Order! I wish to make the following statement regarding the notice of motion appearing on the Order Paper for today in the name of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens.

The notice of motion is not in order as it anticipates the consideration of the First Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, which appears on the Order Paper for today as Order No 8. In terms of Rule 961 consequently rule that the draft resolution cannot be moved and must be struck from the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Order No 8 on the Order Paper for today, as you have stated correctly, relates to the matter dealt with in the draft resolution of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. In the First Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, however, there is a recommendation in regard to certain action Parliament should take. That recommendation is actually that Parliament should take certain steps in order to investigate the matter referred to in the said draft resolution.

The notice of motion relating to what should be done in respect of that recommendation should, I submit, stand down and should not be struck from the Order Paper. It should merely stand down until the report of the joint committee has been disposed of. Notice needs to be given, and if this matter is going to be discussed today the only time notice could have been given was yesterday. Therefore, Sir, if notice was not given yesterday in respect of what one intended to do about a report today, the matter could not come before the House.

In the light of those circumstances, Sir, I should like you to allow the notice of motion to remain on the Order Paper in the exact position in which it appears. I suggest it should remain in that position in order that it may be considered after the adoption of the joint committee’s report because it will then follow upon the adoption of the report. Therefore, Sir, it is not a notice of motion in anticipation of the adoption of the report; it is a draft resolution which will be moved once the report has been adopted.

I would suggest that it is necessary to give notice of what one intends to do subsequent to the adoption of a report. For that reason I request that you allow the notice of motion to remain on the Order Paper in the exact position in which it appears at the moment.

Order! In regard to what the hon member for Yeoville has just said, cannot this issue be discussed when the report itself is under discussion?

Well, Sir, the difficulty is that notice needs to be given of something intended to be done. If you would care to look at the copy of the Minutes of Proceedings containing the report, you will see that there is a recommendation at the end of that report in regard to something that Parliament should do. Notice is therefore being given in that regard in regard to something that Parliament should do; in other words, as I understand the draft resolution in the name of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, it was not understood that this draft resolution should be dealt with as the first item on the Order Paper today. That was never the intention, although the hon member can correct me if I am under the wrong impression. As I understand it, his intention was that, once the report was adopted, he could stand up and move his draft resolution.

It is for this reason that I ask that the draft resolution be allowed to stand over instead of being removed from the Order Paper. If it is ruled out of order and removed from the Order Paper, notice of a similar draft resolution will again have to be given and then we shall have to have another debate tomorrow.

Order! I shall look into the matter and come back to the hon member for Yeoville later this afternoon.

I am indebted to you, Sir.

Mr Speaker, it is appropriate that we avail ourselves of this opportunity to try to evaluate the effective functioning of Parliament.

As far as we are concerned, the most important feature of the new dispensation is that as it evolves Parliament is to an increasing extent being pushed aside and disregarded as an instrument of government. [Interjections.] I want to mention a few examples in this connection.

The first was the announcement by the hon the State President that Parliament would adjourn on 1 July and would resume its business on 22 August and sit until 2 September. This announcement was made over the radio and on television, and this happened while Parliament, or at least the House of Assembly, was in session.

We heard that evening by means of news telegrams that Parliament was going to adjourn on 1 July. It is no excuse to argue that all three Houses were not sitting at that juncture.

Important announcements are made by Ministers in various Houses, and it was up to the hon the Leader of the House to have made this announcement on the adjournment of Parliament. We take exception to it having been done by way of an executive action by the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

The second matter which proves our allegation that Parliament is being held in contempt and pushed aside is the report of the McCann Advertising Agency. It was approved by the Cabinet, according to the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting and the Film Industry, on 25 May, and his Vote was discussed in this House on 1 June. Was this not the appropriate place to have made this announcement arising from the McCann recommendation? It could surely have been followed by a Press conference. It must be borne in mind that the cost involved in this amounts to R4,75 million.

Incidentally, a witch-hunt is now in progress to discover the identity of that person who disclosed the contents of the report. [Interjections.] We pay tribute to that person … [Interjections] … because he acted in the interests of South Africa. We shall protect him by making use of this forum. In this House we shall protect that person who served South Africa in this way.

The third reason why we say this House, Parliament, is being held in contempt is that hon Ministers are seldom present here. We say this every year. Attendance, taken as a whole, of debates in this House is poor—so poor that the quorum requirement has been abolished. The quorum rule now applies only at a vote. It is so poor that yesterday there was not even a quorum at a vote. That is why we say that this Parliament is being held in contempt.

Seen as a whole the situation is as follows: We are saddled with the House of Delegates, on which the search light was sharply focused last week. Chaos is prevailing, to such an extent that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning admitted the other day that the House of Delegates was becoming an embarrassment to Parliament. This comes out of the Cabinet itself. That is how they feel about the House of Delegates. Incidentally, Sir, we also know that Rev Hendrickse is holding the hon the State President to ransom over when we are going to hold another election of Parliament, or do hon members on the opposite side know when we are going to hold an election? Has Rev Hendrickse given them permission to hold an election in 1992, or is he still holding the hon the State President to ransom? Is he still waiting for the chocolates? [Interjections.] Yes, these things make a mockery of Parliament and the entire new dispensation.

During the commencement of the new dispensation we were given to understand that the prospect of sessions lasting only until the end of May was being held out; that standing committees would meet primarily during the recess and that it would not be desirable … Sir, I should just like to have the attention of the hon the Leader of the House. It would not be desirable for standing committees to sit while Parliament was sitting. So far nothing has come of these things. Study groups of the smaller parties in particular seldom have an opportunity to meet, as used to be the practice, to consider legislation properly and to plan in depth. Almost since the beginning of the new dispensation we have had two sessions every year. That is exactly the opposite of the prospect that was held out to us with the new dispensation. For example, we met in 1986 for the express object of discussing the National Council, which is still on the Order Paper now. We sat here for two or three weeks, and it cost the taxpayer R20 million.

A glaring deficiency is the fact that the Committee Stage of the Bill is no longer debated in the full House. I want to refer once again to the Labour Relations Bill. John Citizen, who has a material interest in the Bill, has no particulars of that Bill, because it was discussed on a Friday and received no publicity the next day. Furthermore the hon the Minister gave his reply for 90 minutes last Wednesday, and there was no publicity. The standing committee sat behind closed doors over a period of 18 months. John Citizen does not know what is stated in that Bill. It would have become known if standing committees had really met in public.

I want to refer to the debate on the new rules, which we have discussed in the past. Three days were set aside, and then the whole programme was scuttled by Rev Hendrickse. Then we became further embroiled with appropriation committees at the same time as sittings in all three Houses.

This was done in respect of important Votes such as Manpower and Home Affairs. There was what we called the fiasco of the extended public committees on provincial affairs. The matter is on the Order Paper, and you will therefore not allow me to elaborate further, but those joint committees have already sat and the standing committees on provincial affairs have also sat.

I am mentioning these facts, however, to indicate in particular the lack of consideration for the officials. In this connection I want to pay special tribute to the officials of the House of Assembly, from the Secretary down to the most junior official, who are being overextended by the events taking place in this Parliament, such as the three Houses sitting simultaneously, standing committees which meet while the Houses of Parliament sit, the extended public committees on provincial matters and the appropriation committees. These staff members, including Hansard and all the other officials attached to Parliament, are being overextended. We pay tribute to these people, but we ask how long they are going to tolerate being treated in this way. We think it is a disgrace.

Having said all these things, I say it is now up to the Government to reflect urgently and in depth on Parliament. For us it is clear that in the new dispensation Parliament has been shunted onto a siding and is becoming irrelevant.

Mr Chairman, I looked forward with very great expectation to what the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition would have to say this afternoon. [Interjections.] He insisted very earnestly indeed on these ten minutes for his party because he wanted to make a general policy speech on Parliament.

We are entitled to it!

You didn’t want to give any time at all!

He is perfectly entitled to make a general policy speech on Parliament. [Interjections.] What we experienced, however, was that in his presentation here this afternoon absolutely nothing was said that had not already been said before on one or two occasions in or outside this House. He said absolutely nothing new. He complained again here about a session that had supposedly cost R20 million. But by now we have learnt how to deal with the estimates of figures made by this hon member. When the provincial committees were initially announced he ostentatiously released a statement to the English-language Press in which he mentioned an amount of between R2 million and R3 million that these committees …

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

The hon member must not ask me any questions at all, because I saw his Press statement, and he cannot deny it.

Tell us how much they cost!

Now he is asking how much they cost. When he came to his senses he scaled down this R2 million or R3 million to R100 000.

Is R100 000 nothing?

He is still wrong. The direct costs were in fact R100 000, but that does not take into account the vast saving effected, such as the number of parliamentary sitting days that were reduced, and the costs it would have entailed to bring our Administrators, MECs and officials here. [Interjections.] It was a silly story. [Interjections.]

Order! Too many private discussions are being conducted. The hon Chief Whip may proceed.

All that was new in what this hon member had to say today was this new wooing of parliamentary officials, but in this whole argument the hon member’s entire underpants was showing. [Interjections.] It was very clear that the hon member was trying to evoke a political response from the officials. [Interjections.] Of course there is special appreciation for these parliamentary officials who do a decent job of work under very difficult circumstances.

Initially we negotiated with the parties to see whether we could not eliminate a debate on the Parliament Vote. I am being quite candid with the House in this regard. We did so with success in the other two Houses.

The fact of the matter is that over the years the tradition has been that the Parliament Vote has merely been put formally, without any debate being conducted on it. It is a recent development to conduct an actual debate on the Parliament Vote, since the person responsible for this Vote—naturally that is Mr Speaker himself—is not able to appear on the floor of this House to speak to us about this matter. The only Parliament in the world where this is done is in Australia. For this purpose Mr Speaker therefore has various committees, the Rules Committee, the Internal Arrangements Committee, the Catering Committee and a Library Committee. These are committees that cover the entire spectrum of Parliament.

