Mr Speaker, the debate this afternoon is concerned with information, broadcasting services and the film industry. At this stage I just want to make a few brief remarks about the broadcasting services, and especially the SABC, because the SABC is probably the main concern in this part of the debate. I shall extend my discussion when I reply to hon members’ speeches.

The SABC is undoubtedly an organisation with a very high profile, in the sense that when one takes into account the 7,2 million television viewers and the more than 10 million radio listeners, it is clear that the SABC is a very important organisation in the lives of South Africans. Nevertheless, the SABC is also a unique organisation in the sense that the idea is always that the SABC should be run as a business enterprise. Strictly speaking, however, the SABC is not a business in which the final consideration is one of rands and cents.

The SABC’s task is to entertain, inform and educate. We are also aware of the role the SABC plays in the question of the transmission and broadening of culture. The SABC also supports other industries, for example, the film industry, the arts in general, and also performs an enormous task with regard to the training of people in those industries. There is no doubt that these services cannot always be profitable.

Allow me to mention just one example of an area in which the affordability of, or the financial profitability of, the SABC sometimes becomes relevant. When a transmitter is set up in a densely populated area such as Johannesburg, that transmitter can be operated at an amount as low as 14 cents per listener. However, when one wants to provide the same service in a remote area, it could cost up to R37 per head. Moreover, it is a social service—a service that the SABC must provide to the population in the extensive parts of the country. For this reason it is impossible to operate the SABC purely on a business basis.

A further problem is that the SABC must please everyone.

In a country in which there are so many languages, in which there are so many cultures, in which even in one language group there are people with diverse tastes and people with diverse expectations with regard to what should be broadcast, one can see that it is very difficult to satisfy all those people with one service. Of course, it makes the management of the SABC extraordinarily complex.

Firstly, I want to express my thanks—I have had this portfolio only a short while—to the chairman of the board, who is here today and to the other members of the board for the good work they are doing in difficult times. I should like to express my thanks to the acting Director-General, who is also here today. He was called on to fill the post, and on the one hand he has my sympathy, but the board expressed their confidence in him by appointing him in this acting capacity. I want to wish him every success in future.

I also want to say a word about the former Director-General. No doubt he is still going to be discussed today, but I just want to place it on record that Mr Eksteen is a capable man who worked very hard in the service of the SABC.

Then why is he leaving?

We shall come to that point later. [Interjections.]

At this stage I just want to place it on record that I personally found it a great pity that things did not work out for him in the position in which he found himself.

I should also like to express my thanks to the officials of the SABC for the excellent service that is being provided. I also want to thank all the contributors to the SABC programmes, such as artists, people from the film industry, and members of the general public who, by their participation in the programmes, make the services of the SABC worthwhile.

I want to let that suffice for the moment. I should like to listen to what hon members say and then react.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on his first handling as a full-fledged Minister of the debate on the Bureau for Information and SABC Votes. As the hon the Minister correctly said, the SABC plays a key role, but also a difficult role in South Africa. We should like to associate ourselves with the good wishes that the hon the Minister conveyed to the management team of the SABC. We should like to wish him and them everything of the best for this important task that lies ahead of them.

I should like to deal with the whole question of the finances of the SABC, and although I spoke about this last year in the corresponding debate, I must say that the problems that have to be dealt with are persistent problems that cannot be solved overnight by means of instant solutions. Today, I therefore want to dwell again on aspects of the comprehensive annual report, and specifically on the financial aspects that are referred to.

The deficit amount of R13,2 million for the year is still disturbingly high because even if one were to subtract the R10 million provision for additional depreciation on unutilised property—this mainly concerns the case of Broadcast House—because it could be regarded as a non-recurring amount, the net utilisation to the value of R17 million of shelf stock which took place in 1987 and to which the chairman of the council refers in his report, ought to be taken into account. If this were done, it is clear that the loss for 1987 would in fact have been closer to R20 million. This is indeed disturbing.

I believe that since January this year a new computerised video library system has been in use, and that for the first time the SABC is now in a position to register purchases of programme material as an asset and, as the material is used for broadcasting, debit it against the programme department involved. Of course, this step will lead to a remarkable improvement in control and accounting in future.

The good news is that the establishment of the SABC is 20% smaller than it was two years ago. The increase in operating expenditure was 11,7% in 1985, 7% in 1986 and 13,7% in 1987, despite the fact that the operating costs of new services such as TV4, Good Morning, South Africa and a large number of new transmitting stations has been absorbed in this. For that reason the management of the SABC also deserves congratulations.

The bad news is that economising measures and cutbacks have dealt a serious blow to local film production and related activities. With the everthreatening danger of sanctions, we simply cannot allow this discrediting of our local artists to continue. If there were ever a case to be made for import replacement it is precisely with regard to the production of television programmes.

It is a legitimate moral demand that the SABC as national broadcaster should play its role here, but—and I must relate this to finance here—no one should have any illusions about the financial demands this is going to make on the SABC, a matter which will have to be dealt with in future. With regard to its revenue, the SABC’s situation is still difficult, and there will have to be a change in this regard as well.

At present, the SABC is dependent on advertising for two thirds of its income, and in my opinion, there are two reasons why this is an unacceptable state of affairs. Firstly, it makes the SABC too dependent on cyclical economic considerations, and secondly, it limits its further income because it is possibly already “eating” too large a slice—that is, 40%—of the total “advertising cake”. It is not in the interests of the printed media in our country that the advertising share of electronic media such as the SABC, Capitol Radio and others should increase even further.

The ratio of advertisements to licences is still not satisfactory. At present, it is 71:29, and there are only three countries in the world in which the national broadcaster is more dependent on advertisements than in South Africa. In Western Europe the ratio of advertisements to licences is on average just the opposite, and it is a pity that we are so far from that.

However, this question arises: What is the solution? In the long term there is no question that the solution lies in licence fees that are higher than the 20 cents per day which the present licence fee boils down to, but in a time of economic discipline and non-increase of tariffs, an entirely realistic argument for immediate increase would definitely not be positively received, and other measures will have to be considered in the meantime. The fact is, however, that an increase is inevitable if the SABC wishes to escape from its structural financial problems without drastically cutting down services or lowering standards.

In the meantime, I want to ask that the SABC continue to pay even greater attention to the question of the collection of licence fees as a matter of urgency. Perhaps a form of monthly collection could in itself be an improvement and contribute to a healthier financial situation.

The problem of pirate viewing in all population groups must also be dealt with, and if it is unacceptably high, everything possible must be done to eliminate it. The taxman uses expert national servicemen to catch tax evaders. Cannot the same perhaps be considered by the SABC? Even if the pirate viewing figure amounted to only 10%—that is a very conservative estimate, in the positive sense of the word—an amount of R12 million per year would be involved if one added it up. The fact is that the larger the number of people who do their duty and pay their licences, the longer a further increase in licence fees can be postponed.

Everything that is being said in this debate on the financial position of the SABC, is, of course, being said against the background of an incisive investigation into all aspects of the SABC’s business in an attempt to eliminate the operating loss of the SABC and to place the corporation on a profitable footing.

Anyone who is following the affairs of the SABC would be aware that the council of the SABC has appointed an external consultant who is lending a hand with regard to analyses in the general fields of finance, structure and management.

Interim reports have already been submitted to the council and I am sure that all hon members are looking forward to seeing positive action being taken as a result of this in the course of this year.

In conclusion I should like to wish the Acting Director-General and his management team every success with their enormous task. They are being expected to provide a community service and to do so, moreover, according to business principles, although the two approaches can easily conflict. It will not be easy to find and maintain a balance. Hon members in this House therefore have a responsibility to support the SABC in this regard rather than to oppose it.

Mr Speaker, on a previous occasion I congratulated the hon the Minister on his promotion, but I should like to repeat it on this occasion. He will understand that we are not necessarily excited about him as a person—not that he has ever annoyed us—but rather that we are grateful that in this way the Bureau for Information is being given a higher status in the Government hierarchy, and that is in line with the CP’s way of thinking.

On this occasion I should also like to express a word of congratulation to Mr Harmse, who is at present the acting Director-General of the SABC. After the golden handshake that was given to Mr Riaan Eksteen, he will understand if I say I do not know whether I should sympathise with him or just wish him everything of the best with this extremely difficult task.

I also want to congratulate and thank Mr Dave Steward and the SABC’s management committee. They held a meeting with our study committee and we had very meaningful discussions with them.

I find it a pity that Mr Schlebusch is not here today to stand in for the SABC. For years I have been looking forward to discussing a few matters with him. The new hon Minister can plead ignorance with regard to several matters, particularly with regard to the SABC.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the SABC and Mr André le Roux for the presentation of the television debate. I should like to have a similar debate with the hon member for Turffontein, when it suits him. [Interjections.] It was a great step forward, especially the attempts of the SABC to present the debate as objectively as possible. We propose that it be repeated, but that this time our leader should measure his strength against the leader of the NP, the hon the State President. After that the provincial leaders of the various parties can follow suit. [Interjections.]

The CP accepts that today a modern government must communicate with its subjects internally and externally. This communication must take place in a professional manner. For that reason it is necessary that the Public Service must be able to attract the best people. In this regard the CP wants to appeal once again for salary increases for public servants even at this late stage. The matter is now becoming critical as it appears that the private sector has for the most part ignored the hon the State President’s request and that all prices and salaries in the private sector are rising.

The CP believes that the Government can only fulfill its communication function effectively with an information division that deals with both the internal as well as the overseas communication functions. There are many reasons why information services should function separately from foreign affairs’ divisions and why there should be direct co-ordination between internal and foreign information divisions.

At the moment we have role-players who perform certain foreign information functions, while other foreign information functions are performed by diplomats. Internally there are the public relations sections of the various departments, the Bureau for Information and the Defence Force which also carry out certain information activities. Among all of these, we are of the opinion that the internal and external communication functions of the State are not coming into their own at the moment.

In the public relations and communications of the government of the day inside South Africa, the CP believes that for democratic reasons it is extremely important and also practicable to distinguish clearly between government information and party-political propaganda. As a result this debate on the broadcasting services and the information service is very important to the CP. In fact I believe that every citizen of the country who believes in democracy has a great interest in this debate.

If the Government misuses broadcasting services such as the SABC and if the Government uses the State’s information service to disseminate partypolitical propaganda, the essence of democracy is impaired. The CP alleges that that is precisely what is happening in South Africa at the moment and in the course of this debate we shall demonstrate the seriousness and extent of this to hon members.

Firstly, let us look at the SABC of today. Have hon members recently spoken to ordinary viewers and listeners or to the employees of that organisation?

In my experience there is no question of a high morale, team spirit, loyalty towards or pride in their employer. In the media world at the moment people who work for the SABC are even being scoffed at. In my opinion what the SABC has tried to build up over 40 years in terms of credibility and autonomy, this Government has destroyed in the 10 years that the hon the State President has been in power.

The question is: How did he manage it? I am saying that he did so by blatantly interfering in the business of the SABC in a way that has never been done before in the history of the corporation. [Interjections.] For 20 years the SABC performed its task in relative tranquillity under the leadership of Dr Piet Meyer. Then the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, took over and in the following 10 years the SABC had five directors-general, namely Dr Jan Schutte, Mr Jan Swanepoel, Mr Steve de Villiers, Mr Riaan Eksteen and now Mr Harmse. Prof Mouton, as the chairman of the board, must also be taken into account here.

During the same period the corporation was the responsibility of four different Ministers in different departments: The hon the Minister Mr Hennie Smit, of Posts and Telecommunications; the hon the Minister Mr Pik Botha, of Foreign Affairs; the hon the Minister Mr Schlebusch, in the Office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services; and now the hon the Minister of Information. The fact that Information and the SABC are now being controlled by the same hon Minister, already gives us an indication of the Government’s philosophy with regard to how the SABC should be used. On the surface it seems that the autonomy of the SABC is being recognised, and it is being vehemently denied that there is any interference from the Government. It is quite likely that this will be repeated in the debate today.

However, in practice matters seem to us to be completely different, and in my opinion the interference reached its climax during the terms of office of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister Schlebusch. During that time the board of the SABC was constantly being changed. I could give hon members a long list of names of people who came and went, such as Prof Mouton, a natural scientist, a rector of the University of the Orange Free State and a loyal supporter of the hon the State President; former Chaplain-General, Koos van Zyl, also a confidante of the hon the State President; Mr Dirk de Villiers, who wrote a biography of the hon the State President; Prof H C Viljoen, a loyal NP supporter and a member of the NP executive committee; as well as Prof Sampie Terblanche who was a member of the NP think-tank at Stellenbosch.

The question that is being asked by the people outside is whether these people, as members of the board, have radio and TV expertise in common, or whether all they have in common is their loyalty to the hon the State President.

The answer to this is apparent from the fact that when Prof Sampie Terblanche bade farewell to his NP loyalty, his so-called media expertise was no longer required on the board. [Interjections.] Although he was the deputy chairman of the board of the SABC, he was simply not reappointed. To make matters more complicated, we find that in the midst of Government interference, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as the responsible Minister at the time, tried to build his own little empire in the SABC. If one is in the running for the State Presidency, apparently it is useful to have the SABC on one’s side.

Do hon members think that the public believe for one moment that the appointment of Mr Eksteen was made by an autonomous board of the SABC and was based purely on merit, without the interference of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Do hon members think that anyone believes that it was a coincidence that Mr Eksteen also came from the Department of Foreign Affairs and that he was associated with the UN, as was the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs? What makes the coincidence that much greater, is that Dr Brand Fourie was appointed as the new chairman of the board of the SABC shortly afterwards. Do hon members think that it was a coincidence that Dr Fourie also came from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and happened to have worked under the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs for a long time?

Mr Speaker, you can see what the personnel of the SABC have had to endure. You will also now be able to understand why the morale is low and why the personnel have problems at the moment.

The question is why the Government interfered in the affairs of the SABC so blatantly? The answer is that they do not regard the SABC as an autonomous body, but as an extension of the NP … [Interjections.] … an extension which is intended, in a subtle way, to keep the NP in power and to convey its political message to the voters.

My question now is what effect this Government intervention has had on the SABC. When the history of the SABC comes to be written one day, one will justifiably be able to refer to the different management dynasties; different management dynasties that came and went and which can be associated with different periods and persons. There was the dynasty in which the finance and the administration officials dominated the SABC, with Mr Jan Swanepoel as a prominent figure. There was also a dynasty in which the engineers dominated the SABC, when great emphasis was placed on the technical aspects of broadcasting. There was a dynasty of the art, culture and programme people, with Dr Jan Schutte, Mr Steve de Villiers and Mr Pieter de Bruyn as prominent officials.

We then come to the present dynasty. If an SABC official does not want to oppose the Government’s intervention, he cooperates with it and carries out orders. It was therefore logical and probably predictable that we would have a dynasty of news people and politicians at the moment. Prominent names in this dynasty are Messrs Jan van Zyl, Kobus Hamman and Sakkie Burger, and with the former public servants, Mr Eksteen and Dr Brand Fourie as the link with the politicians, the news and news commentary programmes offered the best means of carrying out the Government’s instructions.

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

Mr Speaker, I am merely rising to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Whip.

For that reason, Mr Eksteen took various steps to bring this news dynasty in the SABC into being. The first step was to place all the different programmes on news and public matters under one blanket. Programmes such as Verslag, Pols, Midweek, News Focus, etc were combined on 1 September 1985 to form Network. By combining news and actuality in one department, the maximum control could be acquired. Furthermore, a documentary news programme was to be broadcast in Network every evening. I should like to know how many posts had to be created to enable Network to be screened on a regular basis.

The second step was to ensure that the news and actuality programme was given a central place in the broadcasting schedule. That would ensure that the Government’s message reached the population. Since then Network is an hour-long programme that is broadcast at eight o’clock every evening. That is the prime time slot on television. Media experts will tell one that this time need not only be filled by news and news commentary. Programmes that deal with the news behind the news are mostly heavy viewing material and in most countries in the world they are presented later in the evening because not all viewers are interested in them, except here in South Africa. Apart from the fact that Network occupies the prime time slot in the evening, it was arranged that TV4 could only begin broadcasting at nine o’clock in the evening—that is after the news. That prevents viewers from escaping the propaganda and being able to switch to another channel. M-Net may not broadcast news or news commentary either. In this way the news monopoly and control is ensured. I should have liked to see the viewing figures of Network if viewers had had other choices to which they could switch.

The final indication that the SABC has a news dynasty at the moment, is apparent from the fact that besides Mr Eksteen almost half, or rather three out of seven members of the management committee are former news people. It is ironic that all this subservience could not save Mr Eksteen. Once one has allowed the Government to manipulate one, one cannot regain one’s autonomy.

When the hon the State President and Rev Hendrickse had a confrontation in August last year which led to Rev Hendrickse’s resignation from the Cabinet, the SABC was simply unable to broadcast the news to the hon the State President’s satisfaction. After a personal telephone call from the hon the State President to Mr Eksteen, we experienced the circus of a kind of rectifying explanation which had to be read several times by a cynical Mr Robinson on Network. The question is whether the same trouble would be taken for the Leader of the Official Opposition or the leader of the PFP if they were to phone the SABC because they were not satisfied with the news angle of a report. [Interjections.]

After that a new post, namely that of Chief Editor: Politics was created so that, according to Beeld of 11 September 1987, Mr Johan Pretorius could keep an eye on the younger reporters in Parliament. I have heard via the grapevine that Mr Pretorius had no choice but to move into Tuynhuys so that he could be close at hand if the hon the State President needed him for an interview. [Interjections.] We only hear poor Mr Robinson now and then; he was sent so far away that we only hear him speaking about how cold it is in London. In the old days they would have said that if he had been sent further away, he would have been much closer. [Interjections.]

It is now being said that the Government does not give any specific instructions to the SABC as to how the organisation should write its news reports. That may be true, but I am saying that every reporter of the SABC censors his own reports. He censors each report because he knows what is considered acceptable within his organisation and because he knows that he would otherwise face the same fate as Mr Eksteen or Mr Robinson. According to all indications, Mr Eksteen was dismissed as early as 24 August last year. Because it was then realised that only the SABC board could dismiss him, another plan was adopted. The day after the Robinson-Hendrickse fiasco, Mr Schlebusch announced here in the House that a special investigation was going to be launched into the financial affairs of the SABC. Somewhere a reason for Mr Eksteen’s dismissal had to be found, and the investigation could provide it. I predicted in public at that time that Mr Eksteen would not survive five months; I was very nearly correct.

This House now wants to know what the relationship is between the SABC Board and the hon the Minister. An announcement was made in the House last year that an investigation was going to be launched into the finances of the SABC. The report was submitted, and on the grounds of the report Mr Eksteen was dismissed from his post.

In response to a question recently the hon the Minister admitted that he had had complete access to that report, but that Parliament as the highest House was not allowed to have access to it. Is that report a report to Parliament or is it a report to the board of the SABC as an autonomous body? If the board of the SABC is as autonomous as it makes out, then surely the hon the Minister has no say as to who the board of the SABC dismisses or appoints as Director-General. It is then not necessary for the hon the Minister to have access to the report either. If the report was brought out for the hon the Minister, and deals with money or matters for which this Parliament is responsible, the contents of the report ought to be made known in Parliament. If we understood the exact relationship between the Minister and the board of the SABC, this problem would also become clearer. The general public accept that Mr Eksteen was dismissed because he differed with the hon the State President. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke made a speech this afternoon that was really extremely insulting towards the staff of the SABC and the Board of the SABC. I do not think it befits the dignity of the hon member and this House to attack the Board of the SABC and the staff of the SABC in such an insulting way as to make one think that they had no professionalism.

The matters that the hon member raised here this afternoon are matters that have been debated ad nauseam in this House. For example, the hon the State President himself made it quite clear that with regard to the Eksteen affair, he issued no instructions to the Board to act and entered into no discussion with the Board whatsoever. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the composition of the Board given in the annual report of the SABC, one sees that it is made up of experts in various fields and it is therefore reprehensible that the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke cast doubt on the integrity off this board in such a way.

They are NP “kripvreters”!

I would rather not say what the hon member is; just now I might have to withdraw it again.

You can say it!

As the hon the Minister rightly said, the SABC probably has one of the most difficult tasks to perform, because the SABC has to satisfy such a variety of tastes. In a country such as South Africa, with its multicultural composition, the SABC has to make provision for all the different groups in its programmes.

I am associating myself with the hon member for Umhlanga, who spoke about finances and pointed out that it actually cost 20 cents per day in licence fees to watch the SABC programmes. Therefore it cannot be possible for the SABC to satisfy everyone’s tastes all the time. If every person were to find just one item a day that he liked and that he could watch, he would be getting more than his money’s worth.

In my opinion, the SABC is succeeding remarkably well in catering for all tastes. If one looks at page 27 of the SABC’s annual report on which the radio programme break down is set out, one sees that music takes up 20,9% of the time; magazine programmes, 16,6%; religious programmes, 9,2%; prime time programmes, 8,8%; dramas and feature programmes, 7,3%; news, economic news and commentary, 6,5%; sport, 5,6%; youth and children’s programmes, 5,6%; literary and art programmes, 4%; and so on. Hon members can refer to page 27 to see how the rest of the time is divided up.

When one looks at the time allocation of TV programmes on page 36 of this report, one sees that drama occupies 27,8% of the time, news and public affairs, 13,8%; sport, 11,8%; children and youth programmes, 6,5%; documentaries, 6,8%; and educational programmes, 6,3%.

One can indeed have complaints about the SABC. There are definitely things that one can find irksome about the SABC’s presentation. For example, many people are opposed to advertisements. Some want no advertisements at all, and others say that advertisements are screened at the wrong times and that there are too many of them. One must take into account, however, that 64,9% of the SABC’s income comes from advertisements and only a small percentage from licence fees. If one takes that into account, it is not unfair to say that one should put up with the advertisements for the sake of the fact that the SABC relies on them for the greater part of its income. If this were not the case, licence fees would have to have been dramatically increased.

Despite the fact that there are complaints from so many quarters, I want to thank the SABC sincerely for the way in which they try to and succeed in satisfying all tastes and, with regard to the SABC’s transmissions, serve the interests of all population groups. I want to mention a few examples.

The SABC played a very important role during, the national festivals such as the Huguenot festival and the Dias festival that have already taken place, and is still playing an important role in the Great Trek festivities that are still in progress. The SABC must be congratulated and we must thank them for the direct coverage they gave of events, as well as for the dramas, feature programmes and quiz programmes that they broadcast and televised for the occasion.

If one thinks of the role that the SABC played during the flood disasters that struck South Africa, one can rightly say that the SABC plays a far more important role in our national life than simply to entertain and inform. During such flood disasters when all contact is often lost as a result of the severing of telephone connections, the radio is the only means of communication that exists. This emphasises the importance of radio and television at such times.

I want to refer to one other aspect about which concern was also expressed during the corresponding debate last year, namely the question of violence in SABC transmissions. I want to thank the SABC for attending to this matter and selecting a group of people to work with other outside experts from outside in investigating the increasing violence in television broadcasts. Based on the research that this group and the HSRC did, the incidence of violence in television programmes has decreased dramatically. This shows once again that the SABC and its board are not insensitive to matters that are irritating and require attention.

I want to join the hon the Minister in expressing our thanks and appreciation to the SABC for the fact that they continue to provide all the people of South Africa with an excellent service in the midst of storms that break loose around them and much criticism that is often unfair.

Why are you defending the SABC like this?

Hon members need only think of the excellent coverage that the SABC gave of the Comrades Marathon yesterday during which one could sit quietly in one’s sitting room and enjoy the course of events. I believe that one can rightly say that the SABC plays an important role and does its work very well. One can only wish them every success with the important task that they have to perform. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, late last year, the Department of Journalism and Media Studies of Rhodes University, after many months of research, issued an authoritative report on the SABC’s coverage of the general election. It disclosed that a content analysis of TV coverage of the 1987 elections for the House of Assembly showed that the NP had received more broadcast time than any other political grouping, and almost as much as all the other groupings combined. Further analysis revealed that the NP was also given preference in the issues chosen for debate—their “election round-ups”; the placing of speakers in round-ups, and in the news coverage of specific issues. Groupings opposed to the election in fact received no coverage at all.

The reason why the PFP commissioned this professional analysis was partly in the hope that publication on a weekly basis of the results of the survey would somehow shame the SABC into being more fair during the campaign. [Interjections.] Of course, we all know that it had no effect whatsoever, and pro-Nationalist political bias was stepped up as the campaign in the election progressed. [Interjections.]

Another reason for doing the survey was to build up evidence which could be used to found a Supreme Court action directed to forcing the SABC to comply with its own charter which requires it to report current events factually, without distortion and in an unbiased fashion.

That is a joke!

This door was closed when Senior Counsel advised that the SABC Charter was not, except in the most limited circumstances, an enforceable document, and could not found an action brought by a political party.

Over many years now, however, my party and I have tried many ways of persuading the SABC to show less bias in its coverage of news and current affairs. We have met and talked with successive chairmen of the board, with successive management committees and senior personnel. Although we have always been met with courtesy at top level, it has been the courtesy of dismissal, and our pleas for equity have fallen on deaf ears.

It is a waste of time!

We have made speeches in Parliament, we have issued Press statements and publicised our protests, and this has not helped one jot.

In fact, today, matters are worse than ever before. The news broadcasts are more than ever a procession of talking Ministerial heads.

And it is boring, too!

The news is skilfully managed, panel discussions are limited in subject matter and the invited participants usually represent only the narrowest spectrum of viewpoints.

So shaken up were the SABC last year by the interference by the hon the State President in their already pro-Nationalist news broadcasts that they appointed a very senior person to cover only Tuynhuys and to record for public posterity every presidential utterance, excluding his burps! [Interjections.]

I suppose, Mr Speaker, that everyone experiences his own last straw. Mine came in February this year when, in regard to a TV report to which I objected, I requested from the SABC a transcript of the text. So secure do some SABC officials feel in their own political and professional perfection, that contemptuous responses are but part of their stock-in-trade. I quote a letter from the SABC to me dated 3 February 1988:

This letter was signed: André le Roux, News Editor.

But that, Sir, was not the end of the matter. I lodged a formal complaint with the SA Media Council, that body which the hon the Minister of Home Affairs says is so ineffective.

What was the result of that complaint? The result was that the report which Mr Le Roux so pompously declaimed as not containing a single inaccuracy was rectified publicly on radio on 8 March, and on national TV news on 9 March 1988. In addition I received a letter from the SABC manager, the first paragraph of which I quote:

Was he fired? [Interjections.]

Sir, I relate this story only to emphasise my point that arrogance and closed-mindedness, as far down as to its political editors, are still rife in the SABC, and only public exposure and other pressures have any effect at all.

A few more examples, Sir. The SABC says its news reports are accurate and professionally presented. Mr Justice Daniels, however, on 23 May 1988 said that the SABC’s TV report on 28 April on the Bethal treason trial was “full of inaccuracies, bad reporting, and caused embarrassment for all concerned”.

Let us look at a few more aspects, a few more hypocrisies. Up until March last year political appointments to the Board of the SABC were par for the course and accepted practice. Mr Gerrit Bornman, past NP candidate in Bryanston and President’s Councillor, was appointed and reappointed for years. Dr Shlomo Peer, well-known Houghton NP officebearer, was appointed to the board only for his political loyalty.

When the long-serving and experienced deputy chairman of the board, Prof Sampie Terblanche, however, had the temerity to resign from the NP, suddenly his political involvement was deemed to be undesirable, and he was dropped forthwith and replaced by a grey, compliant, PW Botha sycophant.

But that is not all, Mr Speaker. Since August last year …

Order! I am not going to allow the hon member to make such a remark.

What is wrong with that, Sir?

Order! The hon member used the phrase “PW Botha psychopath”. The hon member must withdraw that reference immediately.

Mr Speaker, I said that person was a sycophant of the hon the State President.

That is right!

Order! I instruct the hon member to withdraw that reference altogether.

With respect, Sir, I did not refer to the hon the State President at all.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: using the word “sycophant” the hon member referred to the person appointed, and not to the hon the State President.

Order! I understand that quite clearly. I have given my ruling and I expect the hon member for Sandton to withdraw that reference.

I withdraw it, Sir.

That is not all, Sir. Since August last year, when Mr Riaan Eksteen, who himself was a political appointee, crossed the hon the State President, we all knew his days were numbered. It was only a question of time. Of course, Sir, this both the SABC and the Government publicly denied. More hypocrisy!

As we all know, his time came a few weeks ago, and he was sacked—ignominiously and in great haste. The public reasons were that a credibility gap existed between the management and the board, and weak financial management was quoted. Certainly, Sir, the SABC has lost a great deal of money in the past three years, but that was not Riaan Eksteen’s fault. He was never appointed for his financial expertise. He was appointed for his political attributes. This was well-known. To give the lie to the reasons given for his dismissal, the Acting Director-General, who has now been appointed, is the very person who, for the past four years, has held direct responsibility for the finances of the SABC. I say, Sir, this is still more hypocrisy.

Now, in any country’s law, if a person is justifiably sacked, no extra pay-out is required. If, however, no true justification exists for the sacking of a senior person, then a wrongful dismissal costs a lot of money. In this case it cost something like RO,75 million of taxpayers’ money, or over R10 000 per month of taxpayers’ money for five years for someone who is required to do nothing. Yet more hypocrisy, Mr Speaker.

One would think that as the representative of the taxpayers who fund the SABC, Parliament would be entitled to some insight into all these machinations. But no, Sir! Questions I drafted in connection with all these issues could not be tabled in Parliament because—so I was told—they impinged upon the SABC’s autonomy. Another blank wall!

So I wrote to the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the SABC asking for details of Mr Eksteen’s settlement. He replied as follows:

He added:

I wanted to see what the staff regulations said about the matter so that at least I could understand the constraints suffered by people who are sacked in terms of these regulations. [Interjections.]

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

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

I thank the hon Whip, Mr Speaker.

As I say, I asked to see the regulations. However, they have not been forthcoming, and I was informed this afternoon that I will not be allowed to see those regulations.

Oh, come now! [Interjections.]

That was what I was told. I requested then that the Chairman make available to me the interim report of the consultants on the administration of the SABC. I quote the chairman’s reply:

Another dead end! And so Parliament, the custodian of the interests of the public is effectively shut out from examining and debating properly the murky affairs of this Nationalist-controlled public utility. I believe this is nothing less than a disgrace! [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

The end result is that we have a corporation before us today which continues to be dedicated to political bias, which is bent on self-perpetuation of the closed Nationalist shop, and which tries to avoid rational exposure of its financial and administrative failings.

And so, South Africans and parliamentarians are left with no redress. We have tried everything. Well, I say no redress, but perhaps there is one redress. There is always the market place. That is perhaps the only place we can look to today. Of all the TV programmes, the programmes which more than any others prop up Nationalist policy and propaganda are the Network and Netwerk programmes. It is on these programmes that we see the talking heads. It is on these programmes that NP propaganda is stuffed down our throats.

I do not believe that advertisers interested in the future of our country would want to support this propaganda, this Nationalist nightly show. Last night’s advertisers on Netwerk were: Irvin and Johnson who advertised Dinner Club Foods; Sanlam who advertised their Finplan; Jordan Shoes; and Mobil—an American multi-national—who advertised their petrol. I call upon all South Africans who abhor all this one-sided propaganda to write in their hundreds and thousands to these advertisers and all who advertise on Network/Netwerk … [Interjections.]

Boycott policy!

… and ask them not to advertise on Network. [Interjections.]

Why do you not ask for sanctions too? [Interjections.]

I say that they should ask those advertisers not to allow their advertisements to be placed in the Netwerk/Network programmes. [Interjections.] Any advertiser who continues to advertise on these programmes must know that he is supporting Nationalist manipulation of the SABC. For my part—speaking only personally—I certainly will no longer support any product which is advertised on Network/Netwerk. [Interjections.] Perhaps others might do the same. [Interjections.] Perhaps then we may find public pressure building up to provide our country with a truly fair, unbiased and objective news service.

You see, Sir, when all else fails, sometimes public opinion can make things work. And about time too! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to address you on two points of order. The first one is: Did you understand the hon member for Sandton to use the word “psychopath” or “sycophant”?

I understood the hon member to use the word “psychopath”.

Well, Sir, with respect, the hon member used the word “sycophant” which means a servile flatterer, a toady or a parasitic person …[Interjections] …which, I think … [Interjections.]

Order! I told the hon member for Sandton which word I thought it was I distinctly heard. If that was not the word used by the hon member, I shall attend to the matter at a later stage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The second point of order is that I wish to draw to your attention the fact that the hon member for Turffontein made nine interjections and the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development made seven interjections while the hon member for Sandton was speaking. Particularly as in the case of the hon the Minister it was one word repeated over and over again, I suggest that these two hon members be requested to restrict their interjecting in this regard.

Order! That is certainly for the Chair to decide upon. That is not a point of order I will accept from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure whether I am following up on the hon member for Sandton or the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I regard it as a privilege to participate today in the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote, and I should like to give my full attention later to the SABC and its news service. It is unfortunately not such a privilege—if I may put it that way—to follow up on the distasteful speech of the hon member for Sandton …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say that the hon member for Sandton made an “on-smaaklike toespraak”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

…and the personal attacks he launched against individuals. I do not think such behaviour befits the front benches of this House.

You are a sycophant! [Interjections.]

Order! Did any hon member use the word “psycopath”?

Mr Speaker, I used the word “sycophant”.

Order! They are getting too clever in this place! [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Those hon members have big problems with their pronunciation. [Interjections.]

Up to 11 years ago I was an SABC news editor, and despite the years that have elapsed since then, I think that I can still talk with a certain amount of understanding on this subject. The SABC always finds itself in the position of being the punch-bag for opposition parties in this House, and this afternoon we saw this happen again. It is a convenient punch-bag because as far as policy is concerned it can never defend itself, but must endure the unjustified accusations levelled at it by both the CP and the PFP.

There is always a great song and dance about the news services supposedly being biased in favour of the Government. This has been the case again this afternoon.

What is the hon the State President doing about it?

I hope that hon member will have a turn to speak later.

That allegation is nowhere near correct. I often hear the words “His Master’s Voice” used in my presence. Let us look at the facts, however, because I want to put the facts, rather than the half-truths which the hon member for Sandton has indulged in.

The best illustration is probably the TV coverage of the 1987 election. From 1 January to 5 May 1987, the time allocated in news slots to the various political parties was as follows, and I now want these prophets of disinformation to the right of us in the House to listen very carefully before they open their mouths too wide about the SABC being a so-called propaganda mouthpiece, as happened here this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon members must just listen. In that period the NP received 45% of the news time, the CP and HNP 23% and the PFP-NRP alliance also 23%. The three independents, who have a lot to say for themselves, received 9%. The opposition groups therefore received a total of 55% of the total time. In view of the fact that this side of the House now holds more than three-quarters of the seats, we can now allege that we are being unfairly treated. [Interjections.]

This argument does not only apply to the ratio of seats we hold. Let us look at the election commentaries which the SABC presented from 1 March to the eve of the election. Here again only 40% of the time was allocated to the NP, while the PFP-NRP group, which was the strongest joint opposition party until 6 May, received 26,5% and the CP-AWB alliance received 19%. The NP therefore was allocated considerably less time than it was entitled to by reason of the more than 52% support which it polled during the election. The opposition groups received 60% of the time with their joint support of just over 46%.

The Rhodes University statistics, which were given prominence in certain newspapers during the election, differ in many respects from the SABC’s analyses. The main reason for this is that Rhodes, on its own admission, included nonelection-orientated appearances of the hon the State President and other Minister in their statistics. [Interjections.] These noisy types sitting there laughing must remember that at the time of the election campaign the NP was in effect the government, and that the hon the State President and Ministers continue to be involved with non-politically orientated matters even during election campaigns.

Let us once and for all put an end today to the grumbles and complaints of these hon opposition members. Let us look at the statistics involving the programme covering events in Parliament. For this purpose I should like to give hon members a summary of the time allocated during April and May this year. I wonder what they will have to say about this.

During these two months the NP received an average of one hour and five minutes and the CP more than 27 minutes. The PFP received almost 25 minutes. They are probably still going to devote some attention to this—no, I shall not use the word—of the hon member for Sandton. The NDM received three minutes and even the hon member for Mooi River got two minutes. That means that the CP and the PFP, neither having more than 20% of the NP’s membership, were given completely disproportionate amounts of time in these parliamentary reports.

In addition, this 65 minutes allocated to the NP includes appearances by hon Ministers who devoted most of their time to policy and departmental viewpoints which most certainly have a greater influence on the daily lives of every person in this country. As against this, most of the time allocated to the opposition was filled with opposition political trash and propaganda which were purely voter-orientated and formed no part of the constructive debating which should take place in this House.

In addition one often hears the argument the SABC’s news service and public affairs programmes—hon members heard it here again this afternoon—subtly and psychologically benefit the NP.

Quite openly!

That is absolute rubbish and I say that to that hon member sitting there “pinging” away. After all, the SABC is only a medium and can only convey what it has at its disposal. If the quality of the message of the opposition parties is not as strong as that of the NP, one cannot make the messenger the scapegoat!

We do not suffer from complexes on this side of the House. We do not look elsewhere, as these hon members do, for the reasons for our ability to influence right-thinking people. The fact of the matter is that we have far more reason to complain about political coverage than any of those noisy people over there. These two opposition parties in particular should be grateful for the time they receive from the SABC news services.

Of course, there are also advantages in this situation. The more time they get, the more likely they are to make fools of themselves with their lack of policy and disinformation attempts—as we have seen here this afternoon—aimed at misleading the voters, because that is what it is all about. [Interjections.]

It is a pity that the SABC cannot broadcast the full spectrum of debates in this House. In that way the voter would be better informed about the negative role played in this House by the Official Opposition in particular.

As an ex-newsman of the SABC, hon members must permit me to take up the cudgels on behalf of this organisation which has made such a constructive contribution for so many years in our country’s interest. The policy of the SABC is to keep the public properly informed on newsworthy events of the day—factually, impartially and without distortion. [Interjections.] There is a proviso to these terms of reference. It is not the intention that the SABC should make its medium available as a propaganda platform for specific interest groups. That is why they are complaining; they want propaganda.

As far as political parties are concerned, the SABC’s standpoint is that it does not simply convey party slogans—that is all they have—but in interviews and programmes aims at investigating the implications of such slogans. I want to put it very clearly again to hon members to the right of me: As far as news value is concerned, it is obvious that policy statements and announcements by Government leaders are much more newsworthy than the one-sided and irresponsible political cliches of hon members of the opposition.

Firstly, such statements and announcements of necessity have more direct implications for the public, because they are being implemented in practice. What the opposition says is not being implemented or is irrelevant. [Interjections.] The NP is governing the country and it is governing it very well! [Interjections. It governs it, of course, from this House and I think it is high time that hon members realised and understood that clearly.

The SABC news service functions in an environment in which a daily record is kept of contributions of various interested parties, such as the authorities, a host of political parties, economic and social pressure groups and the broad spectrum of society with all its various facets. The demands made on the SABC news service are increasing by the day. This results from the numerous problems confronting the country on just about every level of its national economy.

Increasing pressure from abroad, the onslaught in military and other spheres, dissension on many levels and a more enlightened public approach are some of these. Because this news service—judging by the results of various surveys—is the most important source of news and information for all population groups, the primary responsibility of the SABC is to help create enlightened public opinion. This information service must take into account the realities of South African society, such as its ethnic diversity, cultural differences and many other factors. According to the news code, therefore, there must be honest and accurate, balanced reporting of news events in the right perspective [Time expired.]

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central drew my attention to the fact that the hon member for Sandton did not use the word “psychopath”, but “sycophant’. I looked up the meaning of both words and I am satisfied that the word “sycophant” is parliamentary. I therefore wish to rectify my ruling in that respect. *Since we are engaged in a debate on information I want to point out that I have listened to all the important parties in the House, and I am sorry that not one of the speakers of these parties has noticed up to now that history was made yesterday when a member of the Cabinet completed the Comrades Marathon and was awarded a silver medal. I am referring to the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation, Dr Dawie de Villiers. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, while the opportunity to do so presents itself I immediately associate myself with your congratulations to the hon the Minister. It is indeed an achievement to be able to make one’s mark in such a way at our advanced age. [Interjections.]

Firstly I want to congratulate the hon the Minister responsible for this portfolio on his appointment. He will certainly require strength, good fortune and a lot of wisdom and we hope that he will in fact have those.

I also want to refer very briefly to Mr Eksteen, the former Director-General of the SABC. On a previous occasion the hon the State President gave the assurance in this House, following a debate in which I participated, that he had at no stage given instructions to the effect that Mr Eksteen should be dismissed. Merely for the purposes of placing it on record, I also want to point out here that I subsequently reacted to it immediately in public. We accept his assurance on it. We want to add that it is known that on occasion he liaised directly with the former director-general and other employees of the SABC. We trust that in future he will follow the correct channels in order to get in touch with the employer if he has any suggestions as to how certain matters should be dealt with and that he will contact the SABC board directly in such cases.

It is also a great privilege for me to convey the congratulations of the NDM to Mr Wynand Harmse. He is someone whom I have really known for many years. He is a man of integrity and he is competent in his field. I note in the Press that he said that he is now captain of this ship. We wish him everything of the best and hope that he will have prosperous and peaceful voyages on this ship, and that he will also be able to take a well-motivated crew with him.

As far as the Vote on the SABC and Information is concerned, I had the privilege to see the programme which was broadcast on Network which was a repeat transmission of a programme in which Mr Ted Coppel interviewed both Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think it was an educational programme which for the first time truly gave us the opportunity to listen not only to the standpoints of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and to what he thought, but also to hear a little about the background to why he thinks the way he does.

It is the kind of programme for which I appealed two or three years ago in this House, and asked that especially in topical programmes the SABC grant people whom we do not hear an opportunity to put their standpoints, specifically in an interview context, so that we can hear why people think the way they do.

It is tragic that this transmission could not have been a local or a SABC production, and we want to appeal to the SABC especially to take the trouble in future to have more of these standpoints aired. [Interjections.] We have said throughout that the extent to which a society is informed is the most important factor enabling it to take decisions. If I therefore say that the opportunity should be given to people such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu to state their standpoints in an interview, I really do not want to limit this to people such as Archbishop Tutu; it must cover the entire spectrum.

The ANC as well?

That is also the way I should like to have it in respect of the ANC, but unfortunately the SABC Board and the people who are responsible for the news services are subject to a discipline of legislation in terms of which they would not be able to broadcast it.

In cases where they can in fact convey standpoints, I want to appeal to them to make use of the opportunity. I want to repeat that it must cover the entire spectrum; that as far as the political spectrum is concerned, consideration, must not merely be given to one person or one group or one general point of view, but that everyone from the traditional or the conventional left wing to the right wing should be given the opportunity to speak in an interview context.

In this regard I also want to repeat that it is not so much a case of people being given the opportunity to convey what they think, but especially why they think the way they do.

In this regard I want to mention the recent opportunity which we had to speak with members of the executive committee of the ANC. It was a normal visit ensuing from the discussion which we are conducting across the entire spectrum, namely of not only listening to the standpoints of people but also to listen to why they think in a certain way. My experience has been—I think hon members in the House will concede this point—that one can communicate best with someone if you also know how he arrived at a standpoint, what his reasoning was, why he thinks that way.

When one is confronted by two standpoints, and they are repeated to each other by other go-betweens, no communication takes place, nor is any influence exerted. What happens in such a case is merely that further polarisation takes place. I also want to say that the very aim of these discussions, as well as that of the recent discussion, is to enable one to come closer to each other by means of discussion, to be able to understand each other better, across the entire spectrum of politics, if we want to arrive at a future which will be a peaceful one for all of us.

The discussions must occur for the sake of what is important for oneself—the values which one harbours inside oneself. I think hon members will agree with me that we in the House basically share values whose existence we should like to ensure in future. We differ with each other about the ways in which they have to be ensured. Our standpoints, our strategies also have a background, and it is against this background that we appeal to everyone and also ask for the freedom of movement to proceed with discussions; not only in respect of the values which we as human beings share within a certain system, but also the values which we who are Afrikaners have—that is what is important to us and what we share with certain members in all the parties in this House. We must also convey them to a future community and in the process we must compare strategies and see whether there are no complementary strategies with which we can address problems and which we can bequeath to future generations that which is of essential importance to all of us.

Mr Speaker, I gladly follow up on the hon member for Randburg. I want to thank him especially for having had the courage or the decency, as regards the Eksteen case and the claims made by the hon the State President, to set the record straight. That is how we have come to know him, and we appreciate it.

I do not want to react overmuch to his speech, but in respect of the stating of one’s case I want to say to him that I think he is a bit idealistic when he says that people should merely get together and should state their case and that everybody will then understand each other better and that we will then live together more easily.

Then at least one stands a chance!

No, I think in some cases it may be altogether counter-productive. Due to prejudices or whatever, it irritates people when standpoints are rammed down their throats and the gap between the viewpoints is too big. I do not think that is the place to start. I think the place to start is real dialogue between leaders. If we have to advocate something, we should advocate that leaders from all sides should be prepared to talk to one another. Maybe we can then get to the next phase. I do believe, however, that he is trying to put the cart before the horse.

I also want to join hon members in congratulating the hon the Minister on his promotion, as well as the personnel of the SABC, and in particular Mr Wynand Harmse who had to take over the reins under very difficult circumstances.

I do not wish to spend too much time on the Riaan Eksteen case. I think it is history, it is behind us. We may disagree with each other about it, but it is in the interests of the SABC as an institution—and a very important institution in this country which not only conveys news, but also reflects the cultural life in this country—that things should quieten down, so that the SABC may continue its constructive work. However, I do want to react to one aspect to which the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke referred in respect of the Riaan Eksteen case. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke claimed here that the previously responsible hon Minister allegedly announced in this House last year that an investigation was going to be held into the finances of the SABC. I think he should go and read that speech by the previous hon the Minister again, because that is not what happened.

The former hon the Minister, Mr Schlebusch, said he was worried about the financial situation of the SABC. If matters did not improve, consideration would have to be given to the appointment of outside consultants. The hon member is welcome to read it. I am glad to see he has the Hansard with him. The hon member will see that he had in fact expressed his concern about the financial situation and he said that if matters did not improve, outside consultants would have to be considered. As the responsible institution, the board of the SABC itself decided to take the initiative and they then appointed consultants who investigated and reported on the whole situation. They then made recommendations to the SABC. Therefore that report of the consultants is the property of the Board of the SABC. It was their initiative and the report was addressed to them. They acted within the framework of that report. The impression which would now be created, that it is merely concerned with finance, surely is not correct. If one looks at the statements which were issued at that time, the most important reason that was advanced for the problem was that a credibility gap had developed between the Board and the management of the SABC. This was advanced as the main reason and therefore the issue here is far more than just finance. The issue is the entire management of the SABC. I think the matter should be seen in its correct perspective.

I want to react to a part or certain aspects of the speech made by the hon member for Sandton. I just want to tell the hon member for Sandton there is a saying which goes: “A drowning man will clutch at a straw”. Believe me, that is exactly what we have seen here today. The hon member for Germiston District has already referred to the statistics of the coverage and ratio between the parties during the election last year, as well as the Rhodes survey. However, it is interesting that, even if one examines the Rhodes survey the PFP, according to the percentage of votes it polled in relation to the percentage of coverage it received from the SABC, only polled half the number of votes in relation to the coverage it received. I therefore think the PFP should indeed ask the SABC please to give them less coverage, as they are their own worst enemy.

What did we have here this afternoon? The hon member for Sandton took what I consider to be an extreme step, namely an appeal to advertisers to boycott certain programmes, and specifically news programmes, of the SABC. That is a real boycott party!

That is why they are sitting where they are. They boycotted commissions of enquiry like the Schlebusch Commission and therefore have a history of boycotts. Today they are sitting there, but they are casting suspicion on multinational corporations and are trying to associate them with the Government because they are prepared to advertise during Network. The hon member is not even subtle about it and referred specifically to one of these companies, which is under pressure abroad, being multinational company. What is the hon member trying to achieve? Is he trying to play in the same league as those who try to establish sanctions and boycotts against South Africa in the outside world?

He is a Tutu man.

Is he playing in the same league? It is quite interesting when one talks about the boycotting of programmes, that he finds himself in very interesting company, because if I remember correctly it was the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis who also on occasion has spoken of boycotts which are to be organised against certain programmes they do not like.

[Inaudible.]

The lesson which the hon member for Sandton and his party should learn is that a man is taxed on his worth, and that members of the Press will judge a man according to the news he makes. Sheer sensationalism, by referring to things like boycotts and pleading for them, will gain one nothing and will not serve the SABC’s cause either.

I want to associate myself with another aspect of the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke’s speech by thanking the board of the SABC and the personnel involved for the way in which South Africa’s first political debate over television was handled. I am of the opinion that the action of the SABC throughout the entire situation was painstakingly correct. If we were to debate the technical details of the programme with each other or to enter into a dialogue, we would most likely agree that there are ways to make such a debate more interesting without placing the chairman in a difficult situation. For instance an arrangement could be made for the participants in the debate to ask each other direct questions without the intervention of the chairman, because one would not like to place him in a difficult situation. I think the exercise was worth the effort, and with regard to the future this matter should receive attention again.

You gave the CP a lot of points.

Mr Speaker, firstly I want to react to what the hon member for Germiston District had to say. His argument more or less boils down to the fact that the NP received too little time from the SABC during the election, because they had the majority of seats. If I understood him correctly, that was his argument.

I now want to give two very good reasons why the hon member’s argument has no validity. When an election is called, there is no question of a government continuing in power. None of the political parties have any seats when an election is called, and everybody starts from scratch to build up their support. For that reason the hon member’s argument has no validity.

There is a second reason why the argument is in valid, and that is that in a free, Western-orientated democracy such as the South African system, the principle of equality of parties applies. Each party must therefore have an equal chance of marshalling its elements of support, and for that reason the hon member’s argument does not hold water.

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

I do not have the time to answer any questions now.

I thought so.

Secondly, I should like to react to what the hon member for Springs said. I see he is not in the House at the moment. [Interjections.] He said the whole Eksteen affair was a matter of history. [Interjections.] I see he is sitting in another part of the House. He is now returning to his seat.

He is looking for the blonde spy.

Yes, he is actually looking for the blonde spy, but he cannot find her.

If you found her you would not know what to do with her.

I should like to remind him that the Eksteen affair is not merely a matter of history. It is a specific symptom, and this side of the House would like to address that symptom. We want to address that symptom in the same spirit in which the hon the Minister of Defence spoke in the Defence Vote when he referred to the post-apartheid era in South Africa. We can now speak of a post-Eksteen era at the SABC.

Hear, hear!

