoing privatization process. I should like to lend my support to an idea which I have heard expressed by others, namely that the Competition Board be converted for this purpose into a Competition and Privatization Board.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

The hon member for Pretoria East is in my opinion usually worth listening to. I should like to support his comments on privatization, but I cannot react to all his arguments as I should like to focus on the policy and activities of the Competition Board.

The Competition Board is the Government’s principal mechanism for sponsoring its policy of free competition to which it pays lip service. The board has been operating since 1980, and I think it is time we focused on how effective it has been.

Judge the board in terms of its legislation.

I have serious misgivings about the fruits of the Competition Board because in the past five years South Africa has experienced an alarming deterioration in the concentration of economic power. Let us consider the roll-call of big company take-overs and mergers which have occurred in recent years.

SA Breweries have absorbed OK Bazaars, Afcol, Amrel, Edcon and Scotts Stores and in turn have been swallowed up by Anglo which has now added the Breweries empire and the Premier Group to its empire.

Barlow Rand has bought up C G Smith, Tiger Oats, ICS, Reunert and Metal Box and in turn has been swallowed up by Old Mutual.

The Old Mutual which has cross-holdings in De Beers and Anglo, controls Nedbank, SA Perm, Barlows and has recently taken over the Rennies Group which has merged with Safmarine.

Sanlam which controls Gencor, has acquire Xactics, DRG, Tedelex, Messina and joint control of SA Manganese. It has also recently swallowed up Malbank and the Protea Group with which it merged.

Mr Sol Kerzner has put together an entertainment and casino empire and Southern Suns has merged with Holiday Inns to create a dominent giant in the three, four and five hotel industry. In the motor industry Anglo has taken over Ford to create Amcar through the Sigma Company. The liquor industry has been divided up between Breweries with beer and Kaap Wyn and Rembrandt with wine and spirits. The coal industry’s narrow control structure has recently been reinforced by this Government with the adoption of the Coal Resources Bill in spite of a recommendation of the Competition Board to the contrary.

This is not an exhaustive list. It does, however, highlight a concentration trend which has set alarm bells ringing among informed economic observers. At this stage it can be said that the fundamental trend in the SA economy is towards ever greater centralization of ownership and control.

This process was already far advanced when the Competition Board was established in 1980. As far back as 1977 the Mouton Commission, which preceded the Competition Board, noted that 5% of all the firms operating in the manufacturing, wholesale and retail, construction and transport sectors accounted for between 63% and 73% of those sectors’ turnover. As if that situation was not alarming enough, in recent years the process has accelerated, as I have said. It was predicted by Donald Gordon of Liberty Life that by 1990 the SA economy would be dominated by only a handful of large corporations. In May last year Mr Robin McGregor, author of Who owns Whom said that at that stage, only seven firms already controlled directly or indirectly 80% of the listed companies on the JSE which represents four fifths of a total capitalization of R90 billion.

To bring the situation right up to date, I made contact with Mr Robin McGregor yesterday, who tells me that the latest position is that only three firms—Anglo, Sanlam and SA Mutual—now control 76,4% of the JSE. The top seven which include in addition to those three Rembrandt, Anglo Vaal, Liberty Life and the State, now control 84,3% of the total which is 4,3% up over the past 12 months. Incidentally, it is no accident that two of the top three are insurance companies, and I think it is high time that the special tax provisions affecting these companies were reassessed.

The basic structure of the SA economy has been radically altered in the past couple of decades inter alia because of the massive cash flows that accrue to the life assurance firms.

The Government has argued in the past, however, that it is not so much the control structure of the market or of the economy which should be the test of whether the public interest is being served, but rather the actual behaviour of the firms. The large monopolistic firms should be examined individually to test whether the public interest is being served or not. It is in terms of that test that the Competition Board and the government have approved the stunning procession of mergers and take-overs that have taken place. It would seem that the Competition Board and the Government have been very easily satisfied. They have displayed tremendous confidence in the good faith of the companies which have applied to them to increase their concentration and control over the market place. I regret that I do have serious difficulty with the Government’s approach in this regard. I think it is high time that a review of the policy took place.

My first major problem with the status quo is the vagueness and the subjectiveness of the present “public interest” test. In the United States, in terms of their anti-trust laws, there is a clearly established set of rules and precedent which guides their free competition policies. In this country the Competition Board assesses the situation subjectively in a manner which is vague and incapable of exact definition. A key problem is that in every take-over situation a different view can be expressed by successive boards comprised of different personalities. In the final analysis a decision as to whether the public interest is being served, is subject to the judgment of a particular group of individuals at a particular point in time, subject in its turn, to the discretion of the Minister.

The whole system is far too discretionary and subjective. There are no presumptions. There is no objective testing or measuring of undesirable structures which would compel the board to a particular view at a particular time. I think this is a serious discrepancy in the body of law governing our free competition policy. I know there are existing vague guidelines, but there is nothing one can really put one’s finger on and go to court about.

Concentration ratios, to my mind, do indicate a tendency and a potential for unfair domination of a particular market. According to Mr David Rees, Senior Lecturer in Economics at UCT, they also indicate:

This is the situation which I believe we are now faced with in the RSA. Economic power has become dangerously concentrated and those concentrated nodes of power have been exercised in the interests of the holders of that power.

The other major criticism I have of the Competition Board is its failure already to have built up a body of prohibitions and regulations against undesirable practices in terms of section 10(l)(c). The only existing prohibition on record is the prohibition of the maintenance of resale prices, Notice R1038 of 25 June 1969. I am thus delighted that the hon the Minister this afternoon made the announcement setting out some proposed prohibitions in terms of this section. This section has been grossly neglected since the establishment of the board.

It is especially important under a system in which the Government alleges it is more concerned about the behaviour of firms in the economy than with their structure that anti-free competition practices be specifically prohibited. I do not think the list of proposed prohibitions announced this afternoon goes far enough by any means.

Furthermore, it is highly unsatisfactory for the Competition Board to be operating in a subjective mode in terms of both their analysis of the structures of the economy and their analysis of the behaviour of firms. From the hon the Minister’s statement it seems that this proposed list will still be applied in a subjective way, which is a problem the hon member for Langlaagte was also concerned about.

The main reason I support the gazetting of a comprehensive, extended list of prohibitions to protect free competition is that I believe it has become vital to circumscribe the power which large combines have acquired in recent years. Most of the concentration of power which has occurred in the past five years would have been prohibited in the USA in terms of their anti-trust laws. I accept that that is the ultimate codification of free market principles. However, now that we in South Africa have arrived at a situation where the concentration exists we are somehow going to have to live with it. The only adequate response at this stage is, to my mind, to place stringent restrictions and curbs on the exercise of that power and the potential abuse of that power.

It has been said that “competition is a battle in which incompetence dies”. If it is applied in a completely free market system, I accept this dictum as a sound one. However, in a situation where a big company may choose to use its extensive power against a little company, that dictum does not necessarily hold good. For example, a small man starting a business might find himself subjected to a very specific and selective underpricing campaign designed to blow him out of the market. For a large company it is very easy to cut one price below cost and then to direct it specifically at a small company whose whole business may be based on that single price. I know of such a case. This example of hostile, selective pricing is not included in today’s list of prohibitions although it is in fact specifically outlawed in the USA. I have an example from the US anti-trust laws, and I quote:

Other examples of anti-trust prohibitions which are missing from the list announced today are price discrimination against competitors and price discrimination between purchasers of similar goods. There are also many other examples.

To my mind the key test of a free market is the freedom of entry into the market on the part of small new entrepreneurs. If free entry is not blocked and if the subsequent competition between small and large firms takes place on the basis of fair ground rules subject to market forces, then the present concentration of economic power will tend to correct itself in time because new entrants will succeed and the existing concentration will change.

However, if the existing concentration of power is coupled with the unfettered freedom of the present giants to use their power against small competitors and to influence the rules to their own advantage with the lobbying power they have, then the ideal of a free market in South Africa is not going to survive.

Therefore, while I welcome this first provisional list, I would like to appeal for it to be much expanded, to include a much wider range of prohibitions, and to be gazetted in terms of section 10(l)(c). This should be done as a matter of urgency.

I would also like to call for the introduction of an obligation to notify the Competition Board prior to the implementation of a takeover or merger which significantly changes the power structure in any given market. This can be done according to codes which can be set up. It is not good enough for the Competition Board to say that most of these changes are of no interest to it because they do not represent at threat. This is far too lofty an attitude to adopt, and I believe it has led directly to many abuses having occurred without their knowing about them.

The present situation is that, if collusion and market domination can occur in secret without the Competition Board being notified of it, then one can get away with it. I do not believe we can tolerate a situation in which the business community can virtually do what it likes until somebody blows the whistle and calls in the Competition Board to investigate.

There should be an onus on business men themselves to notify in certain situations according to a set of codes and regulations. A failure to notify should be a transgression. This is in line with tax policy. The onus should be shifted to the businesses themselves.

I want to state a final point, but I do not have the time to develop it. It seems to me that serious consideration might have to be given to the breaking up of certain monopolistic situations which have developed in this country. I am not suggesting a policy as far-reaching as that of the USA in terms of antitrust laws, but I do think that just as serious attention is being given to the privatization of certain State monopolies, in the same spirit attention should also be given to the deconcentration of certain private monopolies for similar sound reasons.

Mr Chairman, the overemphasizing of monopolies makes the hon member for Constantia sound like a true disciple of the social democracy of the hon member for Yeoville.

Shame!

Apparently he does not like that. Then he must be a socialist.

Monopolies are to be watched very carefully, but I believe that under strict control it also has some very valid advantages. With those words I will leave the hon member for Constantia there.

*One of the most important requirements for stability is of course economic development. For this reason, one is grateful for the fact that this Government is so serious about the economic development of the whole of Southern Africa, for in addition to the Republic, there are the self-governing national states, the TBVC countries, the BLS countries and our other neighbouring states such as Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South West Africa/Namibia. This promotes stability, which is conducive to peaceful coexistence.

In spite of military boycotts, threats of disinvestment, disregard of existing democratic government processes, and disparagement of the Government’s reform initiatives, we know that South Africa is and remains the pivot on which everything in Southern Africa hinges. That is what gives South Africa its sphere of influence. This is why it is so important that a properly co-ordinated strategy for industrial development should be devised. In this respect, however, the emphasis must be on decentralization, and on the ultimate objective of creating job opportunities in South Africa. In spite of criticism, I want to tell the hon the Minister that he must not be intimidated by the prophets of doom who say that decentralization and deconcentration will fail. Tremendous progress has been made in this sphere since 1980. When one looks at the Budgets of this Government since 1981, one sees that the amount appropriated for this purpose has grown from R51 million in 1981-82 to the present appropriation of more than R520 million. The total amount for this five-year period from 1981 to 1986 is R1 237 million. Many people seek to measure success in terms of the creation of job opportunities. I do not think the hon the Minister need be ashamed of what has been achieved. According to the figures available to me, R665 million was spent during the three-year period from 1982-83 to 1984-85, and 212 400 job opportunities were created. When one compares this with the period of 21 years from 1960 to 1981, during which an amount of R1 805 was spent and only 193 000 job opportunities were created, I think that this is an excellent achievement.

Furthermore, it remains the intention to decentralize labour intensive industries rather than capital intensive industries. I am told that 60% of the total investment per project amounts to less than R500 000. This proves that the emphasis is placed on labour intensive rather than capital intensive industries. Over and above these incentive concessions provided by the Government by way of budgetary appropriations, there are the efforts of the Industrial Development Corporation and the Small Business Development Corporation.

When one considers what the Industrial Development Corporation has achieved in respect of industrial and housing facilities for industries which qualify for these decentralization incentives, one sees that in 1980-81, R83 million was spent on this by the Industrial Development Corporation; the following year the amount was R97 million, and the year after that R122 million was spent. Over a period of three years, therefore, more than R300 million was spent. In the latest annual report of the Industrial Development Corporation one reads that out of a total amount of R214 million in respect of industrial financing, 70% was used for industrial undertakings in non-metropolitan areas. Furthermore, R48 million was used for the provision of housing for key personnel and R88 million for the creation of infrastructure and projects in the TBVC countries, as well as in the BLS countries and in Malawi.

I want to convey my compliments—and, I believe, the compliments of this side of the House and of the whole of South Africa—to the study group on the White Paper which we recently received. If effect is given to the guidelines contained in that document, it can only be of benefit to South and Southern Africa. I think one should highlight certain aspects of this White Paper. Accordingly, I should like to single out and emphasize some important aspects in respect of spatial ordering as contained in the White Paper. An even distribution of economic activity is essential in order to relieve the economic, social and political pressure on our metropolitan areas. Industrial development alone is not the answer. Agriculture and tourism, for example, should support these endeavours. The drift of trade to White areas should also be counteracted. Furthermore, the maintenance sector of agriculture—as the hon member for Vasco called it—and the informal sector in the rural areas, which was discussed by the hon member for Innesdal, should accommodate the surplus unskilled labour. Developed metropolitan areas should not be prejudiced to such an extent that their role as the most important creators of job opportunities is undermined.

Furthermore, it is proposed that serious consideration be given to reducing the subsidies in respect of transport and housing in the metropolitan areas; that aid should be rendered in such a way that it does not place an intolerable burden on the Treasury of the RS A; that ineffective industrial decentralization should be guarded against—in other words, preference should be given to labour intensive industries which create work—and that industrial decentralization points should be limited. Co-operation on a regional basis between all the areas in Southern Africa is absolutely essential, therefore. According to the White Paper, there is clear evidence that the new approach to regional development is very successful, and one hopes that the department will do everything in its power to make the ideas contained in this White Paper very clear to the rest of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Turffontein as one can always listen to him because he always makes a good contribution and sets us newcomers a fine example worth following.

I think that it can rightly be said that few countries in the world are struggling with such problems and seeking unique and fresh solutions to them as is South Africa. South Africa is simultaneously a developed and developing country, and it has often been said that South Africa is in fact a microcosm of the world. That is why we have different kinds of problems in South Africa and we have to seek fresh and unique solutions to them. I think that the new constitutional dispensation which has now been implemented is proof of the fact that we are capable of doing so. In the economic sphere we will also have to seek solutions which take the realities of South Africa into account. Hon members have referred to the fact—the hon member for Vasco illustrated it clearly—that South Africa is at the same time a First and a Third World country. We have therefore to deal simultaneously with elements of a First and a Third World economy. It is therefore necessary for us to develop a distinctive economic strategy, and that is why the publication of this White Paper on an industrial development strategy is of the utmost importance.

Other hon members have also referred to the White Paper and its importance. However, so many aspects are dealt with in it that I want to refer to only one aspect in the few minutes at my disposal, namely small businesses. On page 6 of the White Paper it is clearly stated that the promotion of small businesses is important precisely because it contributes towards the cultivation of entrepreneurship and the provision of employment. I do not think that anybody can disagree with the viewpoint that providing employment is probably one of the most important problems in South Africa. As far as the labour market is concerned South Africa is experiencing a problem which is a contradiction in terms in that we have a surplus as well as a shortage of labour. On the one hand we have a surplus of unskilled workers and on the other hand a shortage of professional and technically well-qualified people. The ratio between skilled and unskilled labour in South Africa is 1:42 while it is 1:6 in the USA and 1:15 in Japan. We will have to narrow this gap between skilled and unskilled labour in South Africa. One of the ways in which this can be done is surely to provide training. As we all know, training is a gradual process which does not produce skilled labour overnight. In my view another solution to this problem lies in the development of small business and at the same time therefore of in-service training.

I want to mention just a few examples to illustrate the power of small business. We all know that the recovery in the economy of West Germany after World War Two is regarded as an economic miracle, and that Japan today is a giant in the economic world. At the root of their growth lies the importance which they attach to small business. Industrial undertakings with fewer than 100 people in their employ constitute more than 90% of the industries in West Germany today, and more than 50% of school-leavers in West Germany, Austria and Switzerland become qualified as artisans whilst in the employ of small businesses. The number of people therefore who are able to receive in-service training and to qualify while in the employ of small business undertakings is significant. I do not think that there can be any doubt that our solution lies in the development of small business undertakings.

I think the hon member for Innesdal referred very effectively to the role of the informal sector. I want to associate myself with him by asking whether we do not make it too difficult in South Africa for people to change from the informal sector to the formal small business sector. Should we not be looking at the rules and regulations and legislation which play a part in restricting people’s entry into the formal small business sector? In order to be assisted by the Small Business Development Corporation, people in small business undertakings have to comply with a number of conditions and prove that they are already conducting a number of activities in their businesses. That is why I am advocating the implementation of a simpler system of legalized transition from the informal sector to the formal business sector.

One aspect which hampers this process is for example licensing. The ordinances of the various provinces contain different licensing provisions. I think for example that we now have the opportunity with this new regional development which is to take place, to empower a region to lay down its own conditions which suit that region and are applicable to it. One simple example is that of shopping hours. With regard to trading-hour regulations, Hillbrow is completely different to a rural town. In the same way we can mention a number of examples of how we can make it easier for people to run small businesses within a regional context. Unfortunately however, time does not allow me to do so.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Schoeman raised a number of very interesting points and I think his comments are well-worth noting. He mentioned the situation in Germany and Japan, and the miracle of the recovery of these nations after the war.

I think that that highlights the message I am trying to get across to the hon the Minister; and I am sure that he is actually aware of it, but it is not coming through in Government policy. That is that it is impossible for a poor company or a poor country to survive, to grow, to create job opportunities, if it does not in the face of clamouring demands, allocate its scarce resources so as to obtain the best and most effective yield. In a competitive situation, one will be beaten to the punch every time unless one can do that.

The whole thrust of the White Paper we have before us is that we have to become competitive. In that event we cannot simultaneously misallocate our resources. My fear about the whole decentralization scheme is that it is a misallocation of resources on a vast scale. When I hear the naive, childish remarks of the hon member for Turffontein, measuring what has been done by the amount of money that is spent, I am absolutely filled with horror and dread for the future of the economy. Every cent invested must be invested after an evaluation of the yield of alternative opportunities. The arbitrary investment of scarce capital resources, which is typified by the programme I have just been discussing, will cut us right out of the world league and deny us the third growth opportunity identified and analysed recently by Prof Jan Lombard. That is the development of consumer demand that will arise from a policy of planned urbanization. Let me emphasize that “informal” sector means just that. The best thing one can do for it is to move out of it, particularly in the urban context, and let it carry on as it does in the areas where it operates most effectively all around the world.

The concern I have about the decentralization scheme is perhaps typified by a factory like Disa. It is a big plant and there are about 3 000 people working there. For every 1 000 people a tax-free incentive of R1,2 million per annum is granted. That amounts to R3,6 million for 3 000 people. The investment in that plant is really minimal. I am not up to date on the details in respect of Disa. Maybe the position has changed in the last couple of months, but that was certainly the case until very recently. What commitment do those people have to stay in that place at the end of a seven-year period? They have built up a viability based on a tax-free hand-out of R3 million per year, plus a whole series of other incentives. I think I am right in saying that the company does not even own the fixed capital of the factory in which they work. At the end of the period are they going to pack up and go home? Are they going to come to the Minister and say to him: “Mr Minister, we are terribly sorry, but we cannot afford to stay there”? If it is necessary now to give them that kind of handout, how much more necessary is it not going to be in seven years’ time? The whole thing is built on an anomaly. If such a factory imports just one article, which it of course must do, the people concerned can put the profits of that place exactly where they like. One fly button per suit enables them to let the profits go to wherever they choose, for instance the place of origin of that fly button, which is probably a factory they own themselves. Alternatively, they can have the profits made where their factory is actually operating. One Chinaman with his abacus will be three leagues ahead of the whole Decentralization Board and its computer, because there is no way in which one will catch up with the owners.