If one looks in depth at the superficial speech which the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition made here this afternoon one sees that he may just as well have made that speech on any other occasion—for example during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation.

However I should also like to say something positive in this debate. Last year I advocated that Parliament itself should do something to market its image, so that we can bring Parliament as such closer to the population of South Africa. It is now possible to report that Mr Speaker has already devoted considerable attention to this matter. For example considerable progress has already been made with the planning of audiovisual facilities, on which professional advice was called in. Plans are afoot to ultimately create such a section in the Marks Building. Furthermore there are ideas in regard to the renovation of the museum and, arising out of the Schlebusch Report, there is also in-depth planning on our library.

This year’s May edition of Panorama was to a very large extent devoted to the new sections of the Parliamentary building. This publication is distributed internationally. Another very interesting publication appeared, Architect and Builder. This is also an international publication. With Mr Speaker’s consent the new extension to the parliamentary building has also been used in advertisements. The advantage attached to this is that the image of Parliament, which was conveyed in the articles in these technical publications, reached a target group we would not otherwise have been able to reach.

Consequently I think it is fitting to pay tribute to our Speaker on this occasion, who in this sphere is not neglecting to enhance the image of Parliament. [Interjections.] For example he invited the Speakers of the independent states to the Opening of Parliament this year. Most of them were present here. The other day we had a visit from the President of the Senate of Swaziland, a parliamentarian, as well as a member of their House of Assembly. There is liaison on various levels. For example Parliament has already invited the Cape Bench and the officials involved to a dinner here. I recall that the Administrator of the Cape and his Executive Committee have already been guests here. Only yesterday evening Mr Speaker—as far as anyone can remember this was the first time it had ever happened—entertained the City Council and its senior officials here.

Sir, we want to convey special thanks to Mr Speaker for his efforts which at this stage he is making on his own. Since the onslaught on the institution of Parliament is so vehement today and is becoming more vehement by the day, we shall also have to make our own contributions.

Of course not everything we do and say here is conducive to promoting the image of Parliament. That is why it is important that people who are opinion formers should also be brought here if we do not convey information to specific target groups. In this connection each one of us has an obligation, as members of the House of Assembly or as members of the other Houses.

That is why it is hurtful if members of the Official Opposition revel in events which they believe can be said to be to the detriment of Parliament. Ten minutes were used to disparage Parliament as though it had become a useless and irrelevant body! [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by requesting that we all co-operate, regardless of the House in which we serve and the party of which we are members, to convey the image of Parliament to the general public—as well as to the outside world—as one of the greatest democratic institutions in this country.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is correct to the extent that there are many other opportunities to discuss what I call “the politics of Parliament”.

However, this is a debate in which we should focus attention on a few of the matters of the management of Parliament. After all, we are voting some R50 million—R9 million more than we voted a year ago—and I think it is appropriate to make a few comments in this particular regard.

First of all, we were presented today with the 1987 Report on Parliament. The Chief Whip said: “Ons moet die Parlement nader aan die bevolking bring. Ons moet iets doen aan die beeld.” I want to suggest that we delete the phrase “exclusively for information of members”. Parliament is not a club. Parliament is an institution for which the public is paying R50 million.

I believe the information contained in the report, which is exclusive to members, is the kind of information which should be available to the public. It is the kind of thing on which they should comment. It will help to bring them closer to Parliament instead of merely having a report on a range of detailed matters relating to Parliament and then saying that it is exclusively for members of Parliament. I make a strong plea for this very excellent report, which has been produced by our staff, to be made available generally. I believe it should be tabled and made available to the public just like other departmental papers in Parliament. This would be an appropriate way in which to deal with it.

Secondly, I would like to pay a tribute to the staff, not only for the preparation of this document which has retained its normal standard of excellence, but for the tremendous task which the staff of Parliament have done in most difficult circumstances over the past year. I doubt whether ordinary members of Parliament—certainly not members of the public—understand the work pressure and emotional pressure under which members of the staff have been placed over the past year as we have changed from one system to the other, and have modified it.

For instance, there was a public holiday on a Thursday, Parliament adjourned over the Friday and we went off for a long weekend. I came to collect my papers late on a Saturday afternoon and found members of the staff working overtime for us in Parliament. I believe we should pay a tribute to the work and the effort and the excellence of the parliamentary staff.

Hear, hear!

If I may say, because we have notice of a pending request for retirement, I cannot think of a Parliament that has been better served than we have been served under Attie de Villiers, the Secretary to Parliament. I do not think the occasion for saying goodbye has arisen but he should be associated with our general comments as far as the staff are concerned.

The second question is that of Hansard. I do not believe that this is being handled to the satisfaction of members as at the moment we have only received the printed Hansard up to 20 April and we are already in June.

I certainly do not blame the Hansard staff. I believe that in terms of volume of work, they have even been cut down in numbers. I believe they are operating under tremendous staff strain and even cutbacks in expenditure which make it almost impossible for them to fulfil the task in the way in which I believe they would like to do it. I therefore ask that special attention be given to the Hansard staff—to the personnel—to see that they can do the work which they would like to do in Parliament, and that they are not handicapped to the extent they are at the moment.

Thirdly, Parliament has grown. It was a fairly cosy little place where we all knew one another and we knew how the system was working. It has grown into a mammoth organisation, with three Chambers and a whole series of subcommittees, and while the control of the staff tends to come up through the Table—they are experts on parliamentary procedure—the question is whether we are sufficiently equipped to deal with the business management of Parliament. Do we have someone handling the personnel matters—what I call the business—the staff, the systems and the budget? Are we sufficiently equipped, in this new complicated situation, to handle our own Parliament as a business in the way in which other departments would have their businesses handled, namely through a director-general? Some accent should be placed on and attention given to the management of Parliament as a business concern, quite apart from the politics that occur across the floor of the House.

I passed a note to the hon the Minister in charge of this Vote at the start of the discussion of this Vote, to say that my attention had been drawn to certain information sent to me by way of photocopies of documents which, on the face of it, would indicate, for instance, that in respect of a visiting foreign couple hotel bills to the tune of something like R2 766 were paid over a period of some eight days. Accommodation cost R 1 700; telephone, R205; laundry, R93 and refreshments, R764. I should firstly like to know from the hon the Minister whether, on the face of the evidence which one has, this kind of amount has been paid out of parliamentary funds in respect of a visiting couple.

Secondly, we also should like to know whether any other amounts were paid in respect of this couple. Have travel on airfares been involved as well? What is the total amount which has been paid out of parliamentary funds in respect of this visiting couple of visitors?

Thirdly, how many other people of whom I have no knowledge are there who have been receiving what I shall call this fairly expensive largesse out of the funds of Parliament?

Was the account which I referred to the hon the Minister paid? Were any other accounts paid in respect of that couple, and have there been any other people receiving this kind of largesse, not from the Department of Information or anywhere else, but out of funds appropriated by Parliament for Parliament?

Furthermore, I should like the hon the Minister to identify the Vote out of which this money was taken. I have the details of the Vote of Parliament before me, and I can see nothing which would seem to justify this kind of expenditure in respect of people who have no association whatsoever with Parliament. It could be said that it might have come out of the programme dealing with the Parliamentary Association of the RS A. All I can say is that I and other hon members are council members of the Parliamentary Association of the RSA, and we have no knowledge whatsoever of it. I would also never have thought that the funds of the Parliamentary Association of the RSA could be deemed to be used for that kind of purpose but only for matters dealing directly with Parliament.

I take this seriously. We should like to know out of which fund this money comes, who selects the recipients of this largesse, and what the criteria are that are applied. Are they deemed to be important people who hold office in other countries, or are they just run-of-the-mill individuals or members of other legislatures? I take a serious view of this, because when I vote—as we will be voting—for R50 million to be spent on Parliament, I should not like to believe that there is a significant sum of money tucked away over here to be used in this way on people running up large hotel accounts at the expense of Parliament and the public of South Africa. I hope the hon the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory explanation.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to start with the last point which the hon member for Sea Point raised. It seems to me that it is now becoming a habit among hon members to get hold of documents elsewhere and in all kinds of ways and then, instead of putting the interests of Parliament first and making proper enquiries beforehand, and only raising the matter by means of a debate if they do not get satisfactory information, they do things the way the hon member for Sea Point did. [Interjections.] No, Sir.

It bears witness to an approach of utilising unconfirmed information acquired in a clandestine way in order to create the impression of some kind of scandal or irregularity, whereas it could have been checked beforehand. Had he done so, he was within his rights to do so, and if he could not get a satisfactory answer he could raise it here. He is now practising petty politics by raising the matter in the discussion of a Vote in which we usually attempt to maintain the dignity of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Cover up!

No, Sir, here the facts are. Firstly not a cent of this account was paid out of the budget we are discussing now.

Where does it come from?

The hon member for Sea Point’s information was incorrect. A portion of this account was paid from the funds of the Parliamentary Association, but only for the period of 4 to 6 February as the letter which he acquired in a clandestine way states. The attached handwritten note is incorrect. The account concerns a Parliamentarian from another country who during that period, 4 to 6 February, was Mr Speaker’s guest. That was the information which I was able to acquire in the brief period since the hon member handed me this note. The hon member himself must take a look and see what was spent between 4 to 6 February and he would know more or less how much the account was. In the short time I could not find out what the exact amount was on the cheque which was written out, and I want to suggest that the hon member raise it at the next meeting of the Parliamentary Association. They will furnish him with all the information.

Hence, we are now dealing with a situation in which an ordinary, friendly gesture on the part of Mr Speaker to entertain a senior Parliamentarian from another country by treating him as a guest during the period of time he was in the vicinity of Parliament is now being presented as a possible scandal and the words “cover up” was used here by way of an interjection. The way in which that opposition party acts in respect of Parliament is an absolute scandal.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House a question?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer any questions. [Interjections.]