The question is—I want to address it in greater detail later in my speech: What was the real reason for the dismissal of Mr Riaan Eksteen, because if it was a question of dismissal, there could never have been any question of a gift of R500 000, because that would be no normal dismissal. I ask the hon the Minister please to give a direct answer to this question, and not to avoid doing so as he did when SABC television gave him an opportunity to hide behind the argument that he had no head for figures! That just showed the SABC’s bias because on the evening he was being interviewed and was driven into a comer on the question of figures, he was given the opportunity to get out of it. We ask him now if he really does have no head for figures, to ask his advisers to give him the figures involved in Mr Eksteen’s dismissal. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

Can you count, Stoffel?

There can be no doubt in our minds that Mr Eksteen’s dismissal had to do with what I should like to call the hon the State President’s autocratic way of doing things. Who could doubt that Mr Eksteen’s dismissal was a direct result of the clash last year between him and the hon the State President on the Hendrickse broadcast?

That is a lie!

I now ask the hon the Minister … That hon member should not be so quick to call it a lie! He should listen to what I really want to tell him, and I now ask the hon the Minister …

Order! Did someone say that that hon member was telling a lie, and if so, which hon member was it?

I said it, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I ask the hon the Minister, and through him the hon the State President if there is any truth in the rumour that the CP has heard, ie that the hon the State President, in the interview which he had last year with Mr Eksteen after the Hendrickse affair, allegedly said to Mr Eksteen: “Take your bankrupt SABC and go!” That is the information we have, and we ask the hon the Minister whether, if he is not certain of this, he will ascertain the correct facts from the hon the State President.

The choice the Board of the SABC had to make was in fact a choice between Mr Eksteen on the one hand and the goodwill of the State President on the other, and once again the SABC showed its bias by choosing not Mr Eksteen whom it could simply had dismissed if it wished, but the hon the State President.

In this debate the CP is asking the NP, which according to the hon the State President is renowned for its clean administration, to make known the reasons for Mr Eksteen’s dismissal, and we ask this specifically of the hon the Minister. If the reasons are as innocent as the NP alleges, and if the reasons are as innocent as he alleged on television, why does he not make these “innocent” reasons public? The NP has not publicised these reasons and this has created the impression that they are afraid to do so because of possible repercussions that we cannot even begin to imagine.

We also ask the hon the Minister to make the contents of the settlement agreement public if he is not ashamed of doing so. We ask him to tell us if it was R500 000 of perhaps more or perhaps less, and if he does not have a head for figures, as I have already said, he should ascertain the amount from his advisers. [Interjections.] Has Mr Eksteen been paid R50 000 to keep him quiet?

The CP’s standpoint on this affair is very clear. We reject the large financial advantage which Mr Eksteen received, and we say it is typical of the golden handshakes which the Government gives to top officials who either resign or are forced to resign.

The CP says clearly that the abuse of licence money, which is public money, in the Eksteen settlement, is in fact shocking and we condemn it unreservedly. The most important question is nevertheless the following: In this post-Eksteen era, are we going to have greater Government control of the SABC? Are we now going to have more instructions given to the SABC by the hon the State President than was previously the case? There can nonetheless be no doubt that the SABC is in fact a Government’s sympathiser on the road to power-sharing.

There are two quotations I want to use to illustrate how the SABC and the NP have changed their standpoint. On 10 May 1979, the SABC expressed the following opinion:

A few years later, on 3 October 1985, when the Government had changed its policy, the SABC, echoing the Government’s view, said:

I could go on to show how the SABC echoes the Government. On 22 June 1985 the SABC again took up the cudgels for the Government by expressing the following opinion:

What are you quoting from now?

What is even worse—and I want to dwell on this at greater length at the end of my speech—the SABC also acted as mouthpiece for South Africa’s worst enemy, and I am saying this with the utmost sense of responsibility. I think here particularly of the ANC. I say that, Sir, because in the Bill Cosby Show, the SABC allocates time to a friend of the ANC. Bill Cosby is a friend of the ANC. Bill Cosby says he will intervene to secure the release of Black radicals from prisons in South Africa. Bill Cosby says he is so strongly pro-ANC that he has anti-South African placards in his bedroom to remind him of it. This is the man the SABC shows us on television. This is the man for whom the SABC makes television time available to transmit a seemingly innocuous story.

Oh, you are completely ridiculous!

No wonder the well-known psychiatrist, Dr Michael Edwart-Smith, said the following according to Beeld of 14 April 1987 on the American influence on our television programmes:

I say today with the utmost sense of responsibility that the SABC is in the dock. The hon the Minister will join the SABC in the dock until he frees the SABC from its role as an instrument of propaganda for the Government!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Losberg devoted a very large part of his speech to the Riaan Eksteen case. I cannot lodge any objection to that except to say that I am of the opinion that the basic reason why the hon member for Losberg did that, was that the Eksteen case, was still too good an opportunity to miss of continuing to do what he and his party have been doing for years now, namely to sow suspicion, suspicion against the NP and especially against the person of the hon the State President. I even want to say that the hon member for Losberg’s party has been built on suspicionmongering. Hence the Riaan Eksteen case still offers them too many opportunities to desist from it at this stage.

I respectfully want to submit that the hon member should follow the example of the hon member for Randburg who displayed the courtesy of accepting what the hon the State President said about this when he denied that he was involved in the dismissal of Mr Eksteen. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to focus the hon House’s attention on two areas of the SABC’s activities which in my opinion enjoy far too little attention. Those are the activities of the Broadcasting Research Department and the External Service.

In my opinion it is a great pity that the sensational reporting centred around the SABC of the past year and more has completely obscured the functions of these sections of the corporation as well as other sections. This afternoon I should therefore like to shed a little light on these sections, something which in my opinion they deserve in every respect.

Firstly a few words about the Broadcasting Research Department. According to the SABC’s mission, they operate a broadcasting service of quality which takes cognizance of the demands of the day and tries to adapt itself accordingly. Furthermore, the SABC takes the wishes and needs of the various language and cultural groups in South Africa into consideration in order to inform them, to educate them and to entertain them. In this process the SABC endeavours to convey a positive message about South Africa and its peoples.

In order to be true to this mission, the SABC must be flexible and receptive to the wishes, needs and preferences of its viewers and listeners. That is why the SABC must be kept continually informed of what its listeners think of its programmes and how they react to them.

The SABC has entrusted this task to its Broadcasting Research Department, which has been formed into a scientific broadcasting research service. The Broadcasting Research Department enables the SABC to be kept continually informed, by means of its research, of the needs and wishes of its listeners and viewers, as well as their reaction to programmes.

Not only does the SABC undertake this research itself, it also utilises the research services of other bodies such as the Human Sciences Research Council as well as other bodies such as professional market research companies. Co-operation also takes place with research bodies on an international basis.

The result of this research is, inter alia, the following. It has been established that an average of 10,1 million adults are tuned in to the radio services of the SABC daily, and that an average of 7,2 million adult viewers watch the programmes of the four television transmitters.

Furthermore, after research, certain guidelines on television violence were drawn up on the basis of scientific research, and these are at present being applied by the SABC. This has led to a significant decline in incidents of violence depicted on TV, as appears from a survey made by the HSRC.

Pro-active research is also being undertaken in order to evaluate programmes both on the radio and TV, before they are broadcast. In this way it is ensured that locally manufactured programmes in particular will to a greater extent coincide with the taste of listeners and viewers. Research in respect of the popularity of radio and TV programmes is undertaken on a continual basis.

A very important consequence of the research is that the SABC is continually able to evaluate the credibility of its broadcasts, especially as far as news programmes and programmes on public matters are concerned. In this way it has been established, inter alia, that more than 80% of the Black radio listeners consider the radio news to be the most credible. As far as TV is concerned, it appears that it is still the most credible of the all the mass media, according to these surveys.

The implementation of these research results has undoubtedly led to programmes of better quality, and has consequently given rise to greater viewer and listener appreciation. It is no wonder that the Broadcasting Research Department’s contribution to the improvement of programmes was crowned with an Artes award in March this year, and we should like to congratulate them on that.

Furthermore, the SABC intends to expand and improve the testing, measuring and evaluation of its audiences’ reaction to programmes, especially by making use of electronic apparatus. In this way an attempt is being made to gauge reactions on short notice by means of apparatus which the listeners and viewers can dial automatically.

The Broadcasting Research Department renders a professional and therefore indispensable service to the SABC and ultimately to South Africa. The result of the dedicated labour of a team of motivated researchers is aimed at rendering a quality service, in accordance with the SABC’s commendable mission. In this way a positive message about South Africa and its peoples is being conveyed.

Radio RSA, the SABC’s external service, strives to broadcast more comprehensive, reliable and objective information about South Africa, and to convey to listeners abroad a more positive image of South Africa. In the process the stream of negative propaganda against our country is being counteracted and refuted, and South Africa’s commercial interests are being promoted and friends won for South Africa.

Radio RSA broadcasts in 11 languages to various target areas on all the continents. During 1987 programmes were broadcast to these regions for 208 hours per week, and in this way it was possible to convey first-hand information to the world about events in Southern Africa, and counteract the negative views on South Africa. The importance of this work in the hostile world in which we are living today, cannot be sufficiently emphasised.

The fact that collaboration takes place with the Department of Foreign Affairs in this sphere as well deserves special mention. In this way Radio RSA and the Department of Foreign Affairs were able to prepare specific programmes to counteract disinformation in certain target areas.

As far as South Africa is concerned, this is vital work and deserves encouragement from all of us. South Africa has to be heard in an unsympathetic world, and the medium of radio broadcasts, with its unique capabilities, must be fully utilised in this regard. By way of illustration, I can merely mention that the radio service can also be heard in Angola as well as in Cuba.

I conclude by saying that the Broadcasting Research Department and Radio RSA are performing a superb task in the interests of the Republic. On behalf of this side of the House I want to convey to them our deepest gratitude and appreciation and I should like to wish them prosperity on the road ahead.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the speakers on the opposite side of the House reacted again in a way which we have become accustomed to when the SABC debate takes place in the House. They went out of their way in their efforts to indicate how ostensibly unprejudiced and unpartisan the SABC is in its presentation of the news and other programmes. [Interjections.] The debate is following exactly the same pattern of last year, when hon members on the other side of the House tried to vie with each other in intensity in the way in which they tried to present the SABC to the House as a politically neutral organisation. Last year the hon member for Sunnyside put it as follows:

It still is not true.

The hon member said it is still not true. This afternoon I want to test the statement which the hon member just made here in the House, based on the statement and the standpoints of the SABC itself.

For this reason I want to confine myself to one of the aspects of the SABC’s functions, namely its commentary which it broadcasts on the Radio South Africa transmitters just before 07h00. This commentary is in fact the SABC editorial. It is therefore not merely the opinion of an individual that is expressed in that commentary, but it represents the official standpoint of the SABC.

The first question which can justifiably be put, is whether such an official party political standpoint, such as is often adopted, ought to be expressed by the SABC. In the Gazette of 15 June 1979 the conditions which the SABC, as holder of a broadcasting licence has to comply with, are specified and nowhere in those regulations is provision made for an official party political standpoint which the SABC may adopt; on the contrary, it is a condition of its licence that:

In view of these existing regulations it is an open question whether the SABC may commit itself openly and officially to a sectional party-political standpoint. It is especially important in view of the monopoly which the SABC enjoys in terms of broadcasting services, a monopoly which renders it impossible to have its party political propaganda put in perspective on the air.

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

No, I am not going to reply to any questions now.

In studying the editorial commentary of the SABC, two conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, this commentary forced on it by the NP-govemment, is a slavish adherence to the changing policy of the Government. I want to quote a few examples. As far as South Africa’s relations with Mozambique are concerned, and especially with Renamo, the following was said on 21 April 1983, in other words before the Nkomati Accord:

On 21 January 1985, after the South African Government had made a left about-turn and at least created the impression that it had left its erstwhile allies in the lurch, the commentary was as follows:

[Interjections.] Clearly these are two contradictory standpoints, in complete agreement with the changing attitude of the South African Government. A further example is what was said on 1 December 1976 about foreign interference. America was referred to.

On 16 September 1985, after Dr Chester Crocker had twisted the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs round his little finger, they were singing quite a different tune.

Previously foreign interference had been condemned in strong language. In 1985, after the South African Government had become soft on this matter, it was not only approved of, but was elevated to something deserving of praise.

I also want to refer to the SABC’s standpoint on power-sharing, a topic which the hon member for Losberg has already touched upon. When the then Prime Minister still rejected power-sharing and said that pigs would fly before he accepted it, the SABC agreed wholeheartedly with him. On 10 May 1979 it was said:

However, when the then Prime Minister, made an about-turn and announced in 1982 that he accepted healthy power-sharing as his policy, that policy crystallised into a mixed parliament in 1984 and the SABC merely displayed its subservient (ja-baas) mentality once again. On 22 August 1984 they remarked almost triumphantly in their commentary:

Does the hon member for Sunnyside and other hon members on the opposite side of the House—those who are trying to demonstrate the so-called neutrality of the SABC—still want to claim that it is simply not true if the CP says that the SABC is a public propaganda instrument of the Government? [Interjections.]

Order!

Secondly I want to say that in its daily commentary, the SABC is also an initiator of NP politics and NP policy. In fact they anticipate the Government; they are helping the Government to formulate its policy of integration. In this regard I should like to mention a few examples which have already been realised in practice. Before the 1981 election the then Prime Minister gave his personal assurance that section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act would not be repealed.

After the election, however, the then Prime Minister not only wrote to the churches to ask whether it was still necessary to retain these Acts, but the SABC also expressed its opposition to them. On 27 October 1981, a few months after the election, an onslaught was launched on the Acts, and on 12 July 1984 that campaign was continued in the following commentary:

When the Acts were ultimately abolished by the Government, the SABC applauded it on 17 April 1985 as being “een van die beste nuusitems wat vanjaar uit die Parlement gekom het”. What it had initiated had become reality.

I want to point to another example. On 18 September 1981—in other words just before the general election in which the electorate was promised division of political power and in which power-sharing was rejected, and before the rift of 1982, caused by the concept of power-sharing—a unitary state with power-sharing was propagated:

That, too, ultimately became a reality in our country.

There are many other examples which can be pointed out in which the SABC anticipated the Government’s path of integration. Obviously one can accept, as speakers cited this afternoon, that the SABC did not do it without the Government’s approval, but was in fact misused to prepare and pave the way for the multiracial politics of the Government.

This afternoon I want to tell the SABC that the part played by the SABC, together with the NP, in the destruction of separateness in our country is indelibly engraved in their memories. They have taken note of the fact that the corporation assisted in destroying the freedom of our people and that it allowed itself to be misused in depriving us of our vested rights. We shall remember that the SABC paved the pay for power-sharing even before the Government did, and did so shortly after the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had said in a lucid moment that it would destroy South Africa if Blacks were incorporated into the new constitutional dispensation.

On 25 November 1983 they made it clear that local government for urban Blacks was the beginning and not the end, and on 3 January 1984 it was said about the Blacks that the Constitution was not and could not be the final chapter in South Africa’s constitutional development. Now, in 1988, we are standing, as far as the NP is concerned, before another Constitutional amendment, namely the inclusion of the Blacks, something which was initiated by the SABC a few weeks after the 1983 referendum. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we just want to say to the hon member for Brits and his associates that it is no use telling them that the SABC is not the instrument of the Government. The more we say this, the less they believe it, and therefore I do not wish to a debate the matter with that hon member. [Interjections.] We shall see to it that the SABC remains a neutral body which is not an instrument of the Government, and that it will in all respects act neutrally, but will place South Africa first. [Interjections.]

I would like to talk about one of the newest additions to the radio services of the SABC, which was brought about as a result of rationalisation. By 1985 the old Springbok Radio was operating at a heavy loss, and it was then decided by the SABC to terminate this service on 31 December 1985. This service had 83 transmitters at its disposal, of which 29 were then closed down while the rest, 54 transmitters that is, were retained and maintained. From time to time these transmitters have been used for broadcasts such as sport, for example cricket, when the match lasts a whole day, and also for simulcasts.

This was only a temporary arrangement and on 1 January 1988 a full-fledged radio service was introduced, namely Radio 2000. A full programme format has been introduced with programmes on religion, sport, music and also simulcasts. At present negotiations are under way to broadcast educational programmes as well. The time which is to be set aside for this will be leased out so that a degree of privatisation will take place.

Radio 2000 transmitters reach between 86% and 88% of the total population of the Republic. Therefore it has a very big impact. Certain parts of the country, especially sparsely populated areas, are not serviced by Radio 2000. Nevertheless we want to request the SABC and the hon the Minister to have an investigation from time to time into whether this position can be improved upon. In particular we think of areas like the Central and Northern Cape which are poorly serviced in this regard. It is also common knowledge that Radio 2000 had surplus time available. Then it was decided to lease this ser-vice, which would also effect a degree of privatisation. The first organisation which started to lease time was Radio Pulpit, to which about seven hours per day are allocated by way of economical rental fees for the time they use.

Radio Pulpit headquarters are in Pretoria in Kilner Park, which lies in the electoral division of Koedoespoort. This is a non-profit organisation which is dependent on voluntary contributions from the public. As its name points out, Radio Pulpit only broadcasts religious programmes. These consist of the spreading of the Gospel, the message of the Bible, music—mainly spiritual songs—and spiritual talks. Its broadcasts take place through Radio 2000, only inside the RSA and under licence from the SABC. It is not associated with any church, but is completely independent and compiles its own programmes. Radio Pulpit makes use of the clergymen and members of all the churches in its programmes, including Justus Tsungu.

A lot of comments on his programmes are made by all the population groups. All of these are positive comments, and in our country Christian religious programmes can mean a great deal for the relations between the population groups. This is also reflected in the contents of these comments.

I want to congratulate Radio Pulpit and also wish it every success with the task it is taking on and carrying out so enthusiastically. May it always be well-supported by the public as well, not only as regards its programmes, but also financially. I also want to congratulate and thank the hon the Minister and the SABC for the time they have allocated to Radio Pulpit to continue with the work it is doing. We want to express the hope that, should this organisation need more time in future, the matter will be considered favourably by the SABC and the hon the Minister.

With these few words I gladly support the Information Vote.

Mr Chairman, because these two Votes tend to overlap somewhat, I would rather give a full reply to all the speakers at the end of the total time allocated. It seems to me the discussion of the SABC is virtually at an end, and that is why I merely want to say a few words about the Information debacle.

Firstly I want to refer to the head of the Bureau for Information, Mr Steward, and the senior officials who are also present here. The past year has been a very good year for the bureau. The bureau is still a young organisation, but various organisational innovations were introduced in the course of the year, all of which ultimately contributed to the bureau being able to perform its task better.

It is a pleasure for me to see such a young organisation thinking in such an innovative way from the beginning. The bureau is becoming increasingly established as a professional communications institution which facilitates the flow of information between the State and the general public. For this I should like to give recognition to Mr Steward and the top management. I should also like to give recognition to my own Ministry personnel. They work all kinds of impossible hours. They do so gladly, supportively and without reservation, as well with great competence. Personnel of that kind is worth its weight in gold for any politician in office.

At this stage I want to leave the matter at that. I shall reply to hon members later at the end of the debate.

Mr Chairman, as far as the Riaan Eksteen case is concerned, I think it can be summarised very simply. The position is as follows: Mr Eksteen left. If he were guilty of anything, why was he not dismissed? Why was no action taken against him? The whole situation in regard to Mr Eksteen stinks, because the fact of the matter is that there was obviously no contravention on his part, no problem was created by him and he was given a golden handshake, as the saying goes, or what one of my colleagues calls the “Cullinan kiss”!

I should like to ask the Minister whether consideration could not be giving to abolishing TV licence fees for pensioners.

I now turn to the department and say that we are strongly in favour of an independent department of information, such as the one we have at present. Its object ought to be to convey the true image of South Africa; in other words, to counteract distortions, half truths, lies and so on about South Africa. However, I foresee three problem areas for the department. I think the department has a few good officials. I think Mr Stewart, who was an ambassador in his day, is particularly suited to be the head of this bureau. However, they are going to encounter three basic problem areas, which I should like to single out.

The first one is a maintenance of equilibrium between South Africa’s interests and those of the government of the day. In this regard there are grounds for serious criticism of the bureau. I want to mention some examples to hon members. Millions of rands have been spent on information material, but the standpoints of the opposition parties are kept quiet. I want to ask whether that is fair.

Last year on 6 May it was demonstrated that as far as the White opposition was concerned the CP received 27% of the people’s support as opposed to the NP’s 52%. In the subsequent by-elections a strong swing in favour of the CP was shown. There are those who say the gap is now approximately 45% for the NP, and 45% for the CP. [Interjections.]

I’ll be damned!

I mean 45% for the NP and 35% for the CP. That hon member said: “I’ll be damned!”. I want to tell him he really should have been in Randfontein. At one stage the NP tables looked like a lonely hearts club. [Interjections.] I want to ask hon members, if it is true that if one were to combine the NP and the CP votes to arrive at 56% and 44% respectively, whether it would then be fair that the winner takes all. Surely the NP is trying to move away from the concept of the winner taking all. Should the NP be getting all the publicity from the bureau? I say it is unfair, an abuse of State machinery and taxpayer’s money in an effort to save the sinking NP ship. [Interjections.]

I suggest that the number of information items be divided percentage-wise according to electoral support. [Interjections.] In White politics it would mean that instead of the hon the State President receiving an entire page in Rapport merely to put his party’s standpoint, he would receive half a page for that purpose. The CP would receive a third of a page and the PFP and others, the rest. In so doing the voters could look at the entire page and read the entire spectrum of politics. That is democratic, fair and correct.

I therefore ask that the information campaign should also do justice to the standpoint of the opposition parties, and that a department of information should not function as the NP’s propaganda section, that the voters should receive the full truth and the true image of White politics in its entirety, and that opposition standpoints should no longer be stifled in a dictatorial way. That was the first problem.

The second problem that the Department has to deal with is a very unenviable task, namely that it has in effect to convey the NP’s policy. Today I want to ask hon members what the NP’s policy is? [Interjections.] What is the perception that has to be conveyed? The worst aspect of this situation is that these people have to convey the NP’s policy, while the NP’s chief information officer in the Transvaal and the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal does not even know what the NP’s policy is. Immediately after the by-election in Randfontein, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys was reported as follows in Beeld of 31 March 1986:

In the same newspaper the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal was reported as follows:

You are the ones who are intimidating them!

The Minister says we are the ones who are intimidating them, but how can we intimidate them if the NP does not give them anything?

With gossip!

Herein lies the tremendously unenviable task of the department. If the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal and the chief information officer say there is uncertainty about policy, what on earth must the Department of Information convey?

Surely the NP’s new policy is now one of powersharing without domination, but no one is able to say how that domination is going to be prevented. I have asked at least 20 times in Parliament how the NP wants to prevent the domination of one group by another. Today I am asking for the 21st time how they intend doing it.

The hon the State President said that South Africa would never have Black majority rule. That means that there will always be a majority of Whites who will govern, and that amounts to naked White domination. How does the Department of Information answer this essential question? If a foreigner merely asks this department two questions the department is powerless. The first question is how the NP intends to protect minorities. No one receives a reply to that. Secondly, it is being said abroad that we are deceiving them if we say that we reject domination, because we advocate White domination. These lies are in fact a problem abroad at the moment, because if one travels abroad, the senior embassy staff say that it is being said abroad that we have lied to them too much and they can no longer believe us. This problem, namely what the Government’s policy in fact is, is creating an insoluble problem for this department. It is certainly handicapping their potential for success.

There is a third problem, however, and that is the fact that another government department is running an information service abroad. We are of the opinion that one department should administer information work inside the country as well as abroad. That reinforces cohesion, leads to greater effectiveness and can be cost-saving. At first glance these days there are very few information campaigns being implemented abroad anyway. One notes a listlessness, a subdued initiative and a lack of vision in our overseas information campaigns. [Interjections.]

I suspect that the problem might lie with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because he is so busy running around with his tongue hanging out to become State President one day that he has very little interest in what happens to South Africa’s image abroad. I have often wondered whether there is only one Minister who is working, because he is never here. One will never see the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs here. One sees him only once or twice a year, yet one sees him every night on television. Do the other hon Ministers not work? Have the other hon Ministers nothing to merit their appearing on television? [Interjections.]

It is high time that another Minister took over this extremely important function of foreign information and started to do something to improve South Africa’s image abroad. [Interjections.]

Many millions of rands need to be put aside for this priority, and I think this hon Minister would do a much better job of information if he were put in charge of foreign information as well.

Sir, we wish the department a successful new year, and we trust that they will do justice in their information work to the opposition parties as well, that they will avoid being the NP’s propaganda machine, that foreign information will be made part of this department’s activities and that South Africa’s image abroad will be conveyed correctly and with dignity.

Mr Chairman, it has been a long time since I have listened to a speech in this House which was so meaningless in respect of the department with which it purported to be dealing. One should perhaps have understanding for the opposition, because when there is a department which functions so well, it is probably inevitable that one does not have any more criticism to level at it, and one therefore, year after year, has to deal with the same old complaint over and over, namely that the Bureau for Information is in fact occupying itself with NP propaganda. Perhaps the opposition should consider tabling their Hansards of previous years; in that way we could save much more time and progress more rapidly with the real work.

I merely want to refer briefly to the one point raised by the hon member which has a bearing on this debate, namely that the Bureau for Information is in fact occupying itself with NP propaganda and that the opposition parties should consequently receive time to put across their case. Do the hon member and his party, who have repeatedly discussed this, not understand the difference between a party and a government? A party which comes to power surely forms the Government, and the Bureau for Information is engaged in explaining Government standpoints and conveying them to the population of South Africa. It has nothing to do with NP propaganda. The NP has its own information programme, which deals with NP information, and the Bureau for Information simply has nothing to do with NP information.

Communication is extremely important, because South Africa’s enemies are continually engaged in vehement actions against South Africa in the way they diffuse information about South Africa. It is true—all hon members who have had the experience of talking to foreign guests know it and the hon the State President also said it the other day—that when one is in conversation with such a foreign guest, he will tell you that the South Africa which really exists, and the South Africa presented by means of the information which is disseminated about South Africa, are two completely different places. It is therefore not a question of what the real circumstances in the country are. Instead it is a question of a perception that people have of reality, and because the life of everyone is affected by Government decisions, the population is entitled to know how it affects them, and it is the Government’s responsibility to communicate with the population. That is consequently the Bureau for Information’s task, namely to communicate by means of its actions and conduct. The Government’s actions in respect of constitutional, social, economic and security matters will be only as successful as the degree to which they can be effectively communicated. Communication is therefore a central function of any government, and the more so of the South African Government because it has to defend itself against a revolutionary onslaught. That has nothing to do with NP propaganda.

It is nevertheless true that certain matters which are important to everyone, regardless of their party-political affiliation or the population group to which they belong, are also important to the survival of everyone in the country as well as to South Africa itself, for example better relations between the various groups, economic prosperity, a stable security situation, the maintenance of the free market system, the maintenance of democracy and so on. These are important matters which have to be successfully communicated.

In order to communicate these matters successfully, a certain number of guidelines are necessary, about which I want to say the following. There must be effective co-ordination between the various institutions which are responsible for communication. There has to be an awareness at the various institutions of the fact that professionalism must be maintained. Furthermore, there must be sufficient manpower and finances, and use must also be made of communications experts, while the media also have to be actively involved.

The fact that the Bureau for Information has come into existence also confirms the seriousness of the Government as far as this aspect is concerned, namely to communicate with the population of South Africa. When one consults the annual report of the Bureau for Information it is very clear, as the hon the Minister also said, that this young organisation is a vigorous organisation, which is effectively succeeding in fulfilling this communications function. At a later stage other hon members will refer more extensively to the functions of the bureau, and also to what the bureau has achieved. On behalf of this side I merely want to congratulate the head of the bureau and all its officials on having succeeded so effectively in such a short time in expanding this bureau into what it is today. I also want to wish them everything of the best with the task which awaits them in future.

There are still a few other matters which I should like to touch on briefly. I think it has perhaps become important that at this stage of the existence of the bureau consideration be given to a more effective way of allowing communication in South Africa to take place in an optimum way. I therefore want to ask whether the time has not come, in view of the fact that South Africa has many communications experts in the various spheres of our society, to make use of those people’s expertise in a more structured way, for example in the form of a communications advisory committee consisting of experts from the academic world, the advertising industry and the media, for the benefit of the bureau and the entire communications exercise, which could also advise the hon the Minister in connection with this very important matter. This can only enhance the effectiveness of communication considerably and I believe that it could only be in the interests of everyone if we in South Africa were to approach specific values, such as the maintenance of democracy, of the free market system and so on, in a serious way. In that way we shall not make it an instrument of party politics.

That of course applies to everyone and every inhabitant of South Africa, and I am of the opinion that in this regard the bureau has a very important task of informing the population of South Africa in respect of these actions and of communicating with them.

Mr Chairman, I want to react briefly to the hon member for Sunnyside. He referred to the fact that the Government was looking for communications experts to serve on an advisory council. I have no objection to that in principle. I want to tell hon members on the opposite side of the House that the CP will also give them the necessary advice. [Interjections.] He will find that at this stage there are very few communications experts in the country who would in fact be capable of giving advice on that level.

I also want to react to the hon member’s allegation, namely that in my previous speech I had been insulting towards the officials of the SABC. I thought that the reverse was in fact true. I tried to act on their behalf here and to express their concern at interference from above. [Interjections.]

In view of his thought concerning State information or State propaganda, I think it is important that the hon the Minister give the matter specific attention. I must say the CP is very concerned about internal communication. We do become excited when the concern is with the outside world, but we are particularly worried about the domestic sphere, because that is where one immediately, as previous speakers have said, comes up against the difference in definition between what is State information and what is in fact party propaganda. I believe it is in fact possible, although very difficult, to draw a distinction between the two. I think the hon the Minister ought to lay down guidelines for his department to avoid our continually having problems with advertisements in newspapers and similar activities, which threaten the entire democratic process.

I should also like to react to the hon member for Springs, who referred to the investigation which the previous hon Minister had allegedly announced. Technically he is correct in saying that the hon the Minister suggested that professional consultants from outside would have to be appointed. However, that is the dilemma which we have referred to on numerous occasions, namely that what is being suggested here is instantly implemented by an autonomous board on the other side, but technically the hon member is nevertheless correct. The council decided to do what the Minister suggested. [Interjections.]

In the available time I should like to address a few other problems. One particular problem is M-Net, which at this stage is in direct competition with the SABC as a television network, while the SABC still has to be measured against the same financial and other standards as before. Furthermore, the SABC has been compelled by the Government to relinquish some of its best evening viewing time, between 18h00 and 19h00 to M-Net, so that M-Net can advertise itself in this time slot and ultimately, as far as I am concerned, make as much money as possible in the short time it has there.

The ultimate effect will be that the SABC will have to increase its licence fees. At this stage the Government is in this way enabling private bodies to become rich at the expense of the SABC. I do not think one can agree with it, namely that they gain entry in this way, placing the SABC under tremendous financial pressure. M-Net also stated emphatically that its main object was to make money; it was not ashamed to say so.

The CP, myself and many other viewers expect the SABC to present us with programmes of a high quality, and to protect the Afrikaner culture and other cultures and to follow all the other guidelines of which hon members are aware. I maintain that the competition with M-Net, which does not commit itself to these kinds of elevated norms and merely wants to make money, is the cause of the superficiality I have already observed in the SABC at this stage.

Ultimately the State will be obliged to help finance or help protect the non-profitable parts of the SABC, such as TV2 and TV3, as well as the radio and other interests. I think this is an unequal financial struggle which is still going to create many problems for us in future.

I come to a second matter, and that is concerned with the fact—and I think I am correct here—that in the past, approximately two years’ programmes were stockpiled by the SABC—that was the policy in the old days—as a buffer against unforeseen problems such as sanctions and so on. The CP would like to know whether this precaution is still being taken. Rumour has it that this buffer has been used up to save money and to solve financial problems temporarily.

Whereas the Film Board served as an archives for the Afrikaner film culture, the SABC serves as the archives for the Afrikaner video and television culture. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it might be true that classic series such as Nommer asseblief, Bosveld Hotel and so on have not perhaps been wiped for the sake of effecting a saving somewhere. It would mean irreparable harm, because a local series such as that could easily be televised again, while it is going to be far more expensive and difficult to produce it again. I am not even referring to the cultural-historic value of some of those series.

What is the period of time for which this buffer makes provision in case we have problems from outside? We do not want to find ourselves in a situation in which we cannot offer any resistance to something of that kind.

Finally I want to refer briefly to the film industry. Hon members are probably aware of the fact that at present certain tax concessions are being granted in that industry in order to encourage local productions. What is relevant here is the marketing costs, especially abroad, which may be deducted from tax. However, it appears to me that a large number of international film companies are suddenly making films here in South Africa, merely to make use of these privileges. I am not sure that this is in fact in the interests of our own film industry. The CP is in favour of the local film industry being stimulated and promoted to the maximum, but perhaps this aspect should be considered in order to prevent any abuse.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I shall not respond directly to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, because at this stage of the debate we would like to say more about the Bureau for Information and the information function, and he returned to a discussion of the SABC.

I should very much like to talk about an interesting subject raised by the hon member for Overvaal, and to debate this matter with him. This refers to the function of the Bureau for Information, as he sees it, to convey specific political information.

If I understood the hon member for Overvaal correctly, he is in fact asking the Bureau for Information to become involved in politics and to promote the opposition parties’ policies; in other words, to broadcast political information. If I further understood him correctly, he is talking of a system of proportionality. Must opposition parties, according to him, receive coverage through the Bureau for Information in proportion to the support they have? He must tell me at what stage that support must be measured. Is he referring to the number of seats in this House, or is he talking about the number of votes during the last election?

That is what I said.

The hon member was therefore referring to the last election results. At the same time he claims that there has been a swing in the interim. Must that swing be ignored or not?

Should the Bureau become involved in the distribution of political information, and if that were used as a basis, the CP would be placed on a very slippery slope and in very dangerous waters, because if the hon member wants the number of votes recorded at the last election to be taken into account, it means that each party which participated in that election must have the right, on the strength of the votes each party polled, to receive proportional treatment from the Bureau for Information.

[Inaudible].

I am arguing with the hon member for Overvaal; the hon member must not interfere.

Order!

That would mean, for instance, that the HNP would also receive coverage proportional to the amount of votes it polled.

Another interesting situation would arise. When one looks at the situation immediately prior to the last general election, from 1982 to last year the CP would not have been able to claim any coverage by the Bureau for Information because the CP had no track record before the last election. The hon member will see therefore that it is not the task of the Bureau for Information to give political parties …

To make propaganda for the Government.

The hon member must not start shouting when he is embarrassed.

It is not the task of the Bureau for Information to convey party political information. That is not its function!

But it does do so!

No, the hon member astounds me.

Order! There is far too much shouting across the floor of the House. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Overvaal astounds me. He calls himself a student of political science.

I do not.

He then becomes completely confused by very basic concepts within that discipline. The point is that the State—the authorities or the government of the day—takes certain steps because it is responsible for the administration of the country according to the policy for which it received a mandate. The steps it takes have a material influence on the living standards of its citizens. They also have certain implications in respect of the action taken. For instance, if legislation is passed, it places certain obligations …

You are missing the whole point.

There is no point; that is the problem. The hon member for Overvaal has no point, because the State acts or takes certain steps, and it is the task of the State to inform the citizens of the implications of those steps. I shall illustrate it for hon members by way of a simple example.

That only happens in South Africa.

That hon member is confused again. It is surprising how unscientific he is.

Let us take a very simple example, ie the establishment of RSCs. It is a fact that regional services councils are being introduced. The introduction of regional services councils has certain implications for the citizens of our country. Certain levies have to be paid and certain actions have to be performed by the RSC. There is an obligation on the State, and not just a right, to inform the citizens of the country of the implications of that step. Funds are also generated by way of certain types of tax. That tax money is spent. It is the duty of the State—it is not its right, but the duty of the government of the day—to inform the citizens of the country what of happens to those funds.

That is how it works in socialist countries.

Does that hon member not want us to inform them at all about what happens to that money? Do hon members know why? That party is going to be in an embarrassing position because on the strength of their ideology they refuse, for instance, to allow funds of the RSC to be used to erect a bus terminus in Pretoria, which that city must have. They refuse on the grounds of their ideological viewpoint. The implication of this is that the Pretoria taxpayer has to pay for it, over and above the funds available in any event to the SRC. They have every right to be so stupid, but the State has a duty to keep people informed.

We can differ with one another, and in fact we differ sharply with one another on the philosophy underlying the establishing of an institution such as an RSC, and the ideology which led to its establishment. We can differ on that score. That must be settled between the parties and the propaganda mechanisms of the various parties. The Bureau for Information is not involved in philosophies or ideologies, but with the fact that the system exists, how it works, and with its implications. That is the difference which that hon member must understand.

Finally I want to refer to another question. Firstly let me say it is very clear that the Bureau for Information has a key function in regard to the conveying of information and co-ordinating communication between various departments. We are to a certain extent very grateful for the new status enjoyed by the Bureau in the sense that we again have a Ministry of Information. But while it has that co-ordinating function, I think the time has come for serious consideration to be given to the possibility of upgrading the Bureau to a full-fledged Government department. I think the task it perform entitles it to have equal status with other instruments of the Government. I should also like to mention one single practical idea in regard to liaison with the media, which in fact is one of the terms of reference of the Bureau. It has to serve as liaison between the public sector and the media, because the media is one of the sources which must be used to inform the citizens of the country.

I received telephone calls this week-end from various newspapers which asked me about the active participation of Ministers in Republic Day celebrations. I tried to find out whether there was some central point where one could ascertain where Ministers were appearing. I could not in fact discover such a point. It seems to me that one should make such provision on the so-called communications calendar of the directorate. I remember the days when I myself was in the Press Gallery, and as correspondents we received confidential information each week about the programmes of Ministers and where they would be so that one could prepare oneself. Consideration could possibly be given to the Bureau fulfilling that function.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the Subdirectorate: Media Liaison, which is responsible for liaising with the foreign media. I should like to mention that the staff of the Bureau, who are responsible for liaising with the foreign media here in South Africa, should also be subjected to foreign exposure in some or other form. Having worked as a correspondent abroad myself, I think it is essential that those staff members should have a thorough knowledge and experience of the foreign media climate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, watching television last night and seeing the few people who listened to the hon the Minister of Law and Order at his gathering yesterday, I can understand why the hon member for Springs wants to organise a type of rent-a-crowd to go and listen to Ministers. He wants the list of their programmes made public so that they can follow the Ministers around and provide a crowd for them. I think Cabinet Ministers are very much in need of that. [Interjections.]

The annual report reveals as little of the activities of the Bureau as the hon the Minister does. I am greatly concerned about the activities of the Bureau. I expressed a similar view at the time of its establishment and nothing has happened to change my mind. In fact, my suspicions have been further aroused by the manner in which the Bureau operates. Almost 750 individuals are in the employ of this branch of the Public Service and one is completely in the dark as to what their real activities are. The report mentions all sorts of esoteric activities that do not adequately reveal what the Bureau is actually busy with.

I have no doubt that the real objective of the Bureau is to promote and defend the NP. The brochures, newspapers, videos and activities of the Directorate of National Liaison, in particular, are interested in and concerned with one objective only, and that is to keep the governing party exactly where it is. An amount of R31 626 000 is to be voted for this Bureau, and I say it is a great deal of taxpayers’ money to squander on promoting the NP. I think it is a disgraceful waste of money and a scandalous misuse of their position by the NP.

All the activities of the Directorate of National Liaison are outlined in the annual report as follows. Firstly, regular liaison with the members of the Interdepartmental Liaison Forum, the ILF, to further a positive image of the RSA and the Government through co-ordinated, purpose-orientated communications actions. The ILF secretariat is based at the Bureau—that is sinister. Its main function is to assess the mutual requirements of the Bureau and other Government departments and to correlate their combined communication actions on the State’s behalf. This is all gobbledegook simply to hide the fact that this department acts on behalf of the NP.

Secondly, there is on-going liaison with interest groups such as women’s and immigrant groups, businessmen, service clubs and cultural organisations. Thirdly, there is on-going liaison with, and co-ordination of programmes for, overseas visitors to counter misconceptions concerning the RSA. Fourthly, briefings for opinion-formers on matters of national interest.

These objectives are designed to bend the minds of the listeners to accepting the policies and the direction of the NP. Hundreds of meetings and gatherings are held each year where businessmen, housewives, immigrants and other individuals are brain-washed with Government propaganda. I believe this to be extremely sinister, and I cannot overstate my concern at this type of activity. We receive many complaints during the course of each year concerning the activities of the Bureau, and we are most concerned about what is going on with this particular section. Dealing with that—there are still a number of points that I am going to touch on—I want to ask the hon the Minister, when he replies, to tell us why there appears to be such a high staff turnover in the Bureau. Why is it that there appears to be a large number of people who leave the service of the Bureau?

Turning to a lighter matter, I wonder whether it was a Freudian slip to describe the powers of the President’s Council in the booklet South Africa at a glance as advisory and arbitrary. I have consulted three different reputable dictionaries, and while it is correct that arbitrary means that one is not bound by rules or statute, the word also means capricious, despotic and founded on personal whims or prejudices. [Interjections.] I understand what the copywriter was attempting to convey, but I think he summed up the real intention of the Government in a most effective manner.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to furnish the House with details of the recently announced News Agency. A short announcement appeared in the Press a few days ago advising that this news agency had been established. I fear that this is another attempt to manipulate the free flow of news and information. I regard it as another sinister development and I would like the hon the Minister to fully explain the background to the establishment of this agency, the reasons as to why it is necessary to provide an official version of the news, and why it was felt necessary to pass a vote of no confidence in that very fine and impartial organisation, Sapa. This is going to duplicate Sapa’s work. There is no doubt that this is to be seen as an Eastern European type of operation to control the flow of news and put the Government’s stamp on information. I am most suspicious about the motives for the establishment of this agency. I also want the hon the Minister to advise us what this is to cost and under which Vote it was hidden. There was a tiny item announcing the establishment of this organisation just a few days ago.

I now wish to turn my attention to the mystery of the video tapes sent from George to Johannesburg after the gathering at Lawaaikamp over the weekend. There are reports that four video cassettes sent by SAA were interfered with. The videos were apparently rewound to the beginning of each tape when they arrived in Johannesburg—a practice which is most unusual as tapes are simply taken from the cameras and dispatched immediately; and, secondly, I understand that the images of the church service at Lawaaikamp had been erased on all four cassettes. I know the hon the Minister is not responsible for the SAA.

Can the hon member tell me whose tapes these were?

The four cassettes were from Visnews and CBS and were sent from George to Johannesburg. They were reporting for the following agencies: NBC, ABC, BBC, ITN and CBS.

I am aware that the hon the Minister is not responsible for what happens at the SAA, but he is the Minister responsible for the image of this country and for dealing with the international Press. I am advised that this incident has been reported on extensively, both in Europe and in the USA. I am also aware that the NP is not really concerned about the image of this country overseas, but I want to say that we in the PFP are. The Nats tell the world to do their damnedest. My hon leader and the hon member for Houghton and other senior hon members of this party spend a great deal of time and effort arguing against sanctions and disinvestment. I want to ask the hon the Minister what he is doing about this incident and what further action he intends taking.

One final point; I want to ask the Mulder brothers, namely the hon members for Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein, but particularly the member for Schweizer-Reneke to take South Africa into their confidence. It was reported earlier this year or last year that the member for Schweizer-Reneke …

Order! The hon member must address hon members as hon members.

It was reported that the hon member taped a long interview with his late father setting out the questions that he—that is his late father—would have asked in Parliament in connection with the Info Affair. I believe that there may be information which could affect existing hon members of this House, and existing hon members of the Cabinet, included in those notes and in those tapes. I would ask them to publish that information as soon as possible.

Publish and be damned!

Mr Speaker, the speech of the hon member for Johannesburg North was, of course, partly frivolous and partly paranoic. The paranoic part was all his talk about brain-washing and the conspiracy theory as to what the Government is doing with this Bureau for Information.

It is an obsession.

Yes, it is an obsession. That is a good description of it. The frivolous part comes in when the hon member for Springs, in all seriousness, talks about a need that there is on the part of journalists to know what the schedule of Cabinet Ministers is. He then mentioned the genuine constructive thought that there should be more co-ordination and ready availability of that kind of information for the media. The hon member for Johannesburg North then became somewhat sarcastic and talked about rent-a-crowd. [Interjections.] I would like to say …

Do not be frivolous!

Perhaps the hon member for Pinetown would like to tell the House and his colleague about that fantastic protest meeting that his party held in Pietermaritzburg last week to celebrate 40 years of so-called NP misrule.

Whereas the NP had none to tell at all!

There was a magnificent turnout of exactly 40 people and that included the speaker! [Interjections.] All I can suggest is that they make use of rent-a-crowd in future if they want to do something similar. [Interjections.]

*What should surely not be in dispute any longer is that it is the duty of the government of the day to inform the entire population about policy decisions and national issues timeously and in the speediest and most effective manner. However, listening to the hon members of the Official Opposition, one can hardly believe that they persist with their arguments in this regard.

The hon members for Sunnyside and Springs dealt with the matter very efficiently, and this was in stark contrast to the bombastic, superficial and emotional manner in which the hon member for Overvaal tried to put forward his party’s views on this issue.

In this regard I want to focus specifically on the Directorate: Planning Co-ordination of the Bureau for Information, which is responsible for the communication projects aimed at promoting the Government’s national objectives. Against the background to this issue that is supplied in the annual report—I presume hon members taking part in this debate took the trouble to read it—the bureau has developed a communication planning procedure that includes target market, message and media analysis. Therefore, this bureau is now for the first time applying communication techniques and principles that have been applied by large private institutions for a long time, and this should be welcomed.

It is clear that the Government will, increasingly, have to make use of one of the most effective methods used by the private sector, viz advertising campaigns. Frequent reference was made to this this afternoon, albeit not in a very constructive spirit. Together with the feedback surveys this involves, this method could represent a major step forward as regards communication between the ruler of the country and its citizens. As the bureau’s annual report reveals, some of the campaigns that have already been conducted were of a more functional nature—surely hon members of the opposition cannot object to that—and involved, for example, identity documents, rental boycotts and so forth. Other campaigns, again, involved less functional and more general policy issues or even a combination of both, such as the abolition of influx control and citizenship.

Obviously there is variation in the degree of effectiveness of campaigns, but in one specific case six out of every 10 White South Africans were reached, and 83% of those reached were in favour of this method of communication. This finding has consistently been confirmed by further surveys. The surveys also show that even a substantial percentage of those people who do not agree with the message advertised—the hon member for Overvaal, for example—do agree with the method. All these findings point to a high degree of receptivity for this method of conveying messages. We must take note of this. Moreover, these campaigns under the direction of the bureau are approached and conducted in a highly professional manner. A recent example in this regard was the campaign on the hon the State President’s economic initiatives, and no reasonable person will deny that this was an essential exercise. The only question I want to ask is whether enough was done in this regard.

The need for communication in South Africa has never been greater than at the present moment and I want to appeal to the Bureau for Information to request more funds for campaigns of this nature. For example, whenever Parliament passes important legislation that will have a direct influence on the ordinary citizen, this should also be conveyed speedily, effectively and factually by means of advertisements. After all, the public has the right to be informed, and it is the Government’s duty to inform them.

†An amount of R1,3 billion is spent on advertising in South Africa per annum, and the Government’s portion of this amount is fractional. Advertising is a tool of communication which is being used increasingly by governments worldwide, and, if anything, South Africa’s needs are greater than many others. This is so because of the importance of perceptions of what the Government is doing.

For any Government the danger of its intentions being misunderstood or wrongly perceived is a real and constant one which can only be countered by the greatest shaper of perceptions of all, namely advertising.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion I would like to urge the bureau to continue with and expand dramatically its pro-active Government advertising campaign, as in this way it can only contribute to better communication between the Government and the governed, and a more meaningful national debate.

Mr Chairman, I like to speak after the hon member for Umhlanga. He dealt specifically with communication as an instrument of information, and in the process referred to the advantages of advertising campaigns. I think it was an important point to raise, and I should like to support him in his appeal to the Bureau of Information in this regard.

In the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to say a few words about the film industry in South Africa. I think it is essential that during the discussion of this Vote hon members should give consideration to the South African film industry, because this is the first time in our history that the film industry has been especially entrusted to a Cabinet Minister. This industry has entered a new era this year. From 30 March this year the film industry has become part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Information. It could be asked why the Government has taken this step. I think this step must be seen as acknowledgment by the authorities of the important contribution which the film industry can make to the cultural life of South Africa in general, and in addition for educational purposes, as a creator of job opportunities and as an earner of valuable foreign exchange. It was for this reason that the Government decided to give special attention to the industry by entrusting responsibility for it to a member of the Cabinet. It is an important step of great significance to the film industry. It must not be seen, however, as an attempt by the State to take over or control the industry. On numerous occasions the hon the State President has committed himself and his Government to the promotion of private enterprise. The Government has taken this step to provide private enterprise and creative talents with the scope and the opportunity to come forward and make their contribution to promoting the industry.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the industry is waging an uphill struggle in South Africa. According to the SA Film and Video Institute, seven out of 10 South African-produced films show a loss, notwithstanding the subsidy they receive from the State.

In addition, the domestic film industry finds difficulty in competing with the imported article. It has to compete with thousands of select products. Furthermore, there is a great diversity of population groups in South Africa, each with its own language, culture and tradition. To produce a film for such a diversity of language groups is a great challenge, according to the SA Film and Video Institute to which I have already referred. Mr M H Heyns, chairman of this Institute, recently pointed out that the average production budgets of international films was approximately R20 million per production. When one bears in mind that a local film is produced for approximately R1 million, it is expecting rather a lot of the local producer to produce a high quality film on so little money.

The Government has therefore appointed a task group, under the guidance of Mr Boet Troskie of Mimosa Films, to investigate certain aspects of the film industry. The aim is to improve the general situation in the industry as quickly as possible.

A vigorous and successful film industry could mean a lot to South Africa. It could manufacture a product which would generate foreign exchange. It could establish South Africa as a national and international film manufacturer. It could serve as a buffer against foreign sanctions. Through successful communication it could help to give the international community a different insight into South Africa. It could even promote better communication between South Africans, and engender better understanding and human relationships internally.

We must accept that the advent of television in 1976 influenced the development of the industry. It has been calculated that television brought about a drop of about 50% in cinema attendances. Approximately 150 cinemas had to close as a result of this—most of them in the rural areas.