There is a further item I quickly want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention, namely the export of second-hand plant from South Africa. With the depreciation of the rand there are lots of companies that are making their books look good by exporting expensive capital plant at rand prices which are very attractive. This shows profits in their books over the depreciated value of that plant. In actual fact, however, when the economy picks up, that plant is going to have to be repurchased at double the price they paid for it originally—bleeding away South Africa’s capital life-blood. I should like the hon the Minister’s reaction, because this is being done on a very large scale.

In conclusion, I must say that in my association with the hon the Minister I have found him helpful, frank and courteous. I also believe that he is a very hard-working Minister, and I respect him for that. My experience of managers is that, while there are many good managers who manage downwards, the best managers also manage upwards. I believe that the hon the Minister has enough prestige and enough knowledge of his job to start managing upwards and giving the Cabinet a correct knowledge of the implications of some of the economic policies which they are calling upon him to carry out.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Walmer will pardon me if I do not follow up his arguments because I should like this afternoon to touch on another topic, namely consumer protection.

I believe that consumer protection affects the very nature of the whole community. I believe that I am speaking on behalf of everyone in the Committee when I express my gratitude and appreciation to the Consumer Council for the services it renders to the consumers of South Africa. However, I want to ask immediately whether the Consumer Council should not be given greater powers and have a greater say in consumer affairs in South Africa.

I have said that consumer protection affects the very nature of the community. In theory there is adequate consumer protection, but in practice one has to ask whether the protective measures are being implemented satisfactorily. Cannot there be better co-ordinated action to protect South African consumers? The fact that consumers say that they are not being given adequate protection makes this a socio-political problem. The government is blamed for this, but in my opinion that is not fair. However, I do believe that the Government should take the initiative in protecting consumers. I say this in consequence of numerous newspaper reports that have appeared and research that has been done. The exploitation of consumers will most definitely increase in the months ahead. In this regard I want to quote from a report which appeared in Die Burger of 28 May 1985 under the heading “Kleinhandel se afset daal”:

This will be the breeding ground for shopkeepers to exploit consumers, and we must guard against this.

I should like to illustrate this tendency by means of practical examples in pursuance of a survey which I did myself. I want to refer in this regard to a report which appeared in Die Vaderland of 28 March 1985 under the heading “Melk gaan goedkoper wees by supermarkte”. I should like to quote from the relevant part of the report, as follows:

Then he says something which merits our attention:

I am grateful for what the supermarkets are going to do. I do not want to become involved in a controversy about cheese, butter and bread this afternoon, but let us take these products as a practical example. The supermarkets are prepared to meet the public halfway and we are grateful for that. These people are offering a solution and want to act as the Government’s partners in protecting the consumer.

What is happening at the moment? One finds numerous cafés and small shop-owners who have already increased the price of milk. We ourselves know that the consumer price of milk is not controlled although the producer price is controlled. The price of milk has already started rising at cafés, and yesterday morning it was confirmed to me by the Consumer Council that they had already received calls from consumers from all over the PWV area saying that milk prices had already gone up. This is blatant exploitation of the consumer who does not deserve it.

I believe in competition. I believe in a free economy. I do not believe in price fixing. I also do not believe that the consumers in South Africa should be blatantly exploited.

Let us take this further. The hon the Minister can have the price labels on items on supermarket shelves checked to determine how often they have been adjusted within the period of a month. Prices rise drastically at the end of the month when the public receives their pay. When the public receive their pay, prices rise immediately. I can mention many other examples but my time is limited.

It is very easy simply to criticize, but let us look at a few solutions. I believe that competition should be encouraged. We are in urgent need of our media for this purpose. I want to appeal to the television authorities and the Press to publicly expose these exploiters and to destroy them. Everyone should know about it. I also believe that it will assist the consumer to be more selective when buying. I ask that we support the Consumer Council in their onerous task.

With the Consumer Council in mind, I want to ask the hon the Minister, the Government and the private sector to work together to give the Consumer Council more teeth as well as a greater say in consumer affairs in South Africa.

The Consumer Council has one office in Pretoria. There is only one office in the Cape Peninsula and it is manned by three persons. There is no office in Bloemfontein. The opening of an office in Durban has been postponed once again.

It is not only our duty but also the duty of South Africa—and we as a Government must do our bit—to protect the consumer of South Africa. I ask the hon the Minister and the department to do their bit as well.

Mr Chairman, before replying to those hon members who have dealt with matters delegated to me, I should like to direct a brief word to the hon the Minister, since this is the first opportunity I have of taking part in the discussion of this Vote.

†I must say that it is a very great honour and privilege to work with this talented hon Minister. I share the comments of the hon member for Walmer who a few moments ago was very complimentary about the hon the Minister. I share his thoughts about the hon the Minister’s abilities; I have experience of them and it gives me great pleasure to work with the Minister as well as with the highly motivated professional team of men who are in the department. It is true that when one works late at night and looks up at the building when one leaves, one finds that many of the lights which are on are the lights of the senior managers, directors and assistant directors on the sixth floor. Not only do they work long and hard but they are also very talented. I want to thank them for the degree of co-operation which I have had from them since my appointment to this portfolio.

When one listens to the debate it is very heartening to notice not the degree of difference which exists among hon members on economic policy and on what the Government should be doing but the degree of consensus which exists. I think that we in South Africa are indeed very fortunate to have a debate of this kind and to find, when we listen to the remarks from all sides of the Committee and really analyse the speeches, that there is so much in common philosophically and ideologically as far as our economic life is concerned.

*I should like to begin by replying to the hon member for Overvaal, who has just resumed his seat, and by telling him that the efficiency of the Consumer Council is to be found in the extension not only of its powers but also of its activities. The council does a wonderful job with the limited financial resources at its disposal, and the hon member has confirmed that. It is true that because of the recent curbing by the State of all its activities everybody has had to contribute his share in order to remain within the limits of the appropriation objectives it has set itself. It is true too that the Durban office has not yet materialized. We do hope, however, that that office will come into being next year. The Bellville office is doing very, very good work.

I believe the solution to the problem of ongoing representation is to be found in the idea which has been put forward by the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council, viz that of honorary members of the Consumer Council.

†If we have honorary members of the Consumer Council in every town and hopefully ultimately in every village and community, people who volunteer their services, who are interested, have the skill, talent and social motivation, people who the Consumer, Council can educate and keep informed and keep abreast of developments, that kind of social vigilance across the widest possible front in our country is probably the most effective way of bringing about a consumer awareness across the whole wide community without the massive costs that would be attendant on such a scheme if the people were there on a paid basis. We have encouraged that action by the Consumer Council and I am happy to tell the hon member that the first recruits, if you like, people who have volunteered, have already been identified as honorary members of the Consumer Council, and are either in the process of training or are about to be trained at the offices in Pretoria and hopefully later on there might be ongoing video training in the regional centres.

I do not want to bore the House with figures, but I might just say that during 1984 5 039 written and 1 599 telephonic complaints were attended to whereas 4 388 inquiries were directed to the appropriate and correct authorities by the Consumer Council.

I do not want to look for arguments where none exist, but just for the sake of the record one has to respond to the opening remarks of the hon member for Walmer in regard to his 12 points as to what the Government should be doing. The fact is I do not think any of us would disagree terribly with any of the 12 points that he made. Concerning most of the things he mentioned, the Government is either addressing those matters or shares his sentiments about them.

About his argument that we will have to start with a political statement of intent I would like to say that in a sense the less government we have in our economic life the better. We are trying to take government out of economic life as far as is possible, appropriate and reasonable and not to put it in and politicize the economic life of our nation. So, to start with a political statement of intent I would have thought was the worst possible thing to do. As far as I can remember, the last man to do that in Africa—and most dramatically—was Mr Kwame Nkrumah who said: “Seek ye first the political kingdom and all else will follow”. Well all else did follow; the country went helter-skelter downhill and is now being run by a flight-lieutenant. That hon member has said that, if the PFP had been in power, we would not have been so far down the road, so backward and so far behind, but if the PFP had been in power, perhaps we would also have found ourselves in a situation where our country would have been in the hands of a flight-lieutenant. [Interjections.] I am afraid I do not agree that we should start with a political statement of intent. The fact of the matter is that we must view the development of our country in the light of the realities of our country, the realities of the kind of continent on which we live, and the turbulent history of our continent since the independence of Ghana in the mid-1950’s and all that flowed from that history. I think, considering the recent history of Africa, the fact that South Africa—against all tendencies and against all trends in Africa—has performed so well is a miracle in itself.

That is ridiculous!

It is absolutely true! The hon member will find that the closer any other African country is to South Africa, the better it goes with that particular country. That hon member attacked the hon member for Turffontein as if he was saying something silly when he spoke about South Africa as a core power and as a regional power. The hon member for Turffontein also spoke about our regional responsibility and he related that to decentralization and to our aid to lesser developed parts of the sub-continent—those parts within our country and those outside our sphere of influence. He pointed out that decentralization was a tool to uplift communities in rural areas and to provide new focuses—new urban focuses one can call them—for the future around which new urban centres can grow. For the hon member for Walmer then to come along and dismiss that as so much ideological twaddle shows merely that the hon member either does not understand or does not want to understand what the Government is busy with. The reality of the situation is that if we were to adopt a policy of laissez-faire, we would simply allow the rural communities to starve. Neither could we, on a laissez-faire basis, simply allow the big metropoles to grow very much bigger than what they are, considering the constraints already upon them as regards water and power supply, and other social and economic factors. We must create new focuses of development.

I do not agree that the amount of money we are spending is such a colossal amount. In practice it is not such a colossal amount of money. In fact, if that hon member were one of those in power and operated on the basis of a laissez-faire policy in terms of which he was simply allowing people to go where they wanted to go without positively encouraging the creation of employment for people in the areas in which they lived, he would have to start massive social welfare projects which would be far more expensive to society in the long term than our policies are. We are trying to create employment and new focuses of growth. The latter will ultimately became self-sustaining and gather their own impetus. They will give rise to formal sectors of their own in which 2, 3 jobs will be created for every job we create. Around these in turn informal sectors will develop which will again—and the hon the Minister explained this earlier—create massive employment opportunities.

However, there is truth—and the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member Mr Schoeman and the other hon members who participate in the debate all mentioned this—in the question of the imperative of privatization and deregulation. Basically, they are arguing that we must look towards reducing constraints on people wishing to enter into the economic life of our country. To that extent I want to say that we in the department share the views of the hon members. Their views are interesting and I can perhaps give them a few facts about what the Government has already done in this regard. The fact of the matter is that the President’s Council is looking at licensing as an obstruction, it is looking at the imperative of deregulation as a matter of priority, and we look forward to receiving its first report.

However, the Government has done a great many other things. An example of this is the Close Corporations Act which is, after all, an instrument whereby smaller companies can organize themselves less expensively than through the traditional company form. Already this year 2 300 close corporations have been formed in our country; and around 2 300 more companies have in fact converted to close corporations. Most of them are smaller companies that considered it inappropriate to be organized in the way they were and find it more convenient to be organized in the simpler form, namely in the form of a close corporation. Thus they converted. So that already has been a massive step in the direction of deregulation.

However, one need not only look at the direct commercial life of our country to find deregulation. For instance, when we were to look back over the past few years, we come across the abolition of rent control. That was a massive deregulatory step. It has a great impact, coming as it did with such measures as sectional title, block shares, time-sharing and the selling of 80% of the housing stock that was in Government hands. All these factors considered, the deregulation of home ownership was perhaps the most massive leap in deregulation that we have had in our country.

Then we have, for example, the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, 1983, which hs been altered. Premises are not regarded as a factory if prescribed activities are carried out by fewer than seven persons instead of three persons as formerly. This is another example of a deregulatory step.

Then we have the report of the Reynders Commission of the National Manpower Commission on matters which retard the promotion of small businesses and their entry into the economy. That report has been accepted by the Government and its recommendations are currently being implemented by the Council for the Promotion of Small Business and every department of the State is at present evaluating its activities in that regard.

Furthermore we have had the announcements on free trade areas and on industrial areas which have been opened to people of all races.

If we look at monetary policy; and the deregulation of administered prices right across the board, we find that there are very few administered prices left. The most recent to be lifted was that for tin plate. This happened quite recently. Every State department is looking at its activities at the moment to see of it can deregulate.

We have seen either the implementation or the consideration of the implementation of user charges for certain State services which cannot easily be hived off.

The whole matter has been given such priority that the hon the Minister of Finance himself mentioned the whole question of privatization and deregulation in his main Budget speech.

We have the activities of the Small Business Development Corporation. Although 42% of all businesses have a loan capital of under R500 000 and can therefore be called small businesses, there are also infant industries and the pioneer loans of R2 000 for people that are not bankable. Many factories are being established in certain areas in order to encourage people to set up shop more simply.

*The hon member for Innesdal has referred to a lady who does cake decorating and who works from her home. I agree with him that we really should not hamper such activities. We should make it easier for people—not more difficult—to become active in our economy.

I also agree with the hon member Mr Schoeman that local circumstances—I do not want to speak now of local option—can play a major role. The hon member has referred to the flexi-time the hon member for Hillbrow indicated he wanted. I do not want to become involved in the sphere of interest of the Transvaal Provincial Council but I do agree with the hon member as far as this matter is concerned.

I want to thank the hon member for Vasco for his friendly words directed to me; I appreciate them. I also want to tell the hon member that it is a pleasure to work with him in his capacity as chairman of the study group. I also want to compliment him on the way in which he leads the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs. It is always a pleasure to work together with the hon member.

A few other hon members have also made speeches. The hon member for Innesdal has made reference to deregulation, saying we should link the informal sector with the formal sector. There are a few figures I should supply to the hon member. Unfortunately, I do not have them here with me. I do think, however, we have already licensed 55 shebeens, thus bringing them into the formal sector, so to speak. Furthermore we have registered 100 liquor licences in the Black residential areas of our country. Normally we do encounter problems with the rezoning of residential land but we do investigate all problems and obstructions that still exist in the process of assisting these people to become part of our economy.

†There is one announcement which I would like to make and it concerns the Copyright Amendment Act, 1984. The hon member for Sandton has been in touch with me on this matter, and I have given him the necessary information and I will also give him a copy of this Press statement. It concerns the implementation of section 7 of this Act. The Government has for some time been concerned about the infringement and abuse of intellectual property rights in South Africa. An example of this is the reproduction of sound recordings by members of record libraries without the prior consent of or compensation for the copyright owners concerned. It is so that the record libraries are there; the public go along, borrow a record, buy a blank tape, reproduce it and are thereby really abusing the intellectual property rights of the particular artists involved.

In principle we are against such malpractices and are in favour of steps being taken against such practices. In addition to protecting the interests of the parties concerned—and in particular those of the artists—it is important for South Africa to honour its good name in regard to the protection of intellectual property rights in general. In order to implement the aforementioned policy the Copyright Amendment Act of 1984 was passed by Parliament last year. However, owing to last minute objections submitted on behalf of owners of record libraries, we held back the implementation of section 7. The parties failed to reach agreement and an ad hoc committee was then set up to advise my predecessor and later me. I received their advice in which the committee recommended that in the light, inter alia of the unexpired periods of certain contracts of lease, unrecovered investments and the fact that certain owners of record libraries would probably have to find some other means of livelihood, the owners of such libraries should be allowed a reasonable time to enable them to comply with the provisions of section 7 of the Copyright Amendment Act.

After a thorough consideration of the findings and on the recommendation of the ad hoc committee, I have decided to implement section 7 of the Copyright Amendment Act as from 1 April 1989. A proclamation to this effect will appear in the Government Gazette shortly. That will give the current record libraries the opportunity to reorganize themselves and to find other ways of making a living, a way in which to honour their leases, and so on.

I do not have much time left, so I should simply like to repeat that it is a pleasure to see so much unanimity in the House on economic matters in general. I think that holds out a great hope for our country. I want to say that as far as privatization, deregulation and promoting ease of entry into our economy are concerned, it is encouraging to see that this side of the Committee has the support of the other side of the Committee and also that so many hon members have made so many positive remarks in respect of the work that the department is doing in this field.

Mr Chairman, during the next few minutes I want to speak about import control. For many years it has been customary for the Government to protect the country’s industry. We find that we are now being faced with the problem where to an increasing extent we are allowing goods into the country especially from countries in the East such as Thailand, Taiwan and others. In my view this is not beneficial to some of our industries. We are concerned about industries in which we have invested money. I think in this regard for example of the clothing industry which is experiencing many problems at present. In Cape Town and its environs approximately 6 000 workers have been retrenched over the past one and a half years. Those people cannot find work. It boils down to the fact that there is a shortage of capital with which to buy goods. It is also reported—in this regard I cannot be certain that my facts are absolutely correct but this is the information we have received—that what is virtually ready-made clothing is being exported from Taiwan to places such as the Ciskei and others where it is given the finishing touches. These garments are then sold on our surrounding markets as well as abroad. I understand that over the years America has become rather loath to import goods from Taiwan. They now import from certain African regions of which—so I am given to understand—we also form part.

I understand the problems with which the Minister and the department have to cope, because one has to make use of tariffs and of free trade agreements with countries—I am referring to GATT. The fact is that certain tariffs have to be applied. Therefore I believe that we do have to provide some protection. The hon member for Walmer spoke today about machinery leaving the country. I also want to mention an example in this regard. In the clothing industry for example people brought in experts from abroad to design certain styles and patterns, to weave materials and to make the clothes, and then they discovered that the market for these goods had practically disappeared. Many of these people are then inclined to export their machinery and, as the hon member said, a large amount of capital is lost to the country as a result of such a firm’s efforts to balance its own books.

For a long time, for example, we imported brown rice and milled it here. I think that approximately R100 million was spent on machinery for the milling of rice, but now rice is imported from a country such as Thailand …

We import our rice from America.

Do we get it from America? I do not want to cross swords with the hon the Minister, but does he want to tell me that no rice is imported from Thailand?

The South African consumer prefers rice grown in America.

I do not want to disagree with the hon the Minister in that regard but tons of rice from Thailand are in fact sold on the South African market—I just want to tell him that. The point I want to make in this regard is that those Eastern governments agree to subsidize their industries for a certain period and then determine a provisional price in order to promote their products. In view of the fact that we have so much unemployment at present, we must please ensure that our industries do not come to a standstill. I know that the hon the Minister has a problem because some of our industries do not always pay the necessary attention to competitive prices. It is probably a deterrent when one can say to a man: “I can get a better price overseas”. We must however bear in mind that we have a serious problem with labour today, and also with something which I cannot but call dumping by Eastern and other countries.

In discussing provisional prices I want once again to say something about consumer protection. I have spoken about this before and the hon member for Losberg has also spoken about it. This chocolate which I have in my hand is priced by the scanning method.

Where are your tins?