He is a backbencher in Britain.

The hon member for Sea Point, once again, made the point that the report on Parliament is exclusively for the information of members. Has it ever been otherwise?

Change it!

May I ask the hon member whether he has ever raised this issue in any of the parliamentary committees on which he serves? No, he reserves it for a debate in public once again to create the impression that we are doing things in a clandestine way in Parliament. [Interjections.]

You are just touchy!

This is purely an administrative matter which he could have raised at one of the many committee meetings that we have had.

It is not as if that the public does not know what is going on. This document in which is printed the expenditure concerning the Vote which we are asked to approve now is public property. It is available to the public and it contains a full exposition of the expenditure and the heads under which they are to be approved. So there is nothing clandestine about it.

I am trying to help the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, he is not trying to help the hon the Chief Whip; he is merely playing petty politics. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member referred to Hansard. I think all members share the feeling that the delay in the appearance of Hansard which has been going on for quite some time now is causing a great deal of inconvenience. There have been several complaints. I am in possession of a copy of a letter which neatly sums up the situation. It is a letter which Mr Speaker wrote to one of the hon members of this House with regard to his complaints. After explaining the logistical reasons for the initial situation he concludes by saying:

*Steps have therefore being taken to deal with this real problem and to alleviate the situation for hon members so that we can have a printed Hansard much sooner.

†In conclusion, the hon member also referred to the expenditure of R9 million. I can give him an absolute breakdown of that amount. I want to ask him if he is interested in a breakdown.

There is a report on it.

So he knows the facts. I need not take the time of the House to explain that. However, I want to ask him why he found it necessary to refer to it as if there has once again not been a full explanation for that amount.

You didn’t listen to what I said.

The hon Chief Whip of the CP now tried to rake up the past in order to construct a case. I want to refer specifically to some of his points. He complained because the date, 22 August, and everything that goes with it, in this House, was not announced. At that stage only this Chamber was sitting, while the other two Chambers were not. Firstly it was therefore not possible to make such an announcement. It probably would have been desirable to make the announcement on behalf of the hon the State President in all three Chambers, had they been sitting simultaneously. Secondly, the starting date of a session is not announced in Parliament. It has always been the executive authority who announces the basic dates of commencement and the main dates—such as when we have a special session such as the one of 22 August will in fact be. Parliament is asked to assemble to finalise the work which the executive authority has placed on the Order Paper. Therefore there is no insult built into the fact that the hon the State President made the announcement in the way he did. The hon the State President, if one were to consider him as still being a member from 26 May 1948 until today has had more than 40 years’ service. He was also a previous Leader of the House. If there is one person who has a respect for the institution of Parliament, and who at all times and in all the discussion in which I also was involved wanted to convert that respect into deeds and show that respect, then such a person is the hon the State President.

The hon member also referred to the so-called McCann document. He made a big fuss about why it was not announced by the hon the Minister in the discussion of his Vote. If an hon Minister had to announce everything that was in the pipeline during a debate on his Vote and had to say that in two weeks he would do one thing and in three weeks another …

It had already been approved!

There are many decisions which have already been approved which one announces the moment they are piloted through.

But it was 20% of his appropriation!

Is the hon member always in a position to announce three weeks in advance what he intends doing in three weeks time? An announcement is when one makes something public.

That is not good enough!

That is an absolutely specious argument which is being advanced in this regard. [Interjections.]

The hon member complained about bad attendance. We are able to prove innumerable times from the Whips’ documents that percentage-wise a much larger percentage of hon members on this side of the House are present at any given moment in the House than hon members on that side of the House. A number of figures were given to me. They are historic figures; I can also mention a few dates. If I interpret them correctly, on 10 March at a specific moment in time, 30% of the opposition members were absent, while only 9,8% of the NP members were absent. At a given juncture, on 16 March, only 3% of the NP members were absent, while 17% of the opposition members were absent. I could go on in this vein. On the day when 9,8% of the NP members were absent, 45% of the CP members were absent.

On 15 March it was the same. Fifty percent of the CPs were absent. [Interjections.] No, Mr Chairman, that proves …

What about all the other days?

What about 8 June?

Order! There are far too many interjections on the part of the Official Opposition. They must now cease. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

On 8 June, if all the Ministers who were holding a Cabinet meeting until two o’clock and whose …

They are resting now!

No, they are keeping other appointments, inter alia enquiries which those hon members also make and to whom they want to give a reasonable reply. Those hon Ministers are inter alia also engaged in work which has to find expression in this House as well as in the other two Houses. If one were to exclude them from our calculations our percentage of attendance at the moment is as good as that of the CP. Let us therefore not have petty arguments with each other. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that if there are complaints about the pressure of activities—which was the other point the hon member raised, namely that sessions are too long and that the committees now have to sit during Parliamentary sessions—recognition should at least be given to two facts. Firstly, as a result of last year’s election a session was held in the second half of the year, and as a result of that we did not have a normal long recess during which standing committees could work as they normally do. For that reason it was impossible to follow the normal rhythm of concentration of standing committee activities during the recess and few activities for the standing committees during the Parliamentary session. We hope that in the very short time which we shall be sitting during August, we shall succeed this year—also in respect of co-operation of the hon members of the opposition parties and of the other Houses—in allowing standing committees to function in such a way that next year when we reconvene it will be possible for their activities to have been finalised to a great extent.

Furthermore, additional demands are of course being made in establishing a new dispensation. That requires controversial legislation and one amendment of a new constitution brings about an entire series of consequent amendments and other legislation. New institutions are to be established and that in turn must be done by means of legislation in order to create the necessary legal framework within which they can function. Therefore my reply is that I think that in the foreseeable future we shall continue to experience exceptional pressure in the establishment of the new dispensation as it develops and evolves. If hon members shy away from this, they should rather let others in their constituencies be elected in their place if they do not want to work on the future of South Africa.

As is the case in your constituency?

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, at the commencement of this debate I should like to say on behalf of the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, who was chairman of this committee …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The report of the Committee is now under discussion and we want to take the point of order that this report shall not be discussed … [Interjections] … because the legally prescribed procedure in regard to this matter has not been complied with. It is our submission that, in the case under discussion, which was concerned with alleged bribery, the committee was given specific terms of reference which it had to carry out under the Rules in a specific way. The committee had wide powers, but in respect of some of its powers limitations were imposed on it, in particular as prescribed in section 20 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. I shall read out the provisions concerned, omitting certain of the non-relevant particulars, for the purposes of my argument. It reads as follows:

It is therefore clear that the moment when a specific situation arises that a person refuses on the grounds of the said two factors to reply to a question, namely that it is of a private nature and that it is not relevant, the power to decide the matter passes to this House. This is a fact, regardless of the question, as it appears from this Rule, of whether he is going to be excused from answering the question or whether he is going to be required to answer. That is not relevant. Regardless of whether he is excused from answering or required to answer, the decision must be taken here.

There is a precedent for this. I am referring hon members to a report of a former joint committee which serves as a precedent for this case. I am reading the entire report of the then chairman, H Juta:

He mentions the example here:

The committee then resolved as follows:

It is the same provision that applies here. Consequently it is clear in accordance with that finding that such questions shall be referred by the Committee to this House for a decision. Actually it is logic and goes without saying, because in the case of an obligation it is obvious that it entails detrimental consequences for such a person. If this House were to find that he is obliged to answer the question, and he refuses to do so, he is of course committing an offence. However, on the other hand if he should be erroneously excused from an obligation, it would entail that the committee to which the question was referred, was being deprived of evidence which could be of material importance in deciding the question before that committee.

If this is the case, and I say it is, then we see that in reality, in terms of this report as it is at present before this House, there is already a recognition of the standpoint. This is so because in the final paragraph—paragraph 10—on page x of the report states the following:

If this House were to decide one way or another, it just goes to show that the cart has undoubtedly been put before the horse, because it is indisputably the case that in terms of Rule 64(2) of the Rules and Orders of Parliament the committee’s function is terminated the moment it has complied with its terms of reference, and I quote this Rule:

The committee has now completed its assignment. What would the position be now if this House were to say that the witnesses must answer? I maintain that the recognition that this procedure was the wrong procedure is contained herein. How could that committee anticipate what this House was going to find? How can it, Sir? Surely it is inevitable that it does not fall within its power. [Interjections.] Here we have the precedent for it. According to the precedent it is clear that the decision must be taken by this House; that is what must happen. Surely it is the case that when a particular situation arises, namely the case in which a person appeals to a privilege; only in that case it is only this House that can take the decision, and not the committee. It is our submission that for those reasons this report cannot be discussed by this House at this stage.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on the point of order?

The hon member may proceed.

In the first place section 20 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act provides that Mr Speaker may follow a certain course of action. The Speaker is not obliged to follow that course of action, and the House may then, as a result of that, take a certain decision.

My submission is that the committee dealt with this matter in paragraph 7.2 of the report and arrived at the conclusion that in terms of section 20, which the hon member for Ermelo quoted, the witnesses were not required to answer the specific questions; that those questions fell under the exception rule of section 20, namely ”… does not affect the subject of the enquiry.”

I submit that a committee that may call for evidence may also determine its own order. Before the committee was able to take action against that evidence it would have had to receive the sanction of this House, but when it determined that that evidence did not fall under section 20 because it did not affect the subject of the enquiry, such a committee was not required to consult this House.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make one main submission to you, namely that the select committee which investigated this matter—the matter concerning alleged bribery—became functus officio the moment witnesses refused to give evidence.

Any kind of evidence?

This is my main submission, Sir, and I should like to substantiate it on the basis of section 20 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, which the hon member for Nelspruit contends is of a discretionary nature in the sense that Mr Speaker may report on the matter.