It is also true, however, that world-wide the film industry is subsidised in one way or another, the exception, of course, being the USA. In South Africa the industry relies to a great on subsidies from the State. The production of full-length films without State subsidies would, in fact, seem to be impossible.

During the 1987-88 financial year, R9,7 million was paid to film producers in terms of subsidy schemes. This was not done to enrich people, but to facilitate internal film production. However, it is pleasing to note that the good South African film is still profitable. I have been told that a film like Fiela se Kind has already earned R2,2 million at the box office, and is expected to exceed the R3 million mark.

We must remember that hundreds of millions of rands have been invested in the South African film industry. This industry has a refined infrastructure, and approximately 15 000 employees are involved in the industry in some way or other. In addition, the distribution industry and the theatre industry provide job opportunities for 3 700 employees, while the video industry employs 4 200 people. Furthermore, it is calculated that South African films annually attract an audience of approximately 46 million, mainly people in the age group between 16 and 34. Films must therefore be regarded as the most important form of entertainment in South Africa. There is apparently no other entertainment medium which satisfies the social needs of our young people to the same extent films do.

Another aspect which merits attention is the South African film industry’s complete dependence on the American film industry. It is worrying that approximately 90% of the films shown here are of American origin. Mr Boet Troskie made a striking reference to this recently, and I should like to quote him in this connection:

In my view this is an unhealthy state of affairs which calls for serious attention. We must become less dependent on the American industry through the promotion of domestic films. The South African film industry can make a contribution in many spheres in South Africa, for instance the creation of job opportunities. It is also a powerful instrument with which to promote human relationships, to provide entertainment and generally to enrich our cultural lives.

In addition the film industry can play a major role in improving South Africa’s image and neutralising propaganda against us. South Africa has a large diversity of people and cultures, breathtaking natural beauty and a colourful past, which offers unique opportunities to our film producers to make our country known to the world.

Because the Government acknowledges the possibilities and potential of a vigorous film industry, it intends to examine and improve the problems and obstacles the film industry is experiencing. The local film and video industry, the SABC, M-Net, the State and the private sector all have an interest in the investigation which will take place.

I say it is in the national interest that it should be made possible for South Africa’s film industry to make its contribution towards establishing South Africa as a national and international film maker which, apart from earning foreign exchange and improving relations internally, can give the international community a different insight into our problems.

The hon the Minister who from now on will be responsible for this branch of his department, is faced with a formidable task. May his contributions and those of his department be successful in all respects. On behalf of this side of the House I wish him everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein East for his excellent contribution on the film industry. He explained the matter very nicely, and there is nothing in particular I want to add, except just to say that the fact that this is the first time in history that the film industry is being expressly entrusted to a Minister, as part of his portfolio, attests to the Government’s seriousness about this facet.

I recently announced the appointment of a small task group. All I want to say about it here is that that task group is small—for that reason it cannot possibly be representative—so that it can be manoeuvrable and work quickly to give us something to react to at the first possible opportunity.

The task group has been asked to contact all interested parties in this industry. Let me also ask all interested parties to contact the task group and to make their relevant contributions. We want to see whether we cannot, in this way, set the ball rolling quickly, even though there will continue to be follow-up investigations for a long time to come.

I just want to digress for a moment and give attention to the hon member for Randburg’s contribution because the hon member has informed me that he does not have much time. [Interjections.]

It is true of course, as the hon member for Parow said, that we should actually keep him here longer. I should like to convey my thanks to him and to all other hon members who were kind enough to congratulate me. This is a major task.

On behalf of the SABC and the Bureau, I should also like to thank all hon members who conveyed their congratulations and good wishes to these bodies. Both these bodies are very important ones in South African society as a whole, particularly at this time, and I think those people deserve the good wishes of this House.

The hon member for Randburg again raised the matter of political interference in the dismissal of the former Director-General. I want to thank him for that, because in contrast to some other hon members, the hon member acted like a man. I am saying this because after he had made specific allegations, based on particular information he had at his disposal, and when on closer examination he came to the conclusion that he should not pursue that course any further, not only was he prepared to say so in public immediately afterwards, but today he also repeated it. I want to thank him for that.

I should like to give him the assurance, man to man, that as far as my personal experience goes, and as far as I could ascertain—I went out of my way to do so—there never was any question of that. [Interjections.] I merely want to tell him that I think he was absolutely right to have accepted it as such, and I again thank him for doing so.

The hon member also said that other views should be reflected by the SABC. That is so. The SABC does so from time to time, depending on the subject at issue. Attention will increasingly be given to this matter on an on-going basis. The only restriction is that on radio and television, which lend themselves so well to this, people cannot allowed, expressly or by implication, to act in such a way as to undermine the State. In other words, the SABC cannot be expected to allow people to use the SABC to advocate violence, revolution and even sanctions and boycotts. That is a subject, however, which one can discuss further.

In regard to the question to discussions with the ANC, I must tell the hon member—and he knows it—that I disagree with him on that point. The Government cannot, in any event, enter into discussions with an organisation which not only has violence as its official policy, but also officially proclaims and commits acts of violence. One would thereby legitimise violence as a course of action and undermine the whole basis of one’s endeavours to establish a democracy.

You really are treating Wynand with kid gloves, aren’t you!

That is again a point which one …

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister tell me whether, from his point of view, the standpoint is also valid for the Angolan government in relation to Renamo and the Maputo Government in relation to Frelimo?

Those governments must formulate their own standpoints in their own circumstances. As far as we are concerned, it goes without saying that it is in our interests, to help establish the greatest possible degree of peace in our neighbouring states in any way possible.

Does that include talking to …?

As I have said to the hon member, in that context those governments and organisations must put forward their own standpoints.

The hon member knows that this Government’s view is that the situation in Angola is not one of revolution or local insurrection against an existing government, but in fact a previously existing conflict. In any event, to this day the government that came to power in Angola has not, for example, been recognised by the USA. It is therefore actually more of a civil war than anything else. In the limited time available one unfortunately cannot go into matters such as these in much more detail. [Interjections.]

Let me just deal briefly again with the matter of the SABC and the departure of the former Director-General, seeing that so many hon members referred to it. One of the hon members of the CP—I do not know whether it was the hon member for Losberg—said that now they really wanted to be given the reasons why Mr Eksteen had to leave the employ of the SABC. They wanted to know whether the reasons were so sinister that they could not be made public.

Actually the reasons are so simple that the CP cannot grasp them. That is really the case. [Interjections.] It is a common phenomenon, which manifests itself virtually on a daily basis in the private sector, that a crisis of confidence develops between a management body—ie the board—and the executive director of an organisation. It can happen for various reasons. [Interjections.] It can be ascribed to a variety of reasons. [Interjections.] Once that crisis of confidence has occurred, in the first place it is no longer even a question of who was the guilty party or who made the mistake. The fact of the matter is that if one tries to run that organisation under those circumstances one could do it a great deal of harm. For that reason it is relatively common practice to compensate a person who is dismissed for any damage he may have suffered in the process. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, I just want to make my points, and then I shall see whether there really is any time left for questions.

So that is how simple the whole thing is. Others—and I too—have said that we appreciate the work Mr Riaan Eksteen did there. We said we had great appreciation for him as a person, and also for the work he has done. Over a long period, however, a situation developed which would have made it counter-productive, as far as the management of the organisation was concerned, to have continued to make use of the services of Mr Eksteen. [Interjections.]

Why?

The hon member wants to know why. If one can imagine a situation in which misunderstandings develop between the board and the director on a variety of matters over a long period, can one then imagine the executive’s confidence in the person who must manage the business from day to day increasing as time goes by?

Fire him then!

Order! I cannot allow a stream of interjections to be made. Interjections are only intended for suitable occasions; in no way is it the intention that they should be made on a continuous basis.

It is specifically because this situation is in no way unique that hon members of the CP apparently cannot understand it. The situation is that in the process there was never any allegation made about Mr Eksteen having acted dishonestly or unethically, or of his having done anything else of a negative picture. Consequently one cannot dismiss him. The point is that this is a common situation. Let us see what happened. During this debate last year the hon member for Losberg said (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 4467):

Then give us the report!

That is precisely what was done.

†I also wish to address the hon member for Sandton on this point. Last year this hon member had a lot to say on this subject. Last year in this debate he referred to the financial position of the SABC. He compared this to what had happened in the private sector. He said the following (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 4496):

He went on to say—

That was what the hon member for Sandton said last year. [Interjections.]

Do you blame Riaan Eksteen for all those losses?

No, I do not.

The whole board should go!

There is another point I want to make in this connection. As a result of statements made by hon members of the opposition and certain newspapers, the perception has arisen that the termination of Mr Eksteen’s service was, in fact, solely due to the financial situation in the SABC, when everything that both the SABC Board and I have said from the very beginning has indicated that a much more general management problem was involved, something which was also reflected in the financial situation, of course. It was definitely not merely the financial aspect that was involved.

†We did almost exactly what the hon members for Sandton and Losberg called for. We did exactly that, and then they crucified us for that, when at this point there is no evidence before the House to tell what the Managing Director of Times Media Limited was paid out. However, that is not the point. The point is that this type of phenomenon of ending the services of a senior employee and paying out some compensation is an old, established principle. [Interjections.]

*Hon members of the CP have taken great exception to the fact that I did not mention exact figures. The reason why one does not mention exact figures is that the salaries of highly-placed officials should not unnecessarily be aired in public.

This matter has nothing to do with the salary.

The underlying principle is that the former Director-General was paid compensation equal to five years’ basic salary, excluding allowances. We could, in fact, argue about the period of five years, but surely it does not make that much difference whether the amount is a little bit more or a little bit less. The underlying principle is that five years’ basic salary was involved.

Do you have the exact figures?

Even if I do have the exact figures, I have no intention of mentioning them, because they are not relevant. It is the principle that is involved.

†This brings me to another point in this regard as far as the hon member for Sandton is concerned. He wanted to know exactly what the terms were. In fact he tabled a question in Parliament, and then Parliament disallowed that question. It was not the NP, it was not the Government, it was not the hon the State President and it was not the SABC. It was the officials of Parliament …

In terms of the rules that you made!

No, in terms of rules that have been in force for a long time in this House. Therefore, to be dissatisfied with that, is really being somewhat cantankerous.

*Again the underlying principle is that the gist of the agreement was made public. There are also specific staff regulations which are binding on anyone leaving the service. Whether he leaves the service on pension, resigns or is paid off, makes no difference. Those regulations are applicable to everyone, and they are consequently also applicable to Mr Eksteen.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, but I did not hear what the hon member said. The point is also that he is still making a speech.

Here I want to state very clearly that there is a rumour that some or other special agreement was concluded with Mr Eksteen to silence him and that that was why that large sum was paid to him. That, however, is very far from the truth. There is no such agreement. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

Yes.

If that is the case, why cannot we see from the regulations—which we are not allowed to see and are denied to us—what the general rights and duties of staff members are? Why has this been denied to us?

I do not think it is customary for the staff regulations of an autonomous body to be discussed in Parliament and dragged through this House. [Interjections.] I think hon members can make inquiries for themselves. I am quite sure that if hon members can get such fantastic inside information about the SABC, it is surely not beyond them to gain access to the staff regulations.

It is a statutory body!

Order! The hon member for Losberg has now made sufficient interjections.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question? [Interjections.]

I shall now take a question.

The hon the Minister indicated that the crisis of confidence between Mr Riaan Eksteen on the one hand and the SABC Board on the other gave rise to Mr Eksteen’s resignation. I should now like to ask the hon the Minister if he would be kind enough to give us just one example of what gave rise to this crisis of confidence? [Interjections.]

It is clear that this is a matter which it would be very difficult for a Minister to discuss because it involves the relationship between two other parties. I would therefore have to speak from hearsay. In any case, I do not think it is right to start itemizing matters now. The hon member for Losberg has asked me just to mention an example to him. If I mention one example to him, what would he do? He would say that was not sufficient reason to have dismissed Mr Eksteen. That would not be enough to have caused a crisis of confidence.

I would not say that.

The point is that what was involved here was the accumulation of a large number of small incidents over a long period. That is what was involved. Now I am not speaking solely about the relationship between the SABC Board and the Director-General, but about every relationship of that nature that should exist between any board and its chief executive officer. One could, as it were, compare that with the relationship that has to exist between two parties who have contracted a marriage. The marriage cannot survive if those two people no longer have any confidence in each other. That does not necessarily mean that one of the two parties has been guilty of some or other transgression. That is not necessarily the case. There are many marriages which ultimately simply do not work.

Then just tell us what the first quarrel was about. [Interjections.]

The description I have just given is about the best way in which I can describe it. That kind of situation is as old as the hills.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I do not want to answer a question now. I shall come back to the hon member at a later stage.

I just want to deal, for a moment, with specific matters raised by specific individuals. The hon member for Umhlanga spoke about the finances of the SABC and the video library which was computerised to facilitate matters in future. He also spoke about the revenue and the relationship between licence fees and advertising fees. I think this is a matter one must dwell on for a moment, because it is a very important matter indeed. As the hon member indicated, there are all kinds of negative aspects involved in the SABC having to rely on advertising fees. As several hon members have remarked, it is also a fact that there are a tremendous number of other services the SABC would be able to furnish if it had more money at its disposal.

No one can argue with them about these legitimate services such as cultural enrichment and assistance to the film industry and the arts. Thus far they have done an excellent job in furnishing these services, but they are seriously hampered by a shortage of finance. Ultimately attention will have to be given to the licence-advertisement fee ratio. I do not want to conduct the whole debate all over again, but I just want to say that I have taken note of that. It was explained very succinctly by the hon member for Umhlanga, and the matter will have to receive attention.

The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said that the staff of the SABC no longer felt any pride or loyalty. He also said that the SABC’s credibility had been dealt a blow, and he ascribed this largely to the number of directors-general the SABC has had. He also reproached the Government, of course. He said that this tremendous turnover in directors-general began when the hon the State President became Prime Minister 10 years ago. That is what I have against the hon members of the CP and the PFP, and in particular the hon member for Johannesburg North. They make certain statements and then make all kinds of obscure deductions, ascribing all kinds of sinister motives to a situation. [Interjections.]

Their facts are basically correct. There have been many directors-general, but only Mr Eksteen left the service under the circumstances we are familiar with. There was only one other director-general who went on early retirement as a result of poor health. All the others who were mentioned retired on pension.

Four Ministers!

There was nothing strange in that situation. Why should the Government be blamed for a natural state of affairs? [Interjections.] Why must it be used as an example of the Government destabilising the SABC? Surely it is not fair to draw such conclusions!

Four Ministers?

The fact that there were four Ministers is not that much of a problem. Those are things that happen from time to time. How could we have foreseen that my predecessor, to whom I wish to pay tribute at a later stage, would find it necessary, so soon after returning to the Cabinet, to retire again? [Interjections.] That was not the intention. Once again it was a case of someone relinquishing his post earlier than expected for personal, health and family reasons. So there really was no malicious intent.

A few hon members discussed the question of board members.

Are they all Nationalists?

I do not know whether they are all Nationalists.

Order! I have already asked the hon member for Losberg to limit his interjections, but he persists in interjecting.

The fact of the matter is that specifically because there was some criticism of the high political profile of some of the board members, when the board had to be reconstituted my predecessor went out of his way to appoint people who did not maintain a high political profile. Those are the facts of the matter. Hon members are free to examine the political activities of each of those board members during the year—or even longer—prior to their appointment. It is true that the deputy chairman of the board was, at one stage, actively engaged in party-politics.

[Inaudible.]

He was not active at any high level, however, and in subsequent years was less active.

That was specifically an effort to reduce the political profile of the board, and for that very reason Prof Sampie Terblanche’s presence on the board was no longer acceptable when he began to adopt an ultra-high profile, regardless of the nature of that profile.

That is the left-wing Terblanche.

I couldn’t care less.

*The hon member also referred to the various dynasties and said that at present the “news dynasty” was in control. Those are cute ideas which the hon member could incorporate in a scientific dissertation some time or other, but I do not think that gets us any further at present. The fact of the matter is that both opposition parties, and even the newspapers, were in some difficulties, in the sense that they had accused the SABC of being too attentive to the wishes of the Government—the SABC could not be more attentive—but then Mr Eksteen was dismissed for not having been attentive enough. We find these contradictions in the allegations made. It is very ironic, but it is also true …

Schizophrenic!

… that it simply depends on what argument suits them best—now they use this argument and then they use another argument, and so frequently, when one ties up the two arguments, one gets something as nonsensical as this.

Next year they will be asking the same questions again!

The fact that directly after a specific incident last year, my predecessor, Minister Schlebusch, made an announcement about a possible investigation into the management of the SABC, can simply be ascribed to the fact that that had been programmed a long time previously and that his Vote was to come up for discussion that day.

The hon member asked to whom the report was submitted. I think that question has been answered in full. It is a report that was requested by the board and which was intended for the board and not the Minister, Parliament or anyone else. It is an investigation which is still in progress, and that is an interim report. In every respect it is therefore a domestic affair involving the SABC Board. Why was I privy to that report? Surely it goes without saying that the SABC keeps me abreast of what is going on at management level, because ultimately I am the one who has to stand up here today, and this time next year again, if I am still dealing with this Vote …

You will not be standing there for much longer!

… and am held accountable. Then surely I at least have to know what is going on. Surely I must be able to speak with the same confidence as that with which I gave the hon member for Randburg the assurance that that was the state of affairs that prevailed, even though I could not give hon members specific information. I must be able to speak with confidence, after all, and I therefore have to be informed. Surely there is nothing wrong with that! I do not, after all, go around giving this information to people who should not have it.

The hon member for Sunnyside emphasised the SABC’s difficult task. He also referred to the very important and wide-ranging role played by the SABC in the national economy. He referred to the decrease in the number of scenes of violence on television. I think he covered those facets very well, and I thank him for that.

†Now I want to come to the hon member for Sandton. Really! It seems to me that he must necessarily be a very eloquent sycophant of very far left organisations, because he is just a mouthpiece for those organisations in this House.

Did you say “psychopath”?

I said “sycophant”.

You said “psychopath”!

No, I said “sycophant”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister allowed to refer to an hon member on this side of the House as a psycopath? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I did not use the word “psychopath”. [Interjections.]

I beg your pardon, Sir, I distinctly heard the hon the Minister say “psychopath”. [Interjections.] Well, may I then ask what he said?

Order! The hon the Minister used the word “sycophant”. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, the hon member referred to research in connection with the SABC which was commissioned by the PFP. This was done in order to create a watchdog to watch over the allocation of time to political parties. I believe the hon member for Germiston District dealt very effectively with that matter. It is quite telling that the hon member should have gone to the extent of obtaining legal advice only to find he did not have a case. Therefore, his whole story was simply to hide the fact that he had a bad case.

No, it was technically, not legally, not possible to continue with the case.

Well, that was simply because the hon member had a bad case. It is not technically possible to bring a bad case before a court and to expect to win it.

See, we cannot change the law!

Mr Chairman, the licence conditions have been in force for many years now. For the hon member for Sandton to refer to Mr Johan Pretorius and to allege that he was placed in Tuynhuys in order to make sure that every presidential utterance, except the hon the State President’s burps, would be recorded is, I believe, yet a further example of the type of gross exaggeration to which that hon member resorts in this House. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, Sir, I leave the hon member at that.

*The fact of the matter is that the hon member also objected to specific letters he received. He pointed to the SABC having made certain mistakes. It goes without saying that anyone who does anything will make mistakes from time to time. But one subsequently corrects one’s mistakes, as was in fact done in that case. Mistakes do not, however, correct themselves. I myself have reason to complain from time to time, for example, about how shabbily that hon member’s Press treats me. I never make such a great fuss of it, however. I try to set matters straight without any fuss.

It is not his Press!

I do not own a press!

I am referring to the Press which supports that hon member’s views and for whose edification he makes his statements.

They are his “sycophants”! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I just want to add two more things. It has repeatedly been stated by hon members opposite that we are dealing here with taxpayers’ money. The hon member for Sandton also used that phrase. But then, Mr Chairman, Times Media Limited are also working with taxpayers’ money.

Licence-holders are basically very …

A television licence is an optional thing. Similarly the buying of a newspaper is an optional thing. It is not obligatory, as is a tax which is imposed by the Government.

But television is a public utility!

Yes, it is a public utility. It is, however, not obligatory. We are therefore not dealing with taxpayers’ money, but with licence fees. That makes a distinct difference. It makes a big emotional difference. When that hon member stands on a public platform and talks about the abuse of taxpayers’ money, it makes a very real difference, an important difference.

That brings me to the hon member’s call for a boycott of advertisers who advertise on Network. The hon member called for a boycott of organisations and enterprises who advertise on Network. That is what the hon member did. That is really nothing new, however, coming from his party. We have become so accustomed to that sort of attitude on the part of the PFP that we do not consider it to be in any way anything new. I do not even want to address myself to that issue. All I can add is that I am personally going to request SAA to advertise on Network. [Interjections.] Let us then watch that hon member trying to boycott SAA.

Dave, you are going to have to hitch-hike between Cape Town and Johannesburg! [Interjections.]

I did not say I was going to instruct or order SAA to do so. I am merely going to suggest it to them. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, the hon member for Germiston District discussed the election campaign. He referred to the research conducted by Rhodes University about the allocation of time to political parties.

I think he made an excellent job of dealing with that matter, and I do not want to add to or detract from anything he said, except to come back for a moment to the hon members for Losberg and Overvaal who touched upon the same theme. The hon member for Losberg said that because this was a democracy, all parties should actually be treated equally. [Interjections.] I wonder whether that includes the UDF and so on. Does it include the AWB? [Interjections.] The hon member should therefore just re-examine, for a moment, the views he put forward.

I now want to refer, for a moment, to what he did in fact say. He spoke about the equality of all political parties. The fact is that in West Germany, to use but one example, political parties have State support—they are given money—to enable them to do their jobs as political parties, but it is done on a proportional basis. Now where does one want a better example of something being done on a proportional basis? Otherwise every Tom, Dick or Harry could establish a political party and then lay claim to hours of television time. Surely that cannot work.

Immediately after that the hon member for Overvaal put forward his argument about the bureau’s advertisements, saying that space should be allocated on a proportional basis. I think the hon members for Overvaal and Losberg should talk to each other at some stage, because one says that this should not be done on a proportional basis, while the other one says that it should specifically be done on a proportional basis, arguing on the strength of a whole string of figures. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springs referred to the Eksteen matter and the television debate. I thank him for his contribution. He made an excellent contribution to which I do not want to add anything.

I want to come back to the hon member for Losberg. He asked, amongst other things, whether there was any truth in the rumours that in September the hon the State President had supposedly said certain things to Mr Eksteen. He asked me to find out whether this was true. [Interjections.] Bearing in mind the situation sketched by the hon member, it is obvious to me that we are dealing here with a private discussion between the hon the State President and the former Director-General. [Interjections.] Is that not so? In other words, there were only two people present, but now the hon member goes round telling this story. I think he should call in his witnesses, because it is his word, or those of his gossip-mongering friends, against that of someone else. Is that not so? He should call upon his witness to say whether that is, in fact, the case. It is completely beneath my dignity to make such an enquiry on behalf of that hon member. I think that kind of argument is the lowest form of political life imaginable.

We have already discussed the reasons for the dismissal. The fact is that these reasons are not so sinister that they cannot be made public. I merely want to repeat that. They are so simple that the CP cannot understand or believe them. [Interjections.] They cannot believe that the actions of this Government are so above-board that it can do the kind of normal thing that other people do. They think there has to be some sinister motive underlying this, because apparently the truth cannot be true. [Interjections.] That is typical of their whole approach to politics. The truth supposedly cannot be true, and therefore there must be some or other sinister motive. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Middelburg has also been doing a lot of talking.

The hon member for Losberg also referred to the strong American influence. Unfortunately I cannot touch upon all points, but I do want to refer to that strong American influence. The fact is that owing to their very large market, American programmes are relatively cheap. We do not have access to British programmes. European programmes are relatively expensive because they can only be used after they have been dubbed. That is why they are relatively expensive. If there is a shortage of money, if one has financial limitations imposed on one, it is only logical that under such a set of circumstances there will be a reasonably large percentage of American programmes on television. If the CP were to recommend doubling licence fees, the SABC could undertake to make many more local programmes and do a great deal more dubbing. It would please me greatly if there were fewer American programmes on television. That is unfortunately part of the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. Again there is nothing sinister in it.

What about the Bill Cosby Show? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein East referred to the foreign service, the programme research which is being done, and praised the excellence of both these activities. I do not want to dwell on that any further; he did an excellent job of putting his case.

The hon member for Brits told a long story about the SABC’s news commentaries, what the news commentator supposedly said, what he now says, what he said then and what he said subsequently. Oh, well, that is an old political game people can play with one another in this House! Unfortunately some of the hon members have a limited political past and one therefore cannot tackle them on that score. Those hon members who have been in politics a little longer do that sort of thing to one another. Circumstances change, and as a result one’s policy options change too. Surely those hon members’ own policy has also changed. Is that not so? Why must one make a great fuss about that?

One moment hon members say that the SABC is slavishly adhering to Government dictates, and then they say that the SABC is putting words into the Government’s mouth and actually leading the Government by the nose. They should decide, for once, what they actually want to say.

The hon member for Koedoespoort spoke about Radio 2000 and Radio Pulpit. That is a very interesting development taking place here. The SABC is making its spare capacity available to private organisations. Radio Pulpit is probably the most superb example of this phenomenon. There will undoubtedly be further negotiations between the SABC and Radio Pulpit.

I am dashed if the hon member for Overvaal made … No, he did make one valid point; he asked to have licence fees for pensioners completely abolished. At the moment there are already approximately 28 000 concessionary licences which cost the SABC approximately R11 million per year. At this stage the concessionary licence fee is one third of the existing licence fee. It is a very small amount, a mere R24 per year. I really do not think one could … but nevertheless, we shall consider this.

The hon member went on to discuss the bottlenecks at the Bureau for Information. That is, of course, a point we shall probably be able to debate next year too, and I am referring to the distinction between the governing party’s policy and the Government’s policy. There is, after all, a fundamental difference. I myself have had experience of this. I am saying this without any ulterior motive—simply as a common or garden fact. I was previously an NP information officer. Now I am entrusted with conveying Government information.

I have seen what a tremendous difference there is, and I think that I know that the NP’s information service is very frequently frustrated by the Bureau for Information because the Bureau for Information will not do that little bit more. The fact of the matter, however, is that when the Government in power accepts a policy, in the course of time, if not immediately, that policy is implemented at grassroots level. That is, after all, a fact. The population must therefore know what the Government’s policy is and how they can rationally react to the things the hon member mentioned, for example regional services councils. They cannot do so unless they know the Government’s policy on that issue.

I want to mention a further example of this. It is not simply a question of Government policy, but frequently also a question of the facts which are being communicated. Let us take an example of a non-political nature. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is here in the House. His department, which forms part of the State, is engaged in a comprehensive communications programme on Aids. Newspapers have done some reporting on Aids, but after the newspapers had got all the news value they could out of it, the population still did not have nearly enough information to protect themselves against this scourge called Aids. The Government has to convey sufficient information about this—no one else will do so—so that the population can protect itself. Let us suppose, in our particular situation, that the Government sat back and did nothing. The next thing that would happen would be that we would be charged with attempted genocide in the UN because we had not provided the population with the necessary information about Aids. That is what would happen.

Let us see what is being done in other countries. Thus far the British Government has, amongst other things, spent approximately R200 million on its campaign against Aids. They spent something like R40 million just on the publicity concerning the privatisation of one industry, British Telecom. So we need not discuss that point any further.

Several speakers also referred to the uniformity there should be between foreign and local information. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke mentioned this on another occasion, but also today. There was a time when I was an official in the Department of Foreign Affairs and served abroad. I experienced the very problem that occurs when that course is adopted. What I therefore want to say is that there are, of course, advantages attacking to a situation such as the one that prevails at present. There were also, however, definite disadvantages attacking to the previous situation that prevailed. In the circumstances one therefore has to choose which disadvantage to accept. That is all that is involved. We can discuss that aspect, but the hon member for Overvaal made all kinds of allegations against the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In my view it is deplorable that he made those allegations here when that hon Minister’s Vote was not even under discussion. Why did he not make those allegations when that hon Minister’s Vote was being discussed. Why does he make those allegations now? [Interjections.] I am not going to condescend to comment on that.

The hon member for Sunnyside made several points about improving the policy of communication. He suggested that a communication advisory body be established. Some of those matters are receiving the attention of both the bureau and the Government at the moment. Unfortunately my time is running fairly short, but specific policy-decisions have been taken and they will be implemented in the near future. I thank him very sincerely for that.

The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke spoke about a matter I just want to return to briefly, ie the films stockpiled as a buffer. I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but if I did, there is a slight misunderstanding. Supplies of films were purchased to serve as a buffer against sanctions. It sounded to me, however, as if he thought that those supplies were only kept for a specific time and then written off, in other words that programmes drawn up in the past would be scrapped. I want to tell him, however, that that is not the case. They are historical archives material which will not be destroyed.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on everything. The hon member for Springs again spoke about the distinction between information which the Government releases and information released by the party. He also spoke about co-ordination by way of the communications calendar, and that is when the hon member for Johannesburg North also jumped on the bandwagon. The hon member for Johannesburg North really proved today how unrealistic one could get “if one applied one’s mind to it”.

†The hon member really seems to apply his mind to become as unrealistic as possible. For instance, he referred to the news agency of the Bureau for Information. He obviously read some report in some newspaper.

One of your announcements.

That was reflected in a newspaper. If he had just picked up the phone and asked the Bureau for Information what sort of animal it was creating now, it would have given him all the information. Then he could have had a good night’s sleep. He need not have been worried for one second.

This news service—not news agency—is just an effort to produce Government information more systematically and in a usable form, and then to make it available to the media for their use, if they so wish. They are under no obligation to use it. In fact, I believe a member of the SA Society of Journalists has already put a censorship condition on anything that emanates from the Bureau’s news service. That is a beautiful private enterprise censorship being applied. There is absolutely no duplication whatsoever, because we know what the newspapers are handling, so we are handling the matters which we feel are part of Government information that needs to be communicated and which will not be automatically done by the normal media. We have great appreciation for the work done by Sapa, and we do not wish to interfere in any way.

Then how will you distribute the news items?

Through the normal channels. We will put them on the ticker tapes; we will make them available to the news media, to the news agencies. It is as simple, as uncomplicated, as simplistic as that. There will be no new, large costs, because this is basically a rationalisation of existing services.

Lastly, the hon member mentioned the incident of the video tapes. We are investigating that; in fact, we had a team available to facilitate conditions for the Press at George during that time. We have had similar incidents before—not with the SAA—in connection with which the journalists have approached us because of some irregularity with the transport of tapes or something similar. We intervened on their behalf. That is what we do in cases like these. We will look into this.

*The hon member for Umhlanga made a very good speech about the effectiveness of advertising in this campaign. Unfortunately I do not have enough time left to do justice to his contribution. I do, however, want to thank him for a very good speech.

This brings me to the end of my story. I am sure that this is only the end of the story until the next question-time, until the next speech on the Vote. We shall continue to discuss this matter with one another. Perhaps hon members of the opposition parties will begin to understand what this is all about.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, when this debate was adjourned on Friday, I was dealing with one of the clauses in the Bill which I suggested would have counter-productive effects on labour relations. That is clause 26 of the Bill which now partially lifts the indemnity which trade unions have enjoyed against civil claims. This clause now places the onus of proof on the trade unions to prove that, for example, wild-cat strikes were the responsibility of individuals who had no authority. They have to disprove that they had anything to do with it and, seeing that that now happens, I was suggesting that trade unions will stay well clear of something like wild-cat strikes to make sure that they could not possibly be implicated in such a strike and to make sure that they could therefore not possibly be sued for damages which may result.

It is not possible to stop wild-cat strikes by using the stick. I would suggest that the best one can do is to improve the carrot part. That has happened over at least the past ten years in South African labour relations, where employers and trade unions have to a growing extent entered into recognition agreements and collective bargaining agreements, in terms of which they try to arrange their relationships. These agreements also deal with eventualities such as wild-cat strikes. Many such agreements exist where, for example, provision is made that if members of the union do involve themselves in an unlawful strike or a wild-cat strike without following the right procedure, they will lose many of the benefits that the agreement provides for, for example, stop-order facilities, entrance into the premises and many other advantages which are provided for. That is the carrot side which one should have emphasised more.

The problem with this Bill is that it emphasises and strengthens the stick side. It comes with more stick and less carrot, therefore leaving an imbalance.

One more aspect that I would briefly like to refer to is the matter relating to similar strikes held in the same twelve months. When the Bill initially came out, it suggested that strikes which are similar to ones held in the previous twelve months would fall under the criminal law and have criminal sanction. I must give credit to the department and the standing committee that that was taken out and it is now merely defined as unfair labour practice. It now states that:

shall be an unfair practice. I still want to know what we are going to achieve with this provision under the definition of unfair labour practice. What is a dispute which is the same or virtually the same as one which has taken place? On the part of both the unions and the employers there were criticisms about this provision. They both said that it was just being made more difficult.

The Chamber of Mines—which has a fairly large employer section—say that they are opposed to this provision—

The employer wants to know what this means. Does it mean that if he locks out the workers on one issue at the beginning of the year he is prevented from doing so for a whole year when a similar or virtually similar issue arises? They complain and, understandably, a similar complaint comes from the unions. If there were, for example, a strike in relation to the wages of category A wage earners, and three months later category B wage earners strike because of a problem, the question is whether it is the same or a similar strike. Once again we are providing a field-day for labour lawyers and we are creating tremendous interpretation problems for both employer and employee.

That unfair labour practice definition is also partially aimed at dealing with what is called grasshopper strikes where workers strike for a day or two, come back to work for a week and then strike again for two days. So it carries on in order to apply pressure on the employer. Whilst grasshopper strikes can be not only disruptive, but can also cause a lot of damage and should therefore not be allowed as a free-range form of applying pressure, I would suggest that the present procedures and the industrial court have dealt with it adequately. More and more employers and unions have entered into arrangements and agreements as to how to deal with grasshopper strikes. It is therefore not necessary to provide this stick by defining it as unfair labour practice and making it more rigid. It is not necessary.

Whilst this Bill does contain definite improvements as far as procedural aspects are concerned—I do not have the time to list them—and is a definite improvement on the Bill that was first published, on the whole and on balance, it allows the pendulum to swing in the direction of the employer by restricting strike rights even more than before. It provides far more stick against unions than balancing it out with possible carrot, and it is therefore more likely to further the tensions which already exist in our Labour Relations Act.

There are amendments placed on the Order Paper and I sincerely hope that they will receive serious consideration. Unless the amendments are looked at seriously and unless one therefore has a fresh look at some of the important aspects of this Bill it will not be possible to support this Bill. It should be opposed because it is not going to make it easier to improve the relationship between employer and employee in South Africa. In fact, the contrary is likely to happen.

Mr Chairman, my time is limited and I shall therefore react to the hon member for Durban Central later.

This legislation is the result of very thorough discussion. A multitude of organisations, including employer and employee organisations, academics, legal experts and Government institutions, all gave evidence before the committee. The standing committee held innumerable meetings, and this was necessary because we were dealing with a particular phenomenon in law.

Labour relations are a unique legal phenomenon. The objective of the Bill is to arrange the relationship between employer and employee as fairly as possible. It is not so much the legal relationship which is at issue here as the matter of fairness. Labour legislation has its own legal culture, and this fact must be taken into account when the relevant legislation is assessed.

It is true that the issue of industrial relations must be adjusted constantly owing to new problems and new relations which arise. There were two elements which gave rise to a long discussion. In the first place there was the concept “unfair labour practice”, and in the second place what position this definition should occupy in respect of the Act. The definition of an “unfair labour practice”, as embodied in the principal Act, is very general, and this gave rise to a certain degree of legal uncertainty, because parties had to take their disputes to the Industrial Court to ascertain with certainty whether or not an unfair labour practice was being pursued. Since the original definition of an unfair labour practice was inserted in the principal Act, the Industrial Court has laid down various guidelines regarding the concept. However, the Industrial Court is not a court of law when it acts in this capacity, and consequently these guidelines are not uniformly binding.

The amended definition is also aimed at determining these guidelines laid down by the Industrial Court and in this way creating legal certainty. A statutory provision is now being laid down, and employers and employees should now have a better understanding of what an unfair labour practice is, without the Industrial Court necessarily having to be approached.

According to information the vast majority of the disputes during the past four years dealt mainly with unfair dismissals. Again, in the majority of cases investigated it was individuals who were involved, and not individuals represented by trade unions.

On the other hand, as regards the employers the majority were small employers. Consequently we are dealing here—in the majority of cases—with individuals on the one hand and the smaller employers on the other. One can arrive at a specific conclusion, namely that if one could lay down what an unfair labour practice was, this would undoubtedly prevent unnecessary disputes. Many disputes could therefore be settled amicably.

In the defining of the concept “unfair labour practice” there was a great deal of unanimity in the various Houses, with the exception of those hon members who spoke against it. I am also referring here to the question of rubber stamps. I cannot help it, but I made the note here when the hon member for Groote Schuur spoke about it. One cannot help gaining the impression that the House of Representatives put their noses a little out of joint in Bloemfontein, and by the looks of things they are still sneezing.

It was before Bloemfontein!

No, it was after Bloemfontein. It was rather difficult to be a member there, but we shall not pursue that matter.

I am continuing to debate the place the definition of unfair labour practice must have with regard to the Act. At present there are three prevailing ideas. The first idea is that the status quo must be maintained—that it should consequently be dealt with as a separate schedule to the Act. To this I shall reply briefly as follows. The purpose of a schedule is to shorten the contents of a section or make it less clumsy. For example there are lists of crimes, areas, professions or amended Acts, customs tariffs, licence and other fees, etc which are incorporated in schedules. The contents of the schedule are not necessarily a part of the Act. The importance attached to a schedule in the interpretation of an Act depends on the nature of its contents, its connection with the rest of the Act and the wording in which reference is made to it in the relevant Act. When a schedule serves to shorten a section, the current interpretation is that it forms part of the section, and substantive provisions in a schedule, unless another intention is apparent, must be given the same legal force as the contents of the section of the Act. It is clear that the above-mentioned interpretation, namely that it forms part of the Act, is feasible in the version of the Bill submitted. In the Bill, as submitted, specific reference is made in clause 1(d), which amends section 1 of the Labour Relations Act, to an “unfair labour practice” as “a practice contemplated in Schedule I”. This is one approach.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr Chairman, before business was interrupted, I was debating the issue as to where the definition of an unfair labour practice should be incorporated in the legislation under discussion. I have already pointed out that one standpoint is that it could be incorporated in a schedule, depending on any references to it in the legislation, and that it can then also be binding.

The second place where such a definition could be incorporated is the option decided on by the standing committee of incorporating the contents, as amended, as part of the definitions. As far as I am concerned there is a great deal to be said for this decision, because how can one incorporate elements such as “legal practitioner”, “local authority”, “labour appeal court”, “director-general” and so on in the definition, while the concept “unfair labour practice” is not incorporated?

The third alternative is what the hon member for Durban Central wants, according to the amendment he has moved on the Order Paper. I see that the hon member is not in the House at the moment. His motion amounts to a description of it in a code of unfair labour practices, which can serve as a guideline for the Industrial Court. Of course this brings us to the old problem of litigation. It is a pity that the hon member is not here at the moment. In my opinion such a definition in a code of practice would leave the door wide open for large-scale litigation. This is the effect which a so-called code of practice would have.

It is also interesting that most of the people giving evidence before the standing committee welcomed the incorporation of an unfair labour practice for the sake of legal certainty. There would also seem to be a difference of opinion in this regard. In terms of the present definition it is impossible to identify an unfair labour practice with any certainty. That is the reason for the innumerable applications referred to the Industrial Court in terms of section 43.

What is more, the Act as a whole is very supple. There is nothing preventing the employer and the employee from entering into their own code or collective labour agreement, and when this gives rise to a dispute, they can still resolve the dispute by way of arbitration or the Industrial Court, and after that the Industrial Appeal Court.

I should like to deal briefly with certain aspects of the hon member for Durban Central’s argument.

†I should merely like to refer briefly to a few of the remarks made by him, especially last Friday. Inter alia he accused the Government of steamrollering this Bill through Parliament. The hon member was a very talkative member on the standing committee, and I do not blame him for expressing his opinions. This Bill was before the standing committee for quite a considerable period of time, however, and many hours were spent discussing the Bill, hearing evidence and drafting and amending this measure. Therefore, to accuse the Government now of steamrollering this measure through Parliament, is in my opinion bordering on malice on the part of the hon member for Durban Central.

He goes on to quote, apparently with approval, from the submission by the Natal Chamber of Industries, which depicts the description of an “unfair labour practice” as an “attempt” and as “of no value”. These so-called attempts are the result of two exercises—in the first place, research in respect of cases before the industrial court, and in the second place, verdicts given in industrial courts. Equally, Sir, the hon member also—apparently still with approval—quotes another description by the same organisation, according to which a whole body of precedents must be allowed to develop before any attempt is made at codifying the law. Must we tarry until labour relations deteriorate to such an extent—is that what the hon member really wants?—that it not only embarrasses the Government but also destroys the economy? Is that really what the hon member wants? I do not believe that is what he wants. [Interjections.]

His real motive has two aims. [Interjections.] In the first place, he wants to create a situation in which lawyers and advocates would have, as he called it, a field day, and in the second place he has a clear political motive. [Interjections.] It is his motive to embarrass the Government. [Interjections.] He wants to try to help to get rid of the Government and the NP, even if that entails collaboration with the CP. [Interjections.]

*In conclusion I should like to say a word about the CP. [Interjections.] I am glad the hon member for Ermelo is here. In this debate and in other debates we have heard on several occasions that the Official Opposition is opposed to Black trade unions. This was said repeatedly in this debate and in the debate on the Manpower Vote, but let us see what the hon member for Ermelo said. In reply to the hon the Minister of Transport he had occasion to say the following here in respect of Blacks in the White land, and I am quoting from the Afrikaans text of his unrevised Hansard:

This is now the White land—

Then comes the exclamation mark—

[Interjections.] I asked the Official Opposition to give us clarity regarding this contradiction, but I think there is in reality unanimity. Let me help them. [Interjections.]

There are four possibilities. [Interjections.] There is either a difference of opinion or there is not. [Interjections.] I submit that there is no difference of opinion. Perhaps he is telling an untruth, but the hon member for Ermelo is a very reliable man, and I do not think he is telling an untruth. There are two further alternatives. One is that he has been rehabilitated, and then I visualise a rehabilitation centre in the Malutis in winter, where people who have dissenting views exercise in the cold dressed in leggings and loincloths. [Interjections.] I therefore wonder whether he has been rehabilitated. I am not sure, but I think there is in fact no difference of opinion. It is simply a disguised method. If they want to give political rights via trade unions, they are ultimately in favour of mixed trade unions. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I wish to express my great thanks and appreciation for the tremendous work done by the department in preparing this excellent piece of legislation for us, and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to enter into a discussion with the hon member for Bloemfontein North. He devoted the major part of his speech to the hon member for Durban Central. He did, however, make certain remarks about the hon member for Ermelo, which confirmed yet again that he and the hon members of his party do not have the foggiest idea about what is happening. [Interjections.] The CP does not intend to outlaw all Blacks who happen to be in White areas. That is definitely not the policy, but it is clear that the hon member unfortunately does not understand that. [Interjections.]

It is a privilege for me to participate in the discussion of this Bill. It is, however, a very comprehensive Bill which in my view once more confirms the necessity of having a committee stage, a procedure which unfortunately has been abolished. One could possibly attribute this to some extent to the Government’s curious interpretation of the concept “broadening the democracy at all levels”.

When discussing a complex Bill which amends an equally complex principal Act, it is necessary to examine the Government’s approach and philosophical point of departure when dealing with labour issues, as is set out, inter alia, in the introduction to the Government’s White Paper on Part 5 of the Wiehahn Report. I shall therefore stress two of these points of departure which are an indication of the Government’s approach in dealing with labour matters. According to the White Paper, the Government stressed that:

Secondly, I quote the Government’s condition that:

These two points of departure are, of course, praiseworthy, especially when one is dealing with a situation in which industrial peace prevails and it is simply a case of arranging normal relationships in the delicate balance between employer and employee, and in which, of course, power politics or a struggle for political rights or ideologies play no role. With this idyllic basis as a point of departure, it is therefore possible for the hon member for Stilfontein to say that the amending Bill is a further important milestone in the success achieved in South African labour relations.

During the debate last Friday it was alleged that the hon members for Brakpan and Carletonville had not participated in the debate during the committee’s discussion of this Bill. I was not a member of that committee, but according to the information I have, that was in fact not the case, and those hon members took an active part in the discussion, but I shall leave the matter at that.

Allow me to say at once that the Bill does contain some positive features, which are to be welcomed. Firstly, we welcome the setting up of an industrial appeal court, as set out in section 46 of the principal Act which is to be amended by clause 17 of the Bill. Secondly, the referral of questions to the appeal court for decision in terms of section 64—clause 23 of the Bill deals with this—and thirdly, the fact that inspectors for different regions will be responsible for setting up conciliation boards, in terms of section 35(1)(2) and (3)—clause 9 refers; fourthly, the extension of the industrial court’s powers in respect of awards for costs; fifthly, the transfer of certain functions from the Minister of Manpower to the Director-General of Manpower, inter alia in respect of reporting on conciliation boards and proceedings in connection with voluntary and compulsory arbitration; and sixthly—there has been a lot of discussion and controversy on this—the fact that section 17(11)(a) will be retained in terms of clause 5 of the Bill.

Before dealing with the legislation as such, I want to dwell on the contribution made by the hon member for Benoni on Friday afternoon before the House adjourned. The hon member embarked on a fantasy trip into the future, and got quite carried away by his journey, apparently because he is incapable of looking at the present realities. That is not the whole problem. Alas, not only was the hon member carried away, but so was the NP’s compatriot and mouthpiece in Die Burger, Mr Freek Swart, in his column: “Indrukke uit die Parlement”. He was also swept away on this fantasy trip of the hon member for Benoni. On Saturday, 28 May, Die Burger had the following to say in this column:

Well now, this friend of the NP was so carried away, that when the hon members for Carletonville and Lichtenburg left the Chamber to catch their plane for the Transvaal at D F Malan Airport, he, as a reporter up there, summarily ascribed it to the brilliant speech of the hon member for Benoni. If this sort of logic is valid, one could also say that the speech made by the hon member for Durban Central on Friday afternoon was so good that one of the hon Whips of the NP personally asked him to finish off at once, despite his still having three minutes left, because the hon the Minister also wanted to catch a plane at D F Malan Airport.

What did the hon member for Benoni say in this flight of fantasy, this flight into the future when the CP will come to power? He said:

That hon member and his party are so obsessed with this so-called “Doomsday” theory of theirs that I could almost go so far as to say that with this sort of talk they are saying to the radicals: “Do not forget, now, when the CP comes to power, you must rise up and start a revolution.” [Interjections.]

On various occasions in the past we have seen evidence of these standpoints. It is a practical demonstration once again of the NP’s policy of the three little bears. Hon members all know the story of the three bears, of the porridge which was too cold, the porridge which was too hot and the porridge which was just right. When it comes to arguments, any PFP argument is too cold, and any CP argument is too hot, but believe it or not, no matter what the argument, the NP argument is always just right. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who will probably still have an opportunity to speak, but the hon members for Graaff-Reinet and Umbilo—I could mention other names as well—would do well to make fewer interjections.

When dealing with the NP’s model on labour matters—this model which is allegedly just right, like the porridge of the last bear in the story—we are faced with a situation in which we continually have to deal with labour unrest and strikes. There has been a big increase in the number of strikes. The statistics were mentioned in the debate on the Manpower Vote, but the fact is that in 1985 we had 389 strikes; in 1986, 793 and in 1987, 1 148.

What is just as shocking, however, is the loss of 5,8 million man-days during 1987, and when one listens to the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, one hears that last year’s mine strike was just a practice run and they have all sorts of surprises in store for us in future.

The hon member stated further that the trade unions were the mechanisms of capitalism. In normal ideal circumstances, that is so, but when one has a situation in which radical elements start to use the mechanisms of capitalism to destroy capitalism and to replace it with socialism and Marxism, red lights should start flashing for hon members on the other side of the House as well. [Interjections.]

Before I come to the legislation itself, however, it is necessary to dwell for a few moments on labour matters, for which the Labour Relations Act and its proposed amendments are intended. Let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the labour sphere is increasingly being politicised. [Interjections.] Trade unions are being exploited by their militant leaders and are abused in their pursuit and attainment of radical political objectives. Radical Black leaders say quite openly that they regard the Government’s reform initiatives as cosmetic and as such reject them, except those in the labour sphere. Hence Cosatu’s stated objective of setting up 14 national industrial trade unions country-wide, and they have made good progress in this matter. Coupled with this, the ANC has stated clearly that its objective is to shift the struggle to the factory floor. This is clearly part of their publicly declared “total liberation struggle”, the struggle with which the hon member for Innesdal said he associated himself. The hon member for Innesdal said:

The question is whether this also applies to this total liberation struggle or not. [Interjections.] The effect of this is that strikes are no longer a means to an end, but have now become an end in themselves. Strikes were in fact intended for the settlement of justified grievances, to withhold labour and thereby cause financial loss to the employer. The aim of strikes, however, was never to cause irreparable damage to, or threaten the existence of an industry or undertaking, let alone a country’s whole economy.

Linked to this is the whole question of intimidation in the Black trade unions, which has now virtually become the rule and not the exception in strikes. With this information as a background, an attempt is now being made through legislation, in which conciliation is the point of departure, to solve the problems and to take action in this complex field of labour. I think intimidation is the root problem in the labour sphere at present, and while intimidation as such should play no part in the legitimate, delicate relations between employer and employee, in practice it has come to have everything to do with it. In my view, the legislation does not adequately deal with this problem.

The amending Bill contains amendments which specifically relate to intimidation. In terms of the definition contained in clause 1, the following actions can be regarded as unfair labour practices. I quote from paragraph (e) of the proposed definition as contained in clause 1(h) of the Bill:

Paragraph (g) deals with this more specifically:

This clearly relates to the establishment of an unfair labour practice.

When an employee, therefore, is confronted with an unfair labour practice, such as intimidation, as set out, inter alia, in paragraphs (e) and (g), he cannot apply for a status quo order in terms of section 43 of the Act unless the normal procedure is followed, as set out in section 43(2)(a) and (b). He must therefore apply for the dispute to be referred to an industrial council, or in the absence of an industrial council having the necessary jurisdiction, to a conciliation board in terms of section 35(1) of the Act. However, this process gives rise to numerous practical problems, of which the time factor is probably one of the most important.