Yes, I simply put the chaps who do not belong in politics into cans and sealed the tins. I do not have the tins here today. [Interjections.] We have here an example of scanning. Here we have a number and a price which were probably put on the wrapping six months ago.

†In other words, one prices the wrapping of a product. We are finally concerned here with chocolate, but the wrapping may even be wrong. [Interjections.] Yes, the same sort of thing applies to tins. Today the tins have the same predated markings on them. It is an impossible situation for the buyer in the shop who does not know the prices of articles until after he has paid for his groceries. The woman in a shop is completely at a disadvantage. The only thing I am asking of this hon Minister is that these big companies and these so-called do-gooders who sell bread at a cheaper price and increase the price of their other stock twenty-fold, and 5%, and 10%, without the public knowing, should be kept in check. The way these people are doing business by the process, of scanning, using different digits in their pricing system, is in many ways unfair to the public. The only thing I am asking for is that all these shops should have a price list. If they can do this six months ahead, let them compile a proper price list. The only thing I want is that a woman should be able to walk into a shop such as Checkers or Pick ‘n Pay, and pick up a price list …

Without the wrapping?

They must be able to take a price list and know what they are going to pay for each item they are buying. They should be able to compare the prices with those of other shops.

Why are these people afraid of making price lists available? I can tell you why—because they are continually changing the price list. One can chain scan within minutes by using the proper mechanism in that machine.

We are talking about the interests and the problems of the consumer. We say they do not know much about the prices. Imagine a mother walking through a supermarket with a child holding each hand and no money in her pocket, and who has to look after the family budget? That is why they use credit cards, because in the end the problem is that they do not even know whether they can pay for their groceries when they eventually reach the checkout point. The problem is that they do not even know how much they are going to have to pay. With this system they cannot verify what amount they have spent. It is easy to say that they can look at the price listed on the shelf, but it is still unfair and totally wrong.

I have been very kind to this hon Minister and his department today, and I ask them please to show the same feeling for the consumer of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately time does not permit me to respond to the hon member for Langlaagte’s speech.

†I should like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Walmer. Predictably the hon member for Walmer spent almost all his time criticizing the decentralization policy. My problem with the credibility of the hon member in this regard is that he does not really argue the positive aspects of the decentralization policy. He does not mention the thousands of new employment opportunities that have been created in a very bad economic climate. Neither does he mention that many industrialists who came to this country were drawn from overseas as a result of this policy. They brought know-how and entrepreneurship with them which are scarce resources in this country.

Neither does he argue the economic soundness of the alternative which includes, inter alia, the pumping of water across the Drakensberg to the PWV area at high costs.

Neither does he mention that labourers would basically be forced to move from their traditional residential areas. I think one should have a balanced view. There is not a simple solution to this problem. Simply scrapping the decentralization policy without replacing it with another policy will not take us anywhere.

I am going to praise the decentralization policy but I am also going to point out certain shortcomings I see in this policy.

*Having been followed for three years, it is clear the new decentralization policy is a great success. If one takes only one deconcentration point, namely Pietermaritzburg, as an example, according to the town council 190 ha of industrial land have been sold over the past three and a half years. A hundred and fifteen factories have been erected or are being erected at present; more than 9 000 employment opportunities have been created in industry. In any language this expansion is impressive. I should like to know where so much industrial growth has taken place outside South Africa in comparable circumstances. Decentralization benefits offered this community the opportunity for maximal development of its area by this means and its own initiative. On behalf of the people of this area I should like to thank the Government for the opportunity provided them.

If one examines the general objectives of the decentralization policy, it is very clear that it has been largely successful. A few of the general objectives are the creation of new employment opportunities, improved distribution of economic activities and the development of the national states. As regards the creation of new employment opportunities, the hon member for Turffontein has already quoted various figures, for example that employment opportunities are being created for 212 000 people against the 193 000 over a period of 21 years under the previous decentralization policy. One should also take into account that approximately half of the envisaged 212 000 employment opportunities have already been created and that 80% of them are new employment opportunities whereas only 20% are relocated employment opportunities. If one next takes the multiplier of 2,3 into consideration, 90 000 new employment opportunities have been created directly; indirectly 207 000 have been created which brings the total to 300 000. If one further considers an independence factor of 1:3, which is very conservative, sustenance has been supplied to at least 1,2 million people through these employment opportunities. If one also considers relocations, this means 1,4 million people—which is certainly impressive.

I have already referred to foreign undertakings attracted to South Africa. Over these three years applications have been granted to 159 of them which represents an investment of R312 million and the creation of 34 000 employment opportunities. Many undertakings would decidedly not have come to South Africa if it had not been for the decentralization policy. This entrepreneurship and knowledge is of great value to South Africa; it is simply something which cannot be converted into monetary terms.

Another aim of decentralization is the greater distribution of economic activities. Regions D, E and G were granted the highest priority. This policy has also been largely successful as regards this objective as 56% of the approved applications were in these areas.

A further goal of the decentralization policy is the development of the national states. Great success has been achieved in this respect too as 24% of applications were from the national states.

While I am absolutely loyal to the decentralization action and very proud of what has been achieved so far, there are a few problems which should receive attention. Firstly, the implementation or establishment rate is very low in certain areas. In region E the establishment rate in 1982-83 was only 36,3% and 33,3% in 1983-84. One should take into account that the number of approved applications was very high in this case but the establishment rate very low. This is a priority area and I wish to suggest that the reason for the extremely low establishment rate be investigated. I am inclined to suspect that in certain areas, for example Isithebe and possibly Ezakheni, there is an inadequate infrastructure which should be put right.

A further problem is the control of the use of benefits. The Decentralization Board depends on the auditing profession for this control but this profession does not receive sufficient information on modifications to the requirements. In this way passenger vehicles could initially be considered for interest subsidies. Although this no longer applies, neither the industrialist nor the auditor is aware of this and in consequence this is still claimed. Machinery should be created to control this application. This naturally confirms the great need which exists, namely that the Decentralization Board should consult industrialists and consultants on procedures on a continuous basis and especially that new procedures should not be followed without consulting these people.

The last matter I wish to raise is the need for an appellate body. I believe dissatisfied people should be given the opportunity of raising their objections before a public appellate body and that this body simply be able to make a recommendation to the Minister. It is true the Decentralization Board control very large sums of money and someone feeling he has been treated unfairly should be furnished the opportunity of putting his case in public without having to resort to litigation for a revision of the finding of the Decentralization Board—possibly at great cost to him.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I should like to discuss one of the activities and undertakings falling under the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry, namely the Industrial Development Corporation.

Over the recent past there have been quite a few queries whether a State institution like the IDC remains necessary especially in the light of the existence of a large number of other development corporations, for example development corporations in the independent Black states, the Small Business Development Corporation, etc. According to the Financial Mail listing of top companies published last week, gauged in assets, the IDC is the 32nd largest business undertaking in South Africa. At the moment its assets amount to R2,7 billion. The IDC has been providing service over a period of 45 years and last received finance from the Government in 1954. It then borrowed approximately R16 million. In general, State corporations do not pay tax but the IDC does and it is expected to pay approximately R70 million to the Treasury this year. I think the time has come for us to congratulate the directorate and personnel of this organization, which has done a great deal in South Africa in creating employment opportunities and especially in expanding the industrial sector in this country, on what they have accomplished so far. I want to attempt answering a question which has often been posed recently, namely whether the IDC should be privatized. This concept has been discussed at some length today but I think we should deal with it very cautiously, especially in the light of the particular objective of the IDC. Nevertheless it remains true that we shall have to privatize to a greater extent in South Africa in the long term. I do not believe it possible to privatize an institution which is bound to develop a specific sector of the economy. I do not think it has happened anywhere in the world that a specific corporation with the objective of carrying out certain development work has been privatized and that is why it is also unnecessary for us to think along these lines as regards the IDC. This does not mean that we should abandon it in other respects as well but that the IDC should proceed with the work entrusted to it.

While South Africa is not yet a fully industrialized country and this is still far off, as the industrial strategy announced by the hon the Minister earlier this month indicated there was a long road ahead in this respect, I think it would be beneficial for the IDC to pursue its work. In contrast with other bodies, the IDC is basically orientated to create development and here various investment bodies spring to mind which are solely interested in and intent upon investing money in existing undertakings in respect of which slight risk exists. It is very important to bear in mind that the IDC specializes particularly in the initial stages of an undertaking when great risks are attached to the development of such an enterprise.

As in the past, I wish to direct a request to the hon the Minister because I think it essential that we review this. I do not have all the information at my disposal and therefore have to proceed in a reasonably unscientific way especially in discussing the development trusts controlled by the IDC. There are two which are successfully operated by the IDC, namely Industrial Selections Ltd and National Selections Ltd.

I want to suggest that in future a greater part of the loans granted to undertakings should be converted into share capital. Such shares should then be held by the IDC and it should found a third trust for this purpose. I am directing this request to the hon the Minister especially in the light of what we hear has taken place over the past year, as reported in Finansies en Tegniek of 17 May, which is that seven companies now control 84,3% of the Stock Exchange. There is frequent mention of the shortage of scrip on the Exchange.

I should like to know whether the hon the Minister would request the IDC, which already holds a large number of unquoted shares, to consolidate those shares, found a further trust and go to the public with this to engender capital simultaneously for the IDC to apply in pursuing the objectives of the report on industrial strategy.

The opportunity is presenting itself. I think it is the appointed time, when the economy starts reviving, to investigate this matter in particular and to stimulate this activity of finding additional investment possibilities for the general public. If we establish such a trust, we shall eliminate most of the risks because the responsibility will be spread over a large number of companies and we shall have the opportunity of forming one trust within those companies and proceeding with it. I hope the hon the Minister will assist in enabling the IDC to do this. If it could launch two successfully, it can certainly launch a third.

I wish to close by saying I am grateful we now also have a financial journal in Afrikaans which appears weekly, namely Finansies en Tegniek. I think it fulfils a need felt over many years and that is to be able to read about the latest economic indicators and so on in our own Afrikaans language. As we recently celebrated the “Afrikaanse Taalfees” in Parliament, I think it fitting that the first issue of this publication should have appeared in the same month.

Mr Chairman, when I participated in this debate on a previous occasion I raised the issue of the assistance to businessmen who for various reasons had been forced to fold. It was indicated to me by the hon member for Amanzimtoti as well as the hon the Minister that the Small Business Development Corporation was involving itself in this type of case. The amount of R30 million was quoted as being the sort of money that was used.

Insofar as I can see, on last year’s estimates there was an amount of R12 million while on this year’s there is an amount of R10 million for the development of small business. I am aware that there was an additional R32 million. However, I have not heard of these amounts being used to assist businessmen who are in trouble as a consequence of the inclement business situation. I just do not know where one gets that information, how one can acquire it and how it can be made public to businessmen so that they can apply for it.

Even so it seems to me, according to the explanation here, that the amount of R35 million made available to the SBDC during 1984-85 is non-recurrent and therefore it is assumed that if any of this money was made available last year, it is not likely to be made available this year. If it is likely, then surely it should have been in the original Budget.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti also raised the issue that the business sector does require cleaning up. I am inclined to agree with him that there were certain businesses that were carrying too much fat; they were charging too much profit and, as a consequence, became non-competitive in hard times, and they deserved to get it where the chicken got the chopper. At the same time, however, a large number of these businesses are suffering through no fault of their own, and these are the ones I am referring to. In a number of instances one major business goes for a loop and takes half a dozen small businesses with him. Those are the type of businesses which I believe should be given some sort of assistance.

There has been considerable discussion on the question of decentralization. I do not want to become too deeply involved in this except to indicate that decentralization does have its place in the scheme of things and if anybody should say that decentralization is bad per se, I think he is perhaps not giving proper consideration to the subject. However, I believe it can be overdone and that in South Africa we have been too ambitious in our decentralization efforts.

You are right.

We have been far too ambitious. We think that we can undertake too many schemes in too many places. This costs a terrific amount of money and we just do not have the capital, the expertise, the technical abilities etc to take them through to fruition in reasonable time. So whilst I say that a certain degree of decentralization is good and I believe it to be so, I feel we should be far less ambitious in this particular field than we have been.

When one considers that in this budget—which is an austerity budget—this particular Vote has a 32% increase and that, in fact, all of the increase goes towards decentralization, I feel that this may not be the wisest of things to have done.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry is not here now, but he made a statement to the effect that rent control had been abolished. This, of course, is not true, and I feel that the hon the Deputy Minister should bring himself up to date. If it is so, nobody, certainly, has advised me, and maybe I can do something about jacking up the rents of certain flats that I own. I know, however, that rent control has not been abolished on a general basis, and I would suggest that the hon the Deputy Minister gets this point quite clear.

It has been removed on dwellings built after 1949.

You said that rent control had been abolished or deregulated.

On properties built after 1949.

You did not say “after 1949”, that is the point. You said that rent control had been deregulated. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue to be conducted. The hon member for Umbilo may continue with his speech.

With due respect, Mr Chairman, I was speaking; I was not conducting a dialogue.

I did not refer to the hon member specifically, but a dialogue was being conducted and I cannot allow that.

I thank you, Sir, for putting the hon the Deputy Minister in his place. [Interjections.]

As far as the other activities of the department in competitive trading are concerned, I should also like to say a word or two on the question of truly competitive trading. Other hon members have raised the issue of monopolistic practices and tendencies, of huge organizations taking over the whole of the business in this country, and I consider this an important matter. I realize that the appropriate board, the Competition Board, is supposed to go into these matters and ensure that things do not get out of hand. With due respect, however, I am afraid it has got out of hand and day by day it is progressively getting more out of hand. This is one of the prime reasons for the hugely escalating costs. These people get into a line of business and reduce prices until they have wiped out all the competition. Then, having wiped out all the competition, they start jacking up the prices to the extent that these become inflationary. This is one of the problems.

One of the classic examples of this—and I have mentioned this on several occasions in the past—has been the building industry. They have done this with the fabrication of three primary commodities, namely, bricks, cement and timber of one sort or another. This is one of the real reasons why building costs are so enormously high. We had the situation where the brick monopolists had millions upon millions upon millions of bricks in stock and, instead of reducing the price as would normally be the case in order to get things moving again, they jacked up the price because, they said, they had capital tied up in the bricks and they wanted interest on their money. I mean, this is a crazy way of doing business. Oh yes, it is good for them, but it is certainly a direct contradiction of all the basic principles of the free enterprise society.

If we are going to achieve anything in the direction of a free enterprise society, I believe we have to operate in such a way that everybody has an opportunity of getting a slice of the cake. I refer particularly to our Black citizens in South Africa who have to be made to see that the free enterprise system gives something to them—which it does not at the present moment, I might say!

Finally, I would like to touch upon the matter of the inspection group of the department. They have a very substantial inspection group in this department and I believe they do a first-class job. For instance, they have been able to pick up a number of cases in which packages have been underweight and also packages of which the contents were not up to standard, and so forth. I believe that in this respect they are doing an excellent job and I have no hesitation in commending them for this. I have only one criticism. When they catch these people who are processing packages that are underweight, they should, if there is any possibility that the packages have been deliberately prepared underweight, expose these people in the Government Gazette and in the newspapers; in fact, anywhere else as well. In my opinion the small fines in relation to the hope of getting away with this sort of thing do not mean a thing to the big business operators. They should be exposed so that the public at large and the consumers can be protected.

Mr Chairman, time is running out but I should like to use this opportunity to congratulate my neighbour, the hon member for Virginia, and to wish him every success in his career ahead.

Hear, hear!

I also wish to say I take pleasure in following the hon member for Umbilo but I shall continue on another subject.

Incidentally I also wish to mention that there has been considerable talk today of the informal sector and the excellence of that sector as regards the possibility of employment opportunities and so forth. I cannot fault this and I think it plays an important part in our economy. Nevertheless I want to issue this warning: Although this sector is important, we should realize in the process that there has to be order in the business world as well. Some of these undertakings pose health hazards. In addition there is the matter of the safety of workers as well as danger to the environment. The informal sector can therefore not simply be permitted to act and otherwise do as it likes. I do not think this advisable. I appreciate this and consider there could be relaxation but at the same time there should be order. Authorities dealing with these matters also deserve understanding of the problems which they experience in connection with health, safety and so on.

I also wish to speak about the hon the Minister and his department; they have an important function to fulfil in the business world of this country. I believe this will always be the case as a complete free-market system will remain just an ideal.

As manufacturing is an important component of economic life and holds the greatest potential for the creation of employment opportunities and prosperity, I wish to concentrate on that in the few moments at my disposal. I think I am justified in stating that industrial development receives the active attention of the Government. It deserves that attention as one of the sturdy pillars of the economy of this country. The White Paper which resulted from the report of the Kleu Work Group on a strategy for industrial development is proof of the purposeful way in which the authorities wish to promote secondary industrial development by the private sector. This White Paper, to which there have been numereous references today, contains important decisions on guidelines and objectives by which industrial development is to be promoted. I wish to refer to certain basic factors and methods which can turn this effort into a success story. All the recommendations and findings are important but there are certain specific recommendations which can have decided consequences.

The two basic points of departure of the White Paper are the improvement of productivity or promotion of performance and promotion of exports. One of the methods holding the greatest promise of promoting industrial development is the refinement and processing of the raw materials of our country. If these raw materials are processed abroad, and this is done, why can South Africa not do this as well? Why should they be exported for processing overseas? Without active and purposeful action, however, this will not become a reality.

We find a very good example of this development in the armaments industry. When real pressure was exerted on us and we had to come up with a plan ourselves to fulfil our needs ourselves, we accumulated the knowledge and obtained the people to develop that industry. I believe we can do this with other enterprises as well.

I further wish to refer to the picture of the reality of current exports. This is clearly indicated by the RSA merchandize exports which amounted to R25 190 million in 1984; mineral products formed 85% of this. This is convincing evidence that the export of processed products or refined raw materials is not as desired. These figures indicate that, aside from raw materials, our exports of manufactured articles are actually very small.

If the Scientific Advisory Council, which has to advise the Government on how technology may harnass science in practice, can achieve this successfully, it will be doing valuable pioneering work for South Africa.

Further measures mentioned in the White Paper are tariff protection and the regional development action already referred to. The Van der Horst Committee is investigating the matter of tariff protection and determining where moderate and selective tariff protection is actually necessary in certain cases. In any case, tariff protection is preferable to quantitative import control and the reasons are obvious.

In this connection I wish to refer briefly to the motor vehicle industry and the import control on this as well as to certain provisions applicable to the local content of our own industry. I know an inquiry is being conducted into this regard but I also think it obvious that the current basis of local content which is based on weight is probably not the best method.

I understand my time has expired and therefore wish to close by saying I think this White Paper and its consequences will hold benefits if the recommendations are applied in practice. I hope it will not merely stop at talk.

Mr Chairman, at the start of the debate the hon the Minister said he and his department administered 38 Acts, among them the Liquor Act. This is the measure in terms of which the sale and supply of alcoholic liquor are regulated. This is an Act regulating the handling of the products of an industry offering a livelihood to more than 300 000 people. Approximately 6 000 farmers and 74 co-operatives are involved only in that part of the industry handling the products of the vine. The contribution of the liquor industry to the Treasury in the form of excise duty amounts to about R892 million; general sales tax on liquor sales amounts to approximately R650 million per annum, which gives a total of approximately R1 542 million. This industry therefore covers the total budget of the Department of Trade and Industry with more than R500 million remaining for other matters. There is therefore no doubt of the importance of the industry.