This section comprises two parts. Firstly I should like refer to what the hon member for Nelspruit said, namely that the Mr Speaker is entitled to investigate certain actions. That is indeed the case. I quote from the said section 20:

Then there follows the important qualifying words:

It is no longer a question of “may”.

shall decide the matter, and this includes Houses in the form of joint committees as well.

In this connection … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, in this regard I should like to quote what Kilpin has to say. I quote from page 103 of his Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa, the third edition:

Not the select committee in question or other committee, but the House itself.

The following procedure is prescribed in section 20 of the said Act. When a witness refuses to reply to a question, it is no longer the committee in question which may decide the issue further; in that case the committee must refer the matter to the House, and the House …

Order! Could the hon member inform me whether the committee referred this specific matter to the House?

Mr Chairman, that is precisely what I wish to argue as my second point. The committee was obliged to do so at the time the witness refused, and not thereafter. Hence the issue here is that of a trial within a trial.

Order! Did the committee deal with it in its report?

Mr Chairman, the committee did the following. On page ix, in paragraph 7.1 of the committee’s report it dealt with the matter as follows:

My argument is precisely this: the committee itself may not make a finding. It is the House which shall make the finding. Kilpin also states “the House may”, and then proceeds to say what the House may do. Hence in this particular case it is the House which shall make the finding and not the committee itself.

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

Order! No, I cannot allow it. This is not a debate. At the moment we are dealing with points of order.

Mr Chairman, it is therefore my submission that the committee was not entitled to act as it said it did in paragraph 7.1. The committee contends that it discussed the refusal and found that Messrs Vosloo and Breier were not under an obligation to answer the questions. This is my main submission. The committee was not entitled to make a finding. If a committee comprises members of all three Houses, it is the Houses which shall make the finding.

Order! It is very clear to me that we could argue this matter indefinitely. Furthermore, it is clear that the committee as such did not inform Parliament that such a problem had arisen. Consequently this House could not take note of it. For this reason my ruling is that this debate may now proceed as specified on the Order Paper. This is my ruling in this regard.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: in paragraph 10 on page xi of the report the committee states:

Hence the Committee is asking the House to exempt those persons. Nevertheless the Committee had already made a decision as well as a finding concerning the merits of the case before it was given leave to exempt those persons from their obligation.

I say that it is indeed before the House in the form of this report, and it is now being asked.

Order! I understand fully why the hon member wants to argue the matter further, but at the moment it is the discussion of this report which is before the House. What the hon member has mentioned can be discussed in the consideration of the report. It is not necessary to advance those arguments by way of a point of order.

Mr Chairman, on another point of order, I should like to say that to raise a point of order on these matters at this time, as my hon colleagues are doing, is inappropriate. The time a point of order ought to be raised is at the time the report becomes part of the proceedings of the House, and not at the present moment, weeks later, when the proceedings are being discussed.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order arising from what the hon Leader of the House has just said: I refer to page xxi of the report in question, which states:

1. (a) the Committee wrongly found that the Rev H J Hendrickse and Mr J N Vosloo did not have to answer certain questions which were put to them …

Order! The hon member is discussing the report yet again. The report is not in order at the moment; we are dealing with points of order.

Sir, may I address you further regarding this matter?

The chairman of the committee is sitting over there.

Order!

The hon Leader of the House maintains that the point of order raised by my colleague the hon member for Ermelo was raised at the wrong time. The point should have been raised when the report was being discussed on the committee.

No, that is not what I said.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That is not what I said. I said that the point of order should have been raised when the report of the committee became part of the proceedings of the House.

Is that not today?

No.

Order! We are in fact raising points of order that are not relevant to the subject under discussion. Once again I put the report. The hon member for Port Elizabeth North.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That hon member does not come from Port Elizabeth.

Order! I beg your pardon. I call upon the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to speak.

Mr Chairman, fortunately I am not the hon member for Port Elizabeth North!

At the commencement of this debate I should like to apologise on behalf of the chairman of the committee for his not being able to be present. I am of course referring to the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order who is unfortunately occupied with official duties. On behalf of the hon members on this side of the House who were also members of the committee I should like to put on record our sincere and heart-felt thanks and appreciation for his very competent helmsmanship. The fact that this committee sat for a period of a little less than two weeks and yet heard no fewer than six witnesses is proof of the very competent way in which he conducted the committee.

At this stage I think it would also be appropriate to express our thanks to the witnesses who were prepared to give evidence before the committee and in so doing to be of assistance to the committee. [Interjections.]

I am astonished that the CP has asked that this matter be argued at all, and that they even wish to oppose the report, because the way in which the committee conducted its business is set out in the report. All the evidence is before the House. It is quite evident that thpre is no truth whatsoever in the allegations of bribery, nor in the allegations concerning the involvement of the State President. [Interjections.] This is quite evident from the report and of course from the evidence contained in the report as well. The CP ought to be aware of that. Furthermore they are simply asking for a hiding in this debate. And if they ask for a hiding, we must oblige. [Interjections.]

The background to this report and the events leading up to it …

Order! Once again the Official Opposition is making too many interjections. I earnestly request that the hon members refrain from interjecting so frequently. If this continues I shall be obliged to name the hon members according to their constituencies. The hon member may proceed.

The background to the report and the events leading up to the investigation are fairly well-known. The hon the Leader of the House requested that an enquiry be conducted as a result of the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg on 9 February in which he alleged that members of Parliament were apparently guilty of bribery or attempted bribery, and that the hon the State President had failed to institute an enquiry because he had probably known that the allegations were true or was afraid that the allegations would be proved true. The terms of reference of the committee were to establish whether or not these allegations were true. The committee interpreted its terms of reference more widely and also considered whether members of Parliament had been guilty of irregularities in this regard.

In the limited time available it is not possible for me to deal thoroughly with the evidence. There are various hon members on this side of the House who will refer to it. However I should like to refer to four matters: The complaint and the complainant; the witnesses and lack of witnesses; the evidence which was given; and the refusal of certain witnesses to give evidence.

As regards the complaint and the complainant, the hon member for Lichtenburg was asked on what grounds he had brought his complaint, and he replied that it was founded merely on reports. He referred to reports in the Sunday Star of 8 November and Rapport of 3 January. In spite of the seriousness of his charges he said that he had not conducted any personal investigation into the truth of the matter, nor had he done anything about the matter from 8 November, the date on which it came to his knowledge, until February. For more than three months, therefore, he neglected to do anything about the matter, although he raised it here as a serious matter. The question arises whether this is the conduct to be expected from a person who was convinced of the truth and seriousness of the matter. Obviously not, for had he taken the matter seriously, he would at least have made the matter public at a much earlier stage or would have requested either the police or the State President to to conduct an investigation. But he did not do so. This is simply proof of the fact that the allegations which were made here were nothing more than a half-baked attempt to score a few political points.

As far as the calling of witnesses is concerned, the committee went out of its way to call all possible witnesses involved in this matter. One cannot expect the committee to have done any more. In the first place it twice invited all members of Parliament by letter to give evidence before the committee. If there had been any grounds for these allegations, at least two members of Parliament would have been involved and surely someone would have come forward to give evidence. Furthermore it invited the public to come forward with evidence, but no-one appeared. I should like to suggest that if there had been any truth to these allegations, witnesses at least would have come forward—especially as it is well-known that the NP and the LP do not see eye to eye on many matters. If there had been attempted bribery or even bribery itself, there was very good reason for the evidence to be brought forward, but that did not occur. The same applies to the CP. If there was well-founded evidence which they believed, they would have investigated the matter. Since Parliament is a place where such secrets are not easily kept, if there were any grounds to these allegations, they would at least have come forward with substantial evidence or evidence with which the committee could deal. But they did not do so.

As far as the evidence is concerned, it centres around an article in the Rapport, for which Mr Vosloo was responsible, and also subsequent reports in Die Burger and in another newspaper. As far as the article in Rapport is concerned, it is very clear that it was not referring to bribery in the true sense of the word. It was referring to legitimate negotiations and pointing out the lawful and legal consequences which would arise from a postponement of the elections. Consequently there was no question of bribery in a criminal sense. That is also why the word “omkoopsgeskenk” appears in quotation marks in the article.

The second group of articles all originated with Rev Hendrickse. The evidence of Rev Hendrickse, as well as Messrs Breier and Sidego, brought to light that the allegations of Rev Hendrickse were merely based on hearsay reports and that he did not have the names or was not able to give the names of the MP’s who were possibly involved. [Interjections.] Furthermore he said that the Nasionale Pers had blown the matter out of all proportion. He used the words “much ado about nothing”. He also said that he had enquired into the matter and that he knew for certain that no bribery had occurred. Therefore it is clear that as regards these articles as well there are no grounds whatsoever for the allegations which have been made.

The evidence of the hon member for Border, Mr Mopp, must also be taken into consideration, and I should like to suggest that this evidence gives an indication of the possible background to and origin of the stories which gave rise to these allegations. For instance he gave evidence concerning the letter he had jokingly circulated around the House of Representatives in which mention had been made of the postponement of the elections and the advantages arising from that, and also that this matter had come to the attention of the press and that the press had discussed it with him.

To sum up, what remains? Firstly there is a complainant who has no confidence in his case. He did not enquire into the matter himself; no direct evidence was submitted by him; and he waited a considerable length of time before laying his charge. Secondly no member of Parliament or member of the public came forward, although there was very good reason to give evidence if there were any grounds to the allegations. Thirdly Messrs Vosloo and Sidego testified that they were very well-informed, that they could find no proof of bribery, that if it had occurred they would in all likelihood have been aware of it, and furthermore that they did not believe the allegations. Rev Hendrickse testified that the allegations were founded on hearsay, that he had made enquiries and that he knew that bribery had not taken place. Moreover we have the letter of the hon member for Border which evidently gave rise to these stories.