Read more slowly!

I shall speak more slowly if the hon member has difficulty in understanding. [Interjections.]

Should an employer decide to make use of a status quo order to put an end to the intimidation, he first has to identify the intimidators, which is already an almost impossible task. Secondly, he must prove that the intimidators refuse to obey a request in regard to their alleged intimidation, and consequently a dispute has arisen. Thirdly, a conciliation board must be set up—this is highly unlikely—in which the employer will have to negotiate with the intimidators with a view to conciliation. Fourthly, should the intimidators be prepared to serve on a conciliation board established to decide a dispute on an unfair labour practice, ie intimidation, they would, through their participation, be admitting that they were intimidators, per se. Only after this absurd process, and when the conciliation board has failed, can the alleged unfair labour practice be referred to the industrial court for a final determination.

Initially it was said that time was a factor in this instance, because during the time taken up by this process, the intimidation which was specifically the cause of the problem can continue. What is more, the practical aspect must be borne in mind, namely that the trade unions …[Interjections.]

Order! The undertone of these conversations is a little too loud. Hon members must lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

The fact is, intimidation does exist, and intimidators do not hesitate to intimidate co-workers by threatening them with violence and even death, and even intimidate the employers. A clear illustration of this is the destruction of numerous railway coaches during the Transport strike—in other words, the legal property of the employer concerned. Be that as it may, the existing and envisaged labour legislation offers no practical solution to the root problem of intimidation. We therefore cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randfontein said that the hon member for Lichtenburg did not leave the Chamber on Friday afternoon because he could not endure the speech of the hon member for Benoni, but because he had to catch a plane. The hon member will forgive our having got used to the hon member for Lichtenburg boycotting debates—as he is doing again! [Interjections.] We are used to him leaving the Chamber the moment he is hauled over the coals in a debate.

All the leaders of the right-wing radical boycott party have become leaders of demonstrations in the style of the Boesaks and the Tutus. Today they are again demonstrating against the interests of the White workers by voting against this legislation. I shall come to this in a moment. The Tutus and the Boesaks are advocating sanctions and boycotts against South Africa, but the leader and the deputy leader of the right-wing radical boycott party themselves boycotted the debates which took place last Monday in the Transvaal and the Free State. Now the hon member for Randfontein says it was not because he lost his temper but because he had to catch a plane!

In Bloemfontein we were holding extremely important discussions concerning the budget for the Free State, and the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is one of the leaders of the CP, boycotted that debate. He boycotted the interests of the Free State and walked out and held a demonstration meeting. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did precisely the same thing in Pretoria. [Interjections.]

Consequently the hon member for Randfontein must not take it amiss of us if we refer to his leaders as the leaders of demonstrations who boycott debates. [Interjections.] They are in the habit of doing this.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I submit that the hon member is not sticking to the Bill under discussion.

Order! The hon member may proceed, but I shall stop him if I think that he is digressing too far from the Bill.

I submit that the hon members of the right-wing radical boycott party are also boycotting this legislation and the interests of the White workers in this country because they do not care two hoots about the White workers in this country. They only care about the interests of their miserable little party. [Interjections.] That is why they are opposed to this legislation. [Interjections.]

The right-wing radical boycott party’s hatred for the NP is greater than their interest in the White workers in this country of ours. This legislation is the best legislation which the White workers have ever had in the history of this country to protect themselves and to give them security. However, the right-wing radical boycott party is voting against it.

Do you know what is in the Bill?

This legislation protects the White worker pre-eminently against exploitation …

By whom?

… by unscrupulous employers, because it provides that unfair labour practices are illegal. This is what this legislation provides. It protects White employees, but of course not only White employees. It is not a racist Act. It protects all workers in South Africa. I am speaking on behalf of 8 000 White workers in Sasolburg … [Interjections.] … and this evening I must tell those people that the rightwing radical boycott party is not interested in them. That party is voting against legislation which is aimed at protecting the White workers of Sasolburg too.

It is the policy of the Official Opposition that if they were to come into power, as they say, they would force employers to pay the White workers in their employ more for the same work than Black workers are paid. What is going to be the result of this? Of course the result will be that White workers will be dismissed.

There goes the hon the leader of the right-wing radical boycott party too! He is also boycotting this debate. He is the second leader of that party to boycott this debate! [Interjections.] We are talking about the interests of the White workers in this country of ours, but the hon members of that party are boycotting this debate for all to see. [Interjections.] They are boycotting the interests and the security of the White workers in this country. That is what is happening!

With that party’s policy of higher salaries for Whites doing the same work, which they are going to enforce, they are going to cause White workers in this country to be dismissed on a large scale and replaced by cheaper labour. That will be the consequence of that party’s policy. [Interjections.] However, they do not care two hoots. They are voting against this legislation. To dismiss an employee and replace him by someone who works for a lower salary is an unfair labour practice which is defined in this legislation. As a result it is one of the most important protective measures the White workers in this country have ever had, which will ensure their security and look after their interests.

However, in my opinion there is a second reason why this right-wing radical boycott party is voting against this legislation. It is not because they are stupid and do not really understand what is going on. No, they are in the process of organising and establishing new trade unions. These trade unions have political motives and must in future participate in political strikes. In terms of this legislation political strikes also constitute an unfair labour practice.

These wild-cat strikes and other matters which the employer has nothing to do with, are defined in clause 1 of the legislation as an unfair labour practice. I think the hon member for Carletonville is engaged in this unholy work of his this evening; that is why he is not here. [Interjections.] He is establishing these trade unions which do not have the protection of the interests of the White workers at heart. These trade unions only have political objectives. That is their purpose.

I am now referring to the Conservative White Workers’ Union which is being established on a large scale. The hon member for Carletonville has on more than one occasion acted as chairman at these meetings, and has already addressed many of these meetings. Those organisations say specifically that they have the support of the CP, the HNP and particularly the AWB. I submit that these trade unions have political objectives and that in future they can become a danger to our country.

The general secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, Mr Peet Ungerer, has already said that he is unhappy about the establishment of the Conservative White Workers’ Union, because they are exploiting the members of the Mineworkers’ Union and are not interested in the interests of the White workers. They are interested in politics. In future the members of the Conservative White Workers’ Union will be instructed to participate in political strikes. This in turn is an unfair labour practice against the employer. This is another reason why the radical right-wing boycott party is opposed to this legislation. They are planning unfair, illegal strikes with these trade unions which they are in the process of establishing.

This legislation protects both the White workers and the employers. It ensures their security and it ensures that trade unions in South Africa will not be misused for political purposes. This is one of the important objectives of this legislation. The White workers and employers in South Africa are going to reject the Official Opposition because they have opposed this legislation. We are going to expose them on one platform after another. They are playing the same political game with the White workers of this country which they played with the farmers of this country.

I wholeheartedly support this legislation. For a long time now the employers and the White employees in this country of ours have needed effective protection against the behaviour of irresponsible trade unions and irresponsible employers.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg will forgive me if I do not take his discussion any further. He has an obsession with the CP and I do not want to get involved in that argument.

He should have read the Bill before he made his speech.

We shall oppose the Bill for two main reasons. The first is that we believe that the courts should have an unencumbered discretion in determining unfair labour practices, and the second is that we would want the Bill to prohibit any form of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or creed, including the creation or maintenance of racially exclusive trade unions. In that respect we differ dramatically from the CP in their opposition to the Bill.

Having said that, allow me to say that there are positive aspects to the measure, such as the establishment of the labour appeal court and the removal of the Minister’s discretion to decide whether or not a conciliation board is to be appointed. The major negative aspect is the decision to write into law—many hon members have mentioned this—the definition of what is considered an unfair labour practice. Together with the Orderly Internal Politics Bill which was published recently, the original Bill caused a great deal of international interest at a time when it would have been prudent to lie low. Representatives of foreign governments expressed strong opposition to the Orderly Internal Politics Bill as well as to this Bill, as they were before standing committees at the same time. This is unfortunate as those provisions of this Bill which are positive and acceptable would have had a much easier passage if they had not been pushed aside by the clauses which are unacceptable. I will deal with some of these during the course of my speech but would like to make a few further general remarks before addressing the substance of the Bill.

The debate surrounding the original Labour Relations Amendment Bill was, I believe, mostly uninformed and not very satisfying. It generated a great deal of energy and did not add to the understanding of what was required to produce good labour legislation.

The first factor contributing to the negative debate has been the inadequate attention given to the Bill in the media. At a time when the Press is under threat, one makes this sort of remark with a degree of reluctance. Effective democracy, however, requires effective, informed and informative public debate. An informed public requires not only a free press but an effective one.

The Bill is technical and complex. It requires careful study as it deals with some very important issues, and these issues need to be understood and debated in an intelligent manner. Important issues dealt with in the Bill include the following: What constitutes fair dismissal? Should employer organisations and trade unions be allowed to recruit in an unfair or misleading way? Should product or service boycotts be deemed unfair labour practices? Should secondary strikes be deemed to be unfair labour practices? Should repeat strikes within a period of twelve months be deemed to be unfair labour practices? And, where workers strike illegally, should the unions be held liable for civil damages from aggrieved parties?

Clause 26 of the Bill substitutes a new section 79 in the original Act. Section 79 (2) is in need, I believe, of serious reconsideration. The first portion of this subsection, up to the word “delict”, is probably no more than a restatement of the common law. I am advised by senior labour lawyers and by labour consultants, however, that the presumption of delictual liability that follows is directly at variance with conventional legal standards and is, they say, quite frankly, inequitable. It is a provision that undermines the acceptability of the amending Bill as a whole and should definitely not be retained.

If the media debate has been inadequate, then organised labour and the employers have not done a very good job in discussing the consequences of this Bill. The best labour law would be as a result of direct negotiations between labour and management. In this country the unionisation of Black workers is a comparatively new phenomenon. Great progress has been made at both company and industry level in making collective bargaining work. However, discussion, consultation and even contact between unions and management on a national level is still in its infancy. I understand that on this issue only a handful of contacts took place. Instead of serious national discussion, we are experiencing a pattern of workplace demonstrations. It would appear that both sides are to blame for this state of affairs. On the employer side the chance of a strong and unified national employer voice, and the reluctance of employers to engage union federations in national discussions on national issues are major problems.

On the federation side the tendency to use issues such as this Bill as national and even international campaigns to mobilise public support has added to the problem.

I believe that a third major reason for the inadequacy and the divisiveness of the debate lies in the nature of our law-making process. Black South Africans are not part of this process. They are not represented on the expert body set up by the legislature to advise on labour matters—the National Manpower Commission. This Bill had its origins in the commission, and the mistrust and misunderstanding with which it has been received by the Black union movement can be traced in part to their absence from the councils which designed and developed it.

South Africa’s labour relations system is a vital part of our economy and society. In the past decade it has been a source of constructive and hopeful change. If it is going to continue to play this role the media, that is the television, radio and Press will have to expand and deepen their coverage of labour relations. The media has an indispensable public relations responsibility and must create the informed, responsible context in which constructive debate and negotiation is possible. In addition unions and employer organisations must enhance their capacity and willingness constructively to debate issues at a national level and a way will have to be found to involve Black South Africans in the national political process.

Mention has been made during the course of this debate that the main beneficiaries of this Bill, once it becomes law, will be the legal profession. Upon reading through the evidence given to the standing committee one finds that this point was made on a number of occasions. In spite of this, the Government has seen fit to ignore those warnings and to proceed with the Bill. I have no doubt that we are to witness a great deal of litigation as a result of their stubborn action, and many amending Bills in due course. In this connection I am pleased the hon the Minister has finally seen the light in connection with the point made by my colleague the hon member for Groote Schuur, and is to move an amendment to rectify the “ands” paragraph (b) of the defenition of “unfair labour practice”, as indicated by him on the Order Paper. In this respect I must say that when I interjected while the hon member for Kuruman was speaking last Friday, it was in respect of a different amendment on the Order Paper.

The effect of placing “and” and “or” in the wrong place is that an employer would not have been able to dismiss an employee, no matter how incompetent, after he had served his probationary period of service. It would seem that the problem with the wording of this clause stems from the confusion over the function and purpose of “probation”. The period of probation is intended to test the competency and suitability of an employee and is not directly related to matters of discipline—that is misconduct or retrenchment.

If the definition is to be retained it should be amended to deal separately with the three categories of misconduct, probation and retrenchment, and each clause should specify the circumstances under which an employee may be dismissed, and the procedures which must be followed in relation to that particular category. There should, for example, be no obligation on an employer to have consultations with the trade union where an employee is incapable of doing his job. What this reveals, as Mr Cheadle put it when he gave evidence to the standing committee, is that Government does not know what the ordinary problems are and how these problems are resolved between trade unions who know what they are talking about and employers who know what they are talking about. The notion that an employer would have to go through the hoops of giving notification to the union, sitting down to have a full consultation with the union, discussing severance pay and the like for someone who is incapable of doing his job, is in terms of bargaining and in terms of practice common in South Africa among employers and among trade unions, simply nonsensical.

The other kind of dismissal one can have here is one for misconduct. The industrial court has dealt with this. If the misconduct is so severe as to justify dismissal, and they have generally followed the common law descriptive of severity of conduct, then there is no question of a warning. We only have to define the required procedure.

The proposed paragraph (b)(v) deals with retrenchment and as the “or” at the end of the preceding clause is to be changed to an “and”, the provisions of subparagraph (iv) now have to be complied with.

An employer wishing to retrench employees may therefore no longer do so without prior notice and without any form of consultation. As retrenchment is specifically excluded from the category of dismissals which constitute an unfair labour practice, the courts would probably not be able to rely on the discretionary powers given to them by the preamble to the definition of “unfair labour practice”. Subparagraph (v) does require the employer to have regard to reasonable criteria in reducing, that is retrenching, staff and specifically mentions criteria such as ability, capacity, productivity and conduct but completely ignores one of the most important criteria, namely LIFO, which means “last in, first out”.

The Bill also introduces product boycotts, sympathy strikes and intermittent or grasshopper strikes as unfair labour practices. Their inclusion as unfair labour practices is preferable to imposing criminal sanction as originally envisaged. The courts’ discretion to decide whether or not the use of this kind of bargaining pressure is or is not justified in the particular circumstances is, however, completely removed. The unions’ power to exert pressure on one financial group or to circumvent redistribution of production is severely restricted by these provisions.

The proposed new paragraph (j) of the definition could very well frustrate many existing recognition agreements and extra-statutory closed shops. As it is inflexible it will lead to unions agitating for statutory closed shops, a far more extreme form of limitation on freedom of association.

If the Government intends protecting freedom of association and non-association as the clause purports to do, it must appreciate the down side of negating or attempting to negate the role of majoritarianism in collective bargaining and the pitfalls in multilateral bargaining. [Interjections.] This clause has been described as the single most reckless provision in the Bill. It is potentially dangerous and serious consideration should be given to deleting it altogether when it is reconsidered by the standing committee. [Interjections.]

Order! The noise level in the House is too high.

†The hon member may proceed.

I believe the word “directly” should be deleted from paragraph (1). This would bring our law into line with a widely accepted model of strike regulation, namely the West German one. If an employer is “affected” by a dispute, he should be able to lock out his employees and they should be entitled to strike. The formulation proposed in the Bill will allow an employer to avoid legitimate economic pressure by relying on the expedients of subcontracting, corporate restructuring or redeployment. It would be entirely commensurate for a union to follow up such employer strategies with limited and appropriate forms of secondary action.

If the suggested change is not made, unions will be forced for economic reasons to engage in strikes amounting to unfair labour practices. The very inadequacy of the legal provision will subvert an allegiance to law.

Paragraph (m) should read simply: “No issue that has been settled or abandoned may be the subject of a strike, lock-out or stoppage of work for a period of 12 months after such settlement or abandonment.” The clause as amended raises many uncertainties. If, for instance, there is a single lock-out or strike over dismissal in a year, is any such action over a subsequent dismissal prohibited for 12 months? More fundamentally, the clause will hamper settlement options in that parties will be dissuaded from suspending lockouts or strikes in order, for instance, to mediate their differences.

Clause 5(h) of the Bill amends the original Act by inserting a new section 17(12)(b) which is totally invidious in that a person who is not a party to a proceeding, but merely assisting another in presenting a case, may be held liable for costs. If this provision is to be retained, I want to suggest that it should be obligatory that all persons of limited means, including small employers, should be entitled to legal aid for industrial litigation.

I then wish to briefly refer to a few clauses I believe should be reconsidered. Clause 24(b) amends section 65(2) of the original Act. I wish to refer to the proposed paragraph (b). It is very useful to allow ballots to be conducted before a union acquires the right to launch a strike. This allows both the union and the employer to preview support for a strike and to redouble their efforts to negotiate a solution prior to the resort to economic weapons. The proposed amendment to the clause should be reconsidered.

Clause 25 substitutes a new section for section 67 of the original Act, and I wish to refer to the proposed section 67(2)(a). The existing paragraph should be retained and the following provision might be added at the end:

Unfortunately I have to mention it at this stage because I did not manage to get this amendment on the Order Paper. I believe this is one of the amendments which will come before this House in due course in the form of an amending Bill. If that were to be accepted, of course, the proposed section 67(2)(b) should be deleted and 67(2) (c) amended accordingly.

For the development of an accessible body of law, it is most undesirable that publication of court judgements should be delayed or that a grey market in original, uncensored judgements should come into existence. On the basis of argument presented at a hearing, the court should be in a position to decide immediately in what form a judgement should be released and which portions should be available for publication.

It is a difficult and a complex Bill and we found great interest in studying it and taking part in this debate. We oppose it, as I have said, but we look forward to further amending Bills that will come before the House.

Mr Chairman, if I understood the hon member for Johannesburg North correctly, the PFP is opposed to this legislation in principle “because Black South Africans are not part of this legislation”—to quote the words he used.

On the other hand the CP is opposed to this legislation because it, in fact, makes provision for Black trade unions. Surely both of them cannot be right. [Interjections.] The basic principle and one of the reasons why the PFP and the NDM are opposed to this legislation, is the codification of the definition of the definition of an unfair labour practice.

Before I discuss this matter, I should like to hear from the hon member for Durban Central whether he is aware of the sensitivity of this legislation. I should like to hear from him—the hon member for Stilfontein has already referred to this—whether he is aware of the intense international interest regarding this legislation.

They are worried about it, yes.

I shall come back to this concern later.

I want to ask the hon member whether he does not agree with me that a large part of the concern which may exist internationally is the result of the false perception and possibly also to a very great extent the disinformation disseminated inter alia by people like the hon member for Durban Central. [Interjections.] I should very much like to refer to the hon member for Durban Central’s contribution in which he quoted very selectively. If it were not that you would possibly ask me to withdraw the words, I could certainly have used far stronger language in this regard.[Interjections.]

Order! I would advise the hon member not to use that language.

I am referring to the unrevised Hansard of the hon member for Durban Central’s speech, in which he referred inter alia to Assocom’s standpoint. He quoted Assocom as follows—

However, that is not all Assocom said. Perhaps we should quote the rest, and I am quoting from the same document from which the hon member took his quote. Let us see what Assocom said directly after that:

[Inaudible.]

I will quote all of it. [Interjections.]

Now he says they are fence-sitters.

Assocom will take cognisance of that.

They went on to say …

Surely, it was this aspect that we rectified. I therefore think one would be quite justified in deducing that Assocom has no fundamental objection to the codification of an unfair labour practice. [Interjections.]

Let us see what else this hon member said. [Interjections.] I am again quoting from his unrevised Hansard, in which he said something interesting, namely—

Immediately after this he said:

He did not tell us what these two chambers of industries said, but immediately went on to what Cosatu had said about this.

I did not have enough time.

No, Sir, I do not think the hon member is telling the whole truth now.

While we are referring to these chambers of industries, let us give the entire spectrum of what the Cape Chamber of Industries said, and I am quoting from their evidence:

This is the Cape Chamber of Industries …

This is their standpoint. However, let us go further and consider the attitude of the other organisations which the hon member did not quote. Let us consider the view of the AHI, for the purposes of the argument. Let us consider what they say about the codification, and I am quoting from paragraph 9 of their submission, in which they said:

However, that hon member did not mention this. Let us go further, however, and see what Seifsa said. Seifsa is the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa, which has approximately 300 000 members. Although Seifsa has problems with certain details or certain definitions, in principle they have no objection to the codification. However, let us go further and see what some of the big industries said. Let us see what Iscor said about this. Iscor said—

We can look at another big employer. Let us see what Escom says about this codification. I am quoting them as follows—

Then they go on to say:

The hon member is a lawyer. Let us therefore see what the lawyers say about this. Let us see what the Sentrum vir Gevorderde Studies in Handels- en Arbeidsreg at the University of Pretoria says. The evidence was given by a senior lecturer, although the head of this centre is Prof Van Jaarsveld. I assume that the information given here, meets with the professor’s approval. They say:

It provides solutions to various problems in the labour law context which have emerged in recent years. The most meaningful amendments, which in general entail many improvements, are in my opinion those with regard to reconciliation boards, the definition or redefinition of key concepts and the establishment of a special labour court, specifically with a view to unfair labour practices. I am again quoting in this regard:

Reference is made to Schedule 1—

I think this aspect was, in fact, referred to earlier this evening. The evidence reads as follows:

It concludes as follows:

I think it was very unfair of this hon member to want to noise it abroad that there was no general support for the codification of an unfair labour practice. [Interjections.]

The policy of the Government is to leave the mutual employer-employee relationship, as much as possible, to the relevant parties. That is why legislation, or amendments to existing Acts, are being introduced to maintain good order. Legislation affecting labour relations is of the utmost importance, so that the negotiating interest between employer and employee is not disturbed. This legislation must therefore assist the employers and employees to regulate the work relationship between them. This is also why the Department of Manpower, as well as the standing committee, consulted as many employers, employees and professional organisations as possible.

Since the coming into force of the Labour Relations Act a great deal of development has taken place in this sphere. Even the considerable growth in the number of applications for the establishment of reconciliation boards—from 23 in 1980 to 1 924 in 1986—indicates the increasing extent to which the machinery in the Act is being used to settle disputes. As a result of this development there is also far more pressure on the industrial court, as is reflected by the fact that cases referred to this court increased from only four in 1979 to more than 2 000 in 1986. Bearing this aspect in mind it was therefore necessary to make provision for the introduction of a labour appeal court—an aspect which those of us on this side of the House support.

Owing to a lack of time I merely want to say that those of us on this side of the House are convinced that an aspect like the labour appeal court will make a contribution to the objectives of this department. I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by thanking hon members for their participation in this debate, as well as for the relatively good spirit in which the debate has been conducted during the past two occasions. At the outset, too, I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the members of the standing committee for their very hard and useful work, and also for the very good spirit in which the amending Bill was dealt with.

I think the chairman acquitted himself exceptionally well of his task. I should like to thank him for the special trouble that he took. I also want to thank the officials who were involved in the amending Bill, namely Advocates Fourie and Rudman and Mr Van der Walt.

First of all I just want to say that we are dealing here with delicate legislation on a very sensitive matter. I could just mention to hon members that this Labour Relations Amendment Bill is the object of very wide international interest. At present attempts are being made by the International Labour Organisation to institute a so-called commission of inquiry into this legislation. These arguments, some of which we also heard in this House, are among the arguments that are being used abroad for the imposition and the furthering of sanctions against South Africa. That is why it is a pity that there are people here who, for the sake of political motives, noised false and incorrect impressions about this legislation abroad, so that the party that is harmed in the end is South Africa. [Interjections.]

People from abroad came to discuss this legislation with me. Those people are well-disposed towards us. But hon members should see what is being said about this legislation. It is unbelievable! After one had shown them what the legislation actually entailed, they were simply unable to believe that it was the same thing. Consequently I want to try to reply to the debate on this legislation in a spirit of responsibility, so that these false perceptions can perhaps be eliminated.

Various speakers expressed opinions on the codification of the concept of “unfair labour practice”, and for that reason I am going to begin by making a few general introductory remarks about it. It is clear that there is no attempt in the amending Bill to codify an unfair labour practice in universal terms. What is being done is to lay down broad guidelines or rather signposts …

They are not signposts!

They are signposts on the basis of which greater legal certainty in regard to this concept can be obtained. It goes without saying that a code would go much further than the definition of an unfair labour practice which is now being proposed.

In Part 5, paragraph 4.127 of its report the Wiehahn Commission recommended that a code for fair labour practices should in due course be included in the Labour Relations Act. The commission pointed out inter alia that the following countries had a code of fair labour practices in one form or another, viz the Argentine, the Ivory Coast, Japan, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands, Togo, Bermuda, New Zealand, the USA, Britain, Colombia and Canada.

The definition of an unfair labour practice, as it is contained in the proposed statutory amendments, is as I have already indicated not a code in the true sense of the word. An example of such a code is to be found in the New Zealand legislation. In section 210 of that Act it is stated that it affords a worker a right of action if the worker is discriminated against. What is meant by discrimination is fully elucidated in section 211. Such a full elucidation can be regarded as a qualification, and not merely as a definition of what is meant by the concept.

The National Manpower Commission also dealt with this question, and in its report RP 45/1984 it found as follows according to the evidence before it:

This is a factual situation, because that is the problem with the present definition.

The commission then went further:

In paragraph 6.11.2.3 the National Manpower Commission states that although a code of practice, as proposed by the hon members for Brakpan and Durban North, has merit, the commission is of the opinion that greater clarity on what an unfair labour practice is must be obtained by means of the definition of the concept in the Act. In its report the commission formulated comprehensive guidelines according to which the definition of an unfair labour practice should be determined. These guidelines were followed in drawing up a definition of an unfair labour practice, which is at present before Parliament. That is where the definition had its origin.

After the National Manpower Commission had published its report comment on this report was called for. Approximately 32 persons and bodies submitted representations on it. Most of these persons and bodies supported the more comprehensive definition of an unfair labour practice. The Wiehahn Commission, in paragraph 4.127.3 of part 5 of its report made the following important statement:

If the hon member does not understand it, I can try to explain it to him.

I wonder whether you can explain it!

I can explain to the hon member. I know the hon member does not grasp these things very quickly, but of course that is not entirely his own fault. One is simply born that way. [Interjections.]

We do not understand it. You explain it to us!

Special circumstances made it necessary to make use of additional members in the industrial court. Each of these members applied his own subjective criterion in respect of what is right in the community. What happened then was that certain principles were laid down in matters that had not been properly argued before the court, and that created practical problems. That is why it was deemed that Parliament would best be able to determine the community’s sense of justice so that the adjudicator of an action, namely the members of the industrial court, could measure the facts of each case against this. Not only is greater uniformity brought about in this way, but the influence of the subjective judgement of a specific member of the court is also reduced.

The Wiehahn Commission expressed the following opinion in paragraph 4.127.19:

It is therefore important that Parliament, as the highest authority in this country, should entrench established guidelines in the Act and not relinquish this obligation that it has. In this way it is giving individual members of the industrial court guidelines in regard to these sensitive matters.

Recently the industrial court has experienced a further problem in regard to the adjudication of unfair labour practices. The industrial court is not a court of law and cannot therefore create precedents which can serve as binding, uniform guidelines. The amended definition seeks to make provision to a greater extent for these guidelines to be included in the definition, thereby creating greater legal certainty. Since statutory guidelines are now being laid down, employers and employees ought to have a better understanding of the legal position.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Bloemfontein North said. The argument he advanced was that 90% of these applications usually related to individuals, and the majority of employers involved in disputes were primarily small employers, and it was among these people that great ignorance existed and to whom the more comprehensive definition of this concept would give greater certainty as to what was fair, as opposed as to what was not fair.

I want to come now to individual members. The hon member for Brakpan said that this legislation could not be accepted in a multinational society such as the one which existed in South Africa, but that it could in fact be welcomed in a homogeneous society. When labour relations systems throughout the world are examined, as the Wiehahn Commission in fact did, it is precisely in a heterogeneous society such as the one in South Africa, in which there are various interest groups, that legislation of this nature is vitally necessary.

In a homogeneous community the group pressure is frequently sufficient to help regulate sound labour relations. In a heterogeneous society it is not only individual interests that may differ, but also group interests, and that is why it is essential for clear guidelines to certain principles to be laid down by Parliament.

The hon member for Brakpan pointed out the increase in the number of strikes and the increase in the number of man-hours lost as a result of strikes. He also referred to the increase in the number of conciliation boards and industrial court applications, and concluded that there was something amiss with labour relations in South Africa.

As I told the hon member in my reply to my Vote, and he knows this just as well as I do, we are the victims of a total onslaught on this country, which is also manifesting itself in the labour sphere.

The ANC began with the slogan: “Make South Africa ungovernable”. They went on to say: “Create liberated areas”, “create alternative structures”, People’s Education”, Workers’ Democracy”, etc. Then, at the beginning of this year, Oliver Tambo said: “Make South Africa unprofitable”. What did he do then? He took Joe Slovo away from the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, and he brought him into the labour sphere and said: “We must now concentrate on this sphere so that we can paralyse the country, so that we can make the country non-profitable and so that the free capitalistic system can be destroyed.”

What does the hon member for Innesdal have to say about that?

So, too, there have been onslaughts on the other spheres’, such as education and local government, by means of sabotage, acts of terrorism, etc.

Nothnagel’s total struggle!

The point is that the hon member maintains that there is something amiss because there are more strikes in South Africa under the new labour dispensation. Must the increase in sabotage and acts of terrorism be interpreted to mean that there is something amiss with the Police? That is to say if one adopts his logic. Does the fact that terrorists are approaching our borders to an increasing extent mean that there is something amiss with the Defence Force?

No, with the Government! [Interjections.]

No, wait a minute! Anything that is now happening to a greater extent than before supposedly means that there is something amiss with that body or organisation. That is the logic of the hon member for Brakpan! [Interjections.] That is the point, Sir! He said there was something amiss, and now I say that if one wishes to be consistent one should interpret all these other factors in the same way.

There is a screw loose as well!

Oh please, Sir, the hon member for Soutpansberg is talking about a screw being loose. I think all his screws are loose! [Interjections.]

What has happened now? An onslaught was made on this system. The question now is whether the system has warded off or dealt with the onslaught. How is the system designed? The system was designed to provide a mechanism so that an onslaught could be warded off and dealt with. I just want to raise the following point. Strikes have increased in number. Yes. This is true because the onslaught is taking place in that sphere. The onslaught is becoming more vehement; is constantly being intensified. The question now is what increase there has been in the number of strikes between 1982 and 1987. The answer to that question is that on average strikes increased by 28% per annum over that five year period.

Now a further question arises. What alternatives did we devise to counteract strikes? That is the question. These alternatives, in order to counteract strikes, are conciliation boards, industrial councils and the industrial court. I have said that strikes increased by an average of 28% per annum during the aforesaid five year period. But now comes the important aspect: The activities of the defusing mechanisms, the settlement mechanisms, particularly of the industrial court, which is primarily a court of conciliation, have increased during the past five years by an average of 131%. This is one of the settlement mechanisms.

Let us take note of the number of disputes referred to the industrial councils and conciliation boards during the past five years. These increased by an average of 116% per annum, which means that although the onslaught is there, the majority of the Black labour force are turning in a lawful way to the lawful dispute-settling machinery established by the Government. If they had not used the institutions to which I have just referred to such an increasing extent the strikes would not have increased by only 28% per year but could have increased by 100% per year. That is what could have happened if the defusing and settlement machinery had not been used to such an increasing extent. [Interjections.] That is the heart of the matter.

That is why I say, instead of criticising this legislation, we ought to be applauding it. In what other sphere have we been as successful in warding off this onslaught as the labour sphere? One must not wear political blinkers when considering this matter. We must see what is in the interests of South Africa and of all its people for the sake of lasting stability. [Interjections.]

During 1987 2 312 applications for the establishment of conciliation boards were received. During the same period 3 084 disputes were referred to industrial councils, and 3 533 cases were referred to the industrial court. Of the disputes which were considered by the industrial councils for example, 50,4% were resolved by the industrial councils themselves, or were settled by the disputing parties by way of agreement through the mediation of the councils concerned. We are dealing here with 9 000 disputes that received attention. I want to repeat that if those mechanisms had not been there all 9 000 of these disputes could have led to strikes. Because this settlement machinery is dealing with matters, however, and because the system is accepted by 95% of the inhabitants of the country, we remain able to cope with the position.

I want to tell the hon members that the trend at the moment is that an increasing number of trade unions are registering. More and more trade unions are beginning to learn the harsh facts of life through the process of evolutionary development and experience. Consequently they are beginning to become more responsible.

Of course, we do get irresponsible trade unions. We also get irresponsible developments in the sphere of the trade unions—not only among Black trade unions, but also from the so-called White Conservative Employees’ Union, which is now being established in secret.

We also get an irresponsible Government! [Interjections.]

I want to go further. I want to ask the hon member for Brakpan again what the position would be if we did not have these defusing mechanisms. In all fairness I now want to pay the hon member for Brakpan a compliment. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank him sincerely for the enthusiastic and zealous way in which he propagated this legislation when it was originally passed here in this House. [Interjections.] I am sorry that the hon member subsequently went astray, but my information is that he left us through a misunderstanding. [Interjections.]

One must therefore look at the tremendous increase in the number of disputes that are being settled by industrial councils, conciliation boards and the industrial court. [Interjections.] The point which the hon member for Brakpan missed was that not only has the number of strikes increased, but the entire process of dispute settlement has expanded considerably during this decade in comparison with what the situation was before. If the hon member is really worried about the trends in the labour sphere he ought to support this legislation, which tries to bring about certainly in law, thereby reducing disputes and establishing more discipline and responsibility, because these are the premises of this legislation, with retention of the full concept and principle of fairness.

The hon member for Brakpan, as well as the hon member for Randfontein, contend that more attention should have been given in this legislation to the problem of intimidation, but the hon member did not indicate how he thought attention should have been given to this matter. Nor did I see any amendments on the control of intimidation moved by the hon member on the standing committee. [Interjections.]

As the hon member knows the evidence indicates that it is not really possible to take steps against intimidators unless witnesses are prepared to come forward and testify against intimidators. [Interjections.] I should like to invite the hon member, if he can give me a plan against intimidation, to submit it. I shall consider it very earnestly and objectively, because it is not only in the labour sphere that intimidation is a problem. It is a serious problem throughout Black society today.

There was evidence on the matter before the standing committee.

If there was evidence, the hon member can come and discuss it with me.

Use it! [Interjections.]

He is not coming to discuss the matter with me. He must come forward with a motion. Why, then, did he not move an amendment?

Are you implying that I must …

Why did he not move an amendment? That is the point.

Divulge that confidential evidence …

Order! This dialogue cannot continue. The hon member for Brakpan must give the hon the Minister the opportunity to complete his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

If the hon member had been in earnest, and if he had been concerned about the cause and not politics, he would surely have moved an amendment to this legislation—after all he has every right to do so—and would in that way have solved the intimidation problem. We would have thanked him for that. [Interjections.] All the hon member is trying to do, however, is score another political point. He is politically superficial. [Interjections.]

The standpoint we want to state is this: This entire new system makes bargaining between employers and employees more effective. The employers are now able, in a bargaining process, to exchange certain of the rights they have for measures against intimidation through negotiation with the trade union. I reiterate that intimidation is being examined on a very high level, and it is a very serious matter which deserves serious attention.

The hon member for Brakpan made the allegation that the amendments could bring about labour unrest. He referred to the reaction of certain trade union leaders who were upset about the Bill. However, he quoted from The Star— hon members must listen carefully now!—of 29 February 1988, which commented on the unamended Bill, and not on the Bill as we now have it before us. The hon member therefore made a very serious mistake. He read the comment on the unamended Bill, while he referred, to use his own words, to the Bill at present before us. The hon member made a serious mistake there. I hope he will apply corrective action.

I want to go further. What was very interesting was to see how, in addition, the hon member for Brakpan elected to quote Cosatu.

With the hon member’s opposition to the present legislation, the CP finds itself to a great extent in the same camp as Cosatu. Furthermore, the CP is committing the same error of reasoning. I want to refer these hon members, and also the hon members of the PFP and the NDM—unless of course they have split again; I do not know how many of them there are now—to a report in The Star of 19 May this year. The headline to the report is “Lusaka: Call to oppose Labour Bill”. I quote:

The CP finds itself in precisely the same camp as the ANC. The ANC is opposing this legislation. The sanction priests are opposing this legislation. The CP is opposing this legislation. The radical right-wing groups are opposing it, and the radical left-wing groups are also opposing it. That is why I am more convinced than ever before that we are right. [Interjections.] I would really have been worried if the right-wing radical and the left-wing radicals supported us on this legislation; or if the ANC had supported us. [Interjections.] After all, they say birds of a feather flock together. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon member for Parktown want to go to Cuba?

No, I am asking whether you people are talking to them.

Of course we are talking to them. But what has that to do with the legislation now before the House? [Interjections.] We are talking to them in an effort to establish peace in Southern Africa. I am saying that in case the hon member for Park Town does not know it. [Interjections.] The hon member should rather read the morning newspapers, instead of sitting here and making meaningless interjections. He would also do well to introduce fewer anti-smoking Bills in this House. [Interjections.] I say that the CP, the ANC and Cosatu are now bedfellows.

The hon member for Brakpan objected to the letter the standing committee send me on workers in agriculture. As I have repeatedly stated sensitive negotiations are in progress with organised agriculture and other bodies on labour matters. I have no intention either of acting coercively in any way. The method I adopt is that of co-operation. [Interjections.] I want to point out, however, that this matter is so sensitive because it is one of the arguments being used abroad against South Africa in the boycotts of agricultural products. That is why the SA Agricultural Union and other bodies I do not even want to mention here by name—in fact I gave them my word that I would not identify them—and I have agreed to discuss this matter in a responsible way, and not allow it to be to the detriment of the farmers or the workers of South Africa. That is why we must keep this matter out of the political arena.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to clause 2 of the Bill and said that as the amended section was now going to be worded the legislation, as far as educational institutions were concerned, was only applicable to people who provided tuition, education or training. He said this legislation would therefore not be applicable to non-teaching staff, for example research workers, administrative and technical personnel and service workers. Oh well, here the hon member is making a mistake again. Here he has again confused his facts. The hon member for Brakpan and facts are enemies.

The first error in the hon member’s assumption is demonstrated in that this legislation is in fact not applicable to teaching personnel. That is his first mistake. His second erroneous assumption is refuted by the fact that this legislation is in fact applicable to non-teaching personnel. The hon member could therefore not have stated it more incorrectly. One could not have stated it more erroneously than he has already done. He presented every fact incorrectly. [Interjections.] Furthermore the hon member for Brakpan stated that lawyers would make a meal of the definition in this measure of an “unfair labour practice”. I can accept that initially there is going to be litigation. Of course, yes. This will happen in order to determine what the objectives of the legislation are in regard to the respective provisions of unfair labour practices. But this litigation ought to diminish, particularly after the Labour Appeal Court and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court have provided guidelines in this connection.

This position cannot in any way be compared with the present position, in which the definition has no limits and every case has to be brought to court to establish whether it constitutes an unfair labour practice or not.

The meal the lawyers are making of this matter is in fact the one that is now in progress. [Interjections.] It seems to me those hon members do not want to help the poor worker, who cannot afford expensive legal representation. The poor worker, the salt of the earth, cannot afford expensive legal representation. He needs an Act which he can read and understand. The small businessman of South Africa cannot afford expensive litigation. Surely we have to establish more legal certainty for those people. Let us put a stop to this prevailing situation, for the sake of South Africa.

The hon member says the main objection of the CP to this Bill is the continuation of the principle of the acceptance of Black trade unions. I think the hon member for Benoni pointed out in a very effective way to the hon member for Brakpan the implications of his policy and the disastrous consequences it would have. The hon member can just imagine what the effects of the CP policy would have been if no safety-valves had been created and if the labour sphere were not controlled by minimum requirements to which labour organisations had to comply. He can just imagine what the situation would have been if mechanisms for defusing labour conflict had not been created by way of statutory dispute-settling machinery. I am referring to the 9 000 cases which were dealt with last year. If the mechanisms for that purpose had not existed, and if Black people had not been receptive to them, what would have happened? We would once again have had a 1922 situation, or a 1973 situation, when strikes threatened to get out of hand. One of the successful features of our system, and of our labour policy, has been that the new system withstood the onslaught, without the State having to make use of unnecessary force.

In my reply to the Vote I quoted various passages from the speech made by the hon member for Brakpan during the Second Reading discussion of the new labour relations dispensation to indicate that in those years the hon member actively defended and supported the new labour policy. His acceptance of the fairness principle when a dispute reaches the industrial court was only one of the facets which he accepted, together with the trade union rights for all. [Interjections.] It is gratifying that, at least as far as the fairness principle is concerned, he has remained consistent and still supports it. However, he has thrown all the other things away.

The hon member said that the CP would prohibit Black trade unions by means of statutory law. That is the point the hon member made. What the hon member and his party therefore envisages—if I understood him correctly—is to prohibit them by means of statutory law. Is that not true? The hon member is not replying to me. What the hon member is envisaging is to take away the right to establish trade unions in terms of common law. That is what the hon member wants to do. He wants to take away the right to establish trade unions in terms of common law. I want to tell him that the least I can say about that is that it is a draconian step which even exMinisters Ben Schoeman and Jan de Klerk were not prepared to take. Not one of those two Ministers was prepared to do that.

The hon member also said that ex-Minister Marais Viljoen was the best labour Minister South Africa had ever had. He was an excellent labour Minister, but ex-Minister Marais Viljoen, too, was not prepared to use the statutory law to abolish a person’s common law right to establish trade unions. Nevertheless the hon member for Brakpan says that the CP is going to do it. Let me say this to the hon members, however, the man who does that, the man who uses statutory law—apart from the Labour Relations Act, if they are excluded in that way—so that Black trade unions have no rights, will plunge South Africa into chaos and a blood-bath.

The trade unions will go underground. One cannot wish them away, one cannot abolish them and one cannot prohibit them. They are there; they are a fact of life in South Africa. It is an internationally acceptable right and principle that has been laid down.

The hon member for Brakpan argued that we must return to the dispensation of liaison and works committees which existed in terms of the Black labour relations regulating legislation of 1953, and he referred to the position in Belgium and Germany. That just goes to show once again how out of step he is with the rapidly changing circumstances. As he probably does not know, or does know, I do not know—both Belgium and Germany have trade unions. They do not ban trade unions. What is more, these countries have homogeneous work forces.

As he ought to know, employers and employees are still at liberty today to make use of works committees if they prefer. Section 34A of the Labour Relations Act gives statutory recognition to such bodies. The fact of the matter is, however, that parties prefer the collective bargaining system.

I come next to the hon member for Stilfontein. Once again I want to convey a special word of thanks to him for his contributions. He is the chairman of the standing committee, and I thank him for the trouble he took to arrive at consensus on that committee, as well as for the excellent legislation which that committee submitted to Parliament. The hon member referred to the Bill as another great milestone in our history of successful labour relations. I agree with him.

He said something which I found very striking and which testified to his depth of knowledge and insight into this subject. He said there were three objectives in respect of labour conflict. Firstly the conflict must be resolved on the lowest possible level. Secondly the conflict must be resolved as quickly as possible, and thirdly the conflict must be resolved as cheaply as possible for both parties. I am in full agreement with his standpoints. †I want to come now to the hon member for Groote Schuur. He stated that the thrust of the Bill was bad and claimed that it would disrupt enlightened developments in labour relations and undermine collective bargaining. He said the Government did not want to budge on important issues. I just want to draw his attention to an article in The Star of 20 May 1988. I read this also for the information of the hon member for Durban Central:

That is what they say. The statement notes that:

Read further!

Further on they mention the code. [Interjections.] I am pleased the hon member is asking me that question. When the National Manpower Commission asked the FCI whether they supported a code or a definition, they testified before the commission that they supported a definition. All of them, from African Explosives, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, American Chamber of Commerce, Verenigde Kamers van Koophandel, Assocom, the Boilermakers’ Association, and Saccola, to the SA Institute for Race Relations, support the question of a definition. [Interjections.]

Let us go a little further. After all, the hon member said that Assocom did not support it. I can quote this to the hon member. But let us see what Assocom said in The Star of the 19th:

And so, what do you people say now!

The hon member said that this would disrupt enlightened developments in labour relations. I am of the opinion that the hon member is not very well informed as far as labour relations are concerned.

You wait and see!

A vast amount of evidence was received on the draft Bill. The standing committee heard only select people, some of whom were still not happy with the Bill. It must be remembered that the evidence of the majority of people who were satisfied with the Bill, in many cases was not heard, for example, people who testified before the National Manpower Commission or people who sent submissions to the department after they had published the Bill in December 1986. It is therefore incorrect to state that despite evidence the Government does not want to budge on important issues. What actually happened was that the Government incorporated in this Bill the principles supported by the overwhelming majority who submitted evidence and those who refrained from giving further evidence because they agreed with the principles in the Bill.

Not the major organisations.

The hon member also failed to state in which manner development will be disrupted, but only made general remarks. If he has been more precise I could have responded more expressly to his contentions.

That is not at all correct. I gave you details!

I am, however, of the opinion that this Bill will lead to further constructive development of labour relations in this country. The Bill can rather be viewed as a natural development as foreseen by the Wiehahn Commission.

The hon member also said that he feared that underlying the legislation there was an element of trying to clamp down on unions for fear of political activity. He knows as well as I do that none of the clauses is concerned with politics.

That is all you are supposed to decide upon.

As is clear from the National Manpower Commission’s Report, the purpose of this Bill is to rectify certain technical problems being experienced in the application of the Labour Relations Act. I fully agree with the hon member that negotiation and agreement are the best methods in solving labour problems. This is one of the aims of the Bill. In order to facilitate collective bargaining adequate provision has been made in the Bill so that parties—this is one of the most important aspects—can set their own standards of fair labour practices and put their own dispute settlement procedures into motion.

It has always been that way.

Exactly, but that freedom exists! They can do it!

That is existing legislation!

I agree with the hon member that wild-cat strikes which took place before 1979 were far more disruptive than the present industrial action. Before 1979 employers did not know who to talk to in a strike situation, whereas now there are credible leaders to negotiate with.

The hon member made the statement that if the parties believe that structures are unfair they will resort to industrial action. The point is that if parties believe that structures are unfair, they can of course rectify such unfair structures through private agreements. I therefore do not agree that they will resort to industrial action, unless of course their intention is to destroy the economy. If that is their intention, they will resort to industrial action.

The hon member also feels that the present definition of “unfair labour practice” is better because it allows the industrial court unfettered discretion. In the introduction to my reply I dealt fully with the question of an unfair labour practice and shall therefore not go into the matter any further now.

The hon member stated that the new definition was prescriptive in that all the most important categories of labour practices or conduct were defined in restrictive straitjackets. I want to emphasise that what the definition does, is to provide signposts. Barring a construction problem, the hon member for Groote Schuur has failed to give a single practical example of an anomaly.

The hon member then referred to paragraph (a) of the definition of “unfair labour practice” and stated that the second “and” in line 52 on page 5 of the Bill should be changed to “or”. I have referred this matter to the legal advisers who are of the opinion that the ordinary rules of interpretation support the present construction. He will of course have the opportunity of reasoning the matter further in the standing committee.

The hon member then went on to deal with boycotts, sympathy strikes and grasshopper strikes and said that the question should be left to the industrial court to decide in what circumstances they are justifiable. When one looks at the definition of “unfair labour practice”, one will note that it begins with the following words:

As I understand this, the strike must be an act which in an unfair manner infringes or impairs the labour relations between an employer and an employee. Ultimately it will be the industrial court and the labour appeal court which will have to decide whether any strike in contravention of section 65 in fact infringes or impairs the labour relations between an employer and an employee.

One of the reasons why strike action has been included in the definition of “unfair labour practice” is that, as the hon member correctly stated, it is difficult to force people in labour relations by way of criminal action to follow a certain course. I agree with the hon member on that. Where such a strike, lock-out or stoppage of work falls within the definition of an unfair labour practice, an employer can take civil action against a union or the members of a union if he so wishes, and it is not necessary to rely on criminal proceedings against such union and its members.

The hon member also pleaded for the amendment of section 17(2A) to provide for the making of an interim order by the industrial court. None of the people giving evidence on the draft Bill before either the National Manpower Commission or the standing committee suggested that this should be the procedure. The granting of an interim order is also not followed in any other court of law. It is therefore not clear why an interim order should be made in this instance. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Groote Schuur indicated that he was totally opposed to the envisaged section 79(2) as he found it unacceptable that a union should acquire vicarious liability for the actions of its members. This is a very important issue and I should like to make the following points in this regard. Firstly, as subsection (2) is subject to the indemnity in subsection (1) no civil legal proceedings may be brought in the event of lawful action. Secondly, it is only where the interference with the contractual relationship results in a breach of contract that this clause comes into operation.

Where a trade union intervenes after the contractual relationship has been broken, there can be no possibility of the provision affecting that trade union, because it is after the event. Any trade union which assists in the resolution of any wildcat strike after the event, would not have a problem with the proposed subsection. The people who cause the wild-cat strikes, however, need to worry about this clause.

Why the lead-in clause?

Thirdly, the onus that a trade union bears in terms of the proposed amendment, can be easily disposed of, as it is within the knowledge of the trade union as to whether or not any of its members acted with due authority or not. It is as simple as that. I therefore respectfully submit that the hon member is reading something into this provision which is just not there.

Whilst the hon member for Kuruman was addressing this House the hon member for Bryanston made the remark that they had proposed the same amendment to paragraph (b) of the definition of “unfair labour practice” as I had. The amendment of the hon member for Johannesburg North is of course different as it relates to paragraph (a).

I said so tonight!

Yes, that is so. I just wanted to rectify the situation.

*I come next to the hon member for Kuruman. He also made a very positive contribution here, and said inter alia:

He went on to say:

The hon member is quite right. It is our intention to do that, and it is one of the objectives of the legislation under discussion.

I want to come now to the hon member for Carletonville. He said that the CP would prohibit Black trade unions. He used the word “verbied”. He went on to make a few other points which are not really very important now, but he did make a few minor points to which one ought to give attention. In my reply to the hon member for Brakpan I indicated—the hon member for Benoni also said this—that it would be impossible to implement and would very definitely have disastrous consequences.

For the information of this House I should just like to say that there are 252 000 Whites in uniracial White trade unions, but there are 194 000 Whites who are members of mixed trade unions. The hon members for Carletonville and Brakpan are now saying that they will prohibit these people from having trade union rights. The non-White members of these mixed trade unions are therefore going to receive notices now stating that they may no longer be members of these trade unions. What about the Whites who are associated with them? The CP is therefore going to disqualify part of the labour force, with whom the Whites negotiated, from the bargaining process, and they are therefore going to place those Whites in a poorer bargaining position than the one they were in before. That is the point.