The products of this industry have a twofold potential. If used moderately and correctly, they enhance the pleasure of life. [Interjections.] Excessive and incorrect use is destructive which is why I am not an apologist for the so-called free distribution of liquor. I believe the State has a responsibility toward the community to regulate and encourage distribution in such a way as to promote the positive potential of the use of liquor and to discourage the negative. [Interjections.] This implies that the legal distribution instrument, the Act, should receive regular attention in order to ensure that it remains maximally effective in the light of changing circumstances in the community it has to serve.

I think this is a suitable time for the consideration of certain modifications to the Liquor Act. Some of the amendments I have in mind are so obvious that they could be instituted without in-depth investigation and study. I shall mention only one example: A restaurant with a wine and beer licence is permitted to serve liquor to people not having a meal there. People can merely take a drink there. The restaurant is also permitted to continue serving wine and beer after people have had a meal. Nevertheless it is not permitted, for example, to serve Irish coffee to people who have actually had a meal there. I cannot think of a single good reason why this could not also be permitted. Numerous licence holders do it in any case—to my mind quite often without even being aware that they have committed an offence. It is a fact that many people prefer Irish coffee to dessert and I believe they should be entitled to receive it. In fact, I believe this should also apply as regards liqueurs. Amendments such as I have mentioned may be instituted without much investigation.

Other modifications I have in mind would require closer attention. The hon the Minister should also perhaps consider a joint committee of parliament with terms of reference to collect evidence and recommendations on more comprehensive amendments to the Liquor Act. My time is very limited and therefore I shall mention only a few aspects which may be investigated. There is the question whether we might not continue to achieve our goal even if we were less prescriptive. Is it not possible, for example, to include shebeens within the framework of the Act in a simple manner? Shebeens are a reality of our country but very few people know how many we have; on the contrary, I think no one knows. My inquiries in the liquor industry brought to light that the number could be anything from 20 000 to 100 000. One should bear in mind that the total number of legally licensed outlets for all types of liquor does not reach 7 500. I believe shebeens should be approached from a different angle to what has been the case up to the present.

For a long time I have also been pondering the question whether there is any good reason why beer may not be sold in grocery stores. I suggest we examine the position and come to a decision on it. The Act still contains elements of differentiation between population groups as well—as regards the granting of certain authorizations too. Let us see whether this is still necessary. Is it not possible for certain legal functions to devolve to local level? Is it not possible, for example, for local authorities to determine business hours in their area of jurisdiction within certain guidelines? I could cite many more such examples. It could be looked into, for instance, whether any significance remains in the two types of restaurant licences. In the interests of tourism attention should be paid to the licensing of guest houses which cannot or do not wish to be classified as hotels. I could continue in this way but I do not wish to anticipate the inquiry in the House.

I believe I have said sufficient in explaining the reasoning behind my ideas and I request the hon the minister to pay serious attention to the possibility of appointing such a joint committee.

Mr Chairman, one cannot live on liquor alone and I should like to spend the last five minutes saying something about the 5c increase in the bread price. [Interjections.]

I am well aware that it is a matter falling under Agriculture but it is also a consumer affair. In the second place, the increase in bread prices is often attributed to monopolistic conditions supposedly existing in the industry. I think it should be said in this House that it was an extremely responsible decision of the Government’s to increase the price of both white and brown bread by only five cents a loaf. The Government applied two standards. The first was that the price of consumer goods should not rise by more than 10%. The second norm was laid down by the hon the Minister of Finance and stated that the Budget, which made provision for a subsidy of R200 million, should not be exceeded. I think it was a very responsible decision of the Government’s to appoint a commission to go into the entire matter of the policy of subsidies most carefully. That is one side of the matter.

The other side of the case should also be stated here, namely that it is not the registration limit on the number of participants in the industry, especially as regards subsidized standard bread, which causes the price of that product to rise. It is a fact that 94% of the milling business in the wheat industry in South Africa is handled by five groups and that 84% of the baking business is also controlled by five groups of bakers. In addition there are 140 bakeries and 1 500 confectioners which are completely independent and—I should actually like to tell the hon the member for Innesdal this—thousands of housewives who, in consequence of the home industry situation in South Africa, are free to do as they like in their kitchens with the one exception that they are not permitted to bake subsidized standard bread. It is obvious why this is not permitted. This situation does not apply only to South Africa; in the USA, with a population of 236 million, 92% of the milling industry is controlled by ten milling groups and there is no wheat board or restrictive registration.

Exactly the same situation exists in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport Affairs, relative to the Railway Construction Bill [No 92—85 (GA)], as follows:

D M STREICHER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

30 May 1985.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport Affairs, relative to the Second Railway Construction Bill [No 93—85 (GA)], as follows:

D M STREICHER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

30 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, relative to the Animals Protection Second Amendment Bill [No 91—85 (GA)], as follows:

H M J VAN RENSBURG (Mossel Bay),

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

30 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, relative to the Judges’ Remuneration Amendment Bill [No 94—85 (GA)], as follows:

H M J VAN RENSBURG (Mossel Bay),

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

30 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, relative to the Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill [No 95—85 (GA)], as follows:

H M J VAN RENSBURG (Mossel Bay),

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

30 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, relative to the Attorneys Amendment Bill [No 96—85 (GA)], as follows:

H M J VAN RENSBURG (Mossel Bay),

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

30 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

Order! We have in our midst today, in the Speaker’s Bay, Ngonyama Goodwill Zwelithini Zulu, King of the Zulus, and also his good wife. I extend to them a hearty word of welcome here with us.

Hear, hear!

Order! I have to announce that on Thursday, 30 May, I received reports from the Standing Select Committees on Transport Affairs and Justice of the House of Delegates submitting the Second Railway Construction Bill [No 93—85 (GA)], the Judges’ Remuneration Amendment Bill [No 94—85 (GA)] and the Attorneys Amendment Bill [No 96—85 (GA)], respectively, which had been referred to them. The reports will be printed in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Delegates, and I have placed the Bills concerned on the Agenda for Second Reading today, and on the Order Paper of the House of Delegates.

laid upon the Table:

Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill [No 105—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Saint Andrew’s College, Grahams-town, (Private) Amendment Bill [No 106—85 (HA)]—(Mr E K Moorcroft).
2. (2) University of Stellenbosch (Private) Amendment Bill [No 107—85 (HA)]—(Mr P G Marais).
3. (3) Certificates by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the above-mentioned Bills deal with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bills, while retaining the form of private measures, to be proceeded with as public bills.

Bills referred to the Standing Select Committee on Private Members’ Bills.

Mr Chairman, I move:

That—

1. (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 41 (2A), the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill [No 97—85 (GA)] be placed on the Order Paper for Second Reading; and
2. (2) Order No 10 for today be discharged.

Mr Chairman, to start with I must say that I am rather astounded. The way that this motion has been moved by the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance is an insult to the Standing Committee on Finance, it is an insult to this House and it is an insult to Parliament. The fact that he can come with a motion like this, give notice and then stand up and move it without providing or attempting to provide any motivation whatsoever, clearly illustrates in what contempt the Government, hon Ministers and presumably the Chief Whip of Parliament hold this House and the system under which we operate.

This is in fact an extraordinary motion which has been moved in the name of the hon the Minister of Finance. It asks that a unanimous report of a standing committee of this Parliament be rejected formally, that Order No 10 for today be discharged and that the Second Reading of the Bill concerned be proceeded with. In those circumstances I can hardly believe that the hon the Deputy Minister handling this measure believes that no motivation whatsoever is required.

I will give a reply.

This is a strange new procedure we have now. The hon the Deputy Minister moves a motion which is not self-evident in terms of its motivation and then thinks it is enough to say that he will reply to the debate without having given any motivation for the Government’s case in the first place. [Interjections.]

Let us have a look at the facts of this matter. On Monday of last week, which was 27 May, without any prior warning to this side of the House whatsoever, we arrived at Parliament to find that one of the items on the agenda of the joint sitting as of last Monday was the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. During the course of that morning we proceeded to get the background documentation to this Bill. This comprised two sizable volumes—I am only referring to the English language—in addition to the Bill itself.

We also discovered, without any prior warning whatsoever, that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance had been scheduled for the following day, the Tuesday.

My party made representations to have the standing committee meeting postponed so that we would have time to arrange our affairs and also to study the necessary documentation. It was pointed out that in terms of the Rules of the House that was not possible because on a measure such as this the standing committee had to meet on two succeeding days.

We then requested that the Second Reading at the joint sitting be postponed till later to give us and other hon members of all the parties and all the Houses an opportunity to study this measure and to enable us to do our work properly.

To whom did you address this request?

We asked it via that Chief Whip and if we could not get hold of him, we would have asked one of his lieutenants.

That you wanted it delayed?

Yes, we asked that the Second Reading be delayed.

That is simply not true.

It is simply true. The hon Chief Whip of Parliament obviously does not know what is going on in Parliament and he also appears not to know what is going on in his own party. I suggest that he finds out. [Interjections.]

We were told that the hon the Minister particularly wanted it on that day and he was not prepared to have it shifted to another time. The standing committee met on the Tuesday. At that meeting which was attended by most of the hon members of all the parties of this House and of the other Houses, a resolution was unanimously adopted by all three standing select committees of the Standing Committee on Finance.

That was as reported on page 205 of the Minutes of Proceedings of this House, inter alia, as follows:

That is tomorrow and Wednesday. This report was presented by the hon member for Smithfield who is the chairman of the committee and was adopted unanimously.

Much to our surprise, on Thursday of last week the hon the Minister of Finance gave notice of the motion that we are discussing today, namely that that report be thrown out, that the Second Reading be proceeded with and that the Standing Committee on Finance be given no opportunity to study the Bill or make any report on it whatsoever.

Those are the facts of the matter but what is the background to it? Over the years it has been tradition that in regard to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill—one is introduced every year or almost every year—advance copies of and documentation on the draft Bill are supplied to Opposition spokesmen on finance in advance of the Bill being introduced. It is a recognized fact that this is complex and technical legislation and, if this House is to do justice to it, hon members need as much time as possible to study it. That did not happen this year and, when we made enquiries as to why it had not happened, we were told that it had not happened on the specific instructions of the hon the Minister of Finance. Because he refused to allow the documentation on the legislation to be sent out in advance, we were presented with these documents at the very last moment. Even now this draft legislation has not been circulated among all members. However, hon members who have a knowledge of this subject will know that it involves a vast number of details many of which are of a technical nature.

There is a further factor this year and that is that we have new members of Parliament in the other two Houses who are having to find their way in regard to procedure and documents such as this. More than any of us in this House, they need time to be able to come to terms with their approach in regard to legislation such as this.

Some of the hon members in the other two Houses mentioned the fact that they had not been present on the Monday, and so mid-morning on the Tuesday was the first time they saw the documents with the standing committee scheduled to meet at 14h30 on the Tuesday afternoon.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Sir, I am just telling that hon Minister about his contempt for this Parliament. [Interjections.] He needs to look at the results of the last election and then he will see that the pensioners can speak for themselves as well. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister was my public relations officer in the Gardens constituency in the same way as his benchmate is a public relations officer for the ANC these days.

The day that that standing committee meeting was called for, the Tuesday, we had the own affairs Budget in this House. The members on that standing committee belonging to the various parties were then specifically involved in a financial debate in this House. Because we ended up postponing our deliberations, most of us got back for the balance of that debate. Again, however, it simply shows what a shambles of organization the Chief Whip of Parliament tries to impose upon Parliament. Time was needed, hence the report of this standing committee.

Let us see what has happened in the other Houses of this Parliament in regard to this matter. Exactly the same report was presented to those two Houses as was presented to this House because it was a unanimous report. I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why a motion identical to the one we are discussing now was moved without notice in both the other Houses. Perhaps the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament would like to tell us.

He will not know! [Interjections.]

Why was a similar motion moved without notice in the other two Houses of Parliament? Why were the other two Houses not given notice in advance of that motion?

What motion?

The very same motion we are discussing here now.

Do not be stupid! They disposed of it.

Yes, but notice of the motion was not given in either of the other two Houses. It was moved in both the other Houses without prior notice being given.

But it was down following an agreement. [Interjections.]

Agreement? Well, I am delighted the hon the Chief Whip has said that, Mr Chairman. That is exactly what I wanted to hear him say. Who was consulted in this matter? Will he tell the House that, Mr Chairman? Who reached agreement on this?

They do not need to consult with you! [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a general discussion across the floor of the House. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens must continue with his speech.

Mr Chairman, I believe you will appreciate that it does cause a problem when the hon the Deputy Minister chooses to insult hon members of this house by failing to motivate the resolution in terms of which this motion was placed on the Order Paper. It appears as though we are expected to debate this issue without having any knowledge of the facts to which the hon the Deputy Minister resorts to substantiate this motion.

Order! The hon member may continue with his speech. I must point out, however, that some people might describe this as a fishing expedition.

A fishing expedition, Mr Chairman?

Yes. The hon member may continue.

Fishing in troubled waters! [Interjections.]

Well, let us have a look at what went on in the other two Houses in relation to this matter. In the House of Representatives—as we can see on page 174 of the Minutes of Proceedings—on Thursday, 30 May, the hon the Minister of Finance moved without notice a motion identical to the one being discussed by this House at the moment, the only difference being the in relation to the number of the Order of the Day. That motion was agreed to, apparently without debate.

In the House of Delegates—at 17h22 on Wednesday, 29 May, which coincides exactly with the time of the adjournment of that House on the day in question—the Leader of that House moved without notice the very same motion which we are discussing here now. That was evidently done within a minute or two of the time of the adjournment.

Scandalous! [Interjections.]

Acting under instructions, of course!

Mr Chairman, we know that this is a matter of a technical nature. If someone moves a motion such as the one under discussion now, in terms of some Rule—which in this case happens to be a Rule introduced in February of this year, a Rule which does not even appear in the printed text of the Standing Rules and Orders yet—it is clear that many people will assume that it is done because it is necessary for the smooth running of the proceedings of Parliament. That means that in most cases such a motion will be carried without any questions being asked.

I can tell hon members of this House, however, that the chairman of the Standing Select Committee on Finance in the House of Delegates was not consulted in connection with the moving of that motion, which was done without prior notice. [Interjections.] The motion was sprung on them. They did no realize the implications of the motion. Nor did they realize what the hon the Minister of Finance was attempting to achieve by moving that motion. The chairman of that standing select committee, for one, is not at all happy about the whole affair. [Interjections.]

We find ourselves in a new system, Mr Chairman. In some respects the system is already collapsing because of the incompetence of the Government. We are supposedly in a new era but the Government and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament are using the same old bull-dozer tricks so often employed in the past. I believe that that is a recipe for confrontation; not for consensus. The Standing Committee on Finance and various members of that committee have been requesting legislation they knew was coming for weeks and months. Now a ridiculous work-load is being heaped on the shoulders of the members of that commitee in the hope that it will be shovelled through as fast as possible.

This year, Mr Chairman, the Government can use every trick in the book. It can outmanoeuvre new hon members who are still unfamiliar with complicated procedures. As with their discredited political policies, however, their chickens will come home to roost—and sooner rather than later. [Interjections.]

I warn the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that they are playing with fire. For Parliament to function properly there needs to be fair play—at least as far as procedural matters are concerned. They may succeed in scoring some petty points in the short term by employing tactics of this nature but they are sowing seeds of mistrust within the ranks of Parliament itself. If they want Parliament to be a charade and to be held in contempt, they are setting about it in the right way. If they want just yes-men and puppets to participate, why do they not say so? Bulldozing is an effective method of flattening obstacles one does not like, but is not the way to encourage co-operation and consensus in a deeply divided society such as ours.

We oppose this motion not only because we believe that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill needs to be properly discussed by the Standing Committee on Finance, but also because this motion makes a mockery of the way in which this tricameral Parliament is supposed to work.

Mr Chairman, let me say at once that I think it a pity that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens should use the extravagant language he has used when dealing with a matter like this. This is fundamentally a procedural matter. In order to allow the business of this Parliament with its three Houses to proceed, it is necessary that discussions be held and co-operation sought between the parties in the various Houses. For that hon member to make the insulting remarks he has made this afternoon about our colleagues in the other Houses I find very distasteful. It is distasteful for him to give the impression that we pulled the wool over their eyes or that, if we tried to do so, we would succeed. I do not at all subscribe to what he said and I hope that he will apologize to our colleagues in the other Houses.

Apologize for what?

For saying that we pulled the wool over their eyes or, indeed, that, if we tried to do so, we would have succeeded. [Interjections.] Oh yes, he clearly said that.

I did not refer to pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

All right. But the hon member did say …

I spoke of smart tricks.

All right.

Sir, some of what the hon member said was partially true and some of what he said was not true at all. For a start, he said that the motion was moved without notice in the other Houses. Of course the motion was moved, but not without notice. The fact is that there was consultation with all of the parties concerned. If the Opposition in the House of Delegates was opposed to the motion, their simple remedy was to oppose it when it was moved, which they did not do.

They were not consulted.

Why did they not oppose the motion if they did not agree with it?

Because they did not understand the technicalities. [Interjections.]

Sir, that is the kind of insulting remark I am referring to.

Furthermore, that hon member blandly made the statement here that requests were put to his side of the House to delay the legislation. That is partially true. I shall explain to the hon member why I say it is partially true. At approximately 20 or 25 minutes past two on the afternoon of the Joint Sitting I was going to deliver the Second Reading speech on that particular Bill and literally two or three minutes before I rose to do so—the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works was on his feet and I was the next speaker—the hon member for Yeoville signalled to me to meet him outside. I joined him outside and asked him whether I could help him. With a face of thunder he said I must withdraw the Bill. As I had three Second Reading speeches to deliver that afternoon, I asked him which Bill he was referring to. He said he meant the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. I said to him: “Why on earth, Harry? Why should we not proceed with the Bill?” He replied that he had had no notice of it and then came with the arguments—I admit that—which the hon member has raised here. I want to ask the hon member for Cape Town Gardens whether he thinks it is reasonable literally minutes before the Minister or Deputy Minister in charge of a Bill delivers his Second Reading speech at a Joint Sitting to ask him not to proceed with a speech. It is simply not reasonable.

Your party was approached repeatedly during the morning.

Sir, I do not know who was approached. I was dealing with that legislation. It is common knowledge that, by convention, the Deputy Minister deals with that legislation. Yet, nobody at all approached me with the request that I delay that speech.

Me neither.

The Chief Whip of Parliament tells me that he did not receive any request either for the matter to be delayed.

I want to give the hon member the undertaking that, had I been approached that morning or the previous Friday, I would have supported such a suggestion. We do not think it is reasonable to expect standing committees of Parliament to deal with complicated legislation of a very technical nature within minutes after the details have been made known. There is a long-standing convention that these documents are given to hon members as long a time beforehand as is possible. That is a convention with which we should like to continue. I do not think it is good for either the Government or Parliament if one should not do that. Insofar as that happened, I am very sorry.