On the grounds of this evidence the committee could come to no other conclusion but that there was no truth whatsoever in the allegations, and also that the allegations against the State President were completely unfounded and unjustified. [Interjections.] I want to suggest that, based on the evidence given before it, no reasonable person could have arrived at any conclusion other than the one arrived at by the committee.

The other matter that has been argued here is the question of the refusal of certain witnesses to answer questions. In the first place Messrs Vosloo and Breier did not want to disclose the names of the persons who were obviously not involved in bribery. These persons were involved in lawful and proper negotiations and discussions. Therefore there was no bribery involved. Consequently it must be accepted that this information is private and not relevant to the investigation before the House. It follows that leave must be granted to them in terms of section 20 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, as requested in paragraph 10 of the report.

As regards Rev Hendrickse, the argument may possibly hold water. I shall be the first to concede that. However his evidence must be regarded in the context of all the evidence given before the committee. It would be exceptionally highhanded of someone to compel a party leader to disclose confidential caucus information in this particular case. The reason I say this is that there are no grounds for the allegations in this case. Rev Hendrickse made enquiries himself and said himself that he was not able to supply the names of those who may “possibly” have been involved. He himself is convinced that it did not occur. He demonstrated his bona fides by testifying before the committee—an obligation he could have avoided had he wanted to.

On the basis of the preponderance of evidence it is therefore simply fair and reasonable that the information Rev Hendrickse could have supplied should also be regarded as private and irrelevant, and that he too be exempted in terms of section 20. Sir, for this reason I say that the report should be accepted. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, during the course of my argument I shall reply to certain aspects raised by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

This report is of particular concern to those members on the opposite side of the House. The report cannot be properly considered unless the precise terms of reference of the committee are examined. The terms of reference of this committee, as expressed by the hon the Leader of the House when he appointed the committee, were to enquire into the truth of the quotations made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. The terms of reference were to determine whether the contents of those quotations were true.

Certain persons were then asked to supply information by answering questions put by the committee. They were reluctant to supply such information. I shall return to this matter again. However, let us briefly consider the reasons given by the two witnesses for not being prepared to disclose certain information. Mr Vosloo was asked whether he knew of persons who had been approached with an “omkoopsgeskenk”. He replied in the affirmative, and said that NP MP’s had approached Coloured MP’s but that he was not prepared to disclose their names.

Put it in context!

Sir, I am aware that this case differs from that of Rev Hendrickse. Mr Vosloo refused to furnish their names on the grounds that he was a journalist and that information is given to him in confidence. Furthermore he said that it was not relevant to the enquiry. Those were the grounds for his plea, and that of Mr Breier.

However, Sir, let us see what Rev Hendrickse says. For the benefit of the hon members I should like to quote the reason given by Rev Hendrickse for his refusal to make the names public—I refer the hon members to his evidence on page 42 of the report:

He continues:

He admits he used those words, but he refuses to disclose with whom he had spoken, or who had given him the information. He went on to explain why:

Therefore he bases his appeal on a privilege since the information was given to him in confidence. This is the reason why he is not prepared to divulge the names of his informants. The committee’s task was to ascertain the truth. This committee must enquire into the truth of the matter. But from whom should it obtain the truth? The truth can only be obtained from those persons who told Rev Hendrickse that R10 000 had been offered. Who are they?

He does not dispute that such statements were made to him. This allegation of an offer of R10 000 did not simply fall out of the sky. The first person to mention R10 000 was Rev Hendrickse. He obtained the information from his party colleagues—that is his own evidence. However he says that he does not want to disclose the information. What was the committee’s reply? Sir, it is unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable!

I am prepared, and I challenge this House to do the same, to submit this matter, exactly as it stands here today, to any legal practitioner who is not a member of this House. I challenge the House to produce any recognised authority to justify Mr Hendrickse’s refusal to answer that question. I should like to see the authority, whether in the law of evidence, or the written opinion of any author from any period or any place, that that is a legally acceptable ground for exemption. The committee’s justification for their permitting Mr Hendrickse to avoid answering is absolutely incredible. I cannot believe it.

What is the accepted law on the matter? In terms of section 10 a witness shall reply to a lawful and relevant question, but in terms of section 20 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act there are grounds on which a witness can rely for refusing to reply when giving evidence. However section 20 is always subject to the provisions of section 22. Section 22 provides as follows:

That is the prevailing law which should be applied. Section 20 cannot be an extention of section 22; it is subject to the provisions of section 22. Therefore what is the prevailing law? I quote our authoritative sources on the matter. This will render unnecessary any further discussion on the matter, although I could quote many more sources.

I quote Burchell and Hunt:

Van Niekerk, when writing on “Privilegie in die bewysreg”, expresses the point as follows:

In this case it is the status of a politician.

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

No, but I shall answer the hon member’s question if time permits.

I shall continue with the quote:

The hon members are as if in a court of law when they must decide the matter. He continues:

Therefore there can be no doubt as to the prevailing law. This is the law that should have been applied. Accordingly there is no basis upon which Mr Hendrickse can be exempted.

As I have said before, the situation as regards the applicable law is clear. Let there be no doubt about the matter. I can quote many more examples.

On the other hand here are the reasons given by this committee for permitting Mr Hendrickse to exempt himself from giving his evidence. Sir, you will not believe it. You are a jurist, and so is the hon Leader of the House sitting over there. I should like to appeal to him nevertheless to ensure, in the interests of the future business of our Parliament, that this matter is resolved in accordance with sound principles.

Firstly they say—

The only person able to disclose that source of information is Mr Hendrickse. [Interjections.] Yet they say that there was no evidence before it.

Let us proceed to the second reason. It is said—

However the issue is not whether Mr Hendrickse attached any value to the allegations, but whether the committee could attach any value to them. [Interjections.] Surely that is the issue. It is not whether Mr Hendrickse attached any value to them. It issue is what happened when a NP MP, as alleged, said to a Coloured MP: “Sir, I make you an offer of R10 000." That is the issue. What value did that person attach to it?

Let us consider something else. [Interjections.] Bear in mind that these are all reasons for their conclusion. They say:

The hon the Leader of the House submits certain questions and advocates the appointment of a committee to enquire into the truth of the matter. Why did we not simply ask Mr Hendrickse to arrive at the decision of whether it is true or not? [Interjections.] Why did we appoint a committee to investigate the matter? [Interjections.] It is incredible. I am sure that the hon the Leader of the House, who is himself a jurist, must and will agree with me on this point. It is unbelievable that a man who is himself involved is asked to assess what the situation is. During the course of 14 days we wasted our time. We could simply have asked Mr Hendrickse beforehand what the situation was. [Interjections.] We were supposed to enquire into that very issue. Can you believe it, Sir? It is incredible.

Let us consider something else. Another hon member has also quoted it. The report states—

Can you believe it, Sir? If a person had attempted to bribe another, it is the contention of this committee that that person would have been the first to come running to the committee to say that it was he who had wanted to bribe someone. He simply offers the information to the committee on a platter. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member to tell us whether it would not be natural to assume that, if there had indeed been bribery, the hon members of the Labour Party, who regard themselves as being in opposition to us on this side of the House, would have come forward with evidence as to who the bribers on this side were?

May I answer the hon the Leader of the House in this way? Should one of the hon members perhaps have said that he would consider it, he would be guilty himself. [Interjections.]

He would be an accomplice of the person who had offered the bribe. These are shady affairs which take place in secret and one can only shed light on them if one can put one of the parties in the dock and cross-examine him.

In only one respect do I agree with the hon the Leader of the House, namely that it would have been more difficult for NP MP’s to come forward. It would have been less difficult in the case of other MP’s, but the same applies to them.

Let us proceed. The report states:

What do you say about it?

Why are there no grounds for the allegations? Because this committee did not fulfil its commission to enquire into the truth of the matter. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that. It deprived itself of the opportunity to do so. Had Mr Hendrickse only been obliged to testify that John Smith had said he had been approached, we would at least have had John Smith. We could then have questioned him. It simply stands to reason.

Chew them up, Molie!

These unbelievable occurrences allow me to come to only one conclusion. It is a pity, but I can do nothing else but say that it is my humble opinion that this was an attempt to prevent the truth from coming out. It was a shirking of their task to discover the truth. [Interjections.] For this reason it appears to me—and I am now even more convinced of it—that the hon member for Lichtenburg had valid grounds for making his allegations. [Interjections.] When I see what attempts were made to prevent evidence from being submitted I feel there must be something behind it. [Interjections.]

Order!

I challenge any member on the other side to furnish me at any time with a prevailing legal reason operative in the RSA to justify Mr Hendrickse’s refusal to disclose his information.

This is not about Hendrickse but about Hartzenberg.

It is about what Mr Hendrickse knows and who his source of information is. That is what it is about. [Interjections.] There are supposed to be a good few legal men on the other side, but the attempts to avoid the facts of the matter have been so vigorous that even they will not make an issue of it. Therefore I shall be frank and say that the reasons advanced in respect of Mr Hendrickse simply do not wash. It is an absurdity, an impossibility.

I come now to Mr Vosloo. His plea was that he was not referring to the same thing the hon member for Lichtenburg was referring to because he spoke of a bribe in the form of a gift (omkoopgeskenk). This was ostensibly the postponement of the election for the sake of obtaining a pension. He therefore alleges that it was not relevant, because it is allegedly a completely legitimate mode of action.

Lawful bribery! [Interjections.]

It was admitted by Mr Vosloo that there were people who were approached with these conditions. However the issue is not what Mr Vosloo thinks about it.

The issue is precisely what took place between the Nat MP and the Coloured MP …

Which Nat MP?