The CP hates White workers!

I want to ask the hon member for Brakpan, their chief spokesman, what they are going to do with Coloured and Asian trade unions? Is the CP going to prohibit them too?

Now he has nothing to say!

Make you own speech.

No, he is asking me questions! After all the CP is so arrogant that they are going to prohibit this and break down and boycott that. Is the CP going to dismantle or prohibit these trade unions as well? That is the point.

You need only read our programme of principles!

That programme of principles has nothing to say about Coloured and Asian trade unions. [Interjections.] Nothing is said there about Coloured and Asian trade unions, and why is the hon member not answering? Why must I read their constitution? I have read it, but I do not think it is worth a scrap! Nevertheless, why is he not saying what they are going to do with Brown and Yellow trade unions?

Than you did not understand it.

He must tell us now! Why does he not tell us whether they are going to prohibit these trade unions or not? They are in trouble over this, because it seems to me—as I understand them—that they want to limit those trade unions to functioning only within the so-called heartland and the homelands. [Interjections.] I think the hon member and his party owes Parliament an explanation on what they are going to do with Coloured, Asian and mixed trade unions. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The hon member simply made the statement here that this amending Bill was trying to rectify what the former Minister had steamrollered through Parliament. If that is true, the hon member ought to ask his fellow members who walked over to the CP with him why they supported this legislation at the time. The hon member for Brakpan as well as the hon member for Lichtenburg and the Leader of the Official Opposition were also guilty of steamrollering a measure through Parliament. [Interjections.]

I can agree with the hon member for Carletonville that by defining an unfair labour practice in the legislation, cases will not exactly be tried in court, but that is not the only purpose of the definition. The industrial court and other courts are in fact there to help resolve labour disputes. The object of a definition is to provide more legal certainty by serving as a guideline for employers and employees as to what can and what cannot be regarded as fair.

The hon member for Carletonville said in addition that the object of this legislation was to curtail Black trade unions. If that is true—let us suppose it is true, and he believes what he is saying—why do they not vote for this legislation? Surely they are opposed to Black trade unions, but they want to vote for them by not voting for this legislation. [Interjections.]

They do not have the interests of the White workers at heart, because they are going to gamble with the position of the White workers in South Africa. [Interjections.] Now this party—I should like to have this placed on record—is voting against legislation which in their opinion is going to curtail Black trade unions. This should be told outside.

Who is going to believe you?

Many people are going to believe me; the majority in fact. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is it is definitely not the object of this legislation to curtail White and/or Black trade unions. The object is to rectify certain technical problems experienced in the past with the practical implementation of the Act. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville objected to the period of 12 months before it is possible to strike again in regard to a matter and asked how it was going to be decided whether a strike was materially the same, as provided in paragraph (m) of the definition of an unfair labour practice. That hon member ought to know just as well as I do that it has already occurred in the Act at least since 1956 that during the period of validity of an agreement, award or determination that is binding in terms of the labour relations act, employees may not strike in regard to any matter which is applicable in that agreement. That is the factual situation at the moment, and wage agreements are usually binding for 12 months.

As far as I know the hon member for Carletonville has never, when he was still active in the trade union movement and that was still his priority, has never since 1956, when this provision was placed on the Statute Book, objected to it. That is why I cannot understand how he can now object to paragraph (m), because all paragraph (m) is now doing is to include private collective agreements in the limitation on strikes within 12 months. That is all. It makes that provision, which has existed since 1956, applicable in that case too. Consequently I cannot understand the hon member’s opposition now.

It is therefore clear to me that the hon member for Carletonville does not understand the operation of this provision. Why should a trade union that has been involved in a strike on a specific matter and that has solved it by agreement, strike within six months in regard to the same matter? That is the point.

Is the object of a strike not in fact to resolve a dispute? The object of paragraph (m) is that when a dispute has been resolved a strike on the same dispute within 12 months is not allowed. Surely this is a sensible arrangement. Trade unions will also be aware of this provision and can agree with the employer, if they want to strike again within the 12 month period, and the employed wishes to reach that agreement with them. The Act does not prohibit this.

It will of course be the task of the courts to decide whether a strike is materially concerned with the same dispute as a previous one. The hon member had a point there. I concede that it would be difficult to prove victimisation against trade union members by selective re-employment; the matter of proving victimisation has always been difficult.

As the hon member for Carletonville knows, a criminal prosecution by the State in the case of an unlawful strike is in many cases not conducive to sound labour relations, and in most cases depends on the willingness of the employer to testify against his employees. The hon member for Carletonville carried on here and asked why the Government did not apply the existing legislation—as though the Government were afraid to apply it! He must go and speak to the employers.

If that person does not wish to lay a charge against his employees, the Government cannot prosecute them. It seems to me the hon member does not understand how these things work at all.

The new definition of an unfair labour practice enables employers to institute court proceedings in regard to an illegal strike. An employer knows the circumstances of his place of work and could introduce self-discipline and order in the labour sphere by way of a collective agreement instead.

The hon member alleged that I was delaying the introduction of conciliation boards. This is what the hon member said here the other evening, and I am quoting him:

As soon as applications for the establishment of conciliation boards reach me they receive immediate attention. What does happen is that the department sometimes waits for the submission of information before an application is processed, and that takes a lot of time. One sometimes has to wait for weeks for a reply from the other side. Owing to the number of applications, which double every year, the volume of work causes the submission of applications to take some time. With the devolution of the power of establishment to the regional directors delays will occur.

I want to tell the hon member that no application lies on my desk for longer than a week. My table is not a maternity home for conciliation applications. In any case most of the applications apply to men. I would appreciate it if the hon member would inform my how male files are going to go into labour and proliferate on my desk. Perhaps he has a more intimate knowledge of the matter than I do.

The hon member objected to clause 24(b) of the amending Bill. There is no provision in the amending Bill or the Labour Relations Act which prevents a trade union from testing the feelings of its members about a possible strike. It deals with the time when it has to test these feelings. All the amending Bill is now providing is that a formal strike vote may only be held after the entire dispute settling process has been gone through. What sense does it make, after all, to go through the negotiating process if a trade union has decided in advance to strike? One must first negotiate and then decide whether one wants to strike. Surely that is perfectly normal logic.

The hon member argued for better protection of employees who strike legally. The National Manpower Commission referred to the question of strikes and is in fact still looking into aspects of the matter. This is a matter which will subsequently be scrutinised in the light of the recommendations of the National Manpower Commission.

The hon member for Carletonville wants all workers, except farm workers and the domestic servants, to be incorporated under the Labour Relations Act. This has already been examined, but in the foreseeable future there are practical problems that make it impossible. Public servants are also included, of whom half are Black. The hon member is therefore advocating trade union rights for Black public servants. I should like to have it placed on record that the hon member for Carletonville supports the granting of trade union rights to Black and other coloured public servants. [Interjections.] The hon member said that the Labour Relations Act should be made applicable to all workers except farm workers and domestic servants, so that they could also have the right to bargain. I therefore reiterate, and place on record, that the hon member for Carletonville is advocating that Black and other coloured workers—all workers—should receive trade union rights. Those are his own words.

The hon member complained about stop-order facilities being granted to unregistered trade unions. However, this is only done if the trade union concerned complies with all the minimum requirements in the Act. For the hon member’s information I can point out that last year 22 applications for stop-order facilities were received from unregistered trade unions, of which ten were approved, five were refused, one was withdrawn and six lapsed. Experience has shown that as soon as they receive stop-order facilities, they begin to register, because I usually allow the stop-order facilities for six or 12 months only, and that is an incentive to them to register.

The hon member said that consent was now being granted for an unregistered trade union to become a party to an industrial council. I want to say with emphasis that this statement is simply not correct; it is devoid of all truth. He went on to say that the legislation was not clearly defined.

It is ten past ten.

Oh please, Sir, I think the hon member should go climb a tree; I shall continue. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must stop looking at his watch. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Carletonville said that the legislation was not clearly defined. He said an unfair labour practice was defined far more clearly in the earlier legislation, and that everyone then knew where he stood. I can hardly believe that the hon member, who was a trade union leader, could make that statement. I had to read it three times before what he had said really penetrated. I can understand why he left trade unionism and is now trying his hand at politics. [Interjections.] Surely that cannot be true, because in the meantime a large number of amendments have been affected which have broadened the definition and laid down guidelines. All of these things have been included in the new, clearer and more comprehensive definitions.

I come next to the hon member for Benoni, and I want to thank him for his participation in the debate. I thank him for the effective way in which he argued about what would happen if Blacks were deprived of trade union rights. I think the hon member made a very fruitful contribution.

†I come now to the hon member for Bryanston. On the whole, the hon member’s speech was positive and his criticism constructive. I wish to thank him for that. He says that the Bill will not prevent strikes from taking place even if they are prohibited by law. I agree with him. It is therefore proposed in the amending Bill that an unlawful strike also be regarded as an unfair labour practice. The affected party will now be able to take civil action in the industrial court. The industrial court can then decide what method will best remedy an unacceptable strike.

The hon member made the point that the president of Cosatu had said that the Bill attacked the right to strike. He pointed out that the basic rights remained. What is being attacked is unfair strike action, which has therefore been included in the definition of an unfair labour practice. I want to make it clear that sympathy strikes are not prohibited by this Bill. What it does provide is that if a sympathy strike infringes upon or impairs the labour relations between an employer and an employee, certain rights may flow from such action.

The hon member also touched on the president of Cosatu’s objection to minority union bargaining. At the moment, of course, this takes place in the engineering industry, for example, where there is a multiplicity of employers’ organizations and trade unions. If our labour relations system is to work effectively, full freedom of association must allow for dealing with minority unions.

I dealt with the unfair labour practice issue in my opening remarks and I will leave it at that.

The hon member also said that the right to sue for damages should be exercised in the civil courts. The right to sue in civil courts is not affected at all by these amendments. Anybody is still free to go to a civil court and sue for damages in the event of such damages occurring. Any person who has suffered damages as a result of any unfair action can, however, now claim compensation in the industrial court, which I suggest may not be quite the same as damages.

In my reply to the hon member for Groote Schuur I elucidated the position regarding the proposed section 79 (2), and I will leave it at that.

The hon member mentioned that there was concern that the proposed legislation might not comply with the standards of the International Labour Organisation. As far as I am informed, it does not run counter to such standards. I want to assure him that regard was had for the internal situation as well as the international one when the Bill was drafted.

*I want to thank the hon member for Albany for his contribution. He mentioned that this legislation was a milestone in labour relations and I want to thank him sincerely for his contribution.

I come now to the hon member for Durban Central. He alleged that the Government was trying to steamroller this legislation through Parliament. That is simply not true. The standing committee met on 17 occasions to hear evidence and to discuss the amending Bill. This committee also devoted approximately 71 hours to this task. There was consequently more than enough time for hon members to study and discuss this legislation in depth. The draft Bill was published in December 1986. This was done to elicit comment. However, the people who wanted to comment asked for additional time. We received 150 comments. We tried to include these in the legislation, we held talks with those who had made representations, and then the draft legislation was submitted to the standing committee. The legislation evolved naturally from investigations, reports and recommendations made by the National Manpower Commission. This is one of the best considered Bills ever submitted to Parliament.

I want to say that the system of standing committees is a successful one. I want to tell the hon member for Randfontein, who has only been here for a short while, that this is far better than the old committee stage. How many amendments did a Minister accept in a committee stage? Occasionally a single one here and there to make an opposition member feel better.

Hold on, you cannot say that!

Yes, it is true; those are the facts.

During the committee stage of the House of Assembly members were always playing to the gallery. They were making propaganda. Now that door is closed and we are trying to make good legislation. I maintain that the standing committee system results in better consideration of legislation, it gives other population groups a better opportunity to introduce their dimention … [Interjections] … and also gives them an opportunity to make their contribution. It also affords Parliament an opportunity to call in expert witnesses and to consider it. We are now making better legislation than in the past.

†The hon member said the one major flaw in the amending Bill was the definition of an unfair labour practice. In my introduction I dealt fully with this wrong perception. It is true that the weight of evidence before the standing committee may have been against codifying an unfair labour practice. I can say that I am also against the codification of an unfair labour practice at this stage. I was disinclined to codify an unfair labour practice, and I was only prepared to give guidelines through the definition of an unfair labour practice.

For interest’s sake I should like to say that a great many prominent organisations supported the broad definition of an unfair labour practice as against codifying it when asked for their views on the National Manpower Commission’s report. They included the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Seifsa, Saccola, FCI and Assocom. It is also interesting to note that Edwin Cameron, one of the editors of Employment Law, also had a change of mind. In the November 1987 issue he, together with others, stated:

To that I take exception.

Most interesting is that in the second volume of the 1988 Industrial Law Journal the same author discusses unfair dismissals. I must remind hon members that dismissals constitute more than 90% of all disputes channelled through the dispute settling mechanisms provided for in the Labour Relations Act. In this article the same author concluded:

When I replied to the hon member for Groote Schuur I replied to the objection to the proposed amendment of section 79(2) and will leave the matter at that.

I want now to come back to the hon member for Durban Central. The hon member said that the carrot should be used and not the stick. His argument seems to boil down to one thing. The Bill must be redrafted so that there is no or little stick for workers who act unfairly. There should only be a carrot, in the sense that workers are encouraged to make use of the provisions of the legislation. This is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the employer’s position. One has to place a carrot before employers to expand their businesses and to invest and risk their money in the marketplace. If one uses a carrot for only one party, one acts to the detriment of the other. The Bill says a carrot before both parties. What the Bill states, is that if one acts fairly one is protected. Because the Bill aims at striking a balance between the interests of both employer and employee, there must be some parts which employees see as being the carrot, whereas the same parts may be seen as a stick by the employer, and vice versa.

I agree with the hon member that the best method of curtailing wild-cat strikes is to build disincentives into collective agreements. The purpose of the Labour Relations Act is to provide a back-up system, so to speak, should the collective bargaining system fail or where no collective agreement exists. It therefore follows that where one has sound labour relations agreements it should not be necessary to make use of the back-up system.

The hon member argues that paragraph (m) of the definition of “unfair labour practice” in the Bill is unnecessary. The hon member’s argument is that where such action in an unfair manner impairs or infringes the labour relations between an employer and an employee it should be allowed. Does the hon member not think that having a lock-out every week of the year can in certain circumstances be unfair?

[Inaudible.]

That is the point. Then again, we have the signposts for employer and employee. They may strike and they may have a lock-out, but they must beware for if their actions are not reasonable the other party may obtain assistance from the courts.

The opposition of the Chamber of Mines was voiced before the amendments were effected to the Bill and are probably no longer valid. If the hon member, however, wants to make use of the arguments of the Chamber of Mines, why does he refrain from disclosing to the House that the Chamber strongly supports the provision regarding “grasshopper” strikes?

The hon member asked a question as to what the position would be where workers of a certain category go on a strike, and within 12 months workers of the same employer, but in a different category, also go on strike. I would like to answer the question by posing another one. What will happen if a similar occurrence were to take place today before the amendments are accepted? Surely the answer must be that the industrial court may decide that it is most probably an unfair labour practice. However, what is aimed at with the present amendments, is to give a clear indication to employers and employees that such actions may be an unfair labour practice. I dealt with this principle earlier and do not wish to elaborate further. I have now dealt with the hon member for Durban Central.

*I just want to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North very much for his contribution. A moment ago I expressed my opinion on a very important and valid point which the hon member for Bloemfontein North made.

The hon member for Randfontein said that the committee stage was necessary and that it was a weak point that there was not one. I have already reacted to that, and I want to allege that the opposite is in fact true. We are now making better laws than in the past. The hon member raised the question of intimidation. I reiterate that anyone who is able to make constructive proposals in this connection, which led to our being able to deal effectively with intimidation, would be doing this country a service.

The hon member for Sasolburg referred to the right-wing radical boycott party that does not have the interests of the White worker at heart and does not support the legislation. The Whites are being protected by the prohibition on discrimination. The hon member made a very valid point. By placing a prohibition on discrimination, it is not possible to replace members of one population, culture or religious group with members of another group because one is able to pay members of that group less.

†The hon member for Johannesburg North opposed the Bill. He is against the maintenance of exclusively White trade unions. I do not want to quarrel with the hon member as he is usually a very pleasant fellow. I do not want to give him the kiss of death either, but in my opinion the maintenance of exclusively White, Black or Coloured unions is built into the right of freedom of association. The freedom to dissociate is also built into that right. One can therefore associate with other groups or decide to associate only with one’s own group. I cannot see anything wrong with that. I think it is a very sound principle because one cannot force people to associate if they do not want to do so.

The hon member said he opposed the Bill on account of the definition of an unfair labour practice. I think he is wrong and that he will regret it because there is much support for that definition.

*I want to thank the hon member for Newcastle for his contribution. He mentioned that the legislation was receiving international attention, that we would in fact deal with it and that we were at present giving a great deal of attention to these matters.

Once again I want to thank all hon members who made a contribution.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.

Mr Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to make a brief announcement.

Mr Chairman, I think you and hon members are aware that Mr Danie Hough, the present Chairman of the SA Tourism Board, was recently appointed as Administrator of the Transvaal, and that he holds that office as from 1 June 1988—in other words today. I should like to congratulate him and wish him everything of the best in this important appointment. It has been decided to maintain the status quo of the Chairman of the SA Tourism Board, viz Mr Danie Hough, until such time as a decision has been taken in connection with the appointment of a new chairman, and with due consideration to the reconstitution of the SA Tourism Board in September 1988 when the present board members’ term of office expires.

Sir, I merely want to raise a few matters in support of the Trade and Industry Vote. I realise that the hon the Minister’s task is a very important one and that this Vote covers many aspects of our lives in South Africa.

When one reads through the Estimate of Expenditure and sees what money is being allocated to these matters, one realises that we in this House are dealing with a matter of great magnitude. I say this, Sir, because it is the task of the Department of Trade and Industry to maintain and promote viable and economic industrial structures, and also to create conditions favourable or conducive to trade. At the same time the department has to keep an eye on foreign trade in South Africa so that South African consumers are protected. The fact that there is so much money involved, and that the officials are of such a high calibre, makes one realise that this is a matter of very great magnitude.

When one looks at Programme 1: Administration, one sees in the footnote that the hon the Minister’s “reimbursive allowance” amounts to R31 839, whereas the hon the Deputy Minister’s “reimbursive allowance” is R24 447. I am not, of course, referring to the salaries now, but to the allowances. Will the hon the Minister please tell me how that amount of R31 839 and the amount of R24 447 were used?

As far as Programme 2 is concerned, the aim is “to maintain and promote an orderly industrial structure”. One realises that both foreign and South African industrialists have made great progress. The question that arises is: How are the two linked? Many industrialists have of course pulled out of South Africa. Are we not, as a result, suffering from a shortage of job opportunities for our people? I should like to know what the department is doing to maintain sound industrial structures in South Africa. We should like to know this, because if we do not have sound industrial structures in this country, we shall have major problems. We should therefore like to know how these matters are being dealt with.

Reference is also made to the SATS, and specifically to the SA Airways. We should like to know why the Department of Trade and Industry has to subsidise the SA Airways.

Sir, I should also like to refer to the CSIR. The CSIR is a large undertaking and an important researcher in this country. We should like to see more money being spent on research. Research is very important, because it helps us to determine what can and must be done in this country. I want to ask the hon the Minister to vote more money for this purpose.

I also want to refer to Programme 5 which deals with small business development and small business undertakings. I want to dwell for a moment on the SBDC. I am of the opinion that generally the SBDC furnishes a very good service. Whites find it very easy to obtain loans when they apply for them, but unfortunately loans are not granted as easily to people of colour. If one applies for a loan, the SBDC wants to know what one owns and what one has. If one wants to borrow R25 000 from the SBDC, for example, they ask one a whole lot of unnecessary questions. If the SBDC is, in fact, promoting small business development, they must definitely help the small entrepreneur too. Their documentation is very complex, and one also has to have a name for one’s undertaking before they grant one a loan. The SBDC is a subsidised body, but the interest rate is tremendously high. Even if one has been doing business with them for 10 years, the interest is still 18%. When bank rates decrease, however, the interest rates do not. They call themselves the SBDC, but how do they help the small entrepreneur? The hon the Minister must please ensure that the SBDC also looks after the interests of the small businessman. People of colour do not find it that easy to obtain loans, and that makes things difficult for us. I want to reiterate that the SBDC renders a very good service, but I nevertheless want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that they also help the small businessman.

I am not going to speak about the promotion of tourism, since my colleagues will be speaking about that. I want to conclude by requesting that our people also benefit from those aspects to which I have referred. Our local small and large industrialists must be protected. We sometimes feel that the small businessman, in particular, is not always well protected. As far as wages are concerned, at times a small businessman has to pay wages which are too excessive and which he cannot afford. In such cases the owner of a business sometimes has to forfeit his own salary. It is important for those people to be protected, since they are the people who keep our employees in business. Trade and industry must be linked to the Department of Manpower because the two go hand in hand. Industrialists provide work for many people, and for that reason it is important to link trade and industry to the Department of Manpower.

Mr Chairman, it is probably no exaggeration to say that South Africa is facing tremendous challenges today. There is a struggle raging in the political, social and economic spheres between efforts to restore the rights of the majority of South Africans on the one hand and, on the other, a reluctance to do so and a desperate effort to cling to existing privileges which are based on fear and prejudice.

Since we are engaged in parliamentary debates on the political and social future of South Africa each and every day, it is necessary for us to realise that economic growth and progress for all our people is a prerequisite or sine qua non for any workable system. Of course one cannot deny that the political, social and economic aspects are very closely interwoven. The fact is, however, that if certain material needs cannot be provided, and this leads to dissatisfaction amongst the citizens of the country—I am thinking, for example, of accommodation, food and clothing—no political or social set-up will be able to survive in the long term. No matter how one argues about the way in which apartheid will be wiped out, therefore, or how long the inevitable dismantling of the Group Areas Act is going to be postponed, out there we have a population which is increasing at more than 2% per annum—a population which does not have accommodation and frequently does not have food and clothing, not to mention education and the potential for progress.

In the economic sphere we have chosen the path of free enterprise in South Africa—we should probably thank our forebears for that—in contrast to a centrally planned economy. It is therefore the market which imposes the demands, whilst the responsibility and opportunity for meeting people’s needs lies with the private individual. According to the system of free enterprise there are opportunities to participate in the economy. This means that there is competition, and also reward for initiative and hard work. That is what we say. We must ask ourselves, however, to what extent we really want the system of free enterprise, of economic freedom, to succeed, or whether it is all a matter of lip service.

As far as economic progress in our community is concerned, in the first place it is a question of a basic income for every household. In the light of our acceptance of private enterprise as the basic system, and the fact that at present the country cannot afford an elaborate social set-up, such as that in developed countries, job opportunities form the foundation stone when it comes to providing a basic income for every household.

It is a known fact that in South Africa more than 1 000 job opportunities have to be created per working day in order to provide for the needs of those entering the labour market. It is also a known fact—this applies equally in the rest of the world—that large industrial and other undertakings, regardless of the key role they play, particularly in regard to maintaining existing job opportunities, cannot create new job opportunities at the desired rate.

These are the realities in the South African set-up which place us squarely in the small business arena. There are numerous examples from other parts of the world—and in regard to the economy of our country this has also been our experience for a long time now—that it is the small business sector that makes or breaks the economy. That is where the job opportunities have to be created and where innovation will have to take place. It is therefore of cardinal importance that all policymakers—therefore the Government too—should have the interests of the small businessman at heart.

The Small Business Development Corporation, or SBDC, as most of us have come to know it, was established in 1980 as a partnership between the State and the private sector. This corporation is doing very good work by way of its financing and advisory services, the provision of business premises and the promotion of the general interests of small businessmen.

Since 1980 the SBDC has contributed towards the creation and maintenance of more than 145 000 job opportunities at an average cost of less than half of what it costs to create and maintain a job opportunity in a large manufacturing company. It is therefore a pity that the SBDC will have to start curtailing its activities as a result of a lack of funds, as reported earlier this year by the media. My hon colleague has just said that we must do more to look after the interests of our people. At times our people are in urgent need of funds, but they are turned down when they apply. The Government should give urgent attention to this and ask itself what priority is actually accorded to the promotion of free enterprise on its agenda. More funds must be made available so that more small loans can be granted. Apart from financial means there is also deregulation, which for a long time has been a recognised key mechanism in the promotion of small business development. Deregulation, ie the removal of unnecessary legal and administrative restrictions on those who are running businesses or want to start a business, was also singled out by the Economic Committee of the President’s Council in 1985. There is ample evidence that meaningful deregulation cannot but augur well for a country’s economy.

For example, 5,7 million new job opportunities were created in the USA from November 1982 to October 1985, in spite of their economic recession in 1981 and 1982. Hon members must know that 48,4% of these job opportunities were created by undertakings with fewer than 19 employees in deregulated industries. This promoted competition, which in turn led to reduced costs. There was increased demand and more opportunities for both producers and consumers of previously regulated activities. Those in South Africa who complain about deregulation in the transport industry inevitably involving safety risks, for example, should also note that the accident rate has decreased by 26% from an average of 2,35 accidents per 100 000 flying hours in 1979 to 1,73 per 100 000 flying hours in 1986 after the deregulation of aviation in the USA. In South Africa the Competition Board plays a key role in the deregulation process and in the advice that has to be given to the Commission for Administration. Important work has been done in this regard in fields such as the issuing of licences, trading hours, taxis and the position of Black entrepreneurs in general. In spite of the general acceptance of deregulation at central government level, and the important work being done in that regard, the question is: With how much enthusiasm is constructive work being done at local government level? It is specifically at local government level that the small businessman takes out his licence, submits his building plans and is answerable to the health inspector. Unfortunately there are still too many local authorities who see their chief role as being that of regulators instead of developers. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in today’s economic and political environment, one industry—more truly, a segment of the economy—moves to the forefront as the greatest single opportunity for economic, cultural and political exchange. Tourism in its broadest generic sense can do more to develop understanding among people than any other economic force known—it can provide jobs, create foreign exchange and raise living standards.

In direct contrast with the gold industry, tourism is not dependent on diminishing resources. On the contrary, tourism must upgrade the environment and maintain the ecological balance in order to flourish. According to The Argus of 19 February 1987:

Recent indications are that after an uncomfortable period, tourism is picking up with both local and overseas support. South Africa has an enormous variety to tempt visitors, from natural wonders to sophisticated entertainment of world class, and given the present low value internationally of the rand, a visit here for overseas tourists is financially a steal.

Tourism is essential for the growth of this country, but like so much else this depends on peace and stability in the country. There is unlimited potential for the development of tourism. If improperly conceived and executed, however, such development will not only prove to be financially disastrous, but will also inhibit the full realisation of improved understanding among diverse people throughout this country, which is one of the intangible but vital by-products of a growth in tourism. As in other countries, tourism is one of South Africa’s most important industries and can be recognised as a major and growing source of employment. Spending by South Africans and overseas visitors on tourism in South Africa has escalated tremendously in the course of the past year. Figures are obtainable from the Department of Trade and Industry. This fact can be based on reports from hoteliers that occupancy rates in Cape Town alone increased by 13,1%. This was the highest in the country. Surprisingly enough, Fedhasa’s president, Brian Bowman, reported in The Argus of 12 February 1987 that there had been a sharp increase in internal tourism, especially among Black South Africans, over the Christmas period. It is remarkable that he further reported that it was quite safe to say that the number of so-called Coloured, Asian and Black visitors from the Reef and Durban staying in city hotels increased by 100%.

I am sure that this is obviously due to so many facilities having been opened to all races. Wherever one goes these days one can observe that the patronage of restaurants, cinemas, swimming pools etc, which used to be for Whites only, has improved, since these places are filled with so-called Coloureds, Asians and Blacks.

It is noticeable that there have been signs of growth in overseas tourism, especially from Germany and Britain. It seems to indicate that the South African Tourist Board’s controversial R15 million overseas’ advertising campaign has paid dividends and is showing potential results, as was reported in the Financial Mail of 20 March 1987. This is a very encouraging picture.

It is obvious that a number of factors are responsible for the escalation of foreign tourists to this country. The first is conferences that are held here. We must be grateful to the hotel industry and to travel agencies which make special packages available to people who attend such conferences.

The second is international sport. The hosting of sporting events here has benefited this country tremendously. One such sport, hunting, according to the Financial Mail of 20 November 1987, brought in a great deal of revenue. My thanks goes to the SA Tourism Board for launching and promoting this sport. There are many more such factors.

There is, however, much room for improvement. Since the abolition of the Mixed Marriages Act there has been a considerable hike in interracial marriages, but it is still apparent that there is no place for a mixed couple in a White classified area. The Group Areas Act has to go in order to stimulate international interest in visits to this country.

I should like to mention a new development to attract tourists. The R3 000 million development plan to revamp Cape Town’s waterfront should be implemented as soon as possible. This should be a great tourist attraction and at the same time it should create job opportunities. It is essential that more hotels and other places of accommodation be built. The Argus of 5 March 1988 reported:

A major drawback of which I read in the newsletter of the Publicity Association of Pietermaritzburg is that there are thousands of Taiwanese who are eager to visit South Africa, but they will not do so until SAA reduces the return airfare. Pietermaritzburg’s Director of Publicity, Mr Dick Jones, attended the recent Taipei International Travel Fair in Taiwan. He says, and I quote:

He discovered that it cost the Taiwanese R3 600 compared to our return airfare of R2 300 from this end. Mr Jones said: “Obviously this imbalance must be adjusted to encourage tourism from that part.” There are thousands of potential tourists there, all flush with money from Taiwan’s booming economy and according to Mr Jones they are the new big spenders on the international circuit. One million Taiwanese travelled overseas in 1987 and they are seeking new destinations like South Africa, which is very attractive to them because of the favourable exchange rate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members who serve on the Standing Joint Committee on Trade and Industry for their contributions during the recent Parliamentary session. The Department of Trade and Industry placed a large number of Bills before Parliament, and a number of Bills such as the Harmful Business Practices Bill and the Patents Amendment Bill are still on the Order Paper for discussion by the Standing Joint Committee.

Mr Chairman, by way of a short statement I should like to say something about the promotion of the SA motor vehicle industry. It reads:

The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has, inter alia, delegated the responsibility for Acts in connection with immaterial property to me. I am of the opinion that these Acts, for example the Copyright Act, the Patents Act, the Trademarks Act and the Designs Act are fundamental to our economic development, but that for some time they have not received any in-depth attention and should, in fact, be urgently reviewed—also in the light of the special economic circumstances in which we find ourselves today.

As it is, during this session I have obtained support from hon members for the implementation of the Copyright Amendment Bill. As I said earlier, the Patents Amendment Bill is still on the Order Paper for discussion. It is a very important Bill. I have thought fit to appoint an ad hoc committee to review all the Acts on the Statute Book—I think there are a total of eight—and to report to me. The names of the members of the committee are Mr Justice L P C Harms, who will act as chairman, Prof E D du Plessis of Unisa and Mr A P Geyser, Director of Patents. I have requested the committee to finalise its business as quickly as possible. They must review the Acts in their entirety and come forward as quickly as possible with up-to-date amendments which will promote economic development in South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology also delegated to me the responsibility for all the Acts on our Statute Book which relate to consumer protection. If I have counted correctly, Sir, there are 14 Acts on the Statute Book of which the sole aim is to protect the consumer in South Africa. I could mention several of these. In my opinion the basic and most important of these Acts is the Trade Practices Act. We have come to the conclusion, however, that the Trade Practices Act has many shortcomings. The hon the Minister, for example, cannot act effectively or quickly, in terms of that Act, to protect the consumer, the man in the street. We have come across this in the case of several schemes designed to mislead the public. There was, for example, the sour milk culture scheme and also several other schemes hon members can call to mind. In Pretoria we had problems with a certain group which repaired television sets. They took in television sets of the aged for repair. When people made enquiries about their sets, those repairing the sets quoted them impossible prices for the repair work—such high prices that many of the people often did not even bother to fetch their sets or wrote them off. In such cases the Minister must be able to take quick and effective action. Our problem, however, is that in terms of the present Trade Practices Act the Minister does not have the power to take action. Nor could the Minister take any action in terms of common law, because generally no provision is made for that.

Therefore, shortly after my appointment, I asked the Department of Trade and Industry to examine a Bill to replace the Trade Practices Act. I want to focus hon members’ attention on the Bill now on the Order Paper, ie the Harmful Business Practices Bill. This legislation would meet the requirements. It is a well-designed Bill, and I hope that members of this House will see their way clear to supporting it. Initially there was opposition to it in the Press, but that was based on disinformation and also a wrong attitude. In general all consumer bodies support the Bill. Assocom and the AHI have given us their support, for example. We therefore have wide support from various quarters, including the responsible business sector. It has been said that this Bill is an onslaught on business in South Africa. That is not so; the average businessman who walks the straight and narrow has nothing to fear. Those who exploit the economic system—and our system is exploitable—are the ones against whom action must be taken.

Other Acts on the Statute Book aimed at protecting the consumer include, firstly, the Trade Metrology Act, and I merely want to highlight a few statistics to indicate how active the Directorate: Trade Inspections actually is in the interests of the consumer. Last year they conducted a total of 36 722 inspections and came across 4 948 offences. A total of 1 054 prosecutions was instituted and heavy fines were imposed. An additional precautionary measure adopted in the interests of the consumer involved the issuing of 1 882 orders to dealers instructing them to withdraw from sale any prepacked goods which did not comply with the requirements of the Act. The volume of goods involved comprised more than 23,6 million units, 85% of which did not contain the quantities stated on the packaging.

Inspectors also verified the accuracy of 127 019 measuring instruments used in the commercial sector. Of these, 114615, or approximately 90%, were found to be accurate, while the remaining 12 000, approximately 10%, were disallowed, and those using those instruments were consequently ordered to have them repaired or to withdraw them from service. The statistics I have furnished, and also the media publicity given to the Trade Inspections Directorate, are proof of the active and positive role of the Department of Trade and Industry, and also the department’s commitment to protecting and promoting the interests and the welfare of the consumer in the commercial field.

I also want to refer to the Price Control Act which is on the Statute Book and which the Government could implement. The Government, however, is generally opposed to the implementation of price control.

We also have the Credit Agreements Act which works well. I merely want to point out to hon members that during the recess we shall be giving attention to the regulations in terms of the Credit Agreements Act.

There are four other Acts which relate to the purchasing of fixed property, but which, in fact, are nothing more than consumer protection Acts, as well as five Acts relating to tourism. I also want to refer hon members to a Bill which has already been discussed in this House, ie the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill, which was introduced to protect the interests of retired persons participating in housing development schemes.

From this brief review it is clear that the Government is doing a great deal and has already established a considerable number of structures for the protection of the consumer.

Hon members who spoke here today touched upon subjects which, as far as I could ascertain, are more specifically the problems of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. I shall consult the Hansard record, and if there are any specific aspects which hon members spoke about and which are delegated to me, I shall reply to them in writing. The hon the Minister himself deals with small business development and also tourism which formed the main subject of discussion. I want to make a careful study of the speech made by the hon member for Heidedal and reply to him in writing about the specific points he mentioned.

Mr Chairman, permit me at the very outset to thank the hon members for Heidedal, Heideveld and Strandfontein for their very constructive contributions. Those hon members gave evidence today of their ability to put their finger on the most important matters in the economic and industrial spheres in South Africa, with specific reference to the small industries in the country.

I very briefly want to refer to the hon member for Heidedal who, amongst other things, spoke about the allowances of Ministers. The allowances to which the hon member referred are standard allowances which are paid to all Ministers to supplement their remuneration package. Those allowances allow Ministers to compensate for certain exceptional items of expenditure—non-official expenditure—which they have had to incur in the performance of their duties. It is a standard pattern applicable to all hon Ministers and forms part of the remuneration packages of both Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

The hon member also referred to transport subsidies, and I take it he was referring to transport subsidies paid to the Railways. I merely want to explain that point very briefly. This is actually a subsidy to the Railways to support exporters. It is an export incentive measure exclusively applicable to the export of fresh fruit and vegetables, specifically to get products from the place of production—let us say the Western Cape—to Jan Smuts Airport. In this regard the department is therefore supporting the producer. The producer is assisted in getting his products to Jan Smuts Airport, from where these products are distributed to the international market. I hope the hon member is satisfied with that explanation.

Thirdly, the hon member referred to the CSIR. I want to thank the hon member sincerely for his plea that more money should be made available to the CSIR. I think the hon member gave as his reason that research was of cardinal importance to South Africa—particularly in regard to its industries. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think that if he had been keeping an eye on the CSIR recently, he would have seen that a complete re-evaluation and restructuring is taking place—specifically to make the CSIR more market-orientated and to create a climate in which the CSIR can provide a greater service to industry, instead of just doing research. In the process we want to give the CSIR a greater measure of financial autonomy so that from the funds which the CSIR itself generates, through services it renders to the private sector, it can generate more capital and therefore use that capital to do research. In looking at the CSIR’s report, one sees that universities are also given a great deal of support for specific research programmes. If one analyses the CSIR’s budget for this year, one sees—despite the fact that the budgetary amount in this Vote has been reduced—that at present there is a great deal of support for research. I agree with the hon member, however—I think we are all agreed on this—that we ought to do more research. Then, however, we must have the money with which to do so. The budgetary cake is only of a certain size, however, and the demands which are made are considerable. I think we must try to maintain a balance between all the activities of the State. I should like to have more research done, but I think that at present we are doing the maximum possible amount of research, through the CSIR, that our budget permits.

The hon members for Heidedal and Heideveld both referred to the small business development corporation and to the importance of that body. Great prominence is given in our industrial development strategy to the stimulation of small business development. Let me tell hon members that the development of small businesses is very high on the list of priorities. It is important that this should be given high priority, because throughout the world small business undertakings are acknowledged as the source of entrepreneurial skills, as a cost-effective creator of job opportunities—the hon member also referred to that—as a source of momentum for innovation and renewal, particularly in the field of commerce and industry, and as a buffer against economic setbacks and recessionary conditions. The small business sector is the one sector which would be able to deal with this, acting as a source of stability in developed communities, and also—this is important, as far as I am concerned, Sir—as a refuge when it comes to the employment of unskilled workers and those just entering the labour market.

I think the hon member also referred to that. That is why the small business sector is an absolutely essential partner in the creation of prosperity and progress in our country. I trust that it will be possible for the process of deregulation, to which hon members also referred, to make a very important contribution towards stimulating small business development in South Africa. As hon members probably know, I cannot say anything else about deregulation, because this matter is the province of the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation.

The role of the SBDC in the overall developmental process of small business undertakings deserves special mention, however. The hon member for Strandfontein referred to this. Since its establishment in 1981, the corporation has been remarkably successful in regard to several of its key activities. Financial assistance to the tune of R461 million has already been granted to 19 429 small undertakings. Affordable business premises, for example factories and shopping centres, with a surface area of 440 000 square metres, have been made available to 1 450 tenants at a cost of R135 million. Over a period of seven years an estimated total of 190 750 job opportunities has been created or maintained—the hon member spoke about 140 000 job opportunities—at a cost of only R2 360 per job opportunity. I think it is of cardinal importance for us to provide job opportunities at the lowest capital cost. If we can succeed in doing so, we shall be able to create many job opportunities in South Africa.

Several small business institutes, including the SBDC, also play an important role in better equipping small business entrepreneurs with business skills, and here the emphasis falls on training, consultative, advisory, after-care and research services furnishing an essential supportive service to small businessmen so that they can be better equipped in the long term to continue as successful entrepreneurs and to grow, with the eventual possibility even of becoming exporters and earners of foreign exchange for South Africa.

The hon member said that members of other population groups find it difficult to obtain loans from the SBDC. I disagree with the hon member ever so slightly. I think it is equally difficult or easy for all applicants, depending on the prevailing circumstances. I want to ask the hon member to refer to the SBDC’s annual report. He will see a whole series of methods by which the SBDC can grant assistance. Firstly there is a high-risk group of entrepreneurs. Annually the State provides a considerable amount of money for that category. The high-risk entrepreneur—in particular those involved in the small building industry—receives capital at a very low interest rate. I am of the opinion, however, that there is one thing that we must accept. The SBDC is not Father Christmas. [Interjections.] I am not saying that the hon member said that the SBDC was Father Christmas.

When we went into partnership with the private sector—the State and the private sector each have a 50% share in the SBDC—our basic tenet was that it should be run on purely business lines. Every application is therefore evaluated on merit. Depending on the merits of the case and the amount being applied for, the applicant can obtain the loan at a very low or market-related interest rate. In cases involving very large amounts, a loan can be negotiated with a bank at the bank’s interest rate, and the SBDC will guarantee that loan for the entrepreneur. Therefore the SBDC is virtually protecting him all along the line. Some time or another, however, we must get the money back. Recently the SBDC has had to write off several millions of rand—if I remember rightly, the amount is R40 million—in bad debts because people who had borrowed from the SBDC had gone insolvent or had not met their obligations towards the SBDC. I have taken note of the point raised by the hon member, however. I shall discuss the matter with Dr Vosloo. We shall make a careful study of the hon member’s Hansard and if there are matters deserving attention, we shall look into them immediately.

I want to conclude by telling the hon member for Heidedal that I agree with him wholeheartedly—I think the hon member for Heideveld also said this—that small industries are definitely the basis on which the economy of this country will have to be established in the future. We must keep track of the development of small industries in South Africa with an eagle eye, but also a fatherly eye. Hon members will notice that the IDC recently announced that it was also going to enter the small industry market—those industries that fall between the large industries and the SBDC’s clients, those that want to invest between R1 million and R50 million—so that small industries could come into their own. The IDC is therefore going to focus more attention on small industries than on the large industries on which it has focused its attention so far. The IDC has made several hundred million rand available—I think it is between R200 million and R300 million—for financing the smaller industries. I thank the hon member for Heidedal for a very interesting speech and some very interesting remarks.

According to a note I have here, in some cases loans are available at as little as 5% interest, but then the term is three years. There are instances in which low interest rates are charged, but that depends on the purpose for which the money is to be used, what risk is involved and what the term of the loan is. I suggest that the hon member read the report, because it contains a very clear explanation of precisely what the SBDC is doing at the moment.

The hon member for Heideveld actually told us that even if we made the most wonderful plans for constitutional development in South Africa, they would mean nothing if we did not have the money with which to carry out those plans. The hon member emphasised that we should regard the economic growth of South Africa as a matter of top priority. I agree with him wholeheartedly, because if we could create possibilities for economic growth and utilise the possibilities resulting from deregulation, which could allow us to have the maximum number of people economically active and could promote the economy of South Africa, this would mean only one thing, and that is that we would be able to create prosperity for South Africa and for all its people.

The more people one could involve in the economy of South Africa, the greater the possible prosperity one could create. The more prosperity one could create, the more people would be able to share in that prosperity. I want to thank the hon member for having raised that matter, because it is of cardinal importance to me.

The hon member also referred to the protection of small industries, and I think I replied to that in detail when I dealt with the hon member for Heidedal’s speech. I also think it is important for us to do something about that. The hon member mentioned deregulation. I do not want to venture into that field, because that is the responsibility of my colleague, the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation. I think I can tell the hon member for Heideveld that it is the Government’s accepted policy to encourage effective competition in the private sector to the greatest possible degree. I think the Competition Board has done a tremendous job in this field and has made numerous recommendations. Some of its recommendations have already been adopted and implemented, as one of the hon members has remarked. I thank the hon member for Heideveld for a very good and well-considered speech. I shall have another look at his speech, and if there are any more matters to which we can give attention, we shall do so and shall notify him of the fact.

†The hon member for Strandfontein chose tourism as the theme of his contribution here today. He highlighted the importance of tourism for the economy of South Africa. I think tourism is probably the most underestimated industry in South Africa. We do not realise how many job opportunities are created by tourism in this country. If we could calculate the number of job opportunities which are created directly and indirectly by tourism we would find that it runs into hundreds of thousands. We should make it a priority to promote tourism as much as possible. The hon member referred to international conferences. It is a high priority with us to bring as many international conferences as possible to South Africa. We must remember that a satisfied tourist is probably the best possible ambassador for South Africa in the world. I fully agree with the hon member that we should do even more to attract international conferences to South Africa.

The hon member also referred to sporting events and I agree with him on that score as well. We do have certain problems in attracting international sportsmen to this country, but I think we are slowly making progress and we hope to be able to break that barrier before long. The hon member also referred to hunting as a tourist attraction. We are at present paying a great deal of attention to the possibility of bringing more hunters to South Africa from countries like Germany, Italy, the USA and the UK.

We calculated that if we could succeed in bringing approximately 5% to 10% of Germany’s registered hunters to South Africa, we would not be able to cope with them. There are not enough facilities. Therefore I think this is a source that can and should be exploited. At the moment it enjoys a very high priority at the SA Tourism Board.

The hon member also referred to the occupancy rate of hotels. However, I do not think we need more hotels in this country. There is a large number of one-star and two-star hotels and the quality of their services is not acceptable to the tourists; whether they are South African or international tourists is not relevant. At the moment we are investigating the quality of the services in such hotels in order to get their owners to improve the living standards in their hotels. We hope that a scheme will be made available shortly so as to allow these people to improve the standard of the accommodation in their hotels. There are just over 11 000 beds available in two-star hotels in the country. I think the occupancy rate is very low because of the low standards of accommodation at these hotels. We have had discussions with Fedhasa and the SA Tourism Board and are looking into the question of providing more suitable accommodation for tourists in South Africa.

*The hon member also referred to Taiwan and mentioned air freight. The department is investigating the matter, and discussions have already been held with the SAA. The SAA, however, is unfortunately also bound by international Iata rules which lay down certain tariff structures for every airline which flies between specific countries. At this stage, therefore, it is not possible for the SAA to deviate from the tariff structure which has been laid down. The hon member is quite correct. This matter must be investigated, and it is something we do regularly from the point of view of the Tourism Board.

The hon member referred to the large amounts of money spent in Cape Town for the promotion of tourism. I think hon members in the House can take very appreciative note of the efforts made by the Cape Town City Council, by way of its tourism arm, to make this city attractive to tourists. One merely has to look at the streets which are being converted into malls. This attracts tourists like a magnet. People love wandering about in such areas—particularly on fine evenings. One even finds it enjoyable to relax in such surroundings during the day.

The harbour plan is a commendable one. We can be very appreciative of the efforts of the City Council to make Cape Town an attractive and pleasing city for tourists. I thank hon members for their contributions and for their support.

Mr Chairman, may I take this opportunity to congratulate Dr Louw Alberts and wish him well in his appointment recently as head of the CSIR. May he have the same success as he had when he was Director-General of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

The South African coal-producing industry will suffer a setback as a result of the decision by certain European countries and the USA to impose sanctions on the importation of coal of South African origin. The local coal-mining industry may have to rationalise production, and this will certainly result in thousands of employees of all races becoming redundant. This prospect is extremely distressing because there is already serious unemployment in South Africa.

The coal-producing companies, however, are continuing to maintain their share of the export market. Sales volumes on the domestic market were preserved—a particularly gratifying result in the light of the depressed local economic conditions. The 750 000 work force on South Africa’s mines has become one of the lifelines of not only South Africa, but also its neighbouring states. Their earnings ensure the economic survival of about 3 million dependants in almost every country in Southern Africa and contribute a vast percentage to the gross domestic product of those countries. The total amount which miners sent to their homes in remittances and deferred pay in 1987 was more than R500 million.

Sanctions against South Africa are now a reality following the adoption of certain legislation by the USA and the European Economic Community. It is futile to believe that these sanctions will expedite the reform process. To adhere to this belief is to demonstrate a complete failure to understand the subtleties of the South African social fabric. In fact, it is most likely that sanctions will, in the fullness of time, be shown to have been entirely counterproductive in so far as political reform is concerned. It is certain that sanctions will result in the destruction of a significant number of jobs. Unfortunately the jobs destroyed will be mainly in the unskilled category.

Last year, Sir, we saw the elimination of the definition of “scheduled person”, the last remaining statutory job reservation based on racial classification in the mining industry. That was undoubtedly the most important industrial relations problem. On our last visit to the mines last year, however, we heard from the people concerned that in spite of this progress the formal substitution of the term “competent person” for the racially-defined “scheduled person” has not been approved by the Government. So, although it has been passed by Parliament, I believe it has not been put into practice. I hope that we shall get an explanation from the hon the Minister in this regard.

Continued uncertainties in the pricing of crude oil and renewed concern about the safety of nuclear power will support growth in coal’s share of the fuel market. However, greatly expanded world production of fuel is going to ensure that oversupply will continue, and so increases in the real price of coal are not expected before the early 1990s.

As far as our fuel is concerned we have an Equalisation Fund which has millions of rands to its credit. I wonder, therefore, whether this is not an appropriate time to decrease the price of other grades of fuel, as we did with premium fuel last year. We should be appreciative of the hon the Minister’s views.

South Africa is one of the biggest producers of minerals, and we are assured of a high grade and a high quality of minerals. However, innumerable problems arose in the mining of asbestos. I hope that the hon the Minister is going to give attention to the big problem, viz the microfibre problem which causes incurable diseases amongst the workers. Attention will also have to be given to the conditions under which our people work in these mines. At the limestone mines our people work in dusty conditions. Sometimes one cannot even recognise the people who are working, because often one only sees a person’s eyes and his mouth.

Most of these mines are in the Northern Cape and other remote areas and it costs millions of rand to transport the product to the factories.

There are a number of iron, limestone and asbestos mines in these areas. Consideration should be given to the processing of these minerals nearer to the mines, instead of having to transport them so far. This will also create more work opportunities for our people locally. Asbestos mines in particular will have to introduce a health programme for the safety and advantage of their workers. The department must see to the physical safety and health hazards of the mining industry. This industry continues to employ more people at a considerable rate in the difficult present economic climate, in comparison with the falling trend in other sectors. Therefore, as far as employment is concerned, this industry can definitely be regarded as the backbone of the country.

I also wish to pay tribute to everybody involved in this outstanding industry. As a result of this golden goose, we experience some prosperity. However, very often we do not consider those who earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. Anyone who is aware of the circumstances under which these mine-workers work underground, will agree with me that we owe them a special word of thanks and appreciation. I nevertheless want to put the matter in perspective.

The Chamber of Mines is doing everything in its power to improve the working conditions of all the workers in the mining industry. It is also a fact that these mining houses are entitled to profits, but I want to ask them today to recognise, within reasonable limits, all reasonable demands in the employment sphere regarding the conditions of service of these people who are responsible for the physical mining of gold. One cannot always agree to the demands from the workers or the trade unions. I have the greatest respect and appreciation for the various trade unions who deal with workers. These people have a democratic right to bargain responsibly for what is in their best interest. I have respect for the various trade unions, as long as they go about their business in a responsible manner.