I want to tell the hon member that insofar as that is concerned I will in the case of matters with which I deal do everything within my power to see that it does not happen or as seldom as possible. At the same time I want to tell hon members that is not reasonable if just a few minutes before the Second Reading is due they suddenly request us to withdraw a Bill. Such a request is absolutely ridiculous. For a start the hon members of the other Houses come here for a joint sitting. Many of them make special arrangements to do so and they make a special study of the Bill, and when they arrive here they find that I have suddenly withdrawn the Bill. That is not reasonable.

I want to go further. The hon member said that on 27 May he had heard of the Bill for the first time. That may be the position, but I want to tell him that on 21 May the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill was certified. On 21 May—that was two weeks ago—on my instruction the relevant documents—in other words, the books as published, to which he referred, the explanatory memorandum and the explanatory notes—were delivered to the secretariat of the Standing Committee on Finance. The secretariate was given all this information with the request to distribute it. I do not know why the secretariat did not distribute the information.

What happened was that the Bill was not available yet. What happened traditionally in the past was that a roneoed version of the Bill was made available together with the explanatory memorandum and the detailed information. In this case, because there was a delay with the printer—I have the details as to why the delay occurred—the Bill was certified by the legal people on 21 May. It then went to the printer. The proofs were received on 23 May and the Bill was ready on 25 May for distribution.

I think it is wrong that the secretariat did not distribute what information they had available as soon as they received it. I am sure that if the hon member for Cape Town Gardens were to use his good offices with the vice-chairman and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance they would see to it that it would not happen again.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it was not the case in the past that these particular documents were circulated by the Department of Finance directly to members of Parliament and not via the secretariat? Perhaps this is where the problem arose.

Mr Chairman, it is true that in the past the ministry sent the documents directly to Opposition spokesmen who were dealing with such legislation. I want to point out that we now have a Standing Committee on Finance. It is a new ball-game. All the Opposition spokesmen who are interested in this kind of legislation are members of the standing committee. Our instructions were and are that all the members of the standing committee should have sight of the documents. If other members of Parliament would like to see the documents we ourselves could make them available or we could authorize the Standing Committee on Finance to make them available.

The fact that the documents did not become available is an unhappy situation and I am sorry about it. The hon members, on the other hand, must be reasonable. If they want us to withdraw legislation, they should not approach us two minutes before the Second Reading is due and complain that they have not had adequate consultation. They should not approach us if they have not even consulted the Chief Whip of Parliament who after all has the primary responsibility of regulating the flow of work through this House. As far as the hon member’s comment is concerned that we gave instructions that the documents should not be made available to members …

That is what we were told.

That is simply not true. The fact of the matter is that I personally instructed the Commissioner: Customs and Excise—who nods in approval I see—that we should make the documents available, via the secretariat, to all members. That is the situation. At no time did anybody give an instruction such as the one mentioned by the hon member. We understand that the job of government and of opposition is not an easy one and that one should get documents as far in advance as possible. It is not a requirement but a convention and a healthy convention that has come about in our parliament. As far as we are concerned, it is a convention which we will continue to adhere to. A set of circumstances arose in this case that made it difficult, if not impossible I am told those who have to manage the flow of work in this House, to adopt any other procedure than the one we are adopting today. Hon members in the other Houses have passed similar motions without any opposition in their Houses, and for that reason I support the motion before the House.

Mr Chairman, it is generally conceded that if we are to improve living standards in South Africa and to create jobs for our increasing population, we need a level of growth in our GDP of between 4,5% and 5%. Over the period 1972 to 1982, we had a growth rate of some 3,28%. While this is fairly respectable by international standards, it is of course far short of the growth rate we need in this country.

However, what is of course of more concern is the increase in our growth rate per capita. In South Africa over the same period it was only some 0,55%, which puts us at the bottom of the log as far as many of our trading partners are concerned and also as far as most other Western countries are concerned. This low growth rate per capita is obviously due to our large population increase. Unfortunately, the results of studies carried out elsewhere show us that it is only under the impact of improved socio-economic conditions that we can expect population growth rates to decline. So this again underlines the importance of an adequate growth rate in South Africa.

The growth rate in any country depends on how the resources of land, labour and capital are used. Any action that improves the productivity or the efficiency in the use of that resource is automatically going to have an impact on the growth rate in a country. The growth pattern in South Africa to date has been largely based on exploiting more and more of our natural resources, as is outlined in the White Paper. For example, during the post-war period some 75% of the increase in our GDP was due to an increase in resource utilization, and only some 25% of our increase in growth rate was due to improved productivity or efficiency in resource utilization. For comparative purposes I may mention that increased productivity in Germany, for example, accounted for some 67% of the growth rate in the post-war period.

What is even more disconcerting is that in South Africa in the manufacturing sector we fared even worse during the post-war period. During this period the increase in the gross value added because of productivity increases was only 5,8%, and increased factor inputs, in other words, increased use of our natural or other resources, were responsible for 94% of our growth in the manufacturing sector during the post-war period. It is clearly outlined in the White Paper and by other authorities that it is no longer possible or feasible for us to rely on increased use of inputs for growth. I think the hon the Minister will concede this.

It is also conceded that we are going to have to look in future to our manufacturing industry and also to increased productivity for growth. Unless we can do this we are going to lose our competitiveness on international markets; and without protection for our local manufacturers we are going to lose out on our local market as well.

The White Paper discusses various strategies for growth. I have very limited time at my disposal, so I cannot deal with export-led growth or with import substitution. However, I would like to look for a while at the expansion of domestic demand as an avenue for growth because I do not think enough emphas is is placed on this. I believe that in the short run it is in this area—the expansion of our domestic demand—that we have the greatest potential to expand our market. I think this opinion is shared by other people as well. Dr Brand shares this opinion, and I refer hon members also to the report of the Mercabank Study which was brought out very recently. I would like to discuss very briefly then the role that domestic demand or expansion of domestic demand can play in growth.

In order to expand domestic demand we need two things. The first is that the income of Blacks must be increased in real terms, because that is where we have to look for expanding domestic demand, and the only way in which we can do it is by increasing productivity. The second thing to do is to become more competitive in our domestic market in order to be able to handle competition from outside. Increase in domestic demand can therefore be a vehicle for growth. Improved productivity leads to improved income and increased expenditure. This is also recognized in the White Paper, although I do not think it is emphasized strongly enough.

Increasing domestic demand also has two other advantages. Firstly, a growth based on domestic consumer demand boosts consumer industries which have a very much higher multiplier effect in job creation than other industries. Secondly, it means expanding existing industries. This is far easier because we have the technology, the management and the knowhow. It is easier to expand an existing industry than it is to bring in high technology new industries.

Where do we start if we wish to increase labour productivity which is the key to the whole problem of expanding domestic demand? Productivity largely depends on a person’s aspirations and whether it is possible for him to achieve them. These aspirations are based on a whole range of factors, for example, whether advancement possibilities are available to such a person; whether he can improve his social and economic status, which is a very strong motivating factor towards increased productivity; freedom to choose his job, the place where he wants a job, and where he can sell his labour to his best advantage. The equality of treatment before the law is also important in order to increase productivity and motivation. Another factor is the ability to share in the benefits of the free enterprise system, which we all have. Obviously, the availability of training and training facilities is equally important. All these factors interweave to determine a person’s productivity.

I think that if hon members in this House are honest, they will recognize that it has not been possible for most of our work force to aspire to these goals under the legislation as it has been in the past. Expansion in domestic demand can also only come about in an urbanized situation where we have a well-trained urbanized work force who can aspire to many of the goals I have spoken about. In the urban situation there are more jobs in the formal and the informal sector. Formal and informal training facilities are also there, and the opportunity to share in the free economic system we aspire to is also there.

I know that the hon the Minister will say that many of these problems are recognized, but to date we have not had any urbanization policy; in fact, policies to date have been against urbanization, and I think we should start emphasizing more strongly that urbanization can be a very positive phenomenon which we should use and exploit for future growth in South Africa. Unfortunately, however, although I must concede that there have been changes, many of the old legislative measures are still present. We still have all the legislation concerning influx control affecting worker mobility, affecting their choice of a place to live and the movement of their families. As I have mentioned, we still do not have an urbanization policy. Therefore my plea to the hon the Minister today is the following: We have a vast potential in South Africa in our domestic market and even the markets to the north of us. We should use the expansion of this domestic market as a vehicle for promoting growth in our country, especially in the short run. To date many policies have worked against exploiting this potential that we have. There has been a lot of talk about it. I think the hon the Minister recognizes many of these problems, and my plea is that it is time we actually did something about it.

Mr Chairman, in thanking the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South for his interesting and useful contribution, I should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on completing the Comrades Marathon successfully on Friday. Coming from a fellow-runner, he will appreciate that this remark is sincere but not without envy.

*Because of the extremely limited time at my disposal it is unfortunately not possible to reply to all the positive contributions that members made to this debate. As a matter of fact, I have approximately 30 minutes to reply to 21 speeches. I think it was Langenhoven who once appeared before the students of Stellenbosch and dealt with seven subjects in a speech lasting seven minutes. Perhaps we need more of those Langenhoven type speeches, especially in politics.

Right at the outset of my reply I want to thank all members—and I mean all members—for their contributions to this debate, which was conducted on a high level. Members of all the various political parties really made constructive contributions. This does not mean that they were without criticism. In-depth and well-considered criticism is necessary for a sound and fruitful discussion.

Therefore I thank all members for their contributions. If it is not possible for me to react to hon members’ speeches in the short time at my disposal they should not think that great value is not attached to their respective contributions.

I should, however, also briefly like to thank the hon member for Vasco, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry, for his management of the committee this year and also for the support that he, as leader of the NP’s study group, has given to me and the department in this regard. Unfortunately the hon the Deputy Minister is busy in one of the other Houses, but I should also like to thank him for his valuable contributions to the department in the short time since he joined us.

I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the Director-General, Mr Du Plessis, and our top management very sincerely for their guidance. The department is big and we administer 38 Acts. Events or complications often occur with great rapidity, and decisions have to be taken under pressure. Good administration, organization and teamwork are then of great importance. These are the qualities which our Director-General and the top management possess. I thank them for their support in this connection.

†I should also like to thank the hon member for Walmer for his kind and complimentary remarks to the department and myself. I believe we have a good working relationship. The hon member is a friendly and courteous person and he is well versed in economic affairs. He is capable of making useful and valuable contributions to any debate on trade and industry. However, my problem with the hon member is that he too often gives way to the temptation to play politics with economic issues. [Interjections.] Let me just remind the House that at the beginning of this year during the no-confidence debate as well as in a subsequent private member’s motion, the hon member severely criticized the Government for its policies regarding Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage. He criticized us for the lack of concessions or inadequate concessions and spoke about the neglect of the region. Subsequently the hon member requested an interview with my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and myself and, accompanied by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, he further pursued those matters. Now, a few months later, it is amazing that in this whole debate not a single word was spoken about the problems of Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage. Of course, the by-election is history now. [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon member rejected the policy of decentralization—at least that is the impression I gained. He went out of his way to reject almost out of hand the policy of decentralization. Now, I detect an obvious shift in his approach to the subject. Originally, a few years ago, when we started applying the policy of decentralization, the hon member at least accepted the need for a policy of regional development.

I still do.

The hon member for Walmer says he still does. Well, that is very interesting. From what the hon member said it did not appear as if he was still positive about decentralization in any way. [Interjections.] He called it an ideologically inspired policy which distorts the market, creates growth through subsidies, and he said that it would cause long-term damage to industry. [Interjections.] However, if the hon member is in favour of decentralization and belives in the policy of decentralization, why is he not more explicit on the matter? Why does he not formulate the policy of the PFP in this respect? They support concessions for certain growth points, for example in Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage.

You know my policy.

Hon members of the PFP favour concessions for certain areas. I can say this because the hon member for Walmer requested us to increase the concessions for Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage. [Interjections.] I have a Press statement here in which the hon member asked the Government whether we would agree to a rebate to reduce the cost of railing goods into Port Elizabeth. The hon member is thus favouring some kind of decentralization.

The point is that the hon member is capable of making a contribution to the debate on decentralization but then he must avoid using vague slogans. He must then get away from the rhetoric and discuss the specific realities within the policy. I am sure the hon member can make a far more valuable contribution if he is prepared to discuss with us possible ways in which the policy of regional development and decentralization can be improved instead of rejecting it outright and leaving the impression that the whole policy is evil.

I have very little time but for the sake of the record I regard it as necessary to correct the hon member on a specific issue. There has not been an increase of 250% in the budgeted amount for 1985-86 over the expenditure of the previous year. [Interjections.] Sir, one must at least compare apples with apples. The hon member must take the amount provided for in the additional estimates into consideration. [Interjections.]

The hon member made a few positive remarks about the White Paper, and I appreciate that. He called it a good and useful document but said that he had expected something more challenging. Sir, the White Paper is not a blueprint providing all the answers on the specifics of economics. Its purpose is to provide guidelines for facing the challenges of this decade and the ones beyond it. Those who seek more explicit replies in the White Paper are actually asking for more Government intervention. Prof Paul McCracken of Princeton University wrote the following about industrial policy:

I am sure the hon member for Walmer will agree that we need less and not more direct Government intervention in the economy. Insofar as the Government has a role to play in achieving the objectives which have been spelt out in paragraph 2.9 of the White Paper, we will not shirk our responsibility.

The hon member for Umbilo apparently did not hear the hon the Minister of Finance’s announcement in his Budget about the bridging finance of R30 million which would be made available to small businesses through the Small Business Development Corporation. Subsequent to the announcement by the hon the Minister of Finance I issued a Press statement which was reported on extensively by the media. The announcement caused such wide reaction that the Small Business Development Corporation received 7 205 inquiries within the first eight weeks after the announcement. Subsequently there was a total of 1 496 applications for assistance totalling well over R66 million.

*In his contribution the hon member for Langlaagte also referred to the Government’s policy on industrial protection. I should like to point out to the hon member that we in fact availed ourselves of this opportunity to deal in great detail in the White Paper with the Government’s standpoint on import replacement and protection. I think the hon member is aware of the fact that most of the issues he mentioned here are dealt with in paragraphs 5.9 to 5.30 of the White Paper.

The hon member also spoke about the selling price that has to be indicated on merchandise. I have here the Gazette of 16 March 1977, and unless I misunderstood the hon member, I just want to point out that the retail prices of all items should be very clearly marked. If the hon member wanted to put another point of view he can discuss it with me later.

Several speakers touched on important subjects. As the time is very limited and I cannot reply to each speaker individually, there are two subjects in particular to which I want to come back briefly. The first is the concentration of the economic power in the South African economy; this is a subject to which many speakers referred. Secondly I briefly want to talk about privatization and deregularization.

Before I come to that, I should like to make an announcement about the TV production industry. The announcement will be issued, but I would like to put it to the Committee.

With the introduction of a television service in South Africa in 1976 and the establishment of a television manufacturing industry the Government laid down certain protective measures for the industry as well as a set of ground rules with which the designated manufacturers had to comply.

Since the manufacturers have now been in operation for several years, the Board of Trade and Industries instituted an investigation into the television manufacturing industry. An announcement in this connection was published in the Gazette during May 1984. The board’s report has now been received and its findings and recommendations have been studied.

The findings of the board are not very encouraging. It was found that less progress had been made with the local production of components, than had initially been envisaged. The net contribution of the television manufacturing industry to the economy was also disappointing, while the effective level of tariff protection was very high. Consequently the board recommended a new dispensation for the industry aimed at encouraging local content and promoting keener competition in the industry.

The Government has accepted the board’s recommendations in broad outline, but after consultation with the local manufacturers and as a result of their representations it was decided to have further discussions with them on the requirements which will apply after the termination of the present ground rules and to negotiate with the SABS on the standards that must apply. The industry also requested that the abolition of the restriction on entry be phased in. Control over the number of manufacturers will therefore be retained until the end of 1986. Until that date only a limited number of new manufacturers will be allowed. The department has from time to time received applications for entry to the market from potential new manufacturers, and these are being considered.

The limited number of new manufacturers that can now be allowed in terms of my agreement with the existing manufacturers means that further possible manufacturers—that is over and above those who will now be allowed—will have to wait until 1 January 1987, from which date restrictions on the number of manufacturers will no longer apply.

†The hon member for Constantia made a very interesting speech regarding economic concentration in the South African economy. I agree with many of the points that he made on Thursday. The SA economy is highly concentrated and the fact that this tendency is on the increase is causing great concern. However, the economy is a very fragile and delicate body and any irresponsible action can cause irreparable harm to the economy and can destroy the confidence which is such a vital prerequisite for any healthy economic environment.

The Government executes its policies concerning competition and concentration—that is market structuring—through the Competition Board. The Competition Board functions in terms of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act. I should like to remind hon members that a mere five years ago, when that legislation was debated here in this House, the PFP cautioned that the Competition Board should act with the greatest circumspection as far as take-overs and mergers were concerned. The then official spokesman of the PFP was Dr Zac de Beer, former MP for Parktown. I should like to quote here just one paragraph from the speech delivered by Dr De Beer on that occasion.

*On Wednesday, 2 May 1979 Dr Z J de Beer said here in the House, and I quote (Hansard, Vol 80, Col 5445):

Thus far the words of Dr Z J de Beer, the then chief spokesman of the PFP.

†Also in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act we find that the recommendations made by that commission really served as the basis for the current Act. In its report the commission also indicated that the concentration of economic power as such should not be condemned out of hand. I quote now from paragraph 211 of the said report, as follows:

That does not mean, Mr Chairman, that the Competition Board is ineffective in respect of market structure. On the contrary, many undesirable take-overs and mergers have been prevented because of opposition expressed by the board in prior consultations. Unfortunately these instances cannot be made public because it will destroy that trust and the confidence in the board which is of vital importance for the effective functioning of the board.

The hon member also referred to the question of prior notification. The board has the power to demand prior notification, and has indeed done so in many instances. The fact is that compulsory notification will serve no purpose, and the board does not have the staff to deal with such a situation.

The hon member for Constantia also complained about the lack of section 10(l)(c) prohibitions. The fact is that the notice I gave on Thursday in terms of section 10(l)(c) will have a major effect once it has been gazetted. In terms of the notice as it now stands, the timber marketing agreement, for example, will be prohibited. In terms of the notice as it now stands the central marketing organization for cement will be prohibited. The effect of these 10(l)(c) measures on an organization such as Bifsa, or even on the tyre trade for that matter, as well as on many other fields of industry and trade will be quite far-reaching. Therefore—and that brings me to another point raised by the hon member—it is necessary to provide for exemptions. It is in the first instance necessary to provide for an adjustment period in which the immediate prohibition could have a detrimental effect on the economy of the country. Secondly provision should be made for exemptions in order to exclude marketing agreements which cater for the small businessman.

In this respect I think of an organization like Spar which caters for the small, individual trader. The point I should like to emphasize is that the board does take action. The board is not ineffective. However, where its effectiveness might still be impeded by insufficient legislation, I will come back to the House with the necessary legislation. If I come back to the House next year with legislation aimed at strengthening the powers of the Competition Board, can I rely on the support of the hon member for Constantia?

In principle, yes.

“In principle, yes”: That is a very cautious response. Having listened to the hon member, I would not have thought he was cautious when he said how he thought we should deal with the concentration of power. I hope I can therefore rely on the support of the hon member and his party next year.