That is precisely what we are trying to find out. [Interjections.] The issue is what the Nat MP said to him by way of an offer; the way in which it was put to him. Did the Nat MP say to him that if they ensured that the election was held at the right time, he would derive tremendous financial benefit? Is he prepared to make a different decision in conflict with his own convictions? The issue is therefore the nature of the conversation between them. The issue is not whether or not Mr Vosloo thought it was a bribe in the form of a gift. The issue is the facts, and those facts must be judged after they have been laid on the table. Moreover Mr Vosloo pleaded privilege of a private nature. The hon members must understand private nature—one cannot understand it any other way—as private as opposed to public. That is what it is about.

What does our law say about the question of private. I quote:

I should merely like to say that it therefore concerns private privilege.

There were two requirements which had to be fulfilled in order to exempt Mr Vosloo. He had to rely upon a private privilege. He had to—and wanted to—plead that as a journalist he was privileged. As a journalist he did not have to disclose what was said to him. Therefore two conditions must exist before he can plead private privilege. Firstly there should be a private privilege, and secondly the information should not be relevant. In terms of section 20 both should be present. Section 20 expresses it very clearly with ”… and …”. He should therefore be able to claim he is covered because he, as a journalist, is not obliged to disclose the information. Furthermore, even if he should be obliged to disclose it, it is not relevant either. Both these requirements must be fulfilled.

The first requirement is completely lacking. Our legal sources confirm it, and we know it. I can briefly refer the hon members to our case law. This is the prevailing law at the present time. I have researched the matter. The leading case in this regard is S v Pogrund. It was reported in 1961 (3) of the South African Law Reports. I quote briefly from the following extract:

This is trite law. It is true that many representations are being made that such persons ought to be accommodated. The Steyn Commission investigated the matter. The conclusion arrived at was that a journalist could not rely upon such a privilege. [Interjections.] The interests of the administration of justice supersede that requirement.

Therefore Messrs Breier or Vosloo cannot successfully have recourse to that privilege, and as witnesses they were accordingly obliged to answer the those questions. This is therefore our standpoint on the matter. We regard this matter in a very serious light, and I should like to say to the hon members that if we consider the finding of this committee, namely that there were in fact no witnesses before it who showed any grounds for the allegations of bribery, it can only be attributed to neglect on the part of the committee to compel these persons to disclose the names so that they too could be called as witnesses. Let these arguments suffice for the time being. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think most hon members of this House have been stunned by the CP’s antics we have had to witness here this afternoon. I really want to tell hon members of the Official Opposition not to be afraid to argue the evidence submitted to, and the facts contained in the report of, the joint committee. Let us argue them. There are enough members of the legal profession on that side of the House, and we have enough on this side of the House. Those hon members should not shy away from our putting those technical points to one another right at the outset.

The hon member for Ermelo omitted to say something very important. I think it must be said today. I am referring to the fact that this joint committee consisted of 21 members, 19 of whom were in total agreement, and with respect, that includes the hon member for Berea. Those members of the committee were in complete agreement on each point and each finding. Only the two hon members of the Official Opposition did not agree. [Interjections.] I shall come back to that point in my speech today.

As far as the refusal to give evidence is concerned, I just want to say that the question of Mr Vosloo and Rev Hendrickse will be dealt with by one of the subsequent speakers. I want to refer specifically to the evidence which the hon member for Lichtenburg gave before the joint committee. In fact, I maintain that the hon member’s evidence is of the utmost importance because on 9 February 1988 this hon member made certain accusations and allegations which not only gave rise to the appointment of this committee and the consequent investigation, but also resulted in certain action being taken against the hon member by this House.

Before I refer specifically to the evidence of this hon member before the joint committee, it is necessary that certain relevant portions of the hon member’s speech that day should be quoted again for the purposes of Hansard. I quote what the hon member said in this House on 9 February (Hansard, 1988, col 247):

The hon member made further allegations in this connection, but because of the time factor, I shall quote no further.

I now come to the specific evidence which the hon member gave before this joint committee, because it is very important that the evidence, as given by the hon member, and as seen against the background of allegations which have been made, should also be evaluated by this House and the public of South Africa. This hon member gave evidence before the joint committee on Monday, 7 March 1988. His evidence appears in full from page 6 to the middle of page 14 of the report. I should like to deal with some of the important points which are relevant.

At the beginning of his evidence, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North asked the following question:

The hon member for Lichtenburg replied:

The two reports were further identified as one from the Sunday Star and one in Rapport of 3 March. Then there was the following very important question to the hon member:

The categorical reply from the hon member was “no”. A further question to him in this connection was:

The categorical reply of the hon member was:

The following question was asked:

The hon member’s reply was:

A very important question put to the hon member for Lichtenburg by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North appears on page 7 of the report:

The hon member for Lichtenburg replied:

Then follows a very important question which was put to him:

The hon member replied that the CP were not the police, but a political party, and that they were not in a position to institute investigations. [Interjections.] In reply to a question by the hon member Mr Lockey as to whether the hon member had knowledge perse of an incident involving bribery and other details, the reply was:

And he presented that as being the truth!

In reply to a question as to whether the hon member for Lichtenburg had any sources other than the newspaper reports, his reply was “no”.

Regarding the allegations which the hon member made about the knowledge the hon the State President was supposed to have had of these matters, on page 12 of the report the hon member for Kuruman put the following statement to the hon member for Lichtenburg:

The reply received was as follows:

The hon member for Kuruman followed this up with the following statement:

The reply which the hon member gave to this question confirmed that he based his statements on his own conclusions and not on concrete, undisputed and tested facts.

That is scandalous!

In conclusion, as far as the evidence is concerned, I asked the hon member why, if he regarded the matter in such a serious light, he did not report it immediately to the Advocate-General. His reply was as follows:

I do not want to say any more about the evidence of the hon member. By way of summary I just want to make the following statement: In the joint committee of this Parliament there was not a shred of legally based evidence of any bribery or of the hon the State President having any knowledge of it.

From the answers to the questions put to the hon member for Lichtenburg it became very clear that these allegations were intended to form an integral part of his speech in the no-confidence debate to extract the maximum amount of political advantage. At that stage it was a political advantage which was very important to the hon member’s party in the three by-elections which were to take place, and it can be described as nothing but a political gimmick. It was aimed once more at besmirching the image of the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

The overall conduct of the hon member was not directed at a search for the truth, but at seeking the maximum publicity for personal political gain in the CP’s typical political style of which he has unfortunately become a victim. [Interjections.] That is why he raised it in Parliament and did not make use of any other channels, such as the Advocate-General.

In all earnestness and in all honesty my call and appeal to the hon members of the Official Opposition is the following: Please, let us differ in the political sphere, let us differ on ideologies relating to the political and constitutional solutions for this country, but let us refrain from besmirching the integrity of our leaders. [Interjections]

Mr Chairman, earlier today I had the opportunity of listening to the hon the Leader of the House when he said we must treat Parliament with respect, and what an honourable institution Parliament was. “Parliament sometimes also sits as a judge. The Houses or Committees are appointed to perform a legal function”. When I listen to some of the judges who served on the committee, I sometimes wonder if, in some cases, it is the law they have in mind or political statements. [Interjections.]

The hon member who has just spoken asked why the hon member for Lichtenburg had not carried out an investigation to ascertain the truth. I just want to ask who was instructed by the House to ascertain the truth—was it the hon member for Lichtenburg or that select committee? If the hon member for Lichtenburg did not make enquiries to ascertain the truth, what did the select committee do to find out the truth?

Nothing! [Interjections.]

What did that select committee do, with its power to subpoena witnesses and the power to decide whether they should testify or not, in so far as it was obliged to bring that question to this House for a decision? When the first witness refused to answer the question as to who had told him, the committee said that was quite all right.

What happened? Something very strange must have happened, and I am very sorry that the chairman of that committee is not here today, because what did the chairman say immediately after that refusal? Let us examine that briefly. I have a lot of respect for that hon chairman, because as chairman of committees of which I was a member, and in which similar problems were investigated, he adopted a judicial approach. What did the chairman say then, the present hon Deputy Minister of Law and Order? On page 3 of the report the hon member for Ermelo asked Mr Vosloo the following:

Then Mr Vosloo said:

The chairman then said—and let us examine this and let us commend him for it, because I think it was the correct decision:

There is also a further quotation I could mention as an illustration. Let us assume for a moment that these things happened. Then the fact that Mr Vosloo heard it from Mr X is a serious accusation of, say, bribery. NP MPs were involved. I do not want to regard each and every hon member on the other side with suspicion. Let us find out who it was, because I do not think all of them are the sort of people who could be guilty of this sort of thing! [Interjections.] This report, however, makes all of them suspect.

Yes!

Let the man who said it come forward, and I take it he will possibly have an explanation for it. Let him come forward and give his explanation.

Now, however, hon members on the other side argue, with great respect, that nobody came forward voluntarily. I have often seen advertisements in the newspapers asking for this or that information, but it is very seldom that an offender comes forward of his own accord.

Take note, Sir, that I am making a comparison here. I am not making an outright allegation. I do not think hon members opposite are criminals. [Interjections.] I am merely mentioning this as an example. Anybody who has done something irregular does not come forward voluntarily. If they did we would not need a police force. The only question I am putting to him is that he should give the name of the NP MP concerned. It was put to Rev Hendrickse that he was the person who had cast aspersions on the NP, and he was asked to give the name of the person concerned if, in fact, there was such a person; if not, he need only say there was no such person. His reply was that there were in fact such persons, but that he would not give their names.

Who said so?

Rev Hendrickse said so. He admitted in his evidence that that conversation actually took place. He did not deny it. Nowhere did he deny it. We can go back over this. He did not say this was absolute nonsense. He did not say that when he, Rev Hendrickse, made that speech, he was telling a lie. He did not say that. He said there were such cases, but he was not prepared to make the names known.

And you believe him?