In conclusion, I want to say that we in South Africa must take all possible steps to reduce this country’s dependence on imported energy sources. We must take more positive and practical steps to develop our own energy resources.

Mr Chairman, I note in the 1987 annual report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs on page 5, part 3, under the caption “Review of Mineral Production and Sales” that once again there was a continued strong demand for most of South Africa’s minerals on world markets. In spite of this, there was a decline in total mineral earnings compared with those of 1986. Last year South Africa exported minerals to the value of R28 883,300 according to the annual report. Although gold was the highest currency earner, namely R17 492 636, coal exports amounted to R2 287,400. In spite of international pressure, boycotts and sanctions on trade with South Africa, we succeeded in selling 42,4 million tons of coal to foreign consumers. This figure could obviously have been higher if it had not been for boycotts and sanctions imposed against us. There are countries which supply coal to consumers at tariffs considerably lower—and even at a loss—merely to ensure that South Africa is not granted those contract quotas for the export of coal.

According to the annual report, the price of most of the platinum-group metals increased by about 12% compared with 1986 prices.

There was also an increase in the volume of sales with the result that revenue from exports rose by no less than 8,3%. Once again, although this was most satisfactory, we should remember that America buys this metal from us only because it is unobtainable almost anywhere else except in Russia.

What I have just said brings us back to the question of Rev Leon Sullivan’s principles and his policy of sanctions and disinvestment against South Africa which is aimed at forcing us to do away with our internal apartheid policies. We know that since March 1977, when these principles were laid down, more than 125 USA companies have indicated that they endorse the principles. They have worked at applying them in the workplace here in South Africa.

Sir, let us refresh our memories somewhat. What has happened in our country since the adoption of Rev Sullivan’s principles? When I became aware of myself as a person, there were only two types of vehicles, Fords and Chevs. All those who could afford to supported those companies and owned those cars. These two huge, established companies, which provided millions of people with work and even supplied our Defence Force with dependable vehicles during the Second World War, have withdrawn from our countries—as have other huge, established companies. An enormously high unemployment figure has arisen in consequence of this.

Sir, the circle is narrowing daily. Do we really have to sacrifice so much for the sake of our internal apartheid policy? Is the game really worth the candle? Has it not perhaps become time for us to look at it afresh? Should we not review our policy?

The NP is celebrating its fortieth anniversary with much fanfare, but to others this represents 40 years of saying “yes, sir”, suffering, humiliation and poverty. Sir, the word “reform” sounds splendid to all of us, but do we know and realise here in South Africa what its true definition is? Unfortunately I have to admit that I harbour doubts about it. As soon as we apply the principles of reform on a wider basis and abolish apartheid and group areas legislation we shall not only improve the socio-economic conditions of the Coloured and Black people in South Africa; we shall also improve the international image of our country—in the eyes of the business community among others.

I want to quote from a report which appeared in Rapport on 29 May 1988 under the headline: “KP stel sy visier op Indiërgesin”:

Why should the colour of our skin always be used against us? Why do we always have to be the political plaything of the Whites? If this professor had been a Japanese, a Chinaman or a Portuguese, people who were not even born here and have no birthright—this unjust and untenable Group Areas Act would not have applied to him. We reject it with the contempt that it deserves. We shall leave no stone unturned in dismantling these unjust Acts. Coloureds and Indians are simply no longer prepared to be used as a shield between the CP and the NP in their fight for seats.

Mr Chairman, I was fortunate to be able to visit the rig drilling for oil for the second time with the SATS study group and I thank the hon the Minister for this. It was an experience to be able to see the reality of technology there.

Before I enlarge on what we may surely call the treasure of Mossel Bay, permit me the opportunity of first quoting something connected with technology from Leadership, vol 7 of 1988:

I now come to Mossel Bay and what is happening there. The complex next to the sea, together with the three existing and two planned factories farther inland for the manufacture of oil from coal, will provide an appreciable contribution to South Africa’s oil requirements. The Mossel Bay plant will also inject life into the slack economy and provide engineering firms throughout the country with a challenge to contribute to the expected 70% local content of the project.

The drilling rig will comprise a fixed platform of 220 metres, 73 storeys high in the sea on which prefabricated modules are stacked—a truly manmade island—which will start tapping the reservoir underneath it from 1991. Thanks to trailblazing modern drilling techniques, “roots” radiate from a central “trunk” on the seabed to more than a dozen boreholes within a radius of 4,2 km.

The production platform has been erected where the fringe of the Indian Ocean, which is only 100 metres deep, engulfs the African continental shelf.

The gas will be dried on the platform so that it will not corrode a cement-coated steel pipe buried under the seabed, through which it will be pumped over a distance of 85 km to the shore. A parallel-sided pipe will convey liquid condensate which is separated from the gas to the coast. The power needed to operate the pumps would be able to illuminate a city of 300 000 people—10 times the size of Mossel Bay. The water required to cool the plant could supply two towns of the size of Mossel Bay with water.

The Mossel Bay Gas Project is divided into two separate facets. The drilling platform and pipeline fall under Mossgas whereas activities on land—the synthetic fuel project and the distribution of refined fuel—will be controlled by Mossref, the production division of the Central Energy Fund.

According to Mr Ken Graham, the Mossgas Project Director, additional discoveries—such as have been made recently at Mossel Bay and along the West Coast—will further encourage South Africans to work towards the establishment of a permanent petroleum industry. The gas which has been discovered so far has more than justified the R600 million which the search by Soekor has cost. The fuel which the Mossel Bay plant will provide will save South Africa at least R500 million per annum in foreign currency and will slightly ease its dependence on coal, which produces most of the power in the country. It will take a considerable time, however, to recover the total project cost of R5,5 billion. The fact that the investment can be financed so easily from local sources is proof of the buoyancy of the South African economy.

Mossref has set itself the objective of awarding construction contracts over a period of 30 years and in such a way that an even flow of employment may be ensured. Training centres and other buildings are already being erected although existing facilities will be used where possible. An expected decline in unemployment will improve the general standard of living. Experts will have to be recruited everywhere and the population of Mossel Bay is expected to increase from 30 000 to 40 000 and more, and two new residential areas are being planned.

The wealth of oil at Mossel Bay began accumulating about 230 million years ago when vegetable and animal remains were covered by river mud on shallow parts of the seabed. At a recent Press conference, the planners were quietly confident and there is little doubt that the project will start functioning on time. One can usually rely on experts when they co-operate.

According to Mr Bob St Leger, Mossref’s George-born Director of Projects, they are confident of the reserves known to them and the project should consolidate South Africa’s leadership in the sphere of synthetic fuels. He is also the project manager of the Central Energy Fund which will finance the Mossel Bay plant by means of a levy on fuel.

I have been informed that a restriction has been placed on the erection and development of satellite industries. Should it not be the goal of our country to be self-sufficient and to show the hostile world that South Africa can stand on its own feet? An additional factor is that adequate employment opportunities will be created and for this purpose training centres will be erected at George, Oudtshoorn, Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth. Only the unemployed and those with a Std 8 certificate will be admitted to the centre, however. Discussions have already been held with Mr Kerridge of Bateman Davy Engineers (Pty) Ltd and I quote from two letters:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Diaz will forgive me for not replying to his speech. I have very little time and I am sure the hon the Minister will reply to him.

†I would like to react to what the hon member for Elsies River had to say, especially when he referred to coal exports. I agree with him that there is a great danger that sanctions applied by various countries around the world could lead to serious unemployment in certain sectors of our economy. However, when it comes to coal, I believe we should congratulate the coal industry in South Africa, because during this last year they have done a remarkable job in countering the sanctions attack on South Africa. I recently read a report by a man by the name of Wharton—if I have the name correct—on the effect which sanctions have had on South Africa. What I found very interesting about this report was that a large section of it dealt with the effect that sanctions were having on other coal-producing countries in the world.

You see, Sir, the West, especially the US and Australia, decided to apply pressure on other countries in the world to boycott South African coal. One may ask exactly why they did so. I believe, and I think it is becoming very evident, that it was done out of self-interest. They did so to benefit their own coal-mining industries in the US and Australia because those two countries are South Africa’s greatest competitors in the international coal market. In a very self-righteous manner they told the world, especially Europe and the Far East, that they should boycott South African coal because of its apartheid system, but one can ask whether they were not more concerned with their own self-interest in the international coal market. However, they did this at a time when the price of coal was declining anyway. Because South Africa had to compete with them on the international market, we gave a certain discount on our South African coal and this pushed the price even further down. The Wharton report clearly indicates that those countries which have probably suffered most as a result are Australia and the United States. According to the report, between 3 000 and 5 000 people have been rendered unemployed in the US and the US has lost something like $250 million because of a lower world price of coal. The competition was clearly too much for them.

I believe there are mines in New South Wales in Australia which have also closed because they could not compete with South Africa due to the low coal price. I therefore believe that the boycott on South African coal has backfired on the world to a certain degree. The hon member for Springbok also raised the matter of coal exports. I believe this has taught us a lesson, viz that when we are active in international markets, we must endeavour to become extremely competitive—which we are—and we must fight for our markets and for our share of the world’s coal business. I am sure we will do exactly that in the future, as we have done in the past.

The hon member also raised the matter of the removal of the definition of “a scheduled person” from the Mines and Works Act. I took that amending Bill through this House last year. The amendment to the Mines and Works Act has already been promulgated. However, we have been working on the regulations during the past year and it is my sincerest hope that those regulations, which have now been finalised and, after representations from a large number of different quarters, have been amended a number of times, would be published in the Government Gazette by about the middle of this month. That is the target date that we actually set. Last week I was asked by the Chamber of Mines when the regulations would be published, and I set the deadline at 17 June. Therefore I sincerely hope that the regulations will be published by then.

The hon member also referred to the microfibre problem with asbestos. In answer to his question, I would like to tell him that dust control in mines and works applies not only to asbestos but also to other dusts. Monitoring on respirable airborne dust, including asbestos in the mining industry, is conducted for two reasons, viz for the determination of a risk factor whereby a levy is exacted for compensation purposes in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act—it is therefore monitored—and also for the control of dust levels in the mines.

The present situation is that samples of airborne dust are presently taken over short periods and the concentration expressed in particles per millimetre. At collieries the concentrations are expressed as a photo-electric reading. These methods are outdated and for this reason new methods are being introduced. Progress has been made with the conversion to the internationally accepted method of gravimetric sampling where the dust concentrations are expressed in milligrammes per cubic metre. The new method involves the measurement of exposure over a full shift of a statistically significant number of workers for risk assessment and the use of modern instruments capable of providing a direct readout of concentrations for control purposes. Once the system has been accepted and introduced, mine managers will be expected to submit the results of their samplings on a regular basis. We hope that certain functions will be privatised as a result and will not have to be done by our department.

The workload of environmental control personnel has progressively been increased mainly as a result of mechanisation, and increased production of respirable dusts and of noise are but two of the aspects that can be mentioned in regard to mechanisation. These problems, which can have a detrimental affect on health, require personnel with technical skills which are specifically trained and the appointment of such personnel in the different regions is presently being investigated.

As far as rehabilitation is concerned, over and above the normal mine rehabilitation being carried out at regional levels, special attention is being paid to the rehabilitation of waste dumps at abandoned asbestos mines. During the past financial year R2,5 million was spent on these projects. I would like to assure the hon member that this matter is receiving our closest attention and I sincerely hope that we will have our finger on these particular problems in due course.

In the few minutes left to me, I would like to talk about what is happening in regard to the safety regulations. Hon members may recall that we published draft regulations on 22 January 1988. Eleven organisations submitted comments.

As far as the comments of the various organisations are concerned, it is very interesting to note that the National Union of Mineworkers—a union which, one would have imagined, has the safety of its workers very much at heart—did not respond to these draft regulations. It is rather interesting to observe that they did not do that. Nevertheless, there are certain things that we are hoping for once these regulations have been processed. They are being processed at present and we hope that they will be published in the Gazette some time during this session or shortly thereafter. These new regulations should, therefore, become effective very shortly.

I may say that these regulations require that mine management will have to appoint safety officers in future whose qualifications are to be not lower than that of a shift boss. These safety officers will be responsible for inspecting places of work on a regular basis. They will have to keep a record of their findings in a register of inspection. Moreover, they have to report their findings to management and the register has to be open to the Government Mining Inspector. The safety officer will also have direct access to the mining inspector should he find that safety is not up to scratch. Provision is also being made for safety representatives to be elected by the miners themselves. These representatives will have a direct communication with the person in charge of each particular workplace. So if they see that something is unsafe they will have direct access to the person in charge. The representative is also entitled to accompany safety officers on their inspection rounds. The representative also has the responsibility to bring any matter which needs attention as far as safety is concerned to the attention of the safety officer.

In conclusion, Sir, I may mention that I sincerely hope that once these regulations are in place the responsibility for the safety of miners and mineworkers will be firmly placed with management. The penalties for not looking after the safety of the workers will be high, and so I think management had better look to their laurels once these new regulations are in place.

Mr Chairman, permit me to thank the hon members for Elsies River, Springbok and Diaz. This is in fact the Diaz year, and it is a good thing the hon member for Diaz has participated, particularly because he referred to Mossel Bay where Diaz first landed.

†Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Deputy Minister dealt with most of the matters raised by the hon member for Elsies River. I hope the hon member’s baby boy is growing well. I remember that when I was in this House the last time the hon member referred to having become a father once again.

There are two things to which the hon member referred with which I should like to deal with briefly. The one related to the development of our own energy resources. I fully agree with the hon member, and I think that is manifested in the fact that we have initiated developments at enormous cost. We have announced that the Mossel Bay project will cost approximately R5 900 million in real 1987 money terms. The fact that we have started with the Mossel Bay project—the hon member for Diaz said some very apt things on this subject—is indicative of the high premium we place on our own energy resources. I think that if we do care to visit the Atomic Energy Corporation facilities in Pelindaba we will also witness the extent to which South Africa is going to develop its own energy resources, especially nuclear energy. I fully agree with the hon member and I thank him for supporting the philosophy of our developing our own energy resources in order to make ourselves more self-sufficient in this regard.

The hon member also referred to the price of fuel. May I, as a comparison, refer briefly to the price of fuel that we in South Africa pay as opposed to the price people in other countries pay.

In saying that, I want to emphasize the fact that the possibility that we will lower the price of fuel is very remote, because of the weakening of the rand and the very low—and basically stable—price of crude oil which is 15,16 dollar per barrel at the moment. If we look at the landed cost of refined fuel, the price in South Africa is about 45 cents per litre, compared to 68,77 cents in New Zealand, 47,71 cents in Italy, 47,77 cents in Germany and 60 cents in Denmark. These are the landed costs of fuel in other countries on which our fuel pump price is based. The only countries where this price is lower than the price in South Africa, is France where the current price is 43,24 cents a litre and the USA where the price is 37,07 cents per litre. These are the parity comparable prices of the landed cost of petroleum. However, if we look at pump prices in the same countries, in South Africa—and I refer only to the coastal areas—the pump price is 79 cents a litre, in New Zealand it is R1,32, in Italy R2,34, in Germany R1,32, in France R1,83 and in Denmark R2,25. Compared to the international pump price of fuel in other countries, South Africa is, apart from America, the cheapest by far. The question is whether we can afford it, and for a number of reasons. We are at present investigating the effect a very unrealistic low fuel price has on the broad spectrum of the economy of the country. I thought I would highlight these points in reply to the points raised by the hon member for Elsies River.

*The hon member for Springbok—that lovely part of the world where there are probably going to be so many flowers again this year, so many that we are going inundate them with visits to view those flowers—referred to the question of coal, but the hon the Deputy Minister has already reacted to that. The hon member also raised a few other matters that do not actually belong in this debate, however, ie reform, group areas and the image of South Africa abroad. The hon member also said that if we improved our image abroad we would solve all our problems overnight. In this regard I just want to make a few remarks.

I think that in our own minds—and amongst ourselves—we should have no illusions whatsoever about the fact that the real enemies of South Africa—I am not speaking here about our geographic areas, but the real enemies of every one of us sitting in this House—have no interest in peaceful solutions. Nor do they have any interest in peaceful negotiations aimed at bringing about reform in South Africa. They are interested in only one thing, and that is in taking over South Africa by violence and having all the power in this country, regardless of what hon members or I say here in Parliament. They want those of us in Parliament to capitulate so that they can take over power without any conditions being imposed on our side. We must not believe for one moment that everything will change overnight.

Secondly I want to point out to hon members that the Government, of which I am a member, began with a dramatic reform process in South Africa some years ago under the direction of the hon the State President. Let us look for a moment at our track record in this regard, because at this stage we can mention a long list of reforms which have already taken place.

No reform can take place peacefully and democratically in this country, however, if this Parliament does not approve that reform. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would want to say that we should allow reform to take place if this Parliament has not granted its approval for that reform. Sir, in a democratic country this is a long-drawn-out process, and the more we all co-operate, the quicker we will reach our ultimate goal. The more we fight amongst ourselves, however, the longer it will take us to reach that goal.

The hon member for Diaz referred to the oil rig. We are very glad that he could go and have a look at it. I just want to say that if the hon member was impressed by an oil rig, I should like to know his impressions—and his amazement—at the sight of an oil-production platform. It is many times greater than an oil rig platform, because apart from the fact that gas and fuel are being produced, it is also basically a hotel at sea. A few hundred people are accommodated there—24 hours out of every 24, 365 days out of every 365. Consequently there is accommodation, and there are recreational and dining facilities and everything else. I thank the hon member for the exceptional manner in which he spoke about the project. It is a project which is of cardinal importance to that part of the world as far as job opportunities are concerned.

There are many people who say that the project will create job opportunities only during the construction period. That is not quite true. That project will provide work for that community for the next 30 years or longer. We must not only look at the job opportunities involving the project itself; we must look at the service industries and by-product industries which are going to develop as a result of the project. These will generate thousands of additional job opportunities. In the years ahead, about 10 years from now, I think we shall be able to say that that project brought a great deal of development to the economy and to people in that part of our country. I thank the hon member for Diaz once again for the points he put forward so competently.

I want to conclude by referring to one further remark which the hon member for Diaz made. If I understood him correctly—he was not allowed to deliver his full speech, and I could therefore be wrong—he said that we should incorporate the maximum local content in this project. The hon member is nodding his head. Sir, for us it is virtually a kind of Mossel Bay gas injunction that there should be maximum local content in that project insofar as this is economically and technically possible. I think that at present the local content figure is 75%. I hope that by the end of the project the figure will be 80%. Hon members should perhaps make a quick calculation, because with a local content of 80%, 80% of that R5,9 billion will be spent in South Africa over the next four years—and a large portion of it in that part of the country. Sir, that is an enormous amount of money. It is an enormous shot in the arm for the economy, as far as such industries are concerned.

I thank the hon member for his support and for his idea about local content. It is therefore a question of the training of our people. We want to employ our own people there. This should be done as quickly and systematically as possible. Once again I thank hon members for their participation in this debate.

Debate concluded.

Mr Speaker, permit me to make a few introductory remarks at the start of the debate on this Bill.

The National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee was instructed to inquire into transport affairs in South Africa by the National Transport Commission. The National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee subsequently divided the recommendations on transport affairs into four categories, namely rationalisation, passenger transport, freight transport and border traffic. The South African Roads Board Bill therefore forms part of this process of rationalisation which was designed in such a way that it could accommodate recent developments in the constitutional sphere as well as continuous development in freight and passenger transport. Consequently this Bill arises from recommendations by the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee, in accordance with the White Paper on National Transport Policy which was tabled in Parliament on 30 January last year. Everything is contained in it.

The Bill includes certain of these recommendations which were accepted by the Government. These recommendations are summarised as follows in clarification. Firstly, a statutory body like the Roads Board must be created within the Department of Transport. Secondly, this body must take over functions which were previously carried out by the National Transport Commission—in terms of the provisions of the National Roads Act, 1971, the Urban Transport Act, 1977, as well as the National Road Safety Act, 1972. These functions include control and administration of the National Road Fund and the Urban Transport Fund. In the third place, the function of the Roads Board comprises control and management of agreements concerning the financing and construction of all toll roads, including those entered into with the private sector. Fourthly, the constitution of the Roads Board must be such that members from both the public and the private sector may serve on the Roads Board under the chairmanship of a member from the public sector.

The purpose in instituting a roads board is based on a sound business foundation and links up with the policy of rationalisation in respect of transport administration. Two attributes are required of members of the Roads Board. Firstly, they are expected to have wide experience of and to exhibit ability in respect of transport affairs. Secondly, organisations which are represented on the Roads Board must all be closely associated with various aspects of transport in the Republic of South Africa.

These requirements will ensure that the administration of transport is in the hands of experts and is dealt with in the most economical way justifiable. This body will be a functional one.

Lastly, the Bill provides for the monitoring of agreements concluded between the Roads Board and the private sector as regards financing and construction of private toll roads and other toll roads. These provisions ensure the private sector’s involvement in the important matter of the provision of an adequate infrastructure for the Republic.

The reason for instituting a South African Roads Board should be adequate inducement for Parliament to pass the Bill.

Lastly, as regards my introductory remarks, I also wish to have my appreciation recorded for the work which the joint committee did on this Bill. We know the committee has had a great deal on its plate over the past year or two and will probably continue to have a heavy agenda for the next year or two; consequently it demands a high measure of dedication from the joint committee to fit everything in—including what is still to come its way. The committee does its work in the spirit of deregulation and privatisation and the Ministry greatly appreciates this.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Deputy Minister for his appreciative words concerning the activities of the joint committee.

This South African Roads Board Bill has arisen from recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee as contained in the White Paper on National Transport Policy which was tabled in Parliament on 30 January 1987—as the hon the Deputy Minister said—and embodies the implementation of some of the recommendations which were accepted by the Government. This Bill must be seen as part of a package of transport legislation arising from the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation of All Transport Systems in the Republic of South Africa. As regards the Roads Board, it is now joining the Transport Advisory Council which was agreed to by Parliament last year.

This Bill was discussed thoroughly by the joint committee and as a result various amendments were moved and adopted. Here I should very much like to compliment the officials of the Department of Transport. They devoted a great deal of time to our questions and also made recommendations on formulating the Bill as it currently appears. I should like to refer to certain clauses which have been amended. Clause 3 provides for the number of members of which the Roads Board shall consist. Originally this would have been 18 people, but as a result of debate and negotiation in the joint committee this number has been reduced to eight people. One of these is the Director-General of the Department of Transport who acts as chairman of the Roads Board.

Clause 4 provides for the term of office of members of the Roads Board and here we changed the term of office from five to four years to bring it into line with other statutory committees on transport, like the Transport Advisory Council. Clause 5 deals with the powers, functions and duties of the board. The Roads Board will have to take existing and contemplated road and transport facilities into consideration as part of its duties when it commences its activities. Clauses 6 to 9 deal with the establishment of a Toll Roads Committee. This committee will consist of a maximum of three people. A very important aspect of this Bill is that the Toll Roads Committee’s decisions will also be the responsibility of the Roads Board. Decisions taken by the Toll Roads Committee will therefore not be separate decisions and will also become the responsibility of the Roads Board.

Clause 10 deals with the co-option of persons as members of the committee. On the recommendation of the chairman of the committee and with the approval of the Minister, co-opted persons will be allowed to vote when they sit on such a committee.

Clause 14 is very important because it provides that decisions of the board must be impartial. Clause 15 deals with remuneration and allowances which will be paid to members of the committee and the Roads Board.

I should like to raise an important point in conclusion. The Roads Board “shall as soon as practicable after 31 March of each year but not later than 31 December of that year” submit a report to the Minister. In that report the board will have to give the Minister particulars regarding all matters that it has dealt with that year. Within a month of receiving this report, the Minister must table it in Parliament if Parliament is in session. If Parliament is not in session, the report must be tabled within 30 days after the commencement of the next session.

The joint standing committee discussed this Bill very thoroughly and it has our support.

Mr Chairman, after the hon the Minister’s exposition as well as the hon member for Vredendal’s thorough discussion of the Bill there is virtually nothing that I can add but to support it. There is just one aspect that I want to mention for the record. It concerns the Toll Committee. I want to put on record that our colleague, the hon member for Klipspruit West, was very unhappy about the positioning of a particular toll gate. His appeal led to the insertion of clause 8(c) which reads:

In Ennerdale we have the situation that a toll gate is virtually on the doorstep of the commuters of Ennerdale. This means that these people will have to pay toll every morning and every night. It will be most unfair, and in order to accommodate them and to prevent such an anomaly occurring again it is provided that a toll gate shall not be within a radius of 20 kilometres from the nearest residential area.

There is nothing more that I can add but to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the two hon members who took part in the debate for their support, as well as for their service in the joint standing committee.

†I want to deal with the last speaker first. The hon member for Bishop Lavis mentioned the addition of subsection (c) to clause 8. It provides that when the Toll Roads Committee decides on the site of a toll gate it will have to take into consideration the position of people who live within a radius of 20 kilometres from that particular toll gate.

That point has been taken well. The Toll Roads Committee and the SA Roads Board will be functioning well if they take the position of those people in consideration.

*The hon member for Vredendal congratulated the officials of my department. They cannot react to that now, however, and I also want to express my appreciation because the hon member received the greatest degree of co-operation from them when he went to them with inquiries or required them to give him information.

Mr Speaker, this Bill was amended considerably by the joint committee. The fact that the department was very helpful when hon members put their points, is proof that the joint committees undoubtedly do very good work and relieve the burden on Parliament to a considerable extent. At the same time all hon members get the exceptional opportunity, when they put questions to the officials, of getting a better idea of how a department functions. In addition they can say how they would like a certain piece of legislation to be implemented.

With reference to the composition of the SA Roads Board, the original idea was that it should consist of 18 members. This number was then reduced to eight. The SA Roads Board is in a position to appoint members to committees, and in certain circumstances members who serve on the committees have the right to vote. This indicates that a board need not rely mainly on its own ability, but can also get knowledgeable people from outside to assist it. I think this is a good step. If it appears in the future that eight members are not sufficient, the composition can be reviewed. After all, I said this was a functional body. This legislation must also be seen as part of the whole transport package that we want in South Africa. Hon members must remember that the Transport Commission played an extremely important part in South Africa.

In due course more of the National Transport Commission’s functions and responsibilities will be transferred to the SA Roads Board. The next piece of legislation that will be brought to this House is the Transport Deregulation Bill …

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can give us the composition of the present SA Roads Board.

Mr Speaker, I assume that the hon member wants to know what the present composition of the National Transport Commission is.

No, Sir, I am referring to the SA Roads Board.

The hon member will find the composition of the SA Roads Board in the Bill. The Board will consist of eight members from the public sector, agriculture and industry, etc. For the information of the hon member, however, I want to say that the National Transport Commission consisted of 11 members. That was the position in the past….

Mr Speaker, can the hon the Deputy Minister tell me whether the members of the SA Roads Board have been appointed or still have to be appointed?

The members will be appointed as soon as the legislation has been piloted through Parliament and the Board will then start exercising its functions, especially when the next important piece of legislation, viz the Transport Deregulation Bill, has come before Parliament. I want to make it clear that a good case has been made for reducing the composition of the SA Roads Board from 18 to eight members. Hon members must remember that legislation is not on the Statute Book permanently and can be amended in future.

If it appears that additional interests should be included in the composition of the Roads Board, that can be done. I want to emphasise one point very strongly, however, and that is that the Roads Board is a functional body. In other words, although the National Transport Commission with its Directorate of National Roads had a considerable function in building and planning roads and spending money in the past, this body is not an advisory body. It is a functional body, and that is why it is a good thing that a body of this nature is not a large one.

I want to thank hon members sincerely for their support of this legislation and also for the work they did in the standing committee. I can tell them that what we have approved now is a very important component with regard to future privatisation and deregulation as well as the building of good roads in South Africa, so that we can have a decent road network and even greater developments in South Africa in future. Once again I thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I should like to make the following ruling known to the House:

Mr Speaker, as we have heard, this Bill provides for the establishment of a new tertiary educational institution. The fact that this institution will be accommodated in one institution for all three the tertiary institutions, viz technikons, teachers’ training colleges and universities, creates great possibilities, especially because the non-White community has such a lack of sufficient technikon and university facilities in particular, and of teachers’ training college facilities to a lesser extent at present.

This institution has become an essential matter in respect of the Black community in particular. In view of the fact that this institution can also develop and grow into a university, the present lack of university facilities can be eliminated as well.

With the new practically orientated teaching approach in Black schools, sufficient technikon facilities in the Black community have become absolutely essential. Technikon education is really the most important method of education in which we in South Africa, with our rapidly growing population, can be made industrially self-sufficient. It is also a good way in which to involve the economically excluded communities in the economy.

The whole of the South African community, irrespective of colour, has skills which are totally undeveloped. That is why I support the desirability of this Bill. I have certain political differences with regard to the content of the Bill, however, and I want to concentrate on that today.

In my speech during the debate on the hon the Minister’s Vote, I referred to the positive spirit of the Department of National Education’s new education policy. For this reason I want to convey my differences in this connection in a positive spirit and attitude today.

I was terribly disappointed with the way in which the NP dealt with this essential piece of legislation. This Bill was treated like a large lollipop. When we did not want to concede to certain political inclusions, because the omission of such inclusions would ostensibly conflict with the Constitution, we were threatened that the Bill would be submitted to Mr Speaker for his ruling. When we still refused to give in, the Bill was indeed submitted to Mr Speaker. He ruled, however, that it was not in his power to decide whether political inclusions in a Bill should comply strictly with the provisions of the Constitution. After this ruling we were threatened that this important Bill would be removed from the negotiation table. This is in fact what happened, because the important piece of legislation was moved off the negotiation table for some time. What really amazed me was the negative attitude of NP members with regard to negotiation. They hardly wanted to negotiate about any political inclusion in the Bill. They made a few concessions, but these were merely technical. Little was conceded with regard to the political inclusions in the Bill, however. This happened despite the fact that the tricameral Parliament is based and built on negotiation. We serve on a standing committee in order to negotiate with one another and ultimately to reach a point where both parties have made concessions and both are satisfied.

I now want to refer to the contents of the Bill under discussion. In clause 1, line 8, clause 2, line 17 and clause 19, lines 11 and 12, the definition of the word “Minister” refers to the various Ministers of own affairs. This means that as soon as the Bill has been piloted through all three Houses, this Bill becomes an own affairs matter. It also means that the relevant institution, subject to the decision of the own affairs Minister, will be open or closed to the respective communities. An own affairs Minister can therefore determine whether or not a specific institution will be open. The only thing the relevant own affairs Minister has to do, however, is to pilot legislation through his House, legislation which no other House has any control over. We in this House cannot decide what has to take place in own affairs in the House of Assembly. This is nothing but a ridiculous situation with regard to tertiary education. Considering the course the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has taken recently, I have little hope as far as an arrangement of this kind is concerned. In my opinion it is nothing but a retrogressive step. I say this because many universities, as well as some technikons, have already been thrown open and in reality fall under the hon the Minister of National Education. Most tertiary institutions are accessible to people of colour.

Now we are introducing a new institution, and closing it to people of colour, however. Why? Sir, what we are dealing with here is a new tertiary institution. The question arises whether the Bill in its present form is true to the positive spirit of the new National Education Act. What can this political retrogression be ascribed to?

I think the question of the inclusion has a negative effect on the possibilities held by the legislation. In my opinion there should be a definition that the Minister in this case should be the Minister of National Education. The accessibility of the institution to other groups would then be more negotiable—in this House, in any case—because the Minister would then have to give account here. He would have to explain whether an institution would be open to all race groups or not.

Any person who lives near a tertiary institution should be free to study there. One should be able to study at the institution closest to where one lives. I am thinking of the Black states in particular. Whites live in those states too, and they should be able to study at tertiary institutions close by. This also applies in respect of White urban areas, where Blacks live close to or in these areas.

I am concerned about one thing in particular. We simply may not utilise the institution of a “technikon” and the technikon educational component in a racist fashion. Nor may we underutilise it. Technikon education is different from academic education. It is a terribly expensive kind of education. Just think of the sophisticated equipment, for example. If this is underutilised, at this stage at which we have a real growth rate of 2,5% and are making immense sacrifices in our economy, it is going to be to the detriment of education in the long term.

In this connection clause 12(2) extends the controversial possibility contained in clauses 1,2 and 9. This clause reads as follows:

This means that the council may refuse a person from another race—and I emphasise the word “may”, because it is not that definite in the Bill. I concede that the clause in its present form does not bar the council from permitting a person of another race. This clause creates the possibility, however, of refusing to admit a person of another race. The option is open to both sides, and if the own affairs Minister wants to curb that option by means of legislation, he can do so. He does so in his own House, after all, and we as people of colour have no control over that. That is our dilemma in respect of the legislation.

Sir, I am not denigrating the Bill as a whole, but we are concerned about certain inclusions which have a political implication. What is even more disturbing is that the CP made it clear in the standing committee that if they were to come into power one day, this Bill could be implemented in its present form.

That is why I am so concerned about this legislation. It can be implemented in any way. That is what we want to prevent. That is why I moved this amendment in the standing committee: “That the council may permit any person—irrespective of his race, colour, creed or sex”. Discrimination on the basis of colour would then be eliminated. The NP was not prepared to negotiate about this, however. [Interjections.] This would mean that the words “race” and “colour” would be included in the clause. Now people may argue that good legislation should not mention race or colour. People can argue in that way. The question also arises whether one should dispense with similar inclusions, as I proposed. There was no choice when it came to the implementation of apartheid, however. Apartheid, or separate development, was instituted by means of legislation. Provision was also made for this previously. That is why I do not think one can put this to a community as a choice, after having accustomed such a protected community to that idea. One cannot do that, because that community has been protected, and therefore is going to experience fear. One cannot put people like that before the choice of throwing open something or not doing so. They will not do that. It will have to be done in a firmer way at some or other stage.

We have two choices. We can include this in a bill of rights, or we can include it in legislation on a temporary basis—as I proposed—until our society has been normalised and all the discriminatory measures have disappeared. Whether we shall have the courage to do that rests with the whole South African community. It is ridiculous to give only the Whites an opportunity to decide whether or not a tertiary institution may be available to all population groups. That is ridiculous. I think the whole of the South African community is responsible enough to share in such an important decision. That is why I feel that this matter should have fallen under the hon the Minister of National Education.

Nevertheless hon members must realise that we cannot reject this legislation as a final choice, despite the differences to which I have referred. Any responsible person in the standing committee will tell himself that this legislation is necessary. It is important legislation. It is needed by our communities outside this House. If we did that, we would be discriminating against those in this country who have great need of this legislation. If we were to oppose this legislation, we would be discriminating against the Blacks who really need it. If we vote against the Bill, we must also vote against present educational institutions, because they are based on apartheid. Education as a whole is based on apartheid. If, therefore, we are opposed to this legislation, we must take it through to everything that has anything to do with education at this stage, and I do not think that would be a good step. Because I have no choice today, I support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I should like to enter the debate. In the first place I want to mention that this Bill was delayed for months. Statesmanship triumphed, however, and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House instructed its component of the standing committee to support the Bill. There were two reasons for that. In the first place the Black community desperately needs such a facility; and secondly, the Black authorities are hoping that this Bill will be agreed to. For those reasons we support the Bill.

The Bill empowers the Minister of National Education to establish tertiary colleges for the obtaining of degrees, diplomas and certificates. The college can provide university, teacher and technical training or it can offer all three components under one roof. The Bill empowers the Minister—as my hon colleague has already indicated—to enter into an agreement with a university whereby it may award a diploma or a certificate. A college may not introduce a degree, diploma or certificate or a teacher’s qualification without the written approval of the Minister.

As my hon colleague correctly pointed out, in terms of clause 12(1) and (2) the power of admission or refusal of admission to such a college vests in the college council. The powers of the college and its name also vest in the college council, but provision is made for the words “tertiary education” to be included in that name.

For these reasons we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, my contribution to the debate on this Bill this afternoon is going to have a completely different complexion. I want to begin by describing the reality of the day. One can become academic or excited about this Bill or one can write a slogan based on it, but the naked truth is that the education situation in the Coloured and Black communities is critical at present. That is why we are supporting this Bill this afternoon.

The standing committee dallied with the Bill for about 16 months and I am glad that all the parties—even the CP—participated in the end. I want to challenge my hon colleague on the opposite side to bring them to power tomorrow. Then we can see if they will be able to sort out the problems in education with one magic stroke. I challenge them to do that.

We do have problems. In Coloured education we still need men and women for the high schools. Dr Dhlomo of KwaZulu welcomed this legislation. Why? It was because he is also looking for people from within his own ranks to be trained at tertiary level and to return to educate their children. I know that activists and the Press are probably going to exploit the situation again. I can point out immediately, however, that from now on a college is going to be a juristic person. I am pleased about that.

The activities of the college are important as well. There are many hon members who attended college where they took certain elementary subjects. They were not given any credit for those subjects, however. Since the college is now going to have links with a university, the student will be able to obtain recognition for some of his college subjects for degree purposes. Imagine, Sir, how far advanced our education would have been had every Coloured family produced just one graduate! That is why I supported this legislation. That is why I contributed in the preparation of this legislation. I am thankful that this legislation is before us this afternoon.

Clause 6 deals with the composition of the council of a college, and states who the Minister will be. What happened with the appointment of councils in the past, however? They were established on a so-called democratic basis and that is why some of our colleges and our university look the way they do today. I feel that as the political head of education, the hon the Minister should definitely have a say in the council. He should designate a chairman from the ranks of the council members, because ultimately it is he who has to come and report to Parliament and not the chap in the council who messed things up. I should like to quote from clause 6:

The reason for my supporting that provision is that I have seen how the people who came to give evidence before the committee got excited about precisely this provision. Without this provision this legislation would be virtually powerless.

I am pleased that the hon member for Berg River also referred to general admission to such a college. We spent months on the provision which reads:

No mention is made of the words “colour” or “race”. I think we have passed that stage. If a capable person should be refused admission on the grounds of his race, his colour or his sex, we can call the hon the Minister to account here. We can ask him what is going on and whether that is not a hindrance.

I am supporting the measure, despite that clause. I experienced the same thing at a training college recently. Some rascal had caused problems. He had gone and rubbed colouring all over himself in the backveld somewhere, and after that the college accepted him. He was hardly there when he began causing trouble. That is the kind of thing we have to protect ourselves against. I do not want to rely on hearsay evidence, but I know that there are students at certain universities who do not belong there at all. They do not belong there. [Interjections.] They are busy with other things; they are not involved in education. That is why the Bill contains this clause. The presence of those people is retarding the progress of my child as well as the children of others. It is also retarding the teaching process and they are delaying the reform process in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Clause 16 of the Bill refers to the records which have to be kept and the information which the hon the Minister has to give this House. The hon the Minister is obliged, therefore, to give an account of anything that happens in a college. I hope that the hon the Minister is not going to play truant as he did just now, but, for his information, I am referring to clause 16 which provides that the Minister shall table in Parliament any information he receives and that he shall do so within 14 days after he has received it if Parliament is then in ordinary session. I am pleased about that.

I also want to refer to clause 20, to which no hon member has yet referred. There is a crying need for education in the self-governing states and they have been completely excluded from South African education. Clause 20 provides, however, that they can become involved. If they wish, the hon the Minister can establish a college in such an area for the provision of tertiary education so that the activities agreed upon in terms of this Bill can be performed in that area. This was needed previously too. If this Bill is implemented properly, South Africa’s education system will have a new basis.

I want to conclude, but I just want to say that I was shocked to learn the other day that two out of every 1 000 Blacks are receiving tertiary education as opposed to 30 out of every 1 000 Whites. On Sunday there was a TV programme about Matieland, where 85 000 students have graduated. I take it there is a 10-year education programme. This piece of legislation, which many people dismiss, can show South Africa and the world that South African education need not take a back seat at all. By means of this legislation Southern Africa can show the rest of Africa how one should train one’s population.

Mr Speaker, I should like to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the hon members who participated in the debate and also to all hon members who served on the standing committee for their support of this Bill and for the hard work I know they put in. I am sure hon members will concede that the impression has been created that it is my fault that there was so much delay with the Bill. There is an expression, however, that “it takes two to tango”. [Interjections.] In this case there were several parties who took part in the tango and that led to extended negotiation and urgent discussion, which had a delaying effect.

First of all, I want to express my sincere thanks to all three hon members who took part for having emphasised the positive aspects in putting forward their arguments. I am aware that there are facets of the Bill which they would have preferred in a different form, and I shall say a few words about that now. The fact is that we are dealing with here is the Bill in its present form, even if everyone is not satisfied with it.

We are dealing with a new instrument that has been created to deal effectively with the deficiencies that exist in the tertiary education of specific population groups in our country. It is an enabling Bill which opens the door to a new kind of tertiary institution. Our country’s huge geographical expanse and our financial inability simply to go ahead and build new universities and new technikons without approaching tertiary education on a rationalised basis, create problems for us. By means of this Bill we are trying to obviate that problem. Moreover, it gives us the opportunity to rise to the challenge of our time with regard to tertiary education in a reasonably imaginative way. That is why I want to express my sincere thanks for the positive way in which this Bill has been supported.

Sir, the hon member for Berg River—other hon members also referred to this by implication—singled out the problems which are being experienced. I do not want us to duplicate the lengthy debates that were conducted in the standing committee, but hon members will allow me to make a few comments in this regard.

First of all, the hon member for Berg River feels that negotiation was not given a proper chance. I want to differ with him on that point, because in the final analysis the Bill is before us because negotiation took place at the highest level—the highest level in this House—and also because that negotiation led to the consensus that the Bill, as amended by the standing committee, should be proceeded with. We may differ on this, but apart from the emotionality of the argument I want to say, as a jurist, that I think it is unhealthy to try to amend provisions of the Constitution in an indirect way by means of other legislation. That will lead to great confusion in the end. The insistence and the proposals to which the hon member for Berg River referred, would, in my view, interfere with the essence of the Constitution in its present form. Hon members have the right to feel that they are not satisfied with everything contained in the Constitution, but for the sake of good order it is better to argue about that when we talk about the Constitution and by means of legislation which is related to an existing system, as the hon member for Berg River conceded in his argument. We cannot change an entire system in a Bill such as this one. That is the one juridical reason, if I may put it that way, why we should rather conduct that debate elsewhere. I know that there are fundamental differences in our standpoints.

In the second place the hon member expressed his dissatisfaction about the fact that we are dealing here with own affairs Ministers according to the definition of the word “Minister” in the Bill. The hon member links his argument to the fact that such a so-called open college should fall under the control of the Minister of National Education, who is a general affairs Minister. If we look at the de facto position of our universities, we will see that although all universities come under the umbrella of specific own affairs Ministers—also in terms of the Constitution—and Black universities fall under the control of the Minister of Education and Development Aid, all universities are open today.

What about teachers’ training colleges?

We discussed that argument in the debate on my Vote. There are other arguments which apply to teachers’ training colleges, but which do not apply to universities and technikons. In reply to a question in the House of Assembly today I indicated the actual number of Coloureds, Blacks and Indians at universities which fall under the control of the Minister of Education and Culture, and I indicated the actual number of Whites, Indians and Blacks studying at the University of the Western Cape which falls under the control of the Minister of Education and Culture (House of Representatives). The numbers are quite high. The de facto situation therefore is that tertiary institutions such as universities and technikons, within the framework of the autonomy of those institutions, and within the framework of the discretion of the councils of those institutions, are to some extent accessible to all population groups. Sir, that service is being rendered. Furthermore, section 14 of the Constitution provides that it should be possible to throw open such an institution.

The third point—other hon members referred to this as well—concerned clause 12, the so-called admission clause. In this regard I want to emphasise once again—this is definitely the argument that was put to hon members in the standing committee—that the aim of that clause as it stands in the Bill is indeed, as the hon member for Esselen Park said in his exposition, to protect the council and not to entrench discrimination. It is there to ensure that a council may refuse to admit a student if it considers that to be in the interest of that college or institution. The aim of this particular clause is to protect the council and the institution; it does not have the basis which hon members allege is its true basis.

To sum up I just want to say that we have to regard these colleges as essential when we consider our country’s geography, and the definite backlogs and needs that exist. If we look back, we will find that many of the highly reputable universities in this country have grown out of an association with existing universities. The uniqueness of these colleges which can come into being once this Bill is enacted, lies in the fact that three disciplines will be housed under one roof. That provides a flexibility that will certainly result in these institutions coming into existence according to specific needs in a specific region, and causing the emphasis to be placed on those facets where the need is greatest. It has the further great advantage that, in addition to existing institutions such as training colleges, expansion can take place in a very cost-effective way, in a way that the country can afford.

I should therefore like to thank hon members very sincerely for their support. With them I want to express the hope that we are introducing a new dimension in tertiary training which will achieve great success and which will, in the long term, be to the benefit of many thousands of people.

Question agreed to and amendment dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Mr Chairman, I am sure that the whole House will endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon the Leader of the House and that it will also regret the particularly tragic manner in which the hon member was killed.

Agreed to unanimously.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Order! I want to appeal to the hon Whips once again not to place me in the position of not having a list of speakers here. The hon member for Allandale may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the Group Areas Act has haunted the lives of millions of South Africans, denying them the right to live where they choose. By scrapping the Group Areas Act this Government, in its overreaction, fears for the survival of the White society. The Government’s reaction to the imposition of sanctions changed from one of reform to one of survival. This Act is the greatest cause of untold human misery and it should be abolished.

I concede that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act has been repealed and that influx control and the dreaded pass laws are no more, and yet there is an insistence on the part of the Government on separating residential areas on a racial basis. Many areas which were originally zoned for non-Whites were rezoned White such as, for example, District Six in Cape Town, Pentrich in Pietermaritzburg, Sophiatown in the Transvaal and Cato Manor in Durban, which has now been proclaimed for Indian occupation and resold to us at an exorbitant price. I want to add that in Pietermaritzburg, in the area known as Edendale, Lot 92—an area of approximately five hectares—was acquired by the department for a measly R22 700, and yet this particular individual had received a firm offer of R95 000.

The Government has been forced to recognise grey areas as a result of pressure for accommodation, but still the harassment continues. While the Government has repealed the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Group Areas Act bars couples from living in areas of their choice. The law dictates that a non-White partner can only live in a White area by permit. The Government fears that the intrusion of Blacks in White areas would cause a drop in property prices and that there would be an escalation in crime. Both these assertions have been proved wrong by a study conducted by the Institute of Race Relations.

The hon the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament offered little hope or expectation of any change of pace towards reform by this Government. What strikes one in the face, is that the military option has now displaced diplomatic and political options. Not even the most sanguine of observers would think that this Government will translate its fading reformist rhetoric into a significant movement away from apartheid. There are fundamental flaws in the Constitution based on race classification and group areas—the pillars of apartheid. Only a racially mixed electorate could provide a viable constituency to achieve political reform.

It is no longer a question of whether apartheid will be dismantled as its legitimacy, it is said, is dead and buried. However, it is of paramount importance whether White leadership will disappear with apartheid, given that this policy can no longer be the source of its strength.

South Africa flaunts a prodigious exception—the exclusion of a majority by a minority on the grounds of race. The Blacks are becoming more radical, especially the politicised youth who are very seriously affected by unemployment. Knowing full well that they have nothing to lose, but everything to gain, radical youths are even clashing with their elders whom they tax with servility and who, faced with the rising tide, are powerless to “take arms against a sea of troubles”.

Pietermaritzburg and its outskirts are still in turmoil. Violence is the order of the day. This year alone over 200 Blacks have been killed. The violent situation in the Black townships has spilled into the city centre and the mayor of Pietermaritzburg has called upon the hon the Minister of Law and Order for his help and that of the Defence Force.

For South Africa the time has come for a painful reassessment. This Government will have to face many difficult challenges and distressing problems in order to emerge from this current impasse. A democratic system that does not recognise the need to right the historical injustices of apartheid and the existing unequal relations of power and privilege, as well as political representations and individual freedom for all, is doomed to perdition. The Government, hamstrung by the vociferous CP, is in effect now invariably saying, and I quote from an editorial:

This Government faces many obstacles, of its own making, to brighten its own future in spite of 40 years of rule; a rule bringing untold misery to our people.

We, too, are committed to this struggle to see to it that justice prevails, that there are no more episodes in our history like those of Crossroads and Lawaaikamp, and that all Blacks take their rightful place in the decision-making of the country in which they predominate. Incidentally, Lawaaikamp is part of George, which is the original constituency of our hon State President. That something like this should happen in this particular constituency I find rather disgraceful.

This Government is prescriptive in its views and the blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who, as the architect of the division of South Africa, must now embark on a new vision to free South Africa from turmoil, injustice and isolation to achieve a stable situation. I perceive that the days of reform from the top are over and therefore the future must be negotiated with everyone having an open option on the table. Only then will this Government retrieve some of its dwindling credibility. I have stated previously that South Africa is not a democracy; it is a constitutional dictatorship which reserves the rights and privileges for the minority as against the majority.

Order! Before I put the question to the next speaker, I just want to appeal to the hon Whips. Firstly, I had no list before me when the debate commenced, and secondly, I now have a list before me but without an indication of times. I want to appeal for the co-operation of the hon Whips. They are placing the Chair in an extremely difficult position if the Chair does not know the times to which hon members are entitled.

Mr Chairman, I know that the hon the Minister will get hammered a lot today, because he is the hon Minister responsible for the administration of the Group Areas Act. However, to be fair to him, I must say that he has been largely responsible for introducing certain Bills to this House, which have now become laws, and which remove much of the pressure of apartheid.

The most recent Bill introduced by the hon the Minister, the Promotion of Constitutional Amendment Bill, which was formerly the National Council Bill, is an indication of the steps that the Government is taking in order to improve the lot of the Black community. The statement made by the hon the State President on the celebration of the 40th anniversary of NP rule was also very significant. He said that one could have done much to bring about many constitutional changes, but unfortunately his hands were tied. I think there is definitely a shift as far as the Government is concerned to bring about improvement in relations and to bring all communities into the decision-making process of this country. This is one aspect.

I must say that the hon the Minister himself, who has three or four separate committees on constitutional affairs which deal with various Bills, and who is the chairman of a very important committee—the Committee on Constitutional Affairs—tries his best to steamroller as many Bills as he possibly can and pass them as laws. I do not blame him. He is an expert lawyer. He has the expertise, but he is doing his best to steamroller as many Bills as possible in order to make them laws. However, we accept the principle that he wants to improve the lot of the various communities.