There are also many factors outside of the control of the Competition Board, or of competition policy, for that matter, factors which could have a major effect on economic concentration. Taxation policy, to take one example, can have an important bearing on concentration. It can either encourage further power concentration or it can discourage economic concentration. It was therefore clearly stated in the terms of reference of the Margo Commission that tax policy should be designed to promote competition. It is there in the brief. The hon member will realize that.

I wish to make one final remark on this subject. Reference is often made to the antitrust legislation in the USA. The hon member also referred to it. The fact is—and this is often not considered—that competition policy in the USA has been drastically changed since 1982. The new Administration had numerous problems with the Robinson Patman Act and now well-known or notorious section 7 of the Clayton Act. In the Competition Board’s Report No 4, an Investigation into Discrimination in respect of Prices and Conditions of Sale, it deals extensively with these matters and with US legislation and I should like to recommend to hon members interested in the subject that they should read that report of the Competition Board.

*Several hon members also expressed ideas concerning privatization here and I want to make a few brief remarks in this connection. Privatization is one of those words which has now become fashionable. It is often used, often very superficially. Therefore I want to thank hon members who participated in the debate for the incisive way in which they dealt with the subject.

Firstly I want to say that deregulation, that is the abolition of excessive limitations, especially with regard to entry to an industry, is inextricably linked to the idea of giving the private sector a greater share and greater scope in the economy. Hence I agree with the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member Mr Schoeman and also the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, who touched on this subject that the economy is over-regulated. There are too many conditions, regulations, limitations, provisions and administrative red tape that stand in the way of the business man, in the informal and semi-informal sectors in particular, but also in the formal sector. Let us also honestly admit to one another that many of these limitations are not located in the sphere of the central authority. That is why the President’s Council was directed to undertake an in-depth investigation into this matter.

I hear that legislation exists in the United States of America which cuts diametrically across all existing legislation to accommodate the small businessman in that country. It is possible that the President’s Council will also have to think along those lines of measures in order to make progress in South Africa as far as this matter is concerned. I trust that the President’s Council, through its recommendations, will force a gap for enterprise and initiative in South Africa.

Secondly, economic concentration has already reached an alarming level in South Africa. We dealt with that during the course of the debate, and several speakers also stated their views on this topic. The authorities will therefore have to give very thorough consideration to the way in which privatization must take place so that it will not encourage further concentration in the South African economy. For this reason privatization in South Africa cannot simply be compared with privatization in the United Kingdom or the USA. The market conditions here are completely different.

Thirdly, the interests of many State employees and those of semi-State institutions are involved. Thorough consideration will have to be given to the position and interests of these people. Any rash actions and of course any ill-considered emotional debate about this matter creates uncertainty and fears on the part of management and the work force. This can, of course, have disruptive results.

Fourthly, the private sector is interested in profitable investments, and rightly so. Of course the private sector is interested in taking over those assets of the State which will yield good returns. The transition of a State monopoly into what is nothing but a private sector monopoly therefore gives rise to various problems which must be considered with the utmost care.

With these few remarks I do not wish to say that the Government is dragging its feet; far from it. This is a complicated matter which requires well-considered actions. The matter is receiving attention, and when necessary, the Government will announce further decisions in this regard.

The hon member for Stellenbosch argued that it was time to review the Liquor Act. The arguments the hon the member raised were very valid, and I want to support him in that. I think, however, that the best way of rectifying this matter would be to do so in two phases. As a result of an directive I have already issued much progress has been made with draft statutory amendments for introduction next year with a view to removing all unnecessary discriminatory measures which might still exist in the Liquor Act as well as dealing with other urgent matters.

It seems to me as if a more thorough review will take longer. I am also of the opinion that the best institution to take this initiative further is in fact the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry. The department will therefore prepare the necessary legislation to enable the committee to give further attention to this matter. Then the committee itself can decide on the method according to which it wants to accomplish its task.

Unfortunately my time has now run out. In conclusion I should again like to thank all hon members who participated for the very high level on which the debate took place and for the many stimulating, well-considered and constructive contributions. I regret the fact that my time was so limited that I could not react effectively to all the many good suggestions and contributions.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill, as dealt with and amended by the standing committee, amends the respective Acts on the universities, technikons and schools for Blacks, but with emphasis on university affairs.

As far as universities are concerned, this Bill amends the relevant university Acts, in view of the application of greater autonomy conferred upon the universities falling under the Committee of University Rectors and the streamlining associated therewith, to make provision inter alia for the following: Empowering the council of a university to decide of its own accord, without the approval of the Minister, on the conditions of service, powers, privileges, duties and functions of the rector and vice-rector (clauses 1,2 9, 10, 17, 18, 28 and 29); the concluding of agreements between universities and other institutions of higher education (clauses 7, 15 and 34); a right of appeal to the Minister for persons discharged from permanent posts at university and technikons (clauses 4, 12, 22 and 30); and the concession that students without university or matriculation exemption may register for a study course or subject for non-degree purposes at a university (clauses 5,13,23 and 32).

†Furthermore the Bill provides for the cancellation of the registration of a student by the council of a university or technikon if it considers such action to be in the interests of the university or technikon (clauses 13, 23 and 32).

The Bill also provides for the admission as a student of a person other than a Black person on such conditions as the Minister may determine from time to time after consultation with the council of a university (clauses 14,24 and 33).

The Bill seeks to repeal the provision in terms of which a university may organize any portion of the university as an institute (clauses 16, 26 and 35).

The Bill also provides for the changing of the composition of the council and convocation of the Medical University of Southern Africa. With the composition of the previous council on the founding of Medunsa in 1976, it was deemed necessary to broaden the representation for the establishment of the university. The university is now settled and it is deemed expedient to streamline the composition of the council. This is dealt with in clauses 19 and 20.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of additional faculties at Medunsa by the council with the prior approval of the Minister.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of a nursing school at the Ga-Rankuwa Hospital.

Furthermore provision is made for the addition of a citizenship qualification in the Vista University Act, 1981, as a requirement with which a person who wishes to be transferred from a post at another university institution to a post at Vista University shall comply.

There is also a redefinition of the duty resting on a technikon to transmit to the Minister once every year a balance sheet and a full statement of the technikon’s income and expenditure together with a report of the council’s activities in respect of the preceding year.

The Bill is also aimed at amending the Education and Training Act, 1979 (Act 90 of 1979) so as to assign certain duties and powers to school committees or governing councils of public schools. At the moment such bodies only possess advisory powers, and the new development in education requires that they also be entrusted with certain executive functions.

To summarize, the Bill now before Parliament promotes the interests of education at all levels, and in the case of university education, which is the main content of the Bill, the degree of autonomy already enjoyed by the universities falling under the Committee of University Rectors will be enhanced by these amendments.

*In conclusion I want to thank all the members of the standing committee for the contributions they made during the discussion and improvement of the Bill during the sessions of the committee.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill was discussed at some length during the discussions in the standing committee and the main issues received fairly detailed consideration. We were also privileged to have the hon the Minister present at the second meeting of the standing committee, and I believe his presence and contribution assisted in clearing up a number of matters which caused some problems. We were grateful for his presence there. I also want to express our appreciation to the chairman of the committe, the hon member for Ermelo, for the patience he showed throughout the discussions on the Bill.

Having said that and although we are going to support the Second Reading of the Bill, I must say we still do so with mixed feelings in regard to some of its provisions. The Bill, in general terms, deals with a number of administrative matters relating to specified universities and other educational institutions charged with higher education for Blacks. In that respect it extends the powers of the councils and those in authority at those institutions. It also purports to extend university autonomy and the hon the Minister referred to this objective in his Second Reading speech more than once. There are two aspects that still cause us concern. One is to be found in clauses 5, 13, 23 and 32 which entitle the council of a university or a technikon to cancel the registration of a student if it considers such action to be in the interests of the university or technikon concerned.

The Bill in its original form when it went to the standing committee contained a clause 2(b) which provided that such cancellation could take place without there being any obligation on the part of a council to give reasons for the cancellation. That provision was, with the consent of the hon the Minister, deleted after debate by the committee. It improves the position because it keeps open the right of a student whose registration is cancelled to, if necessary, go to court for a declaratory order in order to protect his rights. In that sense it is an improvement, but we still find it unfortunate that in legislation dealing with a university this sort of power is given to a council in order to cancel the registration of a student.

The arguments advanced during the discussion in the standing committee in support of this clause were twofold. The first argument was that where a student or students were acting against the interests of proper control of a university institution the council in the past had found itself with no authority to rectify that situation other than having to take the extreme step of closing down the university or institution concerned. The second argument was that, after all, the people who are members of councils of universities are so prestigious that they can be relied upon to exercise their judgment in a matter of this kind in a responsible manner. We in these benches are still uneasy about this provision. We think it could lead to abuse. However, we hope it will not lead to abuse, that the situation will be watched very carefully in the interests of maintaining order at a university and that students should not see themselves as being able to be subject to victimization by a council without due cause in respect of any action taken by a council.

The other aspect which causes us disappointment if not concern, is that which in the main also deals with the extension of university autonomy and is to be found in clause 6 and the related clauses which I believe are 14, 24 and 33. Those deal with the provision that people other than Blacks can be admitted to these specified institutions subject to conditions laid down by the Minister instead of the existing situation where such admission has to be with the permission of the Minister. Clearly the amendment contained in this Bill is an improvement on the old situation which, as I have said, required the Minister to go through the laborious process of issuing permits or permission to individual students other than Blacks to attend these institutions. That is now to disappear and we are assured by the hon the Minister that when there is talk—as is mentioned in this Bill—of conditions laid down by the Minister, these conditions will be general conditions laid down as broad guidelines for the institutions concerned. So we see that as an improvement.

However, we are disappointed that the hon the Minister did not go further and give the university absolute autonomy to decree whom they may admit to their institutions and whom not. We believe that if the councils of a university can be charged with the responsibility to which I have referred, viz that of withdrawing the registration of students registered at that university, then surely the council can be relied upon to exercise the same sound judgment in deciding whom to admit to the university and whom not. So we see the present Bill as a step forward in this regard but we feel it falls short of what we would regard as desirable in the interests of university autonomy.

The other clause with which we still have some problems is clause 31 which makes provision for people who have lost their jobs at universities in self-governing territories and independent states which were formerly part of South Africa to demand, in terms of this new Bill, reappointment from the Minister in another institution of higher learning in South Africa. That seems to be fair enough and we have no argument with it but it relates only to people who are South Africans or who are not citizens of those self-governing territories; in other words it does not make any provision for South African citizens who lost their citizenship as a result of the independence of those territories which were formerly part of the Republic. We think that is unfortunate and wrong and we believe it can place that category of people, former South African citizens who lost their citizenship as a result of independence, in an invidious position.

However, as I have said, despite these reservations we believe that on balance the general effects of this Bill will be an improvement on the existing situation and we shall therefore support the Second Reading.

Mr Chairman, we are grateful for the support given to this Bill by the Official Opposition. I shall return to the objections they still have against regulations in the Bill and give further replies to them in the course of my argument.

The Bill amends the University of Zululand Act, the University of the North Act, the Medical University of Southern Africa Act (Medunsa), the Vista University Act, the Technikons (Education and Training) Act and the Education and Training Act. The Bill expresses the endeavour to grant greater autonomy to all these tertiary educational institutions for Blacks, such as for example in the first place that the councils of service, powers, privileges, duties and functions of the rectors and vice-rectors without the approval of the hon the Minister of Cooperation, Development and Education.

In the second place it is meant to enable the councils to cancel a student’s registration if the council considers this to be in the interests of the university. Here I want to reply at the same time to the objection raised by the Official Opposition through the hon member for Berea. We must keep in mind that in the light of the current conditions, where a small group or a few radical students can disrupt university life totally and deprive hundreds or thousands of students who would like to study of the opportunity to do so, it is absolutely imperative that the council be given the power to terminate the registration of the disturbers of the peace immediately for the sake of peace and quiet.

Previously the council could refuse to enrol a student. Once the student had been enrolled, however, it was a drawn-out and disrupting process to get rid of the radical trouble-maker. The university council had to close the university first and then give students the opportunity to enrol once again. Only then could they refuse to enrol the scapegoat.

Another important amendment of the existing Acts bears reference to the admittance of students other than Blacks to universities of technikons. This Bill makes provision for the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education, after consultation with the council of a particular university or technikon, to determine certain conditions upon which students other than Blacks may be admitted. A degree of restriction has therefore been placed upon the admittance of students other than Blacks by the council of the university concerned. This stipulation in the Bill should not be seen as a restriction of the autonomy of a university or technikon, but rather as a positive effort to protect Black students against unfair crowding out by people of colour who may be lured to the university or technikon by the lower study fees at Black universities, which are possible as a result of greater State subsidies for the very purpose of giving the poorer Black students the opportunity to get a university training.

In connection with the celebrated sacred cow, viz the autonomy of universities, the hon member for Berea spoke about “the absolute autonomy of universities”. There is no such thing as the absolute autonomy of universities. Even so-called independent universities are becoming increasingly dependent upon State funds as a result of constantly expanding activities. As a result of this a State’s right to interfere in the affairs of a university will have to increase. This is a world-wide phenomenon. It is interesting in this connection to note what happened in America. In September 1978 Dalling H Oaks, president of Brigham Young University, said the following amongst other things in a speech before American heads of universities:

He goes on to say:

This as far as the autonomy of even independent universities in a country like America is concerned.

That is why we should not be surprised that the State, especially in respect of certain universities, should have the right and be able to exercise it in applying certain restrictive measures. What is very important, however, is that provision is made in this amending Bill for that restriction upon admittance to Black, Coloured and Indian universities to be applied only when certain conditions set by the Minister have been complied with after consultation with the university council.

After very thorough and penetrating discussion, the standing committee has made certain amendments, and therefore it is with great confidence that I recommend the passing of the Amendment Bill, as tabled at present, by this House.

Mr Chairman, the CP does not see its way clear to supporting this amending Bill, although there are many positive things which we welcome.

As far as the speech of the hon member for Kimberley North is concerned, I merely want to point out that it is striking that a very great change in emphasis has taken place in the arguments of members on the Government side. The point at issue is that the hon member’s motivation for the fact that there is still a degree of restriction upon the admittance of students who are not Black, is different from the standpoint of the Government through the years, viz that it is educationally sound and good to have institutions for each population group which bear the stamp of that population group.

We therefore say we do not support this amending Bill, but we do welcome the positive aspects of the amending Bill, for example the greater autonomy granted to universities. We welcome the fact inter alia that the councils of the universities can decide themselves upon the conditions of service, powers, privileges, duties and functions of the rector and vice-rector. We regard this as a good development. In the second place we welcome the fact that the council of the university can conclude agreements with other universities, as well as the concession that students who have not attained a university or matriculation exemption certificate, can enrole for a course of study or a subject for non-degree purposes. We regard all these as examples of grater autonomy, which can be welcomed.

In addition provision is being made for other praiseworthy measures, viz the establishment of a nursing school at the Ga-Rankuwa Hospital. These are fine developments which are an example of the progress being made on this level.

We object in particular, however, to clauses 6, 14, 24 and 33, which deal with the admittance of students who are not Black to the universities concerned. In the past the Minister decided on the admittance of such students. Now provision is being made for the council to take the decision according to a directive of the Minister which is determined after consultation with the council. The members of the standing committee argued about the question of “after consultation with the council”, and I do not believe it makes a great difference to the whole situation. What is important, however, is that the council now has to decide according to the directives laid down by the Minister, about the admittance of students other than Blacks. The important fact is that the council cannot decide that no other student may be admitted to such a university.

What it comes down to is that provision can no longer be made in future for exclusively Black universities. That is why we cannot support this Bill. That right which a council or a people should have—a Black people too—to establish a university exclusively for its people, may not be forfeited. The CP believes that only the best education should be available to every population group in South Africa, including the Blacks. We believe that this can take place only if educational institutions bear the stamp of certain population groups. This also applies to the tertiary level. A university must bear the stamp of the population group it serves. If the right of a university which serves only the members of a certain population group, is forfeited …

Mr Chairman, what about the lecturers and professors at the so-called Black universities?

That is true, but we regard it as a transitional phase. In the meantime the people are coming forward and are being trained. It is also true that there are certain universities today which were not established for a specific people. It was impossible in the beginning to establish a university for each Black people. The development should take place in that direction, however. It is also true that the states which have become independent, and did not have an own university, viz Bophuthatswana, Venda and Transkei, have instituted their own national universities. This was one of the very first things they did. We feel this is the direction in which things should develop, and in which things should be guided. They should not be guided in the opposite direction, and these universities must not be opened to everyone.

The CP sees this development in the general political spirit the Government is consolidating and establishing in South Africa, viz that facilities be opened and made available to everyone so that a process of integration can be promoted and enforced in South Africa. We see this as part of the process the Government is engaged in, and therefore we cannot support it. We say one will not get really good education according to the pattern being laid down by the Government at present.

I want to read a report that appeared in The Citizen of 20 May 1985.1 quote:

In addition the following appears from the particulars made available there:

In addition this very important statement was made at the conference:

We know that integration in the sphere of education was enforced upon the people in the USA. We also know the integrationists of the USA say today that if one wants to enforce integration upon population groups, one must begin at the top, at the universities, and work downwards. I am afraid the Government of the RSA is following that formula, of starting at the top, at the universities, to enforce integration there, and then to work downwards to the secondary and the primary levels of education.

Despite the integration enforced in the USA, the people who are now holding conferences to improve the position of the Coloured people say those people’s conditions are critical. Integrated education has not improved conditions for those people, and re-segregation between the two population groups to the original state of affairs is now being effected. That is why we in the CP say we do not want to allow the process the Government is engaging in at present, to take place. We do not agree with the idea that integration should be enforced first, only to realize later that one has to segregate again to have a sound community and also sound education for everyone in this country.

Mr Chairman, much of what has been said during this debate has been heard many times before. In reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg I should merely like to say that his objections to this Bill really just reflect the old classical argument about apartheid in tertiary education versus a more relaxed and more acceptable form of education at tertiary level for all people in the country. If desegregation—or rather resegregation—in the USA is in fact again taking place as a natural consequence and without legislation being taken up in the Statute Books, then so be it. If that is the choice of those groups, and it happens on a natural basis, then that is not going to come under the same sort of attack as statutory discrimination. For that reason we on these benches will be supporting this legislation.

I think the hon the Minister’s presence at the standing committee meetings was most valuable. I for one would love to be a fly on the wall when the debates at the various university councils take place on the occasions when, according to clause 6 of the Bill, the hon the Minister will consult with the various councils as to the conditions under which they may admit students other than Blacks. I believe it will be extremely interesting to hear what those councils have to say during such a discussion because they are very balanced in their representation. I should love to hear what their thoughts and feelings are concerning this type of admission. When one realizes that even inverse apartheid or affirmative action have become swearwords in the USA, and that the actual subsidies by this Government in terms of per capita contribution per year by the State and in terms of lower boarding fees and registration fees at these universities, are vastly greater compared with other universities, then I believe the country and in fact the world at large should know the kind of effort this Government has made in respect of improving the opportunities for education as far as the Blacks are concerned in order to make it possible for them to compete in the open, free market. I am quite certain that when those councils sit in consultation with the hon the Minister to decide upon the standards for admission, the question of the State’s contribution and there being any misuse by any other group will to a very great extent be a deciding factor.