No, it does not matter whether I believe him. Had he mentioned their names I could have judged whether I should believe him or not. Then I could have asked the person concerned whether he said so or not. [Interjections.] Only when I had that information could I have given my verdict. I would have had to assist in ascertaining the truth, as the chairman of the committee, the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, said.

Surely I could not have kept myself from finding out the truth by coming to my own conclusions? Should I have said I would rather not hear the truth? Should I have asked that no mention be made of the name of the person concerned in case I found out the truth?

Let us look at this report now. After all, that is what it is all about. The terms of reference of the committee were to enquire into:

Read it again; read the whole thing!

Yes, there is also a second leg. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, let us see what the newspaper reports said. Let us look at the article in Rapport. There were problems because—so it was said—the hon member for Lichtenburg had not quoted the complete article. I am going to quote only the relevant paragraph. I really cannot read the whole report. There is simply too little time for that. I quote:

Mr Chairman, what is being said here? It is being said that a member of the Parliament of South Africa—even though he is a member of another House, he is still part of this Parliament—would be willing to vote for legislation for the benefit of a pension; not because of any personal convictions, but because of a carrot dangled in front of him in the form of a pension. If I were to allege here today that any single hon member of this House, for the sake of a pension, would be prepared to vote contrary to his convictions, it would be a very serious accusation against hon members of this House. [Interjections.] It is something which should be investigated.

But it has been investigated! [Interjections.]

If this in fact is the truth, then it reflects on every hon member of this Parliament. Surely it amounts to a breach of privilege of Parliament. It is an attack on an hon member. It is an allegation stating that an hon member is prepared to accept money for voting against the merits of a case. We cannot allow that, can we?

I assume that hon members of the NP do not sit over there and vote for or against legislation simply because they receive a salary, but because of their convictions. Or do they vote as they do because of the salary? [Interjections.]

I hear voices saying ‘of course’. I hope—and here I associate myself with what the hon Leader of the House had to say—that this Parliament is above that, because if it is not, we are doomed. That is what would happen if we were prepared to vote for anything for the sake of personal advantage, regardless of the merits of the case.

Let us continue with the following aspect and take a closer look at it. I quote from page 55 of the report:

With all due respect, should that go unpunished? If that is a false allegation, action must be taken against Rev Hendrickse, because he is casting a reflection on all hon members on the other side. Fortunately he did not mention CPs, because we would have done something about it. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, a reflection has been cast on hon members on the other side. At the moment it is a reflection cast on all those hon members—R10 000 was offered.

That is just nonsense, and you know it.

Let him come here and say it is this or that hon member so that we can acquit the others or see if there really is such a person.

Rev Hendrickse did not want to mention the name, and it may be that there is no such hon member. Perhaps that is the reason why he did not want to give the name, but he does not say he cannot give the name; he says he does not want to give it. [Interjections.]

This committee has the right to compel him to give the name, but the committee did not do that. In terms of section 20 the committee could have come to the House and asked the House to decide whether Rev Hendrickse should answer that question or not.

The chairman of the committee felt it was in the interests of the truth, but something happened somewhere because overnight the chairman’s ruling changed completely. Something must have happened, therefore. [Interjections.] We do not know what happened, but the honourable standpoint he adopted suddenly vanished into thin air. We find nothing further about it in the report.

Hon members on the Government side think they are in the process of neutralising the hon member for Lichtenburg. However, by not punishing someone who goes round saying that their party bribes people, they are sanctioning his actions.

Rev Hendrickse is the man who can give the facts. Mr Vosloo could also give them to us. He could tell us if it was member A or B. Through this House the committee has the power to call upon that person to come and give evidence, but the committee has refrained from doing so—it has neutralised itself—to get at the truth, because it did not see fit to use the powers at its disposal to find out the truth. [Interjections.]

The committee should have come to the House as it was obliged to do in terms of section 20, and asked it for authority to tell Rev Hendrickse he must say who the person was who was trying to bribe Coloured members, or not trying to bribe them. Then the committee would have been able to get at the truth, and so should we. We cannot of course give a verdict before we have heard all the witnesses, but that, in fact, is what the committee did.

In my view it is best summed up in the case of Pienaar. What happened there was that all hon members were brought into discredit, and it is, at the very least, libellous to say that somebody tried to bribe somebody, or that somebody voted differently for the sake of a pension. If anybody were to have done that, he would not have judged according to the merits of the case, but would have been motivated by hopes of personal gain. It is libellous to say that of an MP, because it brings Parliament as a whole into discredit. The public will be saying tomorrow that the MPs vote for personal gain, are looking to their own little pensions and do not look after the interests of the people.

Mr Chairman, the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal are lawyers and in my time I have made use of the professional services of both of them, sometimes even with quite good results. However, since the two hon members have embarked on political careers, they have been carrying on to such an extent with the verbatim report of what witnesses said, that they should rather stay here—although I do begrudge it them—and not return to a legal practice!

I should like to remind the two hon members of just one other thing. They are not acting as spokesmen for their party nor as members of their party. They are fulfilling a different role when this House has to reach a decision on this report. I think that then, like the committee, we must ask what the truth is and try to find the truth through the words of the witnesses whom we heard. We must not then in our own words refer to anything any witness appealed to and what he allegedly said.

I am going to deal with the evidence of Mr Vosloo, who did not want to answer certain questions, and the evidence of the Rev Hendrickse, with reference to the question contained in the terms of reference, to see whether this throws any light on the subject.

It is a fact that in terms of section 20 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963, a witness is not obliged to answer a question which does not deal with the subject of the inquiry. Let us examine the evidence given by Mr Vosloo. I feel I must refer to the verbatim report. On page 15 he is asked:

Referring to a conversation, of course. He replied:

After that he was asked:

And he replied:

This is, however, a process which the CP unfortunately does not understand, because they will not negotiate their policy; they will want to enforce it. [Interjections.] The next question is:

To this Mr Vosloo replied in the affirmative. Are these the names that the hon members want on the table? [Interjections.] Even if those names are furnished and Mr Vosloo discloses the contents of the conversations, it will not bring us any closer to the truth.

Let us consider the evidence given by the Rev Hendrickse. He stated that there was no direct evidence before him that members would try or had tried to bribe other members. The witness, Mr Breier, confirmed that the Rev Hendrickse did not attach much importance to the allegations. He said that his initial information came from his party caucus. I want to quote from page 43 where he says that it is based on hearsay. He says:

What sense would there be …

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

No, Sir. [Interjections.] I am now dealing with the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal. [Interjections] What sense would there be in continuing to pursue a case with a man who says his evidence is based on hearsay? He did use it in a party political context, and it was reported as such in the newspapers.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member, because he seems to be dealing with me.

No, Sir. My time is limited and I want to make my point. [Interjections.] The Rev Hendrickse said that his evidence was based on hearsay and he had only heard that such propositions had been made. [Interjections.]

From whom did he hear it?

Order! I am not going to allow this dialogue. The hon member may continue.

I find it amazing that lawyers want to have hearsay evidence recorded just so that they can say it is hearsay evidence and that we can attach no value to it, because that is the legal position. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask again whether I may put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have already indicated that I do not wish to answer questions. [Interjections.]

Have you any idea what hearsay is?

Order! The hon member for Bethal has really made enough interjections now. The hon member for Nelspruit may continue.

The hon member for Bethal wants to know if I have any idea what hearsay is. Of course I know what hearsay is. [Interjections.] It cannot be used to prove the substance of the hearsay evidence. [Interjections.] Therefore we could not have used it for that.

What actually gave rise to this, and what attitudes do we have, regarding this report, this debate and this committee? It was the behaviour of the hon member for Lichtenburg on 9 February which gave rise to it, and which the chairman found to be a serious reflection on the integrity of the hon the State President. He refused to withdraw it, and we know what happened after that.

But what happened next? The hon member for Lichtenburg found himself before the committee, and the hon member Mr Van Gend has already dealt thoroughly with his evidence. The attempts of the Official Opposition to excuse the actions of the hon member are now being offered in this House behind a smokescreen of technicalities. The evidence of the hon member for Lichtenburg speaks for itself.

What is shocking, however, is that the hon member for Overvaal quoted a telegram in this House two days later in which the hon member for Lichtenburg said that it was a pity that he did not get ten days. This really reveals a lack of respect and esteem for this House and its rules, as well as its customs and conventions.

What is the difference between conventions and customs?

Then the hon member for Lichtenburg tried with his unfair and unjustified innuendoes, which cast a reflection on the hon the State President and on all the hon members of this House …

Which you do not want to test!

We tested them thoroughly, and the Official Opposition had every opportunity to submit evidence about them. [Interjections.]

You will have to get a chameleon and an owl to try to prove it!

Order! Interjections are being made here which have nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed. I shall not allow it. The hon member for Potgietersrus is making interjections which have absolutely nothing to do with this debate. The hon member for Nelspruit may continue.

There is a big difference between a juristic approach to evidence and the way the CP practises politics, because they need no evidence to come to certain conclusions. [Interjections.] We had examples of that from the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

The committee interpreted its instructions correctly. It took all possible steps, and came to the right decision. Every reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion. As the hon member Mr Van Gend said, the committee came to this conclusion unanimously—with the exception of the hon member for Soutpansberg, who was absent, and the hon member for Ermelo.

For the benefit of hon members who are interested in knowing what the truth is, I should just like to emphasize another aspect. At that stage it would have constituted a great political advantage for the Rev Hendrickse if those members—they could only have been hon members on this side of the House—had offered bribes in the form of gifts.

Where does he get the figure of R10 000 from?

It is hearsay. [Interjections.] Members of his party who were invited, with other hon members, to testify, could only have profited from it. Sir, one has not committed the crime of bribery if someone else has made one an offer; one only becomes guilty if one has participated in it and accepted the offer. We know that this did not happen.

How do you know that? [Interjections.]

Must I repeat the whole political history about what gave rise to that?