I think there are one or two amendments to the Group Areas Act that will come about. It is envisaged that if they become law, they will be handed over to the various own affairs Ministers so that those laws can be implemented by them. I want the hon the Minister to know that when the Group Areas Act was first designed, it was intended for the Indian community and nobody else! The birthplace of the Group Areas Act was the Durban City Hall, where the Group Areas Board first sat. There was a unanimous cry by the White community that the Indians were penetrating White areas. They needed the much-desired Group Areas Act in order to stifle the Indian community insofar as their acquisition of immovable properties was concerned. This all started in 1942 when General Smuts was still Prime Minister. He introduced the Pegging Act. Later he introduced the Asiatic Land and Tenure Amendment Act, as well as the Indian Representation Act, which was the forerunner of the Group Areas Act.

I want the hon the Minister to understand that the Indian community consists of peace-loving people. They live in areas like Cato Manor, Mayville, Durban North, Candela, Sea View, Hillary and other places. When the Group Areas Act was implemented, Indians were forcibly removed and resettled in areas like Chatsworth and Phoenix. Through this action, the Indian community was done out of farming land. The Government removed peace-loving people from their residential areas and dumped them in Chatsworth. In doing so, they have done the Indian community out of their farming land and livelihood.

And bananas!

That is also true. I think the hon the Minister will experience difficulties if he tells us that he expects our own affairs Ministers to take control of these particular amendments to the Group Areas Act which are envisaged. I do not see how they can impose them on the Indian community. That will be asking us to take a dose of medicine which none of us will be able to swallow.

At the moment the Indian community is experiencing many difficulties insofar as obtaining permits is concerned. The hon the Minister himself knows that the Group Areas Act is administered by the provinces. The provinces have to handle the question of the Group Areas Act insofar as the implementation and the handing out of permits are concerned. It is very difficult for an Indian to get a permit. There are all sorts of inquiries and investigations. By the time a permit is granted, one has had to put up with many inspectors looking at the area. A permit is only granted if there is no objection from the White community, and this is where the difficulty lies.

If an Indian applies for a permit in a particular area, and there is an objection from one White individual, that permit will be turned down. The Government can relax the legislation and get the provinces to look into the question of permits for the acquisition, ownership and occupation of Indian properties. It will have very little difficulty in making those amendments to the Group Areas Act. It will have no difficulty in getting this House to approve them. To go even further, it would not be difficult to get an own affairs Ministry in this House to handle and implement the provisions of that Bill.

I want the hon the Minister to know that the Indian community has been hit very hard and they have suffered the most. I do not think they wish to suffer any more. I therefore urge the hon the Minister to think about this issue. I think the total abolition of that Act will be in the best interests of all concerned.

Another important matter concerns squatters. This is happening not only in the controlled municipal areas but in other areas as well. The reason for squatting is the lack of available land for the various communities. Unless the hon the Minister and his department are able to look into the matter of the availability of land—particularly for the Indian and the Black communities—the problem of squatting will continue and it will become a permanent sickness of society. To avoid this, the hon the Minister must look into the matter of the availability of land for the various communities.

The hon the Minister is directly responsible for the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I want to say to him that I think it is not a question of pleasing the Indian community, but of considering the availability of agricultural land. The Indian community of Durban took up farming and market-gardening as a means of earning a living. Areas like Springfield, Chatsworth, Phoenix and all the other areas where the Indian community had been farming and had held holdings for their market-gardening, were taken away from them for housing and essential Government needs. I think it is important that the Government should look at the whole question of the land requirements of the Indian community insofar as farming is concerned. Land must be made freely available.

Another matter concerns the situation where one has a willing seller who is White and a willing buyer who is an Indian. They have to apply for a permit and this permit has to be granted to them. It is unfortunate that the Indian community is not permitted to obtain land by way of acquisition but also …

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon member but his time has expired.

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

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think it is important for the hon the Minister to look into the matter of the acquisition by lease of agricultural property required by the Indian community. There are many people who wish to make land available. The hon the Minister should look into this matter.

I think the hon the Minister must be complimented on the very good work that he is doing in creating various pieces of legislation which will help the process of the removal of apartheid. The pieces of legislation that are coming before the standing committees show that it is the Government’s intention to improve and alleviate the situation of the Indian community. I think the hon the Minister should be complimented.

I also wish to refer to the good work done by the Joint Standing Committee on Constitutional Development which was chaired by Dr H M J van Rensburg. The committee sat for almost a year and a half and I think that excellent work was done there. The committee looked into the matter of the various constitutional boundaries and electoral divisions. I think the committee did very valuable work. The hon the Minister must please convey the appreciation of this House to the Chairman Dr van Rensburg and the committee who brought out a very good report. We want to thank them for everything that they have done.

Mr Chairman, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to express our appreciation to you for the manner in which you conducted the proceedings in Pietermaritzburg during the sitting of the extended committee of Parliament. I think the manner in which you handled the situation, and the dignity and decorum with which you approached matters, were plus factors and we all share in the credit that is due to you for what you were able to do out there.

What I want to say here today is nothing new to the ears of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He has been listening to us for many years in this and other forums.

He is not listening to us!

I believe that what the hon the Minister has to understand and appreciate is that as long as the Group Areas Act is on the Statute Book it does one thing only and that is to make land costly and difficult to come by for the Indian community. The need for land in Actonville, or its environs, is an example of this. Since the areas subject to the inquiry were very close to the existing settlement and from a point of logistics as regards cutting down on the expenditure involved in providing schools, places of worship, etc, they would have been the ideal areas to start with. As the need for more land became necessary, the other area which had been examined could be developed.

This is the kind of thing that causes pain. There are three areas that were advertised and I think there was adequate canvassing at the hearings. Sufficient reasons were also advanced as to why all three these areas should be considered for the Indian community.

One of the problems we seem to have—and I repeat what I said in Pietermaritzburg—is that even in regard to group areas hearings in respect of land for the Indian community, constituency politics seem to assume even greater proportions than the proper implementation of the law. Therefore it is not so much a case of drawing a map, advertising it and ordering an inquiry; instead it seems to depend on the attitude of politicians belonging to different constituencies. I also gain the impression that they certainly have an overriding influence on whatever decision is taken by the department responsible for preparing the map.

My department does not take political stands. I take them.

The hon the Minister takes them. However, the fact is that there is a clash of interests between different constituencies. This is the point that I am making. To a large extent the delay in proclaiming areas would appear to be a result of these forces that are at play.

What I am saying is simply that a community crying out for more land cannot be held up by constituency politics. I think it is extremely important, more so because at this stage the cost of providing even the humblest of homes is assuming enormous proportions. I do not think private enterprise or the State can build the number of homes that this country requires for the various people if we are going to delay the allocation of available land, because R1 million which might have produced 200 houses a few years ago may only produce half that number or less next year. Costs are going up at a tremendous rate.

What we are saying is that it makes it extremely difficult for this House, which has a limited budget and which is planning to execute housing programmes, if the cost of land is going to escalate at its current rate. In other words, the Group Areas Act has removed the market forces from the market place, and we are being compelled to deal with one or two people who can in fact dictate the prices they want. People who are out for a profit are out for a profit; parting with the land is simply a means to an end, and the end is to be enriched by that process. I think that even the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will vouch for the fact that in recent months and years the price of land, be it in Durban or anywhere else, has been moving up out of all proportion and making it extremely difficult to provide the number of houses we would like to provide for the Indian community. I think the same would apply to other communities as well.

My plea to the hon the Minister is that he cannot allow a situation like this to continue as it has for many, many years, despite eloquent pleas in this House for a rethink of the procedure, etc. That is one reason why we believe that there is no place for the Group Areas Act.

I have been reading with interest reports in our weekend newspapers about the visits of certain political leaders abroad who are having discussions with people in exile. Reading that, one is reinforced in one’s thinking that the political and constitutional impasse in our country can only be solved by South Africans here in South Africa. This becomes abundantly clear. That is why I think it is absolutely important that redoubled efforts be made to bring together reasonable men representing the whole spectrum of South African society with a view to working towards and realising a new constitutional framework which will lay the foundation for future well-being, progress, peace and stability in this country. As we see it now, all possible forces are being employed to further a process of chaos and anarchy in our country.

I am also concerned about the fact that certain large unions representing workers have made a commitment and are actively calling for sanctions, despite the fact that their existence is dependent on the presence of workers in factories or elsewhere who become members of these unions.

The only saving grace is that there are people in this country who are prepared to speak out openly. Here I think one must commend Dr Gatsha Buthelezi for his rally of 30 000 to 40 000 people who demonstrated in no uncertain terms that they do not support or agree with this philosophy, as well as some other church leaders who, more recently, demonstrated on the Reef. They had the courage to walk the streets and demonstrate that sanctions are not the answer to our country’s problems. What I am saying is simply that unless and until we move forward at a pace which will indicate that we are serious about the process of reform, and that we are seeking urgent solutions to the constitutional impasse, those people who want to destabilise the country and bring about massive unemployment in the country—all of which will be a contributory factor to instability in this country—are going to have a field day. My plea to the hon the Minister is simply this. He has many urgent tasks to attend to, since I believe that worker instability—unemployment—will create conditions in our country which will make it even more difficult to get reasonable people to come together to talk about the future constitutional direction of this country.

Therefore, it is imperative that this matter be given the highest possible priority. We want to see the necessary steps being taken to bring people from all the population groups together to talk about talks without any preconditions. I think a demonstration of that desire in some tangible way will afford those who are committed to reform through peaceful means an opportunity to argue for understanding and the kind of inputs that are desirable from our friends abroad to contribute towards a climate of stability, peace and economic progress so that the constitutional talks would take place in a climate conducive to success.

Mr Chairman, looking back on what the hon the State President said in a television interview during the past few days, namely that reform was not taking place as fast as the NP, or the ruling party, would like it to, I think the hon the Minister whose Vote we are discussing this afternoon can take his cue from that.

I feel that the hon the State President was correct in saying that the pace of reform in this country has actually slackened instead of gaining momentum. An appeal is made once again to the hon the Minister this afternoon, as the architect of reform in this country, that we should do something to bring home to the outside world how we are going to go ahead with reform. Let us not be prevented from making a pronouncement of the proposed reform in this country because we are afraid of the local population, that is to say, the right wing or the left wing in this country. Let us go forward.

I also want to quote from a certain source. I am not going to speak at great length on the Group Areas Act because other hon members will speak about that, but I am going to mention it because it is one of the Acts administered by the hon the Minister.

Mr Gavin Relly of Anglo American recently spoke about the move towards a non-racial democracy in South Africa, and he said the following:

He goes on to say:

This is very true of the South African situation today. If we analyse the brief paragraph I have just read, we find that it falls completely into line with the situation we are facing in South Africa. The South African situation is unique. For example, let us take the President’s Council. The President’s Council was created to resolve any deadlocks in regard to legislation by submitting such legislation to the President’s Council, which makes recommendations to the hon the State President. At the same time the hon the State President can refer any matter to the President’s Council for its recommendations.

Here we come to the Group Areas Act. We know that the technical committee’s recommendations were sent to the President’s Council and the report of the President’s Council was produced. Let us take one aspect of the recommendations by the President’s Council—if I am right, it is No 7.3.4 about the opening of business areas. In my constituency near Pretoria we had a group areas hearing a few weeks ago about the opening up of certain central business districts. What were the areas that were advertised? An area that has been historically and for years in the hands of the Indian community—the old Asiatic Bazaar—was advertised as an area for ownership and occupation for all race groups. A small portion which has already become a complete area where nonWhites are trading and which is occupied by non-Whites, was proposed. That is the portion of the northern area of the CBD and it is in Blood Street. The City Council further proposes a portion near the railway station of Pretoria, which was also historically occupied and used for trade only by people of colour. There are no Whites there. Those are the only areas which have been proposed. The whole central business district, which is the crux of the whole Group Areas Act—the central core of the city—was not even mentioned among the areas to be proposed for opening up.

We heard that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the world in a television interview some while back that the central business areas of the country were opening up for everybody. They are not opening up, because we have not seen a single area where the whole of the CBD and the core, where business is being conducted, has been opened up to all communities; yet we find that that particular area happens to house traders who are all people of colour. In the year 2000 the Black consumer will have much more spending power than the total number of White consumers in this country. These facts emerge from the research. [Interjections.] We can no longer tolerate any more dodging by the hon the Minister who is still administering portions of the Group Areas Act.

Now certain of the powers have been redelegated to the provinces as far as the issuing of permits is concerned.

Mr A Arbee is now applying it.

I will not say who is applying it, but I will come to what the hon member for Reservoir Hills has just mentioned. There are certain people who are administering those particular sections of the Act. However, I must state again that we have been asking for years now, since we have come to Parliament, for the repeal of the Group Areas Act.

The issuing of permits by members of other race groups now rests in the hands of the provincial authorities. We saw what happened last week and we have read in this weekend’s newspapers about a very prominent academic in Verwoerdburg, Pretoria, who applied for a permit to occupy a house in Verwoerdburg. What was the result? The municipality of Verwoerdburg stated that the whole of Verwoerdburg is a White group area and as such they cannot even consider any recommendation to the province for the granting of their permit. This is a man of high standing. The papers have taken this matter up, saying that a person of this calibre was refused a permit. How does the outside world read this? What does the Press say about this type of attitude? Are we going to tolerate this type of thing much longer?

As the hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned just now—the province takes more than nine months to consider an application for a permit. People have options and they lose them. Eventually it is either yes or no. The other day in the standing committee we were given statistics indicating that in the Transvaal some 3 000 applications had been received out of which more than 70% were granted permits. However, half of those people could not take those options for the permits because of the time lapse. In some cases it took more than 12 months before these permits were eventually issued.

Where is this leading us? The hon member Mr Thaver mentioned the good work that is being done by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. I will not delve into this. We know that the National Statutory Council has now changed its name. We do not even know when this will be official.

We read in today’s newspapers that threats have been made to those who are going to participate in the Black municipal elections in Black areas like Soweto this year. Death threats have been made that any person who participates in this will be wiped out. These threats have come from sources such as the ANC and others. What will the hon the Minister do? Will the October municipal elections for the Black community, the Indian community and the Coloured community again achieve a percentage poll as low as 1%, because of fears and threats? [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, over the weekend there was a mammoth meeting in Umlazi in Durban at which Chief Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi addressed the audience. At that meeting he—and he spoke, I would say, for all decent, loyal, patriotic South Africans—quite unequivocally rejected, without any shadow of doubt, the campaign for economic sanctions against South Africa. Here was a voice of South Africa speaking. We sit as members of this House in this Parliament in which that voice is not represented. Members of the Black community in South Africa are not represented.

I am not blaming this hon Minister, but it is the responsibility of this hon Minister to put it right. That is where constitutional planning and constitutional development enter the picture. I am not prepared to withdraw anything I said about this hon Minister previously. I adhere to what I said about him previously. I am not prepared to condemn him wholly and solely for the failure to make advances in regard to the National Council. Obviously I cannot discuss the details since I am a member of that standing committee, but it has taken far too long.

I thought I steamrollered it through.

I would suggest that the hon the Minister should not act as a steamroller, either forwards or backwards. However, work must be done. There is a firm called the City Brake and Clutch Company in Durban. The hon the Minister sometimes makes the mistake of clutching his permanent officials and putting the brakes on them. I would say that the permanent officials probably have better insight as to what is required in South Africa, if the politicians would just leave them alone.

A good driver does both.

Unfortunately, the politicians are of course still busy putting apartheid into reverse gear. Regrettably, apartheid will not be abolished in the near future. If the hon the Minister is moving purposefully and directly, and if he says he will act to eliminate apartheid, I will be the first one to support him. I do not want to be put off with phrases like “outmoded concepts” of apartheid. The whole of apartheid stinks. It is unacceptable.

We want to ask: Where are the Black members of the President’s Council about whom there has been talk for several years? We have been in this Parliament for four years. We have to make progress. Until and unless Black South Africans are represented in this Parliament, threats will continue to be made against those who participate. We will continue to have extra-parliamentary activities. The ANC and Azapo will continue to enjoy the massive support which they in fact have among Black people, simply because these people do not have any other political avenue through which to express their views.

This morning I received a copy in my post of a statement issued by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid on the appointment of a commission of inquiry in Lebowa. The statement reads, and I quote:

Allegations of a serious nature were made in the Lebowa Assembly. That Assembly is roughly the equivalent of this House of Delegates for that territory. The Chief Minister, who is the equivalent of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, immediately called upon the hon the State President to appoint a commission of enquiry, and he has acceded to that request. What a far cry from the developments in this House! No such request was made by the equivalent of the Chief Minister. No credence was given by the hon the State President, except for a statement such as: “Give me the evidence.” Evidence must be led before a commission of enquiry.

The hon member for Allandale made a speech that sounded to me like an editorial which could have been culled from the magazine South, or the newspaper the Weekly Mail, or the magazine New Nation. It contained that kind of emotive language—directly and foursquare against every policy of the Government, and yet he is a supporter of the Government! I cannot reconcile the two. His party supports the state of emergency. He supports that party and he votes with that party.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member for Reservoir Hills prepared to take a question?

No Sir, I only have a few minutes left. Last Friday I was in the aeroplane on my way back to Durban. A distinguished-looking gentleman sat next to me. He spoke to me in English, but with a definite Afrikaans accent. He told me who he was. He holds a very high position in South African society. He said to me: “You know, my father and I have been lifelong supporters of the NP and we will remain Nationalists. You, Mr Poovalingam, are demanding very radical changes and we are not in a position to accede to them at the present time.” Then he added: “However, if you want us to listen to you and apply pressure upon members of Parliament and Ministers, put the image of your House in order. Stop this nonsense about carrot-baiting and carrot-taking in your House.”

This was sound advice. It was repeated in a cartoon in the Natal Daily News last night, showing a bunch of carrots and a number of distinguishable hon members of this House, running a different kind of Comrades marathon. It is sad and deplorable that this state of affairs should occur.

We passed a resolution in this House and I supported it. However, we must not have any hon member running along, saying: “Take him out and put me in.” There must not be positionseeking by anyone, no matter who he is. There must be dedication and service to the community. Unless hon members in this House exhibit personal integrity, personal honesty and a desire to be of service to the community, nobody is going to listen to us. We might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Is it not an utter disgrace that Mr Grosskopf—who we are told is a terrorist—can live in Pinelands or Claremont, but an MP—be he Coloured or Indian—cannot? Is it not disgraceful that the ambassador for South Africa to the EEC in Brussels can live anywhere in Europe, but not South Africa? He has to live in a demarcated group area. The hon the Minister should be ashamed that such a situation exists. I do believe he is ashamed. He can tell us that he cannot do anything about it at the present time. I am prepared to accept that. However, if he tells me he is not ashamed of this situation, I shall be astonished!

I briefly want to deal with the question of special votes. There has been too much fiddling around with special votes, too many frauds, too many forgeries to make it desirable in the municipal elections. We will undoubtedly come to that.

What about the special task force that has been appointed by the SA Police to deal with those who allegedly contravene the Group Areas Act in Durban, and in particular the Albert Park area? We cannot get policemen to protect people from thugs, criminals and muggers because there is an insufficient number of police force members. Yet it seems that the Government can find policemen to go and upset people who are living perfectly innocently, even if not legally in terms of this statute—I do not call it law—the Group Areas Act. That is something that is not desirable in this country.

I want to conclude by saying that there cannot be proper political reform in this country until and unless the Government which the hon the Minister represents here this afternoon declares what its end goals are. I realise what its difficulties are. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, over the past few years South Africa has experienced significant progress in its attempts to end apartheid. Legislation concerning job reservations, influx control, the pass laws, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the prohibition of mixed political parties, Section 16 of the Immorality Act, etc have all been abolished. The recognition of Black trade unions and the institution of the industrial courts have resulted in an explosion in the growth of Black trade unionism. Today there are over one million members organised in independent unions. While important changes have to be made in the Group Areas Act, dents in that bastion of apartheid have already resulted in the opening of the central business districts and the creation of grey areas.

Despite these ad hoc, piecemeal changes and because of the retention of unjust laws such as the Land Act, the Separate Amenities Act, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act, South Africa remains an international outcast and will continue to be an outcast until and unless all the communities in South Africa are able to participate in Parliament.

What is therefore necessary now is a clear perspective of a democratic South Africa which can come about by peaceful means and by a strong economy. That is why economic sanctions against South Africa are counterproductive. A democracy in a multinational state like South Africa has to have a system where universal franchise rights are linked to safeguards for minorities. I would like to stress that the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba is the ideal example of such a future constitution for South Africa.

Incidentally, Sir, Lenin devised a similar constitution for the Soviet Union which is a federation of about 16 “constitutional states” making provision for about 100 different ethnic groups. There are two Houses in the Soviet system, each having equal status. All laws have to be passed by both Houses. In the House of Soviets where the principle of one man, one vote is adhered to, the Russians have about 50% of the representation although they comprise less than 50% of the total population of the USSR.

In the House of Nations the Russian representation is less than 50%. Therefore while the Russians dominate the first House they cannot do so in the second House. Also, as the Communist Party rules the Soviet Union as a dictatorship the system has not worked well in that particular part of the world. However, it has had a greater success in Yugoslavia which has a constitution similar to that of the Soviet Union. Those radicals who criticise the Indaba as being racist and reactionary should bear in mind that the Soviet system must then be reactionary and racist also.

In the USA there is also a two-house system. The Senate has two senators from every state, big or small. Therefore a state with a population of 20 million has equal representation with a state that has, for example, a population of 1 million. In the Senate the small states have a larger representation than the bigger states. However in the second House, the House of Representatives, where the voting is on the basis of universal franchise, the big states have larger representation than the small states. The two-house system has worked well in the United States, particularly as it is supported by an independent judiciary and a well-entrenched constitution which has within it a Bill of Rights.

South Africa can and must learn from the experiences of the two super-powers of the world. Therefore, the path forward in South Africa constitutionally is through the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. For further suggestions for a constitutional framework for this country I would like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to Hansard:

House of Delegates, Vol 1, cols 134-141, dated 30 January 1987 to 4 February 1987. There it can be seen in the records of a debate in this august Chamber that possible solutions were amply propounded by yours truly. Furthermore, having said that, we in the House of Delegates are disturbed by the slow-down in the reform process. We appeal to the Government, through the hon the Minister present here, to proceed immediately with the necessary reform on the path to real democracy in South Africa.

There are some people such as Archbishop Tutu who pompously proclaim that apartheid cannot be reformed and that it has to be rejected outright. We too have a perspective of a democratic South Africa, but it is based on the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. However, we realise that to achieve our goal it has to take place step by step through the reform process. We acknowledge that fact. The radical elements should learn from the great philosopher Hegel who taught that before there can be revolutionary changes there have to be evolutionary changes. In his acclaimed philosophy things are always changing, first slowly and then rapidly; first small quantitative changes and then rapid qualitative changes take place.

Hegel gave the example of water. If we add quantities of heat to water it changes slowly from cold to lukewarm to hot. However, at a certain stage, at 100 degrees centigrade, it no longer becomes hotter and hotter, but changes to steam. It changes its quality from that of a liquid to a gas. Similarly, when the temperature of water is continuously reduced it becomes colder and colder—and then at a certain temperature it changes its quality to ice—from a liquid to a solid.

If we apply Hegel’s theory to South Africa, it means that if the reform process continues and if it is accelerated, there must sooner or later be a qualitative change. The apartheid system will have to be substituted by another system—a democratic system.

The apartheid system was developed from the basis of the utmost segregation of all the population groups. The vast majority of South Africans can see clearly how this policy has failed in its essence, though we know what terrible harm it caused while it was applied. The Group Areas Act caused tremendous suffering to the Indian community.

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

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

The Group Areas Act caused our people tremendous suffering. While the politics of apartheid was being applied in the 1950s and 1960s it was being opposed by the rapid growth of the economy that made it impossible for segregation to take place, because while Nationalist politics was attempting to separate the different communities, the economy was actually integrating the communities.

Ultimately the Government had the impossible choice of continuing with apartheid and destroying the economy or encouraging the economy and destroying apartheid. It was forced to back the economy and because the Whites could not longer manage the economy on their own it had to turn to all the Black communities and thus to integrate all South Africans. Because of the economy the Government had to repeal laws on the reservation of jobs for Whites, the pass laws and the influx control laws. It had to recognise the African Trade Unions and to embark on large-scale education of all Black communities. Most of the other apartheid laws have been repealed. The Group Areas Act has been changed as regards the central business districts (CBDs) and today grey areas are envisaged.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the annual report of the Department of Development Planning for 1987, page 5. It reads as follows:

I believe that the hon the Minister and his department believe in that principle which is stated in this report. Having quoted this, I also wish to refer to their statement about the future on page 5, which reads as follows:

There is a particular matter which I should like to take up with the hon the Minister today. It concerns the large number of local areas which still exist in the Cape Peninsula. These urbanised areas are nothing but extensions of municipalities and geographically form an integral part of those municipalities. However, because of lines that were drawn up on paper, the boundaries of the municipalities were so determined that the local areas fell outside the municipal areas and were initially administered by the divisional councils. With the abolition of those bodies, ie the divisional councils, they are now administered on an agency basis by the Western Cape Regional Services Council.

I am disappointed that the hon the Minister has, in all the years that he has been responsible for local government in an overall capacity, been unable to ensure that all these local areas are incorporated within the areas of jurisdiction of adjoining municipalities, since this is where they belong. I just want to give the hon the Minister an example.

Take Cravenby Estate, for example. Cravenby Estate is an “Indian” area, set aside for Indian occupation in terms of the Group Areas Act. That area was administered by the old Divisional Council. Now, with the Divisional Council having been abolished, Cravenby Estate stands alone there and I am given to understand that the Western Cape Regional Services Council is servicing that area on an agency basis. According to some Acts—hon members know that the hon the Minister has various Acts to administer local government …

Axe, not Acts. [Interjections.]

Well, they can say “axe”, but I am referring to Acts. [Interjections.] He will have some provisions relating to the regional services councils and certain other provisions relating to the Black authorities, so that one has to read one provision together with another. He is a legal man. Now we are given to understand that the own affairs Minister becomes the local authority when there is an area like that. To put it bluntly, the hon the Minister becomes the local authority. I want to tell the hon the Minister that that is confusion most confounded.

Here we have Cravenby Estate, which barely has 3 000 people living in it—I think that is an exaggerated figure—and that local authority is an Indian area. The other areas, which are Elsies River, Ravensmead and the like, fall within the wider areas of the Coloured community. My question, then, to the hon the Minister is: How on earth can Cravenby Estate become—as, I suppose, is his ideology—a viable autonomous local authority?

I know he will raise the counter-argument that they are contiguous and he may turn round in his reply and say that we could attach Cravenby Estate to the municipality of Cape Town which is situated 25 kilometres away. Now one is going to take this little Indian area which is situated 25 kilometres away, and adjoining which are other juristic local authorities, and say: “I am now going to saw you up and put you with this local authority.”

I want to tell the hon the Minister that it is all very well to say these things theoretically, but then again it is clearly stated in the hon the Minister’s report that own affairs must not be extended artificially to include even to the smallest extent issues that also involve others.

Here is a community that is happy to be living there and it is time we started applying our minds pragmatically. What the people have been asking is why we cannot allow them to have direct representation and that Cravenby Estate be administered by Goodwood or Parow municipality.

Local areas are dormant sections with hardly any infrastructure such as industrial and business areas to speak of. They could never be self-supporting and it is naïve in the extreme to suggest that they should ever become autonomous local authorities. I am sure we have submitted to the hon the Minister that if one wants to make a local authority autonomous, that local authority in all honesty must have the infrastructure to support itself—irrespective of race or colour. We make these submissions to the hon the Minister, realising his difficulties and understanding them. The hon the Minister’s northern brothers are at his heels and we can see that. We realise what the hon the Minister has tried to do as far as constitutional development is concerned. We recognise the hon the Minister’s difficulties, but he should please recognise our difficulties.

We, too, have a constituency that we must answer to. How can our people go to the polls in October? What do we tell our people? Are we going to sell them local authorities on an own affairs basis? What do we tell them about areas like Cravenby Estate? I am sure there are many other areas like it throughout South Africa—for instance in the Transvaal and Natal. With areas like this, how does one explain to the people that they will actually be contiguous to other areas—yet they will be attached to a major local authority?

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

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

I thank the hon member. As things stand at the moment there have to be separate estimates for each such area. The property evaluations are different and the rate levies are different. The net result is that the property owner in a local area pays higher rates than the property owner of a comparable house in an adjoining municipal area. I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether it is fair, in spite of the higher rates, that the income of a local area is not sufficient to meet the expenditure. The own affairs administration is now required to make good the deficits. Clearly this is an intolerable situation. The entire Cape Peninsula needs to be looked at in an objective manner and a redivision of boundaries must be undertaken so that all local areas are incorporated in the areas of municipalities. I trust that the hon the Minister will give this matter his serious and urgent attention—not only in the Cape Peninsula, but all over South Africa where this type of imbalance exists.

While so much is being said about these local authorities, I believe the time has now come for the hon the Minister to make a clear statement. We need to recognise the fact that we cannot establish certain local authorities on an autonomous basis. That is a pipe dream. For 20 long years we have just been toying around and playing around. We cannot even acquire civic halls in our areas. We cannot even get the basic civic amenities for our areas. When I look at my area, Rylands Estate, I can tell the hon the Minister that since 1958 we have tapped every source from the local city council to the Administrator and the previous Minister of Indian Affairs—namely this hon Minister himself—and other hon Ministers who were Ministers of Indian Affairs. We also approached the hon the Minister of Community Development and the present hon the State President when he was Prime Minister. We went right up to the hon the State President.

We achieved nothing. We live in Rylands Estate. Very nice! The area was declared for Indian occupation in 1958. What do we have there? We have nothing as far as civic amenities are concerned. Up until today the answer is: No funds, no funds, no funds! They believe that somehow own affairs clearly means dumping people in their own areas. The White areas are the affluent areas where every kind of facility is provided. The time has come for us to be candid. The expenditure is high. To provide infrastructure is costly. People are being taxed and they believe that they are being fleeced.

We recognise the efforts the hon the Minister and his department, and the Government are making regarding constitutional development. I repeat: The hon the Minister has to please a certain portion of his constituents, but he must understand that we, too, have to answer to our constituents. We are caught between two fires. Whom do we please? What we have to address, is reality. Reality today demands that we cannot say that one can conduct local affairs in the way we have been conducting them for the past 20 years. That is nothing but a fictitious pipe dream. The sooner we come to that realization and the sooner the hon the Minister announces this, the sooner we will continue straight ahead and have a better percentage poll in the 26 October elections.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rylands spoke about the problems at local government level. He quite correctly said that we have had these problems for the past two decades or longer. Where does the problem lie? In my opinion the problem lies with the Group Areas Act. It is because of this Act that we find that in adjoining neighbourhoods, the one White and the other Indian or Coloured, the standard of services in the White area will be much higher than in the adjacent Indian or Coloured area. Unfortunately, the situation is such that because of the Group Areas Act, there are delays and there is a shortage of land which the Group Areas Act has imposed on our people. Over the years people of colour have been deprived of land in terms of the Group Areas Act. It has caused a shortage of land in areas which are not occupied by Whites, and therefore the values in our areas are higher and our rates are higher.

We have at present devolution of power at local government level. About 70 powers are being devolved. All these powers are meaningless, because, as far as I am concerned, what is important is that one must be present when the financial cake is cut. That is important. Power without financial muscle is meaningless power. I will not elaborate on this, because my time is limited.

I want to welcome the hon the Deputy Minister to this very interesting portfolio. It is a pity that the previous Deputy Minister is no longer with us, because after many years of association with him, we managed to convert him somewhat to our way of thinking. I do not expect that it will take us long to convert this hon Deputy Minister.

However, what we want to say is that we are opposed to the Group Areas Act in principle. There is no doubt about this fact. We in this House have repeatedly said that we are opposed to the Group Areas Act and all that it stands for. However, we are pragmatists and we realise that we need the Act in order to identify land and provide homes for our people. Without the Act, we cannot get homes. Without the Act, we cannot spend money on land proclaimed for Indian occupation. Without the Act, we cannot spend money on housing.

We need housing. There is a tremendous shortage of housing amongst our people in this country. What has happened, though? The machinery that is used to identify and proclaim scarce land, is far too clumsy. If it is not clumsy, there must be some other form of restriction in this whole system. To us it is important—and we are mindful of the fact that the hon the Minister is doing something about this—to place on record our concern. I wish to cite one instance.

Since early 1987 I have tried to get land in Lidgetton, a small place outside Howick. I have the correspondence right here. In Howick we have people living in wattle and daub houses. The recent floods have left people homeless. What is the problem there? The problem is that we have a shortage of land adjacent to Lidgetton. We have asked that they proclaim an area there. We have been asking that since early 1987. Up to the present moment we have not had any results. This is inhibiting our efforts. We have the money and infrastructure, but we do not have the land.

Over and above what the hon the Minister is doing, I believe more must be done. I am told—I am not sure whether this is correct—that the staff at our regional office in Pietermaritzburg is totally inadequate to meet the load they have to carry insofar as the identification of land in Natal is concerned. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister: If this is so, the problem of the staff shortage must be addressed urgently so that we can get the necessary land available for our needs.

We also have problems in connection with the proclamation of open central business districts. The very same problem exists in the CBDs. I think the hon member for Laudium is not quite right when he says that we do not have central business districts.

He was just using a bad example.

Yes. In Mooi River the whole of the central business district was proclaimed. In Colenso the same thing happened. The hon member is not quite correct and I have to rectify that in all fairness to the hon the Minister. I am also opposed to the identification of pockets of central business districts, and excluding portions of the central business districts.

I know from experience that prime central business districts are excluded from the opening of same. Trading areas which are not prime areas, are identified for opening up. I believe that the concept of open central business districts should be a simple one. All land proclaimed for commercial use, regardless of where it is, must be opened up for all race groups. That is what I believe. I do not believe that only pockets of trading areas should be opened for all race groups. I think we should rectify this as a matter of policy.

I briefly want to refer to the report. The annual report of the Department of Development Planning says the following on group areas on page 13:

This is simply not good enough. Areas were only proclaimed at Stanger, Tongaat and Umzinto while there is a shortage of land in the whole of Natal.

Fortunately for me, we have an enquiry at the moment in the area of Papkuilsfontein in Estcourt. I waited almost two years for this. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that the findings of this enquiry must not take another two years before they are made available. We want that land to be made available to us next month for housing. This is no joke—I am being very serious. The people have been at me for this land for years now and they say that we in the tricameral system are absolutely hopeless because we are not able to persuade the hon the Minister to make land available. The whole tricameral system will collapse because of this lack of land and the resultant shortage of housing. If we do not resolve the housing problem soon we will be in serious trouble.

I now come to the question of group areas permits. These are being handled by delegation by the provincial administration. There was a time when the predecessor of the hon the Deputy Minister handled permits. I want to say that as MPs we are able to reach across to one another …

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

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

Order! The time of the hon the Deputy Minister has been extended. He may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think these group areas permits must not be handled at provincial level because we have four provincial administrations and they administer this as they see fit. I recently read about the refusal of permits by a member of the Executive Committee of the Natal Provincial Administration. The provincial administration is an extension of Parliament and I believed that this member who was appointed by hon members of the House of Delegates would establish our norms and standards. What this House has said repeatedly over the years is that we are opposed to the Group Areas Act.

We believe that when permit applications are made for people other than Indians to occupy property in Indian areas or when permit applications are made for people other than Whites to occupy property in White areas—it does not matter whether they are on the boundaries, in the hinterland or wherever—these permits must be issued as a matter of course because of the principle of our being opposed to the Group Areas Act.

I find it regrettable that members who are responsible for us and who are nominated to Exco are acting against our wishes. I want to say to hon members who serve on the provincial councils that they must act according to our wishes which is to give permits to all people to live wherever they want to live.

I have a newspaper cutting here which is disquieting in the extreme. There is a photograph here of God’s beautiful children and they are Black and White. It states here that Whites in the area find it offensive to see Black and White children sitting next to each other in class, playing together and eating with each other during breaks.

What are you quoting from?

This is the Sunday Times of 17 April 1988. I say that this is hurtful. A management committee chairman, Mr Mario Milani, is quoted as saying:

The article then goes on to say:

Now is a situation inflammatory when children of colour go to school together? Children go to school regardless of the colour of their skins. They go to school together and have lunch together. Is that situation inflammatory in the eyes of the management committee of this town of Vereeniging?

What strikes me as being very pertinent here is that to me the name Mario Milani is not a name like Van Der Merwe, Botha, Heunis, Pillay or Naidoo. It indicates to me a name that is foreign to the South African tongue. This is what bedevils the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I do not say that this gentleman is a foreigner, but I have had experiences where South Africans of Afrikaner descent were quite happy to give their support to applications for permits for people of the Indian or Coloured community in a White area. However, in that same White neighbourhood one can get one person who is a foreigner who will object to the permit application.

I know if the hon the Minister implemented this permit application or if the hon the Deputy Minister was in charge of the issuing of these permit applications we would be able to talk to them here in Parliament and persuade them to disregard the view of these people who come from overseas, and bedevil our good relations in this country. I know for a fact—and I will give the hon the Minister the facts—that there are cases where Afrikaners gave support to an application for Indians to live in a White area, but because of one foreigner who had no good reason whatsoever to object, the permit application was rejected because his opinion was upheld. This is why I say that the delegated power of issuing permits through the provincial authorities must be withdrawn. Let us do that which is necessary here in Parliament in order to ensure that for as long as this Act is on the Statute Book it will be implemented fairly and justly. We can only do that if this delegated authority is taken away from the province.

I do not know what the end result of this shameful Act is going to be. However, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to let these poor children suffer. Let these children be. They are doing no harm to anybody in this beautiful South Africa of ours. I know the name of a very prominent politician is mentioned here somewhere. He has threatened to stand for the Parliamentary election here and as the hon member for Rylands has said, we also have a constituency and it is important to our constituency as well that this type of action by bigots and racists should not be allowed to cloud the good relations that still exist amongst South Africans. This will have the effect of doing harm to the good relations which we all are working towards.

There is one point I cannot fail to make before I resume my seat. I have said this before, and it has not met with much support from my colleague the hon the Minister. I want to say that with reference to this vacancy on Exco for a Black member, it is long past time for this vacancy to be filled. I make this plea in all sincerity. We have representatives of Black people in other provinces at the second-tier level of government. I can really see no reason why the people outside KwaZulu in Natal—there are millions of them—should be deprived of representation at second-tier level. My appeal is that this anomaly be rectified, and rectified as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, if there is any department in the South African Government that has to work dynamically, it is this department. I am not guessing when I say that on the kind of vision and goals set by the hon the Minister and his worthy Deputy Minister in resolving the extremely important and significant constitutional problems—if I may call them that—the future welfare of this country depends. Of course, wherever there are people, there are problems; even where the people are of a homogeneous nature. However, one can understand that in South Africa, with its complexity of different races as well as attitudes, languages and religions, one may expect problems. Therefore, when I say that dynamism, vision and extremely pragmatic goals are necessary, one can understand the challenge. I am not undermining the hon the Minister and his Deputy, nor am I undermining the department. However, much remains to be done and I think that the majority of people in this country are certainly becoming impatient with the slow pace with which the—shall I say—machinery of constitutional planning and development is moving.

I know that there are certain visions of the future. Probably these visions have not been adequately or conclusively finalised, but there is a need to go ahead and get something achieved, since what I think has caused this country a tremendous amount of pain and suffering is delay. I sometimes feel that the White governing party is relying too much on its armaments and military strength and taking things somewhat easy. However, the Afrikaner community is a God-fearing community. Let them not lose sight of the fact that it is the Maker of all things who will finally decide on destiny, so let us play our games right.

The NP has now reached a crucial stage; it has forces pulling it from both sides—some to the left and some to the right. In this regard it is necessary for it to keep its balance and to continue with the reforms on realistic lines. I am not attaching all the blame to the present Government, but it must be admitted by all right-thinking people that certain blunders have been made in the past. It is unfortunate. I want to come back to the Group Areas Act because I have something to say about it.

There is an urgent need to give representation to the country’s Blacks at the highest decisionmaking level. No one can deny that. Let us not wait for that utopian day when we get everything right; we must start somewhere, and I think the Black people in this country must accept that. The White people in this country must also accept that. Perfection is not attained in one day, but we must start somewhere. However, we must start in the right direction and I think that if the various race groups extend the hand of goodwill and accept one another, the ultimate result will take care of itself.

If one puts a little seed into the ground and one provides it with the necessary moisture, sunlight and fertiliser, that plant will ultimately grow into a healthy plant. Therefore, given the correct beginnings, I think the end result will take care of itself.

As regards the question of affording Black people representation at the highest decision-making level, I want to make reference to the federal system of Parliament in South Africa, to which the hon the State President rightly made reference recently. There is merit in this system. No one, from the ANC to the AWB, must shoot down the system. It may not be the ideal but it is realistic in the South African situation. The Government must move on in the implementation of this system. This is what is at issue.

We were very worried a few years before the tricameral Parliament came into being. The Coloured and Indian communities did not accept the Constitution. However, by virtue of incremental changes and some improvement, here we are today, and I cannot see the Black people acting totally differently. They have had their set-backs in this regard in the sense that they have had tremendous trepidation with regard to the sincerity of the White Government in the past. I feel assured that if this beginning is made, the Black people will come forward. We may not be able to get all the authentic leaders to begin with, but a start has to be made. Not all authentic Black leaders may support this system but provided the system is made to work and justice and goodwill prevail, it will gain support as we go along.

The Group Areas Act has no doubt been an obnoxious Act. Let us admit that. I am happy that many White people readily accept that fact. However, what has it done? It has made strangers of us. It has made us hostile towards one another. It has made enemies of the people in the same land. It is unfortunate.

This artificial division of the common citizens is the greatest blunder of past governments. Without it, by and large, people would practice natural segregation. Even if we did not have the Group Areas Act people with certain commonalities on the basis of ethics, culture, religion and language would remain separate. However, to impose a rigid legislative process on the people is certainly objectionable. Such an imposition of legislated separation will only breed hostility, and this is what I want to tell my hon friends. This is my fear, namely that instead of one race getting together with another and developing mutual respect and understanding, through separation we have made them hotbeds for the breeding of contempt, dislike and eventually, confrontation. South Africa cannot keep this Group Areas Act monster. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Cavendish made the point and certainly argued that the Government should be creating the correct climate in order to negotiate with, what he called, credible Black leaders. There is no question about the fact that we agree with the hon member in that regard. The hon the Minister should in fact set about creating the correct climate for negotiations with Black leaders.

I, too, would like to welcome the hon the Deputy Minister to this House. I believe this is his first debate in this House under his new portfolio. Like his previous portfolio of Law and Order, this is also a pretty contentious one. We wish him well in that regard. We would like to assure him that he will have our co-operation, provided of course that he is amenable to reason.

Don’t worry, we are very amenable.

My benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, made mention of the fact that it was ironic that we, as Indian members of this Indian Chamber of Parliament, had to raise contentious and important issues affecting Black communities, when in fact members of the Black community should have been here in Parliament to argue these for themselves. It is also ironic that I now stand up to raise two or three issues which affect Black people.

The first issue is the question of Black pensions. The hon the Minister knows very well that at some time in February 1986 this whole issue of Black pensions was fully canvassed and debated. I am not arguing about the criteria that are applied when Black pensions are granted. We all know that those criteria are wrong and that there should be a single criterion for Black, White, Coloured and Indian pensioners. However, I am not talking about that at this stage. I wish to address the practical reality of payments of pensions to Black people. As the hon the Minister knows, Black pensions are paid every two months, whereas pensions payable to other sections of the community are paid on a monthly basis. Secondly, unlike other pensioners, Black pensioners have to queue up at particular points every two months in order to collect their pensions. This has given rise to a great amount of concern and it has also given rise to a situation where unruly elements or tsotsi elements prey on these pensioners.

I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to tell the hon the Minister that he should consider very seriously instituting the same kind of conditions that apply for the payment of the other pensioners. The hon the Minister could, for instance, make it possible for pensions to be transferred to a building society account so that pensioners could go there whenever they wish to. Today, as the hon the Minister knows, Black people use the facility of building societies and it does not cost them any money. It gives them an afforded protection in that regard and I would plead with the hon the Minister in that regard.

Even if it is Saambou.

As the hon member for Reservoir Hills has just said, even if it is Saambou. Of course, I would say perhaps even if it is the New Republic Bank. [Interjections.]

The other issue I wish to take up with the hon the Minister concerns the division of own affairs and general affairs. As the hon the Minister knows very well, he was the architect behind the Constitution. I am surprised that when we have problems concerning the Constitution people do not go running to him immediately. Nevertheless, that is another issue.

What I want to talk about this afternoon is the whole question of own affairs and general affairs and the fact that the Constitution gives the power to the hon the State President to decide what is own affairs and what is general affairs. Sometimes one cynically says that the hon the State President has the ‘divine wisdom’ to decide that.

When one looks at universities, one appreciates very well how ridiculous the situation is. Today universities very freely admit members of all sections of the community. This is how it should be. Thus, for example, the University of Durban-Westville today has something like 20% Black students, and is controlled by our hon Minister of Education and Culture. I say that the time has now come to place university education under the control of a general affairs Minister. I believe the time is long past that we can leave universities under own affairs Administrations.

Another issue I wish to raise concerns the situation in KwaNdebele. It has been said that crazy constitutions breed crazy politics. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what he intends to do in that regard.

The reverse is also true.

The hon the Minister says that the reverse is also true. I must agree with him, but the fact of the matter remains that it is because of the crazy situation that obtains in this country that we have the crazy situation in KwaNdebele. The hon the Minister shakes his head, but he knows very well that the Appeal Court has set aside the entire working, in a sense, of that country’s governing institution. It is now subject to appeal. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what will happen in the meantime. Do the present 16 members of that legislative assembly continue to hold office? Does the Chief Minister, Minister Umhlangu, continue to hold office? And by what legal force does he do that?

Whilst I am on my feet, I would also like to raise the whole issue of Moutse. Despite the fact that an appeal court has upheld the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Moutse, the hon the Minister now wishes to go ahead with his consolidation plan and to annex this and hand it over to KwaNdebele as well. I want to ask the hon the Minister: Does he wish to ride roughshod over the wishes, not only of the people of Moutse, but also over a decision of the Appeal Court? In this regard one can also cynically say that the Government, to which the hon the Minister belongs, has had a history of riding roughshod over the decisions of appeal courts. One merely has to look at the constitutional crisis of the fifties regarding the Coloured people and other such issues.

I would therefore like to take the opportunity this afternoon to ask the hon the Minister whether he in fact wishes to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people of Moutse and to go ahead with the incorporation of Moutse in KwaNdebele, taking into account that it will be giving a small handful of people there a semblance of sovereignty when they in fact do not satisfy the requirements that are laid down. Can the hon the Minister say to me that that little sovereign state he wishes to create would be independent? Does he wish to tell this House that it can function as any sovereign state would? Can he assure this House that once he has given them sovereign status, they will be recognised by the international community? Obviously not. I would therefore say to the hon the Minister that he must tread very carefully in that regard. I know he has given assurances, but I would still recommend to the hon the Minister that he should tread very, very carefully in that regard.

Finally, I would also like to reiterate what was said earlier on in this debate by my benchmate … [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, unlike the hon member for Springfield, I will not be touching on national issues. Unfortunately my time is limited, and I am also limited health-wise today. I want to remind the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning of a discussion we had in his office in Pretoria some time in 1985. The hon member for Boksburg was also present at that meeting. The hon the Minister used words to the effect that he was surprised that the land issue for the East Rand, and Actonville in particular, had not been resolved. This is something that has been carrying on ever since the time he paid a visit to Actonville as Minister of Indian Affairs.

Unfortunately very little has happened since then, except that Villa Lisa has been proclaimed. However, I want to tell the hon the Minister that Villa Lisa on its own, without Windmill Park, is not viable. I think anybody with sound reasoning and a sense of understanding will concede this.

Or a sense of fair play!

Or a sense of fair play, too. I do not believe the hon the Minister is unjust. I am going to be guided by what he said to us in his office in Pretoria. I am pretty certain that, during the course of this debate, he will have some good news for us regarding Windmill Park.

Previously the argument was that the Government’s hands were tied. It was said that the local municipalities were not playing ball. We all remember the case in point when the Brakpan municipality refused to budge where Leachville and Larrendale were concerned. We could not get the land that was lying dormant for years. I predict that that land will remain dormant for the next 50 years. Eventually they will have to look at the Indian community as saviours if the Group Areas Act is still in existence.

As has been said by previous speakers, we do not agree with the Group Areas Act. Unfortunately, whilst it is on the Statute Book, we have to work within the parameters of this Act. It is within the framework of this Act that we are asking the hon the Minister to look at Windmill Park favourably.

Previously we have heard about “separate and equal” and “separate, but equal”. As I said in Pretoria last week, “separate” has remained—we have seen it—but “equal” has gone by the board. As far as Windmill Park is concerned, the Boksburg municipality last week resolved overwhelmingly to recommend that Windmill Park be proclaimed an Indian area. I am sure both the hon the Minister and his hon the Deputy Minister are aware of this development. At the moment Windmill Park is a controlled area, so I cannot see why there should be any difficulty.

Because of the shortage of land and the lack of housing, we have the situation in Benoni where approximately 40 families are facing prosecution for living in a block of flats, called Springbok Flats. This has never been heard of before in Benoni. However, the people in Benoni have been forced into this situation. I implore the hon the Minister to ensure that no prosecutions take place, because there is no alternative accommodation. Judging from a statement issued by the hon the Minister of Housing, houses in Villa Lisa will only be available as from December 1989. The land is still barren at the moment. Windmill Park, however, will be able to afford immediate relief to the people of Actonville.

I do not believe one has to talk very strongly or very loudly to this hon Minister. As I have said earlier, I have the highest regard for him. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this hon Minister is directly responsible for the Group Areas Act and many other pieces of legislation. There was an interesting article in The Daily News of 31 May 1988 with regard to the Empangeni experiment. I quote as follows:

The Group Areas Act stops this kind of thing where there is a healthy interracial relationship between communities. Perhaps the hon the Minister will take the time to read that particular article.

I now want to come to some parochial issues. The hon the Minister is fully aware that I serve on the national ad hoc committee and I am a seconded member to the co-ordinating council. For years now we have been trying to address a single issue which was also raised at the provincial hearing in Pretoria last week. It concerns the unification of Lenasia. For the record I have to illustrate once again the artificial division that the Group Areas Act has caused in Lenasia.

Extensions 1 to 7 in Lenasia fall under the jurisdiction of the Johannesburg City Council. Extensions 7 up to Grasmere fell under the peri-urban board which has been abolished so that they now fall under the jurisdiction of the House of Delegates. The residents of those areas in effect have three different bosses to whom they are answerable, namely the Johannesburg City Council, the peri-urban board and the House of Delegates. I mentioned in the debate some time ago the discrepancies that exist where there is an artificial line separating the people of the different local authorities.