Without much more ado, we in these benches will support this legislation. We believe it is a vast step forward in terms of autonomy—a careful one but certainly a very interesting one. Before one takes the next step of total autonomy, it will be very interesting to hear from the hon the Minister exactly what the content of the debates was in the process of deciding upon the conditions for admission.

Mr Chairman, I wish to express my heartiest thanks to hon members supporting this legislation on behalf of their parties. In this respect I am thinking of the hon members for Kimberley North, Berea and King William’s Town. The hon member for Lichtenburg indicated that his party would not be supporting the legislation although its members welcomed specific positive aspects of it. They are not supporting the legislation particularly because they object to the clause in the legislation providing for the admission of students other than Blacks to these universities by the councils themselves.

I should like to state it anew, as contained in this legislation as well, that the point of departure of the Government remains that education, including that at tertiary level, should be directed fundamentally at service to a specific population group. The Government is convinced, however, that a greater degree of flexibility and openness should be permitted at tertiary level. Experience has shown that this can occur in South Africa without having to jeopardize the particular character of such a university and without detriment to the service furnished by that university to a specific population group.

In consequence the Government welcomes the type of development taking place in America, as referred to by the hon member for Lichtenburg, which obviously proves that murder will out and that efforts to carry out forced integration in education simply lead to a setback and reaction. It proves that the community itself insists on having education in a differentiated form according to different groups. Nevertheless no rigid demarcation without any exception takes place in this process at tertiary level in America either.

I should like to state it very clearly that the Government firmly rejects any allegation that the greater flexibility it advocates in the admission of members of other population groups at the level of tertiary education will be enforced at school education level. As regards the level of school education, this side of the House has never left it in any doubt that it is and will remain its standpoint that school education should be dealt with separately for the different population groups by their own education departments.

The hon member for Lichtenburg apparently does not object to the university councils granting the concessions now instead of the Minister but his objection is evidently that there is no longer an exclusive, restrictive composition of the student community of those universities. When the hon member himself administered this matter, however, and when his hon leader before him administered it, he had already sacrificed the principle that these universities would serve only one population group exclusively or even one ethnic group within the population group. They had therefore already, within limits, accepted the possibility of a relaxation as regards the throwing open of those universities. The principle is not being modified now because those hon members were already assisting in implementing it at the time. The only change is that it is now being proposed here that the administrative procedure by which the principle is applied be amended. It is proposed that decisions be taken by the council instead of by the Minister.

Previously the arrangement was for the Minister to issue an individual permit to each student of a different population group. In practice this arrangement did not prove to work well at universities where it applied. Administratively it became impracticable and too complicated. Consequently the council involved is the best body to decide which students are acceptable to the university.

In order to ensure the retention of the community-orientated character of that university and that there be no abuse of specific financial concessions which, for example, as mentioned by the hon member for King William’s Town, are made on behalf of the students of a specific population group by the influx of people from other population groups, it is necessary for the Minister to be empowered, after consultation with the council, to lay down specific directions within which the council will decide on the admission of such students.

In illustration of his standpoint, the hon member for Lichtenburg referred to the case of the national states which established their own universities immediately after their assumption of independence—he referred to them as their own ethnic universities—namely Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana. Not one of those states, however, has exclusive universities intended solely for its citizens or for the predominant population group in each separate state. They also admit people of other population groups and citizens of other countries as students at their universities as is the international custom of the academia throughout the world. Nowhere on earth are universities which isolate themselves and admit only members of a specific population group or the citizens of a specific state as students. It is generally accepted that there should be a degree of mobility—a type of academic circulatory system—at university level, especially where advanced studies are involved.

Furthermore I appreciated the argument put forward by the hon member for Kimberley North to the hon member for Lichtenburg especially when he pointed out that, if an absolute restriction were required in order to permit the members of only one population group with a view to maintaining the character of a university, it certainly came down to a much greater anomaly to admit lecturers from another population group than to admit students from such a group because everyone knows that, in proportion to their numbers, lecturers exert a far greater influence in the teaching situation—on the character of the university as well—as a number of students would be able to exert. Whereas the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon leader of his party—in the time when they were still responsible for this—never raised a conscientious objection to the admission of lecturers from other population groups to those universities and also never regarded the admission of such lecturers as a threat to the character of the universities involved, it appears to me to be totally illogical suddenly to argue as the hon members of the CP are doing at present.

In addition, Sir, I should like to refer to the three provisos the hon member for Berea raised in his otherwise positive and supportive speech.

†The hon member for Berea referred firstly to the clauses providing for the councils of universities and technikons to terminate the registration of a student should they consider it to be in the interests of the institution concerned. I should like to point out—as indeed I pointed out on the standing committee—that this provision for a university or technikon council to terminate the registration of a student whom it has allowed to enroll, is far less serious and less far-reaching than the powers conferred on the universities falling under the jurisdiction of the Committee of University Principals by virtue of section 11 of the Universities Act. Section 11 of that Act empowers all the universities—with the exception of those universities established for Blacks—to refuse admittance to a student who applies for admission should it be considered to be in the interests of the university concerned to do so.

All those universities who are claiming to be upholders of academic and university freedom and autonomy—for instance the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Cape Town, the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape—were in agreement and even requested the legislature to introduce this particular provision in order to enable them, not to terminate the registration of a student who had been given an opportunity of enrolling, but to refuse a student an opportunity of studying by refusing him admission to that university, which is of course far more drastic a measure. Moreover, I am not asking for that measure to be introduced here. I have merely asked this House, at the request of the universities concerned, for a much more limited right, namely to encourage universities to admit students so that they can study there but also to grant them the authority to refuse a student continued attendance at the university should it be deemed to be in the interests of the university in question to terminate such registration.

Furthermore I should like to point out that it is important that the whole university community of South Africa accepts, that universities should have the power to refuse admission to any student should it be considered in the interests of particular universities to do so. Nobody objects to that. Remarkably, however, the objection is now to a much less drastic provision, namely the provision enabling universities to terminate the registration of a student already—admitted should it be considered to be in the interests of the university concerned.

I should also like to point out that this provision introduced in terms of clauses 5, 13, 23 and 32, is not introduced at the initiative of this department or of the Government but as a result of a direct request on the part of all the universities concerned. What is more, some members of the standing committee apparently doubted the seriousness with which the universities had made this request. The universities were all invited to submit comments on this Bill, and all the universities concerned, without exception, confirmed that they needed this amendment to their laws in order to enable them to terminate the registration of a student when they considered it in the interests of the university concerned. This is therefore a measure that has been introduced on the initiative of the universities, and this desire of the universities was confirmed after the standing committee circulated the Bill for comment.

*It is necessary to emphasize that the universities which requested this measure did so after a few years’ experience of serious disruption on their campuses. They requested it because they had experienced that normal disciplinary procedures according to which they acted in the case of students’ irregular behaviour were inadequate in specific cases to bring guilty students to book. It appeared that even when a student had transgressed openly and then been summoned before the disciplinary committee in cases of violence, destruction of property and intimidation, the intimidation factor or the secret threat factor was such that no students would come forward to testify duly against the student concerned. In consequence of the violence and intimidation the universities ultimately came to a standstill.

What does it mean when a university comes to a standstill? It does not merely mean a holiday for a number of students or personnel. It means that a large state investment, an investment approved by this Parliament, is under-appropriated or unappropriated to a great extent. Huge amounts are involved here, amounts we approved in this House and in Parliament earlier this year for the universities. In total they amounted to R133,8 million. The amount paid per student to these universities in the form of state subsidies to enable them to function ranges from R4 000 to R6 000 a year. A large amount therefore goes to waste if a specific student cannot study properly that year.

Nevertheless it is not only money of the State or the taxpayer which goes to waste but also invaluable time for study and a segment of the particular student’s life. When he loses a year and cannot sit his examinations or when the disruption is such that he cannot attempt his examinations successfully, it means that student has to return and study longer so that the period when he is capable of contributing positively to his profession and earning a decent income is also postponed further. This therefore has an appreciably adverse effect on the student’s opportunities for progress in life.

It also affects the parents, especially those of Black students, who often have to find funds at great personal sacrifice from a relatively less favourable economic or financial position to enable their children to study. The money saved with such difficulty which they forfeit for their children’s study is squandered and goes to waste through this type of interruption which occurs at universities through disorder, undermining of authority and violence.

It is therefore in the public interest, in the interest of students and their parents that this type of interruption of the good order of a university be stopped and, after thorough consideration and after quite a few years’ experience, university councils tell us this could take place only if they were also to obtain the power granted them in the Bill. That is why we believe it responsible of this House to grant universities these powers. I agree with the hon member for Berea that we may accept that the councils will act in a responsible way and that we should hold a watching brief to ascertain that this actually takes place and should ensure that these exceptionally far-reaching powers—because they are far-reaching—are not abused. I am actually convinced they will not be abused.

I also wish to say here that, in granting these powers to councils, the Government will also expect the councils to put those powers to serious use when necessary and not merely condone disorder and riots at their universities because they ostensibly can do nothing about them, but, in fact, use the instruments they have requested in a responsible way in ensuring as the council that the university will continue furnishing its service to the community.

The hon member for Berea also objected to the clauses enabling the Minister, after consultation with the university, to lay down specific conditions under which the university is to deal with the admission of students other than Blacks. I should like to point out that the admission of such students to universities primarily intended for Black communities is a matter of interest not only to those students and that university but also to the State.

While the State and the Government have the greatest respect for academic autonomy, the self-governing right of university councils, they also have to insist that the interest of the State be duly considered in this respect. The State is interested in the admission of students other than Blacks in that it has to guard against abuse of the special financial concession made to these universities in the light of the fact that their students come from communities which are relatively less strong financially and economically compared with other communities.

Consequently a certain degree of protection has to be built in to ensure that this special concession is used in the first place in the interest of the Black students for which it is primarily intended. In the second place, one will have to guard against other students drawn from more privileged communities descending on those universities and actually exploiting preferential financial arrangements of the State, whereas they are not really intended for them.

I wish to point out that, while all universities have been placed on the same subsidy formula from this year, it remains a fact that in the case of Black universities the own contribution to the funding of the university according to the formula will ultimately be only two thirds of the contribution demanded of other universities. At present it is even less than two thirds and in the case of operating expenses over the next six years, and eleven years in the case of capital expenditure, it will be phased in until the own contribution of the university, which it has to find from academic fees for example, is equal to two thirds of that paid in the case of other universities.

In consequence it is clear that, whereas the same financial formula applies to all universities, that formula differentiates between the own contribution of the universities for Black communities and that of other universities to the extent that students at Black universities receive a much higher State subsidy per caput as I have just indicated.

This also results in tuition and boarding fees at universities for Black communities being considerably lower than those of other universities precisely because they receive this more favourable subsidy in accordance with the formula. In the case of tuition fees, they are only between 60% and 66% of those at other universities whereas in the case of boarding fees they are approximately 54% of those at other universities.

That is why it is essential for the State, which provides this exceptional financial concession, also to carry out the responsibility of ensuring that, in the admission of students other than Blacks, the university council will take note that places and opportunities for study meant for Black students are protected and that in selection they also receive preference with a view to the development of Black people at the level of tertiary education.

I therefore think it is clear from this point of view that the State cannot merely leave the admission of students other than Blacks exclusively in the hands of the council but that it also has to reserve the power to the Minister of laying down specific conditions in this regard. I am sure this will be possible by means of consultation and mutual understanding between the Minister and university councils as in the case too between the Minister of National Education and the universities for which he was responsible at the time.

I also wish to refer to the hon member for Berea’s objection that the protection referred to in clause 31 for the members of the personnel of universities falling under the authority of an independent state was limited to non-citizens of that state. An appeal was made that it should also be available to citizens of the independent state concerned. It is the standpoint of the Government and in particular also of my colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that it would be improper of the RSA to intervene by means of its legislation as it were in the relations of an independent state and its citizens in order to protect the citizens of that state against their own state. Consequently it is only correct international etiquette and goodwill for the protection accorded members of personnel in the establishment of the university of an independent state to be limited to people who are not citizens of that state.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the hon member for Kimberley North’s remark when he said with justification that there was no such thing as absolute autonomy as regards universities. He pointed out that throughout the world certain restrictions were placed by the state and through other circumstances on even the most private and independent of universities. I should like to underline this point clearly. I do this while fully reaffirming my respect for the concept of academic or university autonomy. I believe it is in the interest of a sound academia for a university to govern itself autonomously by means of its authoritative body, the council, with the minimum of outside interference. It is a fact, however, that especially since the early seventies the concept of greater accountability of the university to the community and various institutions outside the university has found general acceptance universally. Until the late sixties universities throughout the world were inclined to do what they saw fit in a spirit of self-sufficiency and in a type of “ivory tower” community without giving much account of this to the outside world. Worldwide student insurrection, resistance and protest movements which occurred in the academia during the late sixties gave rise to its being accepted that universities had an accountability, a duty to justify themselves to various institutions outside the university. This duty is not only to the state but frequently also to alumni and to a great extent to the students as well.

Universities cannot merely govern themselves today without taking note of the wishes and requirements of the students. There should be properly structured communication between university authorities and representative student bodies. The university should also acknowledge the donors on whom it depends so heavily for financial aid and who hold out certain expectations of the university from the private sector. The university also has to consider the general climate prevailing in the community. In this way one may contend that over the past five years a most critical climate has arisen in the broad community of America and Europe in particular as regards the financing of universities. The general public began asking what universities were doing with the money made available to them, whether their products were truly relevant to the demands of society and other similar questions. The hon member for Kimberley North is therefore perfectly correct in questioning the term “absolute autonomy” used here. I concede this to him and think that universities today should consider the broad diversity of outside interests to which they owe justification and accountability for their actions. If they exercise their autonomy in that spirit, I think a good balance is struck between internal autonomy for a university on the one hand and accountability and justification to institutions outside the university on the other.

I believe the additions and improvements to this Bill were introduced in that spirit. They increase the autonomy of universities and grant them greater powers of decision internally but they also acknowledge they have a responsibility to institutions outside the university—inter alia also towards the State, their students and the community in general. I hope the House will accept this Bill in that spirit.

Mr Chairman, before the House adjourned last Wednesday night, I explained to the House how the NP in general and the Acting Minister in particular had turned their backs on the medical profession in South Africa in favour of the associated health service professions.

That is not true.

An hon member says it is not true. I merely want to repeat, however, that on the day upon which this Bill was tabled, the NP arranged for these professions to give evidence before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. [Interjections.]

Secondly this standing committee of Parliament tried to prevent the Medical Association as well as the Medical Council, through the NP, from giving written evidence. [Interjections.] Although they permitted it, they tried to prevent a written memorandum from being submitted. This is true. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, when we voted as to whether the Medical Council or the Medical Association could give evidence orally, the NP voted against it. Let us hear whether or not this is still true. [Interjections.] It is clear from this that the NP turned their backs on these bodies. When I spoke of this Bill, the present hon Acting Minister made an interjection which can be compared with his remark that R20 per month is enough for pensioners to live on or that the health services in Houghton are just as good as those in Onverwacht. He said this Bill has nothing to do with the Medical Association and the Medical Council. It is clear therefore that the NP members have done everything in their power on the instructions of the acting Minister to prevent the Medical Council and the Medical Association from giving evidence.

You are talking nonsense.

I am pleased to hear that. It gives me a chance to prove I am right.

The NP has turned its back on 16 000 doctors, more than 80 000 nurses and all the medical technicians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. We tried to get these groups, the medical practitioners, the chiropracters and the homeopaths together in the standing committee, but what happened? We were not permitted to go any further. We tried to convince the NP that the qualifications of these associated health service professions do not comply with the standard to allow them to take part as the equals of doctors in the treatment of our patients in South Africa.

I should now like to put a few questions to the hon the Minister. Firstly I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the people in these “professions” may call themselves doctors. In all the documents I have received from them, both the chiropracters and the homeopaths call themselves doctors. My first question therefore is: May these people call themselves doctors?

Have you ever…

Sir, the interjection was made by the acting minister of chiropractic. I hope he will speak about that. [Interjections.]

My second question to the hon the Minister is: If, in their profession, they may be called doctor, may they admit any ill person from the street to their consulting rooms, take down his history, examine him and treat him? May they do this in respect of any person who goes to them? In the third place I want to ask the hon the Minister whether they, merely because of their training and experience, have the right to treat this patient. Then, in the fourth place, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he places this training of the chiropracters and homeopaths on a level equal to that of formal medical training. If for example they get a patient from the street and treat him for any illness—if they may do that!—does the hon the Minister accept that their training is equal to that of a medical doctor? [Interjections.] In the fifth place I want to ask him: Where will this training take place? Will it take place in a hospital amongst patients? The hon the Minister is a trained medical doctor himself, and therefore he knows what kind of training we as medical practitioners receive. I want to ask him therefore: Where will this training take place and who will be responsible for this training? The first part of the training is the theoretical training and the second part is the practical training.

In addition, as this Bill makes provision for new registrations of people in this profession who have been trained abroad, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there is any recognized training for homeopaths, naturaopaths and herb doctors.

Where?

Anywhere in the world. Does any place in the world provide recognized training for these people?

You know the answer. Why are you still asking me absurd questions?

According to the hon the Minister there is training for these people, but according to the chairman of the Chiropractic Association of SA—he told us this the other day—there is no recognized training anywhere. It is not as easy a question as the hon the Minister wants to pretend, therefore.

What is the answer? The hon the Minister must just give us the answer.

Yes, just give me the answer. Where in the world is recognized training given to these people? [Interjections.] I then want to ask the hon the Minister how many chiropractors and homeopaths have been appointed to his department. If they have not been appointed to the Department of Health and Welfare’s clinics and hospitals, why not? Or are they only going to be allowed to examine and treat patients in private practice?

In conclusion I want to ask: Why this urgency? Why is this Bill being rushed through this House? A new Minister has been appointed to this portfolio. Is he, as a new Minister, not entitled to expect this Bill to be dealt with thoroughly? After all, it is a Bill which involves many problems. Or are we seeing how this hon Minister, before relinquishing the Health and Welfare portfolio, is trying to enforce his will on this House in his acting capacity? I think it very unfair of this hon Minister to leave a problem of this nature for his successor. I therefore still ask at this late stage for this Bill to be withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to read to the House from the report before us to refresh our memories, seeing we stopped this debate before the weekend. The hon member for Middelburg submitted the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in connection with this Bill on behalf of the chairman. The report reads:

Because it is such an extremely important piece of legislation …

Read on.

That is the whole report.

There is a second paragraph.

I shall read it:

I am sorry, that sentence was on the following page.

It is this last little sentence which incurs our serious doubts and those of at least one House in the standing committee. I agree with the hon member for Parktown and join him in asking why there is so much haste concerning this matter.

The two most important principles involved here, are firstly that the qualifications of persons who wish to be registered must satisfy the council. The second important principle in this Bill is the question as to whether the persons who have the suggested qualifications should be permitted to register. This is a drastic step. The hon the Minister knows very well what happened in New Zealand and in the United States of America. I want to ask the hon the acting Minister what the advice of the American Medical Association to him was on this topic in 1982 when he himself was the Minister concerned. This legislation is extremely important, as these professions will be affected by this for a very long time to come, because this legislation is going to drive a total wedge between the medical professions and these associated professions. The two groups of professions cannot be placed under a statutory umbrella body such as the Medical Council. That is why, if this legislation is to be proceeded with, we say that problems will be created into the distant future as far as these two professions are concerned. That is why we felt it to be extremely important for the Medical Council and the Medical Association at least to have been given the opportunity to give oral evidence before the standing committee. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parktown pointed out in great detail how informal oral explanation by chiropractors and homeopaths was heard by members of the standing committee. This created the impression that evidence was given orally at an official meeting. It had an official appearance because members of the standing committee and other interested parties were invited to it. [Interjections.] As pointed out by the hon member for Parktown, some of the people who had come to give guidance at that meeting admitted that there were doubts about the standard of training of people in these professions.

Now we are aggrieved that these people were given the opportunity to give guidance orally to certain members of the standing committee—we admit everyone was not there—whereas that opportunity was not granted to members of the Medical Council and the Medical Association of South Africa. A homeopath who applied to appear before the standing committee was refused permission to do so. There were two applications from the Medical Association. Two telexes were sent—they regarded it in this serious a light—in which they urgently asked to give evidence before the standing committee. I quote as follows from one of the telexes:

What is its date?

It is not dated, but another one with 8 May as its date, reads as follows:

It is addressed to the chairman of that standing committee, Mr Hollander. [Interjections.] Our standpoint was that members of that standing committee were deprived of the opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the implications of this matter. That is why it was imperative for a meeting of this kind to take place.

I want to point out to hon members that the Medical Council is a statutory body which inter alia has to co-ordinate the rendering of medical service and has to regulate medical training and qualifications in medical training. The objective when instituting the Medical Council was therefore to establish an overall regulatory process which deals with all aspects of health. That is why it is extremely important that at least the representations or the opinion of that body, which does not consist only of doctors—indeed, as the hon the Minister knows, the doctors elected to it are in the minority because only 10 of the 33 members are elected doctors…

How many doctors are there? Only 10 are elected, but how many are appointed?

It does not matter. The fact is that it is the statutory body which should exert control over all medical services. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is welcome to look at that book of his; I have a copy here too. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member referred to the fact that an interview was probably arranged by the NP with chiropractors to give informal information here. May I ask the hon member whether or not he arranged a similar interview with Prof Guy de Klerk when he was the chairman of the NP’s health study group.

Yes, in 1982 I arranged a meeting of this kind, and this hon Minister denied in this House that the hon member, as its secretary, was aware that the hon the Minister had been invited to that meeting as well. Will the hon member deny it? [Interjections.] Is the hon member saying yes or no?

He is yawning. [Interjections.]

That hon member was the secretary and he knows that the hon the Minister was invited to that meeting, but the hon the Minister denied categorically that he had received an invitation. The hon member should rather not speak about it.

In terms of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, No 56 of 1974, the SA Medical and Dental Council is a statutory body with the following objects:

Now this council wants to give oral advice to an extension of this council, but is refused permission to do so. What are the general powers of the council; I do not want to list all of them, but there are three which are very relevant here. The council can:

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister where the training schools that are to be approved for these professions are.

This is a supplementary health service profession, Sir. Why is attention not given to the opinion of the Medical Council in this connection. [Interjections.]

This is legislation which will have far-reaching effects in the rendering of health service in South Africa, and we are not satisfied that the standing select committee has acquainted itself fully with all the aspects under discussion here. For that reason we cannot support this report.

Mr Chairman, I will try to keep to the motion which is before the House and not discuss the Bill itself which the efficient spokesmen of the Medical Association of South Africa have been discussing.

The motion before the House is a report informing the House that the standing committee was unable to reach consensus. What are the facts of the matter? The facts are that it became clear that there was no desire or intention to reach consensus except on one basis. The hon member for Parktown made this absolutely clear when I asked him in this debate whether memoranda were submitted by the two bodies, the Medical Association of South Africa and the Medical Council and furthermore, whether they were not a direct rejection of chiropractic and homeopathic treatment—a flat, total rejection under all circumstances and without reservation? The hon member for Parktown confirmed this. He nods his head again now. In other words, there was in principle a total rejection even of consideration of the recognition of the right of people to practice chiropractic or homeopathy before the standing committee. That was what the committee reported.

The spokesmen for the Medical Association of South Africa are now saying …

They do not represent Masa.

Well, the two speakers who spoke here both took—let me put it this way—the line of argument of Masa verbatim. They now come to the House and object to the motion before the House, because they say, and I quote the hon member for Pietersburg’s words: “Ons probeer dat die dokters en die chiropraktisyns bymekaar kom.” However, when we put this matter in the standing committee and when I put it to the hon member for Pietersburg in this debate, he said that there was no way in which they could consider approval of those two practices. People who wanted to practice chiropractic and homeopathy should first take a full medical course and qualify as doctors and then spend an additional two years in order to specialize as chiropractors or homeopaths. Unless they first did that, there was no way in which any consideration would be given to their recognition.

Therefore, the standing committee reached a deadlock. When a standing committee reaches a deadlock, there is only one way of resolving it and that is to come to Parliament and report that an agreement could not be reached in the standing committee and that Parliament, the highest authority, has therefore to decide. That was the recommendation.

There was objection to all sorts of detail in the Bill which I am not going to deal with at this stage. When this motion is accepted, the Bill will come before the House and then we can discuss the curriculum; We can then discuss whether they diagnose and we can then discuss all the arguments we have heard on the question whether we should discuss it at all or not.

Now there is an objection to Parliament discussing the Bill, but the whole basis of the objection is that the standing committee refused to hear oral evidence. This was after the standing committee had been told clearly and unequivocally that the standpoint of the Medical Association and the Medical Council was that they were unshakeably committed and there was no way they would change it or even consider accepting anything less than that the practitioners would first have to qualify as doctors. What does one discuss then? On what does one find consensus? In other words, it is consensus “provided that you accept what we say”. In this case “we” are the Medical Council and the Medical Association.

When this matter came before the Medical Council and it was suggested that they should take control of chiropractic and homeopathy they rejected it. They said that they were not going to have anything to do with those two practices. They themselves rejected responsibility. However, now that that responsibility has been given to another board because the Medical Council rejected it and another board has been created, now they want to take responsibility and exercise authority. When they were asked to take that authority and responsibility, they said they would not have anything to do with it, that it was quackery and that they rejected it.

Now that the matter is regulated and we are discussing curriculae and the registration of further members, they suddenly want the Medical Association and the Medical Council to take charge. One cannot have it both ways. If one rejects responsibility totally and says that one does not want to have anything to do with it, one has to accept it when a new body is created.

I have never been to a chiropractor or a homeopath for treatment, but I believe that there are large numbers of people who use their services and are satisfied with them. I do not believe it is the right of this Parliament to support a closed shop which denies the right of those people to go to them for assistance and in fact receive help from them. We have heard, and we will hear in the debate—I do not want to discuss the Bill now—that some doctors send their patients to chiropractors for treatment. In other words, the doctors recognize that there are conditions for which the chiropractors can give relief better than anybody else.

We did not have this problem when nursing was recognized. Nurses are not doctors, they do not take six years to qualify and they cannot diagnose, but they are recognized as providing a health service. They play a restricted part in providing a health service on the basis of the training they receive. Radiographers do the same: They provide a partial health service within their training limits. However, when it comes to chiropractors and homeopaths, they must qualify fully as doctors and we have to deny to those who use their services the right to do so.

The issue before us now is whether Parliament should consider this Bill. We believe that Parliament should consider this Bill, because if it does not, then it is destroying two professions which Parliament itself acknowledged, registered, gave a council to and told to put their house in order. They have done that; they have put their house in order. Now they ask that training courses should be started which will be recognized …

By whom?

By the council; the council which controls those two practices … courses which will be recognized so that chiropractors and homeopaths can be registered in future.

If we refuse to discuss this Bill and send it back to the standing committee we shall be arguing for the next 20 years. For more than a hundred years there has been a fight between doctors and chiropractors, and it will go on for another hundred years. Why should we argue about referring this Bill back to a standing committee when we know that no consensus can be reached? Let us bring it here to this House; let us debate it and let us take a decision as is our responsibility as the legislators in Parliament. Let us then consider the arguments which are advanced against this Bill on merit and not on the grounds of whether there was an unfair decision in regard to the hearing of evidence.

I support the recommendation of the committee that this matter should come before Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I wish for the information of the House to state that the attitude of this party to this Bill and to the report is one of a free vote. Members of our party are at liberty to follow their conscience in whatever they do. Hon members and the public outside should know this.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. He was criticized recently for being the dividing element in that party and he has once again been the generally dividing element today because he has now informed us that that party will have a free vote. That means that the spokesman of that party does not even have the support of his party for the accusations which he levelled at me today. [Interjections.] However, I shall leave him and the hon the Chief Whip at that.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Chief Whip is very vociferous at the moment. Did the hon member not say that they were having a free vote? [Interjections.]

Attend to your post boxes.

Never mind, I shall yet force that hon member into a tin, let alone a post box. [Interjections.]

I should like to start with the hon member for Parktown. This legislation should not be exploited for cheap political gain by saying that I as Acting Minister and the NP have now turned our backs on the doctors. There are more sensible doctors outside this House than in it—I might as well say it today—and I include myself in that.

You are the last person to speak on behalf of the doctors.

There are also more sensible doctors than the hon member for Parktown. They will not believe his nonsensical statement that we are taking these steps now because we are turning our backs on the doctors. In any case that hon member does not speak on behalf of all the doctors; in fact, he does not even speak on behalf of his party. How then can he stand up here and say that he is speaking on behalf of the whole of the Medical Council? The hon member spoke after the hon member for Durban Central and said that he did not agree with everything that he had said.

When?

He said that in the first part of his speech.

Oh, really, you do not know what you are talking about.

The hon member did say that. I want to approach this matter objectively and I want to tell the hon member for Durban Point that he gave both members who spoke this afternoon a lesson on how a standing committee works. The discussion in a standing committee is not like a Second Reading debate. The hon member for Parktown put a number of questions to me notwithstanding the fact that he was present at the meetings of the standing committee. He did not ask one of those questions in the standing committee. He did not ask that the Minister be present so that he could take him to task before the members of the standing committee. He stands up here in this House and puts a number of questions to me such as, for example, whether chiropractors can be called doctors. The designation “doctor” which I and my colleague and the hon member on the other side use—although he is also a qualified specialist—is merely a convention. We have Bachelor degrees, not doctorates. The designation “doctor” is merely a convention; so much so that a surgeon does not want to be classified as a doctor and consequently calls himself “Mister”. That is how strange the situation is in the medical profession. Afterall, there is no sole right to the designation “doctor”, even though the hon member now seeks to imply that I am a doctor. I am a doctor by convention because I am in possession of a Bachelor degree in internal medicine and surgery. Does the hon member want to argue the point?

No.

Then why does the hon member argue so strongly against other people also being classified as doctors? Why should they not be regarded as being doctors? There is no sole right to the designation. [Interjections.]

I should like to return to the standing committee’s report. A system is being implemented here…

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

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

No, I do not want to answer any questions by the hon member now. If he was able to make a meaningful contribution to the debate, I would answer the question. However, he is unable to do so.

I just want to say that the standing committee which has been appointed, has to take certain factors regarding a Bill and a particular Bill itself into consideration. However, this afternoon the hon member for Parktown said something which was quite untrue. He stood up here and said that no memoranda had been submitted to the members.

No.

Yes, oh yes, he said that no written memoranda had been submitted to the members. We can check his Hansard.

He did not say that.

He spoke so disjointedly that I may be wrong, but I shall look up his Hansard for the Second Reading debate. Then we can debate it. I shall obtain the Hansard this afternoon. The hon member said “no written.” I asked him: “Written?” He then repeated it. Here is the documentation which was submitted to the members. This is the complete … [Interjections.] Then the hon member has it. The hon member has the full view, as the hon member for Durban Point in fact pointed out, of the SA Medical Association. Their’s was a very long story. The resolution adopted by the SA Medical and Dental Council was also submitted.

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

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

No, I am not going to answer a question now. The hon member can say what he wants to say during the Second Reading debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Was it a long story?

Of course it was a long story! It is a long, written document. The hon member must not now infer that I am saying that it is not true. This is the document which they submitted …

It is not the documentation.

Oh well, the hon member can carry on talking …

Order! The hon member for Parktown has had an opportunity to speak. The hon the Minister may proceed.

You can leave him be, Sir. He is really of no use during a speech such as this because he believes that he is the only one who is right. Then he tries to drag the hon member for Pietersburg along with him. According to him no one else is right. He thinks that because he is medically qualified he has the franchise to all knowledge so far as the treatment of the sick in this country is concerned. He labours under an illusion of superiority because he is one of the best heart surgeons in the country. However, that does not make him a useful member of this House. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to some other things he said which are also totally untrue. One cannot tell untruths in this House and get away with it. He said that the Acting Minister had issued instructions to prevent MASA being given a hearing. That is totally untrue! In actual fact it is so untrue that it borders on a lie. It is almost a lie. It is not true that I had anything to do with the standing committee. They put their own case there. Memoranda were submitted to them, and if they did not want to allow the hon member to persuade them in favour of the SA Medical Association and the SA Medical and Dental Council, that is their own affair.

I want to tell the hon members for Durban Point, Parktown and Pietersburg that although we have not succeeded in reaching consensus here, it has been reached in the other two Houses. The debate on this report has already been completed there. Are hon members aware of that?

Yes, it was completed beforehand …

The Bill was approved as it stands. Do hon members know how it was approved? This report of the standing committee was presented to the House of Delegates and they approved it by majority vote. Only two hon members recorded their dissenting vote. The majority of the hon members first of all voted that the report be rejected and then voted to have the Second Reading. I then made my Second Reading speech and after a number of other speeches the Bill was read a second time and approved. Once again only two hon members recorded their dissenting vote. In actual fact I am certain of only one hon member who asked that it be recorded. I am not sure whether the other hon member did in fact ask that his dissenting vote be recorded. Both parties—the Solidarity Party, that is the Official Opposition Party, as well as the NPP—supported the Bill. That House disposed of the matter. I want to point this out to the hon member for Pietersburg because it appeared to me almost though as he was trying to hide behind the attitude of the Indian members.

No.

Yes, the hon member said that the standing committee’s report was presented in spite of their attitude. That is a requirement. It must be presented here whether consensus has been reached or not. Then this House decides. However, one does not make a Second Reading speech when the approval of the standing committee’s report is being discussed. I was not there—I was not invited. He kept on saying that there had been efforts to prevent the submission of written representations. Parliamentary procedure provides that when a Bill has been approved, the department in question must send it to the Secretary to Parliament. Mr Speaker then places it on the Order Paper. Thereafter it is submitted to the standing committee for comment. The standing committee then meets—and the hon member was present. The hon member also inferred that I knew of the chiropractors who had met for information purposes. I was not aware of that at all and I also did not organize it. However, the hon member know of it, because he attended it. The hon member also put a few questions there. I learnt later than the hon member had been there. Then he left the meeting. However, he attended it initially because he also wanted some more information on chiropractors.

The hon member put a number of questions to me. All I can say to him is that he must put these questions again during the Second Reading debate. He should have asked them on the standing committee because then he would have received his answers there. In this debate we have to decide whether we are going to accept the standing committee’s resolution. Therefore these questions have nothing to do with the matter. This is something he can raise again during the Second Reading debate, however, one question which I do want to answer is where they are being trained throughout the world. The Department of National Education in America recognizes them. They have their training programmes and their curriculum. I made enquiries in America.

That is not what I asked.

Then it appears to me that the hon member does not understand. We shall have to consult Hansard to see what the hon member’s question was. The hon member must go and read his own Hansard—then he will remember what he said. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg also simply repeated the view of the Medical Association and the Medical Council. However, I must say something to these two members today. The hon member for Durban Point referred to it. During my term of office as Minister I approached the Medical Council on this matter. A moment ago the hon member admitted here that it was a supplementary medical profession. He admitted that.

Yes.

That hon member says that he rejects it completely. Therefore the two hon members cannot even agree on that. I agree with the hon member for Pietersburg that it is a supplementary medical service in the sense that it is a profession for which the public have a need. The HSRC proved this in a very voluminous report—the hon member has probably read it.

The public also want faith healers.

I beg your pardon?

The public also want faith healers.

No, I cannot hear what the hon member is saying, but the HSRC published a report after doing a survey on the question of whether this profession had any value and whether people should go to those who practised this profession. They also mentioned the percentage of people who went to chiropractors, how many went to them before consulting a medical doctor and how many went after consulting a medical doctor. They also reported on how many people benefited from it and how many did not. The importance of the report lies in the fact that that type of profession is in fact necessary. In addition I referred the matter to the Medical Council in my original decision and asked them to take these people under their wing as a supplementary profession, just like the nurses and others. What happened, however? The Medical Council itself was not sure of the matter. They decided against it by 17 votes to 16.

However, I now want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that there are 29 members on the Medical Council. Does the hon member know that 24 of them are either doctors or dentists? Twenty-four of them are medical men—not ten as the hon member said a moment ago.

Ten were elected.

Only ten were elected, but others were appointed. The Medical Council must after all take care of matters for which the Act makes provision.

I want to say something else to the hon member. This Parliament made the Associated Health Service Professions Board a statutory body which is not subservient to the Medical Council. To my mind there is no distinction to be drawn between the Medical Council and the chiropractors. I as Minister have a duty to two councils and, as far as this matter is concerned, the Medical Council is not at issue. What is in fact at issue is the Associated Health Service Professions Board made a certain request. Legislation was drawn up and referred to the Medical Council and the Medical Association. Comments by these two bodies were submitted to the standing committee. The standing committee passed certain resolutions, namely that they were of the opinion that this legislation should be discussed in a Second Reading debate. Surely the hon member did not expect me to stand up here and say that I was going to withdraw the legislation because there were two members in this House who, when they discovered that they were in the minority, felt that they wanted to continue the fight. However, those hon members have the right to do so, but my appeal to the House this afternoon is to accept this report of the standing committee the members of which are all colleagues in this House. Hon members must not try to belittle them as if they do not know what is going on, or contend that they simply wanted to push through legislation or that they are the lackeys of the chiropractors. They can then also accuse hon members of being the lackeys of the medical profession.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is what they can accuse the hon member of. [Interjections.] No, the hon member need not feel heavy-hearted like Genis. The hon member must accept it because we are busy with a debate.

The hon member for Durban Point delivered a very good speech. I think he made it very clear that this House is the highest body. We instituted the SA Associated Health Service Professions Board and made them comply with certain conditions. We will consider this legislation in the same way as we consider other legislation.

Mr Speaker, seeing that the hon the Minister has just referred to the hon member for Durban Point and praised his speech, does he agree with the hon member for Durban Point that the medical profession is involved in creating a closed shop situation in South Africa? [Interjections.]

I do not want to comment on that because the medical profession cannot create a closed shop situation no matter what they do. However, the hon member also said that if they want to keep other people out—that is how I understood him—then they are creating a closed shop situation. In any case, the medical profession cannot create a closed shop situation because there are pharmacists, nurses, physiotherapists and many other people all of whom practise their own professions.