It has been argued that funds are required. Those funds must be provided by somebody. I sincerely believe that those funds must come from the central Government because it is the central Government that has placed our people in that area called Lenasia some 30-odd kilometres from the centre of Johannesburg.

Unless some tangible arrangement is made to provide those funds to the Johannesburg City Council to take over the entire area of Lenasia we shall not see light at the end of the tunnel. The Johannesburg City Council is prepared to take over a portion of Lenasia on an agency basis and that is a rip-off situation because it will be at liberty to pick and choose the areas that are fully serviced and it will not take the areas that are developing into consideration. Therefore as a member of the Management Committee of the Lenasia South-East area, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that something be done about this unification. We have been fighting about this unification for many years because it is dividing our society.

One cannot explain this to the residents of the area, but as I said earlier on, in one section of Lenasia, if somebody dies, one pays R80 for burial charges, but across the road if a person dies, the cost is R800.

Cross the street before you die! [Interjections.]

This particular problem is making liars of our people because no one in the Lenasia South-East area seems to be dying! They all give an address on the other side of the street. It is this particular problem that is causing our people to lie to the authorities and say that they are dying on that side of Lenasia and not on the other side. [Interjections.] For how long are we going to tolerate this kind of situation?

This is a sensitive issue. We have had meetings with the hon the Minister previously and I hope he is going to address himself to this issue. I firmly believe that money for the unification of Lenasia must come from the central Government, because ours is not a situation where we can live in an area of our choice. We are being forced to live over there by virtue of legislation on the Statute Book that has been described as obnoxious, hated, abhorrent and so forth.

Another issue I want to address myself to is the status of management and local affairs members. The status of aidermen and so forth is conferred upon members of management and local affairs committees. We have the case where members serving on the White city council bear the title of aiderman. This is normally used when functions are held in terms of protocol where the mayor enters and the aiderman follow him. However, members of Coloured, Indian and White management committees are normally the last although they may have served for 20 years on a particular local affairs committee. I think consideration must be given to the fact that members of the local affairs committees should also be considered for such status.

With regard to the payment of allowances for councillors in the Transvaal I want to say that speaking as the Chairman of the Liaison Committee of the Transvaal Association of Management Committees we know that certain local authorities are paying local councillors, LACs and management committees equally. However, there are certain local authorities that do not want to implement this parity which has been agreed upon at the co-ordinating council meeting.

The policy of the hon the Minister and the NP Government is to have autonomous local authorities for racially segregated groups in South Africa. As far as we are concerned, autonomous areas are totally opposed not only by us, but also by the communities because they lack the financial base and it must be the choice of the people. However, on the other side of the coin we have areas such as Ennerdale which want to opt for autonomy, but we have the other House of Parliament and the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in that House does not subscribe to autonomy and therefore does not want Ennerdale to become autonomous. However, the community in Ennerdale and the local management committee want autonomy. I would like the hon the Minister to address that particular issue.

Last year I asked the hon the Minister about the Wheeler’s Farm and the Vlakfontein squatter problem and I would like to ask him about that again. At that time he asked me when last I saw it and when I replied I had seen it a week ago he told me to go back and see. I saw it through my window again yesterday.

We have a new settlement called Sweet Waters half a kilometre from there. The irony is when I ask for a structure like the Grasmere Plaza Tollgate to be moved 250 metres, nobody is prepared to move it, but we have squatter settlements springing up right along there and we are going to have another Crossroads situation. Vlakfontein is growing. With regard to Wheeler’s Farm I must admit a portion of that has been moved to Wildebeesfontein. Near Everton we have Sweet Waters, which is growing, and Grasmere. As a result the Indian community, the White community and the Black community in the area are not able to live under those conditions. I hope the hon the Minister will address himself to that issue. My time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by saying that the hon the Minister will know that some of us have made tremendous sacrifices with regard to ourselves and our political beliefs by opting for participation in a system for which we were not totally responsible.

We have also made tremendous sacrifices over the years in an effort to bring people together. We have adopted a moderate attitude and a moderate approach in the hope that we can have stability and peace here in South Africa. We realised that initially there would be a difficult path for us to tread. We realised—our eyes have been wide open—that one would have to make certain sacrifices for the sake of peace. However, I want to say that sacrifices are not going to be one-sided; they ought not to be. I believe that if we want to see peace and stability in this country then the Government and the hon the Minister’s department in particular will have to respond in a more positive way to moderates in South Africa, and not be strait-jacketed within a party-political ideology.

It is evident that what is happening at the moment with regard to the various pieces of legislation which are coming through—even with regard to the National Council Bill—is that everything is being seen through one perspective, namely the perspective of the Government itself. Hence the resistance and so on. I am going to cite a few examples of what I am saying and I want to begin with the local government scene. I have always spoken about that subject because I know the subject matter well.

I have been saying to the hon the Minister for the last four years that we in Stanger have tried very hard to get people together regardless of colour. We have achieved a certain measure of success in that particular regard. Some of us have made tremendous efforts to achieve that success. Unfortunately, however, our efforts seem to be in vain, not because of our local situation but because of what happens at the central level.

For the record, I want to read what was agreed upon among the local leadership. This was way back in 1986, and ever since then we have been trying to get the Government to take positive steps to accommodate the situation. I quote from the Declaration of Intent:

I emphasise the words “our town”, Mr Chairman. This was signed in 1986 by the Mayor of Stanger, the Chairman of the Indian Local Affairs Committee of Stanger and also the representative of Shakaville, the Black area contiguous to Stanger, the Rev Mashiayana, and by Mr Desmond Goodwin, the Chairman of the Coloured Local Affairs Committee.

We have been trying ever since to get the hon the Minister to respond in regard to this particular matter and to make it constitutionally possible for us at a local level to come together and work together in a type of arrangement that would be best suited to all the citizens of Stanger. At a very local and primary level this was called the “Stanger Indaba”. However we saw this as an opportunity, where there is goodwill amongst people, to come together and work together.

I stand here today extremely disappointed, in that after all the sacrifices I have made over the years in that particular area where I come from, I should receive a letter today from the hon the Minister. What is emphasised in this letter? I want hon members to listen to this. I quote as follows:

I note the words “at present”—

I referred to this when we were discussing the regional services councils. I referred to those guidelines and I warned hon members then that those guidelines meant autonomy, but hon members elected to contradict me. However, the truth is out. It goes on to say:

That is also questionable; namely whether we have much say over own affairs, when one considers what happens in this House. The letter goes on to say:

I should like to take the last paragraph. I am prepared to be patient. I have been patient. I am prepared to do so, but if the people at local government level want to have power-sharing, why must it be within the parameters prescribed by central Government? Why not give the local people in that area an opportunity to prescribe their own parameters? If they can find one another, why go and impose other structures upon them? My appeal to the hon the Minister is that this would have been a forerunner to progress and reform in the right direction, starting at the primary level. If this is the way the Government is going to react to positive suggestions, I myself will have to very, very seriously reconsider whether I am making any progress here because I am not here to delude my community. I am not here for patronage, and I want to make that very clear.

A great deal is being said about the October elections. They are very important in South Africa. These are local government elections. Of what importance are they to people of colour if they are still going to be saddled with the local affairs committee system, which is not acceptable to them? Is it indicative of reform that after four years of participation in the tricameral system, we are going to go back to vote in October and participate in a local government structure at that level, a structure which has been rejected by the people? I want to say that that is not reform. The October elections mean a great deal to one population group in South Africa but they do not mean the same to all the people of South Africa, and this is what the hon the Minister must understand. We are once again being used in White politics for the purposes of the promotion of certain interests and we cannot allow this “Swart gevaar” syndrome to continue.

I believe that by procrastinating and not allowing integration to take place, we are allowing those people who want to indulge in “Swart gevaar” tactics to get the better of the existing Government in this country. I therefore believe the hon the Minister needs to review and reconsider what he said to us, otherwise there will be far-reaching consequences and repercussions if the hon the Minister is going to remain adamant and insist on having local government structures based purely on racial considerations.

I believe the hon the Minister should know that in 1974 I personally went to the people in my area and advocated the hon the Minister’s own policy of a separate area for the Indian sector of that town. We held no fewer than three or four public meetings in that regard and decisions at each one of those public meetings were unanimous. What is more, they were not only attended by the members of one particular population group; they were attended by the people of that town. They were unanimous …

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

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

Order! The hon member for Stanger may proceed.

I am indebted to the hon Whip on the other side of the House, Mr Chairman. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we canvassed this in 1974. Does the hon the Minister expect me now, in 1988, to go back to the people and tell them exactly what the situation was in 1974, and expect them to accept that? We did it in a sensible way. We held public meetings. In fact, we appointed a committee to investigate the feasibility or otherwise of accepting autonomy for that particular area.

In fact there was a high-powered committee of which the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture was a part in 1974, if he will remember. He sat on that committee and the whole issue was examined from three points of view, economic viability, practicability and desirability. As regards economic viability it may just favour one particular group in that particular town, but there are other people there. I said to the council and LAC members not so long ago when we met that we did not want to impose upon other race groups what we had suffered. It is as simple as that. Therefore economic viability might favour the Indian community to some extent, but we are not looking for that type of solution. However, from a practical point of view, in respect of surface area, regional services and other services would seem impossible and impracticable to be divided along racial lines. As far as desirability is concerned, that depends on what the people themselves require. Let us then ask the people there and if they want that, why then must central Government impose its own will? I cite the case of one specific town because what applies to it, goes for the other towns as well. Why should just one race group impose a particular measure?

Today the whole thing is taken to a ridiculous extent. Take the so-called pensions for councillors and their remuneration. I see an absurd situation and I would like the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture to answer at some stage or other as to whether, in fact, he was party to the grading of local affairs committees at different levels for the purpose of determining pensions and remuneration. I believed back then as I believe now that the members of LACs should in the interim be equal in status and remuneration to the council to which they belong and to which they have been forced to be appendages. They should be no less and no more. The idealistic move towards a non-racial structure or a multiracial structure by negotiation is …

Direct representation.

Yes, direct representation. Let us look a little further. If that is the problem at local level, the hon the Minister must understand that this problem then manifests itself at national level. Hence, because of the frustration at that level, we find that all these other exercises at the national level—like the National Council Bill etc—suffer, because people are suspicious and have no trust. Therefore they do not want to participate. If people have stability etc, at local level, that will also lend credibility to the Government. I believe in the idea of having a national council or national indaba. I welcome this. One welcomes any form of national conference for the purpose of formulating a new constitution acceptable to the people of South Africa. However, at the same time I want to state quite categorically that one cannot have this taking place where it is perceived to be prescribed.

If we really want to see success in the future of this country, I believe we should get rid of violence. There is no point in saying that people should forswear violence in one breath and in the next we set out parameters within which people or their representatives are told to function. While the Government is hell-bent on saying that there is such a thing as group identity, I should be able to decide for myself whether I want to be identified as part of an Indian group or not, or as part of all the Indians of South Africa or not. Let me make that decision. Nobody else must decide for me and say: You are an Indian; you belong to the Xhosa group; you are a Tswana, etc.

I believe that this Government must become the caretaker government. Even the Government believes that there are groups in South Africa. Let those groups be given the opportunity of electing their representatives across the board on one day. Those people who are elected should then attend a forum where together, by consensus, it should be decided what will be the best constitutional model for South Africa. Whether groups must be entrenched or not—let them decide. Let us not be prescribed to by this one particular race group in South Africa if we want to make progress in this country and if we want the international community to recognise us.

Mr Chairman, first of all I would like to thank those hon members who referred to the fact that I am standing here for the first time in this capacity, taking part in the debate on this Budget Vote. I thank hon members for that. I must say that it is indeed an honour to participate in this debate. I hope it will not be the last time. It is also indeed an honour to work together with the hon the Minister in this regard.

Many speakers have referred to the question of the Group Areas Act and matters related to that. I am not going to speak only about that this afternoon, because I believe there will be opportunities later during the session or on another occasion when I can express myself clearly on the subject. However, I just want to say in general, as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned—and many speakers have referred to this—that I can understand the sensitivity about the subject in the Indian community. That is very clear. I have had dealings with members of the Indian community in the Johannesburg area on many occasions as far as my constituency interests are concerned and I must tell hon members that I have understanding and appreciation for their sensitivity. For that reason, I will try to deal with this with the same kind of sensitivity.

However, I must also tell hon members that whilst this is the case, members from the Indian, White and Black communities in South Africa also have to look at the whole question of social order with the greatest degree of sensitivity. Otherwise, it might well be that South Africa might end up in social disorder. For that reason we have to attend to it in a very sensitive and very serious manner to ensure that we uphold standards and living conditions in South Africa which we would all like to achieve and uphold.

I think from the side of the Government we have a responsibility to all sectors and all communities to uphold those standards and living conditions and to make sure that the standards that have been achieved in the past and are part of our history do not deteriorate through developments that may take place in various communities in South Africa. For that reason I would like to argue that whenever we look at this, we have to take into account and be sensitive about the requirements of our various communities in South Africa.

Of course, when we look at the whole concept of the Group Areas Act, we must bear in mind that the question is also very much related to the urbanisation which is presently taking place in South Africa. South Africa is going through a phase of urbanisation and we are experiencing it on a very broad basis at the moment. When we deal with a matter like this, we have to see it, as far as I am concerned, in the broader context of urbanisation and the requirements and the needs of our various communities. If we address it in this way, I believe we have to be very careful and sensitive about it.

Housing is important. As hon members know, the Government has opted for a policy of positive, constructive urbanisation and what we have achieved in this regard over the last couple of years is, I believe, quite significant. It is our aim to ensure that every family has the ability to acquire a home and through that to ensure that we can uphold economic stability and security. We have, through the policy of urbanisation, succeeded in facilitating the identification and acquisition of land and I believe the accelerated pace at which this is taking place is significant.

In that regard I would like to refer to the fact that many speakers have made mention of the fact that the identification and acquisition process take too long. That is true. Unfortunately it cannot be avoided. This process does take some time, because we have to consult with various bodies and institutions when we deal with this. We would like to expedite the process wherever it is possible to ensure that land is being allocated as soon as possible and I want to assure members that we do our utmost.

As far as permits are concerned, I would like to refer to what hon members have said in that regard. The issuing of permits has been delegated to the provincial authorities and that means that we should not actually consider that subject here this afternoon. However, what is important in that regard is that the authority has been delegated to ensure that we get the decision at a level which is closer to the people. This is necessary and for that reason the delegated authority that has been given to the provincial authorities was the correct one.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has referred to the price of land. I would like to confirm what he said in that regard. He is correct in stating that the price of land has to be considered very carefully. Of course, that applies to all communities. It has been brought to my notice that in the case of a certain piece of land that was recently acquired for the expansion of a Black township in Natal, an amount of R50 000 per hectare was paid to the Indian owner. I think what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said in this regard, would apply equally to all communities in South Africa.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs made mention of Lidgetton. I would like to tell him that preliminary investigations have taken place. The findings were reported to the department at the beginning of April this year and the advertisement will soon be published. The Group Areas Board will be instructed to investigate the matter, and the recommendations will follow. We will ask the Group Areas Board to expedite this matter as far as possible.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has mentioned that the price of land paid to an Indian owner was R50 000 per hectare. Was that vacant land?

Sir, I do not have all the particulars at the moment. The point that I made was that that land was acquired for the expansion of a Black township. That has taken place. It was a small piece of land.

Mr Chairman, I have something to say arising from that. I do not think it is fair that the hon the Deputy Minister states in this House that land was expropriated from an Indian at R50 000 per hectare, because that creates a very distorted picture.

I have referred to this particular example in addition to the point made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in regard to the price of land and the fact that we should ensure that speculation, amongst other things, should not make it impossible for us to provide housing and to expedite the process of township development.

I now come to the matter of housing on the East Rand. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member Mr Seedat both referred to the need for housing on the East Rand. I agree that it is true and that we need more land for accommodation on the East Rand. I recently paid my first visit to Actonville and I must admit that it is very clear that we need a definite expansion of housing for the Indian community on the East Rand. In this regard I want to confirm that Villa Lisa have recently been proclaimed an Indian area. The land there will be sufficient to accommodate a population of at least 45 000 people. This will help to meet the needs of the Indian community on the East Rand. The proclamation of Villa Lisa as a township is in its final stages and we can look forward to the completion of that process in the near future. Apart from Villa Lisa we already have fully serviced stands in the township of Palm Ridge and this also helps to meet the requirements of the people of the East Rand.

The hon member Mr Seedat referred to Windmill Park. I want to inform the hon member that there is a certain controversy concerning Windmill Park at the moment and I think we will have to deal with it very carefully. Various factors have to be taken into account. The hon member referred to the decision by the Boksburg municipality. In this regard I have to say that I received a letter from the Boksburg municipality which only reflects their denial of opposition to Windmill Park becoming an Indian area, but nothing more than that.

I would also like to react to what the hon member for Lenasia Central said in regard to squatting on Wheeler’s Farm and the adjacent areas. The matter was considered at the meeting of the provincial committee in Pretoria last week. In addition to what might have been said there I want to confirm that certain steps have been taken and will be taken in future as far as this matter is concerned. I believe the provincial administration of the Transvaal is in control of the situation. It is also very important that attention be given to the squatting that is taking place on the adjacent areas of Lenasia South and Ennerdale. I would like to ask the administrations concerned to take care of their responsibility regarding the squatters in these areas.

It is a matter of great concern to the local communities in that area and for that reason we have to provide a process of constructive and orderly urbanisation in order to ensure that these conditions do not develop in future.

As far as free trading areas are concerned—the matter has been raised by one or two members—I want to point out that 145 applications have been received since the first application was received three years ago. Out of these 145 applications, 68 have already been finalised, 29 are in the process of being advertised for investigations by the Group Areas Board, and 48 are being considered and prepared for proclamation at the moment. The majority of the 48 cases will be finalised before the end of this year.

I think it is important to emphasise that this principle should also be extended to Coloured, Indian and Black business areas. Provision is already made for this in the case of Coloured and Indian business areas, but it should also be extended to the Black townships.

In conclusion I want to thank hon members once again for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am looking forward to working together with hon members in my official capacity in this portfolio. I thank you.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to extend a warm welcome to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This is his first visit to this House and I hope we shall see him here often.

As long as the Group Areas Act remains on our Statute Book, apartheid will be as alive as the sun which rises every day, and reform will remain very much in darkness. The harm which the Group Areas Act has done to the Indian community is shameful and incomprehensible.

In my constituency, Actonville, Benoni and in the neighbouring towns no land has been made available to my community during the past decade. As a result of frustration and in order to have a roof over their heads, our people occupied vacant houses and flats in the White area. They could not do otherwise because there was no alternative. The White owners who suffered losses for years, due to the fact that there were no tenants in that area, now have a high income out of the rentals paid by the Indian tenants. Now that members of the Indian community are occupying these premises, eviction notices are being issued to them. These evictions by this hon Minister’s department are a shame, because the people concerned cannot acquire a square inch of land in their own area. I now want to ask the new hon Minister and the Deputy Minister: Is this fair or unfair? What can be more unfair? Will this not have a detrimental effect on the hon the Minister’s department?

I am pleading for those notices to be withdrawn immediately, because these people have no alternative accommodation. The availability of land for the Indian community plays a big role in politics.

†To please the White rightwingers, the department will withhold and will stall indefinitely the allocation of land which is urgently required and which in the eyes of the world is most suitable for the Indian community—although the Whites do not require that land. As against the pleas made by the Indian members of Parliament and the recommendations by Indian Ministers, if a White member of Parliament comes up with a suggestion then this suggestion is immediately taken up and attended to.

There is land in Benoni that will not be occupied by the White community for the next 50 years. This land is ideally situated in close proximity to the Indian area of Actonville. However, for no reason whatsoever, save to appease the CP-orientated Whites, the hon the Minister’s department informs me in writing in no uncertain terms that this area is not negotiable since it is exclusively for the White group. This group has shown no interest in this land for the past number of decades.

I have just heard the hon the Deputy Minister say that investigations take a long time and that unfortunately this cannot be avoided; we have to go through this process. Mr Chairman, show me one White area in which investigations have taken such a long time? Why is it that when an Indian area comes up for investigation, it takes so long? As far as Villa Lisa is concerned, it has taken four years, and only now has it been proclaimed. Had houses been built four years ago there, we would have had our houses 60% cheaper than they are going to cost us today. Who suffers? It is the Indian community, not the White community. The White community has 58 000 homes lying idle and vacant, whereas the Indian community is land-hungry, house-hungry, they lack a roof over their heads, they live in outhouses, garages, caravans and places of that nature.

The hon the Deputy Minister told me about Palm Ridge. Palm Ridge is a God-forsaken piece of land. The Indian community has been cast out miles away in terms of the policy of the Germiston City Council to get the Black people out of the town. They have been cast out 32 kilometres, whereas previously they were two kilometres away. The hon the Deputy Minister should go to Palm Ridge and see; the residents of Palm Ridge cannot buy a loaf of bread or a pint of milk. Those are the conditions at Palm Ridge. I wish to say that when Villa Lisa is established there is going to be an exodus from Palm Ridge; the writing is on the wall.

I wish to say that I have been in the Free State. People have been invited to the Free State. The Free State used to be a land that we could not set foot in; we could not even urinate there! [Interjections.] Today we have more than a hundred families living there. In Bloemfontein itself there are 22 shops in the Plaza there, all owned by the Indian community, who are giving service to the community. The community of the Free State are very well pleased with the Indian community. The attitude I encountered there was one of: “Hoekom het julle nie lankal hiernatoe gekom nie—ons soek julle al lankal!” That is the attitude.

However, now that the community is there, they have been asking for permits. Permits are being stalled. They have to go and get consent from 10 of the occupants on both sides. They all have to be happy to allow them there. It takes years before they can get a permit. What happens is that when someone applies for a permit he has to pay rental for that place, and until the permit is granted he cannot occupy the land or the house and he is paying the rent for nothing. This is an unnecessary waste of money. These people are just establishing themselves and they need money for their businesses. How are they going to live there?

There are 35 school-going children in Bloemfontein, but because there is no school accommodation, these children are roaming the streets. There are two White schools that are prepared to give accommodation to these children, but they are unable to obtain permits because of the Group Areas Act. Do we have education which is White in colour, Black in colour and Indian in colour? I do not know whether Indian education only teaches children how to mix chillies with ginger while White education only teaches children to mix “pap” with “vleis” and I do not know what else. I do not see anything like that.

A very interesting thing happened when I was in Bloemfontein last week. That very day, when we were attending a meeting, the CPs walked out of that meeting and the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon Dr Hartzenberg, made a certain statement.

*He said: “Power-sharing has not been successful anywhere in the world.” In reply to that I said: “Sir, one very clear example is that the most hostile communities, the English and the Afrikaners, have made a great success of South Africa by sharing power.”

†That is not all, however. The CP came to the Free State to hold a private meeting with State money. There is a building in Bloemfontein called the Maitland Centre, where the Indian community occupies flats, and what happened that night was that they posted a large placard there. The security people only gave me a photostat copy of it, and here it is. This appeared in an enlarged form, and if hon members would like me to read it, I shall do so. It says: “Koelies, gee pad uit die Vrystaat. Op las, die boere.” [Interjections.] If the Group Areas Act were not on the Statute Books, one would not have things like this. The Group Areas Act is responsible for this.

If we are going to create hatred amongst our people through the implementation of the Group Areas Act, then no one else is responsible for this but the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. What is more, I want to say that if God’s wrath were to descend, it would descend on this department for keeping people apart whereas they want to get together. [Interjections.] Today there is no separation. Today the White man wants to come and sit with the Indian, and if the Group Areas Act is going to keep us apart, then I see no solution in respect of our reform policy.

I say: Do away with the Group Areas Act. When we did away with the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act we thought the heavens were about to fall and the world was going to explode. However, what happened? How many marriages have taken place across the colour line? [Interjections.] If the Group Areas Act goes, do hon members think Indians are going to flood into the White areas and buy out all the Whites? It is just a figment of the imagination. However, it is a fear of the CP that is causing this Government to implement the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] One cannot rule a country by fear, no matter how much one would like to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, my hon colleague ended off on a note of fear. Last week hon members of this House and the other two Houses met in each of the provinces. In Natal in particular—I hear it happened in the other provinces as well—hon members of each of the Houses said that history was being made in South Africa in that people of colour were for the first time able to sit and debate on national issues, whilst some parochial issues were also discussed. Therefore there is no need for us to pursue the own affairs concept because we have proved that by sitting together without fear of each other, we were able to discuss and deal with issues affecting the people of the country.

Naturally, those communities that have had a certain fear for a long time will show that fear and of course a little bit of an unnecessary demonstration was made. However, the hon the Minister coined a phrase on 13 November 1987 when he told the community in a very good comment in one of the newspapers: “Love thy neighbour as thyself, for your own sake.” The hon the State President told the NP and the White community: “Change, or be prepared to die.”

Adapt or die!

Anton Rupert said: “To change is to survive, and to survive is to live.” We have come a long way in this country in our efforts to make changes, and for that this House has complimented the hon the Minister, the hon the State President and other people involved. However, what has happened—and this has been echoed here in this Chamber this afternoon—is that for some reason we have slowed down that process of change. Unfortunately, in the process of slowing down that change, certain issues have arisen unnecessarily, such as the issue of permits and the demonstration by the hon CP members of Parliament in particular.

The White community—and I repeat what I said last year—cannot go it alone, but it needs the help of the other communities. We are dependent on one another and fear alone cannot be the yardstick by which to determine our goals. The leadership of this country will have to take the survival and the future of this country very seriously and use that as the most important yardstick. Why so? Time is running out and moderate leadership is dwindling. Soon we will not be able to find people who can come forward to face the demonstrations and the problems like we as members of this hon House have done. Community confidence is also dwindling as a result of the delay in change.

The United States ambassador to South Africa recently said, and I quote:

Certain hon members of the House of Assembly, even including two members of the NP, recently said that we should have dialogue with the ANC and other extra-parliamentary forces. Why? It is because they have had a change of heart and they feel that change must come. We are now dealing with issues affecting the next generation regarding the process of stability and security. Why, then, not allow people at a lower level to participate in a government to care and provide for the day-to-day issues? I quote further from this speech by the Ambassador of the USA:

This we have proved at the recent provincial debates. In the end everyone was concerned about the future of the country. It does not matter if there was a bit of a demonstration. I believe that we can sit together and resolve our problems.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition quite rightly said that we as South Africans can solve our problems—outside people will not be able to do that. Many people have said that if those at the local level find each other, the problems at other levels of representation will be resolved. That is true, because we demonstrated that we have found each other at that level and so we can find each other at all other levels. There is no choice for the various communities in the absence of any new dispensation. The issue of participation is now the topic of discussion among various groups in the provincial authorities. In an ideal situation there would have been no reason for discussion or for concern. Participation would have been automatic. Why should South Africa be subjected to such circumstances which, in turn, are creating a problematic situation in South Africa and a greater gap between communities who want to live together, and to share and defend this country?

Once again I quote the US ambassador:

If we do not start now to get together and start to map out the future and demonstrate it honourably and have no fear, but confidence in each other, the future, as has been said here, is bleak.

That situation should not arise for us, because the next generation will not forgive us. The hon the Minister is a person who wants to make changes. We plead with him today for his department to get the machinery moving despite possible problems with his own party and the Government. He should enable all the people of South Africa to live together.

Lastly, the only way we will be able to succeed in this country is to start at the lower level with geographically-based local authorities on a non-racial basis. Again, we proved that this could be done by recently sitting together at the provincial level. What is wrong with people sitting together at the lower level in the areas where they stay? They live separately and one will never be able to undo that overnight. To govern this way will be the only solution for an economically viable authority and for security and stability for the future.

I would like to conclude by again quoting the American ambassador:

I continue:

This is my direction to the White community, that fear should not be the yardstick for change. We have come a long way. We in this country can resolve our differences.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Camperdown mentioned something about Russia. Can anyone criticise a government in Russia as we criticise this Government? I think one would be sent to the salt-mines of Siberia. I think thousands must be there already. We can thank God that we do not have that situation in our country. At least here in the Republic of South Africa we can express ourselves and put our case to the Government.

I am sure that in due course, through dialogue and talking to one another, we may come to some conclusion. The problems of this country are complex and cannot be solved overnight. However, time is also limited. The Group Areas Act is the crux of the whole system. Until the group areas problem is solved and this Act is scrapped from the Statute Book, I do not believe a friendly attitude will exist in this country so that we can live in harmony and peace. I am sure there is willingness on all sides and in due course we may find a solution to the problem of the group areas.

Regarding Clairwood, we know now that a certain portion of it has already been declared industrial and a certain portion residential. The development of Clairwood and the provision of services there is very vital, because it has been left the way it is for too long. The people there need services. Without services they cannot do anything. I am sure the Durban Corporation will continue to drag its feet and will say for some years to come that it has no money. The Government and the House of Delegates will have to try and assist the Durban Corporation to find ways and means of developing Clairwood.

Another important thing is that when the services are provided in Clairwood, people will start building more houses, including expensive houses. However, in the interim there are many poor people, with families living in single rooms, outbuildings and garages. A complete survey will have to be conducted by the House of Delegates into how many people in Clairwood will be affected. They cannot be allowed to be thrown into the street. If a man wants to build a new house, he has to apply to the Director General. Where will those poor families go? Some accommodation will have to be provided for them, so that they will have shelter. I feel sorry for them. They have lived there for generations, but time catches up and they have to move out. However, let us hope that they will not be thrown into the street. I am sure the House of Delegates will take care in that regard and conduct a survey now, so that when the situation arises, they will have the facts and figures so that they can protect the poor innocent people that are living there.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I have to come here again, because I must say something. I want to remind the hon the Deputy Minister that the Villa Lisa township has only now been proclaimed as an Indian township. However, the houses still need to be built. It is going to take years before those bricks are laid in Villa Lisa. It is going to take a very long time.

Palm Ridge was proclaimed in 1970. The first brick was only laid in 1983—13 years thereafter. I do not think there will be any houses in Villa Lisa for the next eight years! Adjacent to Villa Lisa there is a place called Windmill Park. Windmill Park has stands which are serviced. Houses are available and if people negotiate now, they will get houses there. Why can these houses not be made available to them? I can assure the hon the Deputy Minister that if the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning does not make this land available to us now, that same department will come running to us in a few years time, crying, “Let the Indian people take over Windmill Park.”

I believe that the hon the Minister of Housing in the House of Delegates also asked that Windmill Park be made available. Never mind what people say, the Apex area which has been advertised and on which there was a hearing, is a useless piece of ground. People have been misled. The Indian people cannot use that land. A member of the HNP wants to dispose of this land. He could not sell it to White people, but that will not answer the needs of the Indian people. The real Apex land is the Leachville and Larrendale area.

The Department of Constitutional Development and Planning does not want us to have that land for a political reason, namely that Brakpan was the Free State of the Transvaal in the old days. This Leachville and Larrendale area was never occupied by the European community. It will never be occupied by the White community. However, when the Indians showed an interest in that land, the Brakpan municipality immediately went out and bought this place. They said they wanted it for the Whites. We all know that Brakpan is the Free State of the Transvaal! They have since had it declared a White area.

Mr Chairman, I am telling this House that for the next 100 years, Whites will never occupy that Leachville and Larrendale area. I am saying the same to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. I want to assure hon members of that! That little piece of Apex which they have misled the people with, will never be an area suitable for the Indian community. However, Windmill Park must be made available to the Indian community immediately. It is required now! There are houses available. In the next two years, we need 5 000 homes. Where are we going to get these from?

Those who can afford houses, should be given the opportunity to buy houses which are available. They should be given the opportunity to buy stands so that they can build their own homes. Of course we have to provide for the economic and sub-economic groups, but those who can afford and want their own homes, should not be deprived of that opportunity. Let them move on! It is this withholding in terms of the law that is causing frustration in the community. I appeal to the department to be more reasonable.

Mr Chairman, I would like to start off by saying some personal words of appreciation to Dr Van der Merwe, former Deputy Minister of Constitutional Planning, and Mr Badenhorst, former Deputy Minister of Development Planning. They both have served as Deputy Ministers in my department. By now it must be clear that their approach was rewarding in the sense that they have both been promoted to Ministerial levels.

I would also like to welcome the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He comes from the Department of Law and Order. I am not quite sure whether he will find more or less order where he is now, but he will certainly find a different order obtaining in this new department! Let me say this openly: If I had to choose for myself, my choice would have fallen on him.

It is always good to come to a debate in this House. Today was no exception. However, hon members will allow me to make certain observations that I regard as important. All of us have been discussing the concept of reform. All of us have been discussing the pace of that reform. Very few of us have identified the final goal. I believe that it is irrelevant to discuss only the rate of the reform process unless we discuss the goals that we wish to attain. Quite obviously, the goals that we can attain must be determined by the South African society. It must be determined by the circumstances of this country.

I would like to make an observation. I have learnt the hard way because I have been in public life for a long time. I have learnt that the emotions of people will not be capsuled. Whether it is fear, which the hon member for Red Hill spoke about, or whether it is prejudice or anything else, it is a reality that one has to deal with.

I would like to make another observation on today’s debate. I have listened to hon members discussing the aspirations of their constituencies and I have understanding for it. There is one thing, however, that I missed in the debate and that is the realisation that there are many constituencies in this country and that many of the aspirations of these different constituencies are more often than not in conflict with each other. Unless we are prepared in our discussions to relate to that, our discussions on reform simply become rhetorical, academic and valueless in my opinion.

I want to make another observation and hon members must not misunderstand me. It is not the constitutional institution in the final analysis that is all-important. What is of equal or even more importance is the behaviour of the people within these institutions. [Interjections.] In the final analysis the institutions are judged by the image projected by the people within those institutions. [Interjections.] That does not apply to one House alone but to all three Houses. Sometimes I believe that self-analysis is required by all of us as to whether our individual contributions are such that what we call democracy and the image that we project serve their end.

I believe that we must all be deeply concerned about the probabilities of establishing an extended democracy in our country. At best, in societies like ours, democracy is a very fragile instrument. In fact, there are very few countries, if any, comparable to our society where democracy really survives.

I do not feel that we grasp the real issues in our debates. It is not that the issues raised by the hon members are not important; of course they are important. They are all important. However, is it not true that the real issue of this country is development; is that not the real issue?

Political and economic.

And social.

You cannot leave out the politics.

Of course not, but the kingdom of politics will not bring heaven on earth. Therefore, when we discuss the concept of reform I believe—I make no apology for this—that we must accept that to adapt is to live. The Government that I represent is not only committed to reform, it has done more for reform in 10 years than has been done in this country in 300 years.

When we talk about reform we must understand the real issues. Let us look at them just for one moment. What are the impeding factors in reform? Hon members have referred to it; it is the complexity of our society. What makes the society complex—because there are different races and this is a relevant issue. There are different nations within the boundaries of the same country. This is a relevant issue. There is a modern sector in this society and it is exposed to all the modern constitutional institutions, to economic systems and to social behaviour. Some people call it Western but my opinion is that South Africa is not an extension of Europe. However, the fact that the smallest percentage of the population of this country has been exposed to the modern institutions is an impeding factor and to ignore it is to ignore the truth.

The largest portion of this country is still wholly or partly traditional. I do not say this in a paternalistic sense. Sometimes I wonder if the destruction of the traditional systems that obtained in many parts of this continent has been for the good of those communities. If I look at the state of most of these countries it does not appear to me as if we have done them a favour.

There is another impeding factor. As hon members will know democracy must be afforded. This is so because participation in these institutions naturally also implies a different way of sharing the financial and economic cake. If it were just a question of rearranging the division, democracy would not survive. It is a question of increasing the financial and economic means of the country; that is what it means. Look at the Western European and North American countries, where they have what people call ideal systems, and look at their income. They have the means to satisfy all reasonable demands. We must understand, therefore, that there can be no question of constitutional or political reform in isolation. Reform is a multi-faceted thing which must be present in all spheres of human endeavour—social and economic. Do we understand this?

The hon member for Allandale says that we must have a multiracial voting system based on the individual. I should like to ask him whether that does not imply majority government. What would happen to the minorities that we have in this country? That minority is not only White, Coloured or Indian—there is a series of minorities amongst the Black communities as well. I wish to remind hon members that often the divisions and cleavages among the Black communities themselves are deeper than those between White and Black, White and Indian or White and Coloured. Of course, emotions are impeding factors. I have seen in this House how potent they are. We ignore them at our peril.

In the final analysis I do not believe the fear is the fear of sharing; I do not believe that that is the real fear. I believe that the real fear is that people are worried and concerned about the destruction of their value systems. People fear that eventually we may not succeed in lifting the Third World communities to the level of the First but instead that the First will be pulled down to the level of the Third. When we look around us, that fear is not necessarily unsubstantiated. Is that not true? I would, therefore, ask that when we talk about reform, we bring our thoughts to bear on these realities. Surely we must share the concern of reasonable South Africans about our ability, our willingness and our will to reform.

I should like to make another observation in this regard, and that is that outside interference and outside actions such as sanctions and boycotts are not assisting the reform process. In fact, they are obstructing it and impeding it, for one obvious reason. For South Africa to really adapt and to really reform, we need a far higher growth rate than we have been able to attain over the past number of years. In order to attain that growth rate, however, we have traditionally been dependent on a net inflow of foreign capital. Coupled with that were the benefits of technical knowledge, which is normally associated with capital.

Over the past number of years we have become a net exporter of capital. Our growth rate is low and the unemployment rate is high. These things are not conducive to reform. They are not conducive to the concept of sharing. I therefore wish to join other hon members in recording my deepest appreciation for the stand taken by leaders like Dr Buthelezi, Dr Mopeli of QwaQwa, and others against the immoral injustices which will result from foreign action against our country. I for one do not understand that sort of morality. I do not understand it.

However, let us look at the accusation that reform has come to a standstill, that reform is to be halted, and let us look for a moment at whether there is any justification for that point of view. Why did we suggest that a national forum be established in which all leaders of all communities should participate?

Indaba Nkulu! [Interjections.]

Why? It was because we said that what we have in this Parliament in South Africa today is but a statute; not so? It is because we say that the future dispensation, which must also include Black South Africans, must also be negotiated with them, as well as with the others who are affected.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills suggested, not in as many words but by implication, that we had been dilatory in passing that Bill. On the other hand, he says that I steamroller measures through the committees.

Bulldoze.

Or rather, that I bulldoze them.

I said that?

Yes.

No, somebody else must have done so. It was one of your supporters, not me. [Interjections.]

Do I not bulldoze them through? Does the hon member not think I bulldoze them through?

You can try, but you will not get away with it!

That is fine. [Interjections.] The mere fact that I take it along is because of the fact that we have to consult and negotiate with many people outside Parliament and these institutions. I think that we should be lauded for that. That hon member occasionally sits in acrimony—granted, from time to time, in different capacities as a member of different parties. [Interjections.] However, he would know that there also has been a growing consensus in that standing committee. Is that not so?

That is why I do not play along with the game.

Does the hon member see, then? If we talk about consensus politics these things become important. Of course, it was possible just to bulldoze that Bill through as well. However, then I must ask what participants we would have had. That is indicative of the rate or the pace of reform in this country.

I look at my colleagues in Parliament and there is one thing I do not find. In Parliament I do not find people who believe that our society lends itself to a simplistic constitution based on the individual alone. Though we may differ as to how the group must be defined, we agree that they must be protected—not only in the sense of having a veto, but also in the sense that their approval is required to take decisions. We have come a long way and therefore reform is not dead. It is very much alive.

The hon the State President has indicated that in this session he will introduce amendments to the Constitution so as to make it possible for people who are not represented in any of the three Houses to serve on the executive for the government of the country. Is reform dead? He will introduce in this session legislation for the creation of regional governments for Black communities that today are excluded. This is outside the national states and outside the independent states. They can then elect their leaders and their leaders can serve in the institutions where we discuss future changes and adaptations to our Constitution. Reform is dead?

Today I would like to sound a warning, and I mean this seriously. We participate although we do not like the institution in which we participate, but we participate. We must not obstruct other people who also wish to participate although they might not like the system, so as to enable them to become part of the institutions and the leaders that collectively can find consensus on future reform.

The hon member asked me about the Black people in the President’s Council. Surely that hon member has taken note of the pronouncement that investigations must be initiated to reconstitute the President’s Council after its term of office, also so as to include other communities that are not now represented there? No, I do not think it is dead. He says that I am being bogged down and the Government and my party are being bogged down by the CP. No, we are not being bogged down by them. However, I wish to ask here: Do we not often strengthen the resistance to change by our own actions? Hon members must be fair. Do we not?

It is not the Government that can change the Constitution as regards the participation of other communities. It is all of us, because those clauses are entrenched. I have a question: Would hon members be prepared to vote for amendments to the Constitution, though the proposed amendments might not satisfy all their own requirements for a constitution? Hon members will not be able to escape those decisions.

I believe that nations—and we are part of the same nation—from time to time arrive at crossroads. I believe we are at one now. This arrival will demand from us very serious and very important decisions which will affect the lives of everyone and the quality of life of all the communities, in the broadest definition of the word. I, for one, am not afraid of reform. However, I would say this: If our reforms are to be an improvement on the present situation, and not just reform for the sake of reform, we should deal with the realities at this stage. I will tell hon members what one of these realities is. If reform is to be evolutionary, there are certain prerequisites. One is that one must persuade the voters who constitute Parliament to accept those reforms. Let me say this today: We may bridge the divisions in our communities to our satisfaction. We may in my own community to our satisfaction bridge the division. It is not going to help the process of reform. The greater the unity, also amongst the White people of this country, the greater the chances of reform.

The hon member for Stanger talks about sacrifices. My party split because of reform. My party split because of the fact that we wanted to bring people of colour into the system and the different institutions. Yes, everybody has to make sacrifices. However, I want to tell people to take the mirrors away from themselves. They should rather look at the sacrifices that other people have made and are willing to make.

Let us talk about local government. I cannot deal with that in detail. The hon member for Springfield knows that the Constitution defines local government as an own affair. He also knows that we have all agreed to come into these institutions in terms of the Constitution. The hon the State President does not arbitrarily decide what is to be general affairs. However, I want to ask a question, and I think it is a fair question. There was a time when Indian education was administered by the same administration that administered White and Coloured education in Natal. Tell me, in all fairness, was it any better then than it is today? Come on, is it better today than it was then?

What about universities?

No, no. I am talking about education. I shall come to universities. I am talking about own affairs now.

I can answer that. When we had one official in charge, he did more for Indian education in six years than anyone else has done. No Prime Minister interfered with that official’s work.

Oh, very interesting. That official worked for Indian education alone.

Your colleague was the biggest critic of that official.

No, no. Let me say this: That official was in the service of Indian education.

Under the control of one Minister!

No, no. That is not correct.

Yes, the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Yes, but that Minister was not in control of all education. The hon member for Reservoir Hills must not try and twist the argument around. I am arguing with the hon member in principle.

That man did more than the appointees of this Government.

But I am not talking about the man. I am talking about the institution. The hon member for Reservoir Hills should understand that. He is intelligent enough to understand that.

No, I am not.

He is also intelligent enough to understand that he will not sway my argument, because I am speaking the truth. I will go further. I want to talk about the Group Areas Act.

Find an argument for the universities!

Let me just finish the principle. I shall come to universities just now. Hon members have spoken about group areas. I want to make my position clear on that. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must allow me this argument. He says market forces must determine the value of land. At the same time, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said—and I do not blame him—that we should not allow market forces to determine the prices with regard to the Indian market in Durban. That is true. To determine the market price the City Council wants to obtain tenders. This is the best method to determine the market price. I agree with the hon member that there are other considerations as well.

I also want to put a question to the hon member. There was a time when the market forces determined what happened to the land of the poor people. I want to ask these questions in all fairness and I am not interested in scoring points. I want to ask that if the government of the day is not prepared to acquire land for the Black communities, where will they get the means to compete in the market place? The market place requires equal capacity to compete. It does not require any persuasion to tell my hon colleagues in this House of the disparity of needs in this country.

I do not want to go into the group areas in detail at the moment. Legislation will be introduced and we will have the opportunity to discuss it fairly and in detail. My party’s position is clear for now, namely that if there are communities who want to live as communities in their specific areas they will be entitled to do so. They are more than entitled to do so. They are entitled to be protected in the execution of their property rights. The Government has conceded that there might be other people who are not interested in such protection and who would want the norm of association in the area where they live. To achieve that end, the Government is prepared to introduce legislation to make that possible. I hope that when that legislation is before us people will be prepared to support it. There is the old saying: “Talk is cheap, but it is money that buys the whisky.”

Where is it?

The legislation is coming during this session. Please bear with me. [Interjections.]

I want to take this further. The hon member for Springfield put another question to me with regard to pensions. It is sad that the poorest communities with the lowest pensions have to receive their pensions only every two months. Because of that fact I have requested the administrations of all the provinces to expedite the introduction of a system where the money will be paid monthly. [Interjections.] However, it requires personnel …

And money.

No, not money because the pensions are determined by formulae. It requires personnel. It requires the spreading of offices because these offices must be accessible to the communities. Where people have banking accounts or accounts with the building societies we are prepared that they can have these pensions paid into those accounts.

I am not making any predictions because I have learnt the hard way. I do not make announcements on things unless I am sure about them. However, I hope we will not see the next year out without that system being in full operation.

The hon member has put some other questions to me that are important because they also remind me of other arguments, ie the judgment on KwaNdebele. Let me first of all say that the states that have become independent because of Acts of this Parliament have become independent in exactly the same way as Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana became independent—through an Act of the parliament that controlled it. Therefore, in terms of legalities it makes no difference whatsoever. However, the world acknowledged some states that were less viable than many of ours because of double standards.

Of course, the Government of South Africa accepts the judgements of its courts. In this case the State has lodged an appeal against the judgement of the Transvaal Provincial Division. Until such times as another court has adjudicated upon the matter the government of KwaNdebele is legal and valid.

I want to make an observation—I have a feeling I see something coming—and that is when people take action that could lead to violence and which in fact leads to violence and they are a member of the clergy, an orchestrated perception is created that there is a clash between the Government and the Church. It is part of a pattern. I can tell hon members now that when the courts interpret the laws of this country, which they are entitled to do—they are not entitled to make or to change the laws—the Government will have to take steps through Parliament which is sovereign to assure that their objectives are attained. People are now going to say there is a clash between the State and the courts—the judiciary. I now issue the warning that we do not become party to that.

What about the people?

I am coming to the people. I do not want to take the matter further because it is sub judice. The hon member knows I cannot take it further. I want to say one thing and that is that the election of 1984 in KwaNdebele was run on that issue of independence. I leave it at that.

I would like to conclude by saying that many of the issues discussed today have been discussed and should be discussed in the extended or enlarged provincial committees. However, let me make one observation in that regard. I introduced the amendment to the Constitution to make joint sessions possible, since I believe that when people become accustomed to working together and talking to each other, the possibilities of further adaptations become greater.

But the CP will not talk, they say.

I am not talking about the CP at the moment; I am talking about reasonable men. I just want to say that that was an event which, if handled correctly, could herald a new future for South Africa. However, hon members must understand that we are dealing with processes.

The hon member referred to extraparliamentary actions. Let me say that I am part of a process of extraparliamentary discussions on change. I discuss this with people and organisations with legitimate needs. The people from Assocom, for example, are concerned about constitutional change, since it affects economic stability and vice versa. I do the same with the Federated Chamber of Industries and with many other people. What I want to say, however, is that I accept that whatever we can negotiate on an extraparliamentary basis must eventually become interparliamentary, since it is here that the changes must be effected.

It is possible for people who ostensibly have peaceful objectives to become part of the revolutionary extraparliamentary process. We must guard against that. Finally, I want to say that if we are prepared to work collectively we can achieve our goals, and I would sum up those goals as follows: To establish a democracy in which all South Africans can participate; and to establish that democracy by a process of consultation and negotiation and discussion. This is a long and tedious process, as well as a difficult one. It takes more time than a revolution. However, the fruits are an improvement. I should like to see that democracy and I should like to see the human dignity of all inhabitants of this country acknowledged, not only in theory but in practice as well.

I should like to see a South Africa in which discrimination does not only disappear from the Statute Book but disappears in practice. There is no point in reading the reports as to what people have done; I cannot change their hearts, except by example. I should like to see a South African democracy in which all the groups participate equally, where the right of self-determination of communities is upheld not only in theory but in practice as well, and where collective decisionmaking on national affairs is also introduced into the systems.

I should like a South Africa where people have equal opportunities, but where no group dominates another. That requires a definition of groups, but I do not believe there is any shame in such a definition. There is only shame in a definition if it is to be used and applied to favour one group as against another.

Therefore, can we not come to an agreement with one another? Whilst we say our society is complex, and whilst we say it is diverse, let us give the group definition a positive connotation both in theory and in practice. To that end I commit my Government.

Debate concluded.

Own Affairs: University of Pretoria (Private) Amendment Bill [B 84—88 (HA)]—(House Committee on Education (House of Assembly)).

Committee Reports:

1. 1. Report of the House Committee (House of Assembly) on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals on the proposed University of Pretoria (Private) Amendment Bill, submitted by Mr C L Fismer, dated 1 June 1988, as follows:
   The House Committee (House of Assembly) on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals, having considered the proposed University of Pretoria (Private) Amendment Bill, submitted by Mr C L Fismer and referred to it, begs to recommend in terms of Rule 160(4) that the proposal be accepted.
2. 2. Report of the House Committee (House of Delegates) on Public Accounts, dated 10 May 1988, as follows:
   1. A. Your Committee, having considered and examined the Report of the Auditor-General on the Appropriation Accounts in respect of the Administration: House of Delegates for 1986-87 [RP 38—88], referred to it, and having taken evidence, begs to report as follows:
      Vote 2—Local Government, Housing and Agriculture: Unauthorized expenditure
      Your Committee, having determined that the expenditure amounting to R1 100 000, as specified in paragraph 6 on page 4 of the Report of the Auditor-General, is unauthorized, and having heard and considered evidence, wishes to express its displeasure at the handling of this matter, but recommends the above sum for specific appropriation by the House of Delegates, allocated to Vote 2—Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.
      In view of the evidence, your Committee also recommends that this matter be further investigated by the Administration: House of Delegates, with a view to the possible recovery of monies spent in excess of the reasonable market value at the time of acquisition.
   2. B. Your Committee has no comment to offer on the other paragraphs of the Report examined by it.
3. 3. Report of the Joint Committee on Home Affairs on the Commission for Administration Amendment Bill [B 75—88 (GA)], dated 1 June 1988, as follows:
   The Joint Committee on Home Affairs having considered the subject of the Commission for Administration Amendment Bill [B 75—88 (GA)], referred to it, begs to report the Bill without amendment.