When are we going to hold an election? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You have already said that interjections are being made which are irrelevant. The hon member for Brakpan has now shouted again: “When are we going to hold an election?”

That is very relevant. [Interjections.]

May I address you on the same point of order? It is absolutely relevant … [Interjections.] … because the issue here is precisely, as the hon member for Ermelo said, that the Rev Hendrickse is holding the hon the State President to ransom. I think that the statement of the hon member for Turffontein is in fact completely out of order. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Nelspruit may continue.

Sir, let us look, for example, at the evidence of Mr Peter Sidego. He said that he had many years’ experience, and he knew his way around here. He said that if there had been any proof he would have found it. Yet no one could find a thing.

I thought that such a lack of evidence would be sufficient only for the hon member for Lichtenburg as it would make it possible for him to come to unfair conclusions. It seems to me, however, that the whole Official Opposition suffers from the same problem. So, the next speakers must tell us what the truth is according to them, because the committee went into the matter properly and came to a conclusion which can be well substantiated. We should very much like to hear what the real truth is according to those hon members. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the debate this afternoon has ranged far and wide on the whole question of the allegations of bribery involving members of Parliament. Specific mention has repeatedly been made of the role that was played by the hon member for Lichtenburg in regard to this matter.

I want to confine myself more specifically to the report of the joint committee itself. Having served on this committee, I want to say that it was certainly one of the least effective committees on which I have served in Parliament. In fact, I think it can be said that its operation was really an exercise in futility.

Sir, it was not the function of the committee to deal with the hon member for Lichtenburg as if he were in the dock. The function of the committee was to investigate allegations of bribery. I think it has to be made clear that those allegations did not have their origin in this House. The committee was to investigate allegations of bribery relating to a speech which had been made outside of this House in which allegations were made that members of Parliament had been offered bribes in order to induce them to change their attitude on a particular political issue.

That was the origin. The second stage was reached when these matters and reports were referred to in a debate in this House earlier this session. As a result of that debate this House in its wisdom decided that a select committee should be appointed as part of a joint committee to investigate the allegations that members of Parliament had been guilty of activities relating to bribery.

The joint committee consequently met. It had before it the various newspaper reports of the original allegations of bribery. It received, as hon members know from the report, certain verbal evidence from journalists, from the hon member for Lichtenburg himself and the Rev Allan Hendrickse.

I want to say immediately that the committee was totally thwarted in its work by the reluctance of the principal actors in this drama to give evidence. The committee was stymied. It was clear from the early meetings of the committee that, unless the principal actors of this drama were prepared to give evidence and disclose their sources, the committee would not be able to reach a finding in respect of the mandate it had been given. That was the problem.

Both the person concerned and the press representatives involved pleaded some sort of privilege. The committee was therefore unable to receive any direct evidence of attempted bribery. This was the problem. The committee was stymied. The committee then decided that it would not pursue those who had declined to disclose their sources.

Once that was decided, however, it was clear that there could not be a finding because there was no direct evidence before the committee on the question of bribery. I quote from paragraph 9 of the committee’s report in this regard:

There was no direct evidence before it. It goes further:

That was the position; it is as simple as that. There just was not evidence. No serious committee of responsible people, faced with that kind of situation, could come forward and find that there had been bribery or attempts of bribery at members of Parliament.

In fact, what we are dealing with here this afternoon is the report of a committee which was a non-event in so many ways because it was not able to do its duty as a result of people refusing to disclose the sources upon which they had based statements made to the Press which had caused the whole investigation to take place. On that basis, purely looking at this report, the committee had to find as it has found in this report.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea will forgive me for not following on his speech. He stated some facts with which I agree.

I want to come back to an allegation that was made here by the hon member for Bethal. He said that he did not not want to regard hon members on the other side of this House with suspicion. Then he suggested that something had happened to the chairman of this joint committee to make him change his mind or his views on the matter.

What led to the appointment of this committee in the first place was, of course, the allegations made by the hon member for Lichtenburg in this House. This was what the committee was instructed to investigate.

In his evidence, whenever he was asked whether he could prove the allegations made by the newspapers he quoted here, the hon member for Lichtenburg said he had no proof.

However, there is no getting away from the fact that if the hon member for Bethal and the other hon members of the Official Opposition had no confidence in a select committee of this House and its impartiality, there were other avenues they could pursue. One of these avenues would, of course, be to take the matter up with the Advocate-General. This course was, however, not followed. In his evidence the hon member for Lichtenburg conceded that he could have adopted this course. [Interjections.] He said there were perhaps other ways too in which he could have dealt with this matter. However, he preferred Parliament, and that was why he came to the Parliament of South Africa.

These are political matters.

This is how one reacts when one wishes to politicise an issue. Then one does not show responsibility, as behoves the Official Opposition, but irresponsibility, creating a big fuss about an issue in Parliament without any evidence as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations that have been made.

This is what happened here. The hon member for Lichtenburg admitted in his evidence that he wanted to use Parliament, despite the fact that the first reports about the alleged bribery appeared in the newspapers early in November and the last report appeared on 3 January. However, he did nothing about the matter. I want to submit today that he had hoped that nothing would be done about the matter so that he could stand up in this House and cast suspicion on the reputation of the Parliament of South Africa and the hon the State President. [Interjections.] I want to submit that those were his motives and that that was the reason why he and his fellow party members took no steps to have this matter resolved along other avenues.

He states this explicitly in his evidence. He was asked:

His reply was:

Then he used these words:

[Interjections.] The fact is that there was a byelection taking place at the time. [Interjections.]

Three!

Yes, there were three by-elections. That was why the hon member made three times as much noise as on previous occasions; it was to cast suspicion, and not to serve Parliament’s or South Africa’s interests. He wanted to serve the interests of the CP of South Africa. That was the whole motive behind his actions here in Parliament, which led to the appointment of this committee.

I shall raise it again.

The hon member for Lichtenburg is welcome to raise it again if he wishes to turn this Parliament of South Africa into a circus. I suppose he is free to do that. He has succeeded in doing that in the past and I am sure he will succeed once more. However, it merely goes to show how much respect hon members of the Official Opposition have for this place when they put up with the conduct of their deputy leader when he boasts about doing it again. [Interjections.]

Order!

I hope the day we witnessed that spectacle was the last time we witnessed anything like that in the Parliament of South Africa. I sincerely hope so. I hope the hon member for Lichtenburg will in future display more dignity. It would be to his own advantage.

Mr Chairman, I want to give notice that at the given moment we shall move:

1. “(1) the House rejects the Report because the Joint Committee on Alleged Bribery—
   1. (a) was wrong in finding that the Rev H J Hendrickse and Messrs J N Vosloo and D Breier need not answer certain questions put to them; and
   2. (b) by the said finding deprived itself of the opportunity to obtain the facts on which a decision could be taken on the correctness or otherwise of the quotations and allegations that formed the subject of the enquiry, and in so doing made it impossible for itself to carry out its assignment properly; and
2. (2) a new select committee be appointed to form part of a joint committee with the terms of reference as stated in the resolution adopted by all three Houses of Parliament on 16 February 1988 in connection with the matter concerned.”.

I want to reply very briefly to the hon member for Kuruman and simultaneously to several other hon members as well. The hon member for Kuruman tried to bring home to my colleague, the hon member for Lichtenburg, that he should have dealt with the matter in a different way. He said that the hon member should have gone to the Advocate-General. He even came up with the absurd suggestion that he should have investigated the matter himself. However, the hon member is a member of this Parliament and the matter arose from an allegation in a newspaper report based on another an allegation made by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, namely that an effort had been made on the part of NP members of the House of Assembly to bribe LP members with an amount of R10 000. That hon member must remember that the hon the State President is, as far as everyone is concerned, the person who must accept ultimate responsibility for the conduct of NP members of Parliament. If one is able to address the hon the State President about certain matters, one is not going to make use of other forums in order to reach finality there. That is why the hon member for Lichtenburg made use of the very first opportunity—and did the correct thing—by asking the hon the State President here what he had done about this matter. It is after all the hon the State President’s party which is under suspicion. Hon members of his party are being accused. It is in fact the hon the State President’s policy of reform …

Take your foot off the bench.

I will put my foot where I please. Keep quiet, you pipsqueak. [Interjections.]

It is the hon the State President’s system, his reform, his “change” which are now being tested.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to stand with his foot on top of the bench while addressing the House? [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member wishes to stand with his foot on the seat of his bench, he may do so. That is in order. The hon member may proceed.

I want to suggest that those clever back-benchers should first become familiar with this place before starting with all their quibbling. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member refer to the “those silly back-benchers”?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I think some people’s ears are looking for adjectives which apply to them personally. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Nelspruit said that if Mr Vosloo had mentioned the names, it would not have taken him any further. The hon member said that Rev Hendrickse’s statements were based on hearsay. We now have an NP Government which wants to shirk its mandate.

Lift your leg!

I shall do so with pleasure. [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon member said “lift your leg”?

Where is the brave man?

Here the brave man is.

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw them.

The committee was given terms of reference, and there was a lot of play on words—also by the hon the Leader of the House—namely that the truth had to be sought. Let us now consider where the search for the truth ended. It ended with Rev Hendrickse. He did not say that he had made such a statement. He admitted that he had not made such a statement. He went on to say that the statement had been made to him by hon members of his party. In addition he did not testify to it at first; initially he put it in a letter. By means of the letter he in fact wanted to completely avoid giving verbatim evidence or appearing personally before the committee. He hoped the committee would exempt him from having to appear before the committee. He said in that letter:

He was informed of this in confidential discussions with his party colleagues. In other words someone could have come to him and said where that information came from. The committee was brought up short by those terms of reference. They were brought up short in a very strange way, because the penultimate meeting adjourned on the assumption that at the next meeting on 15 March they would in fact discuss the refusal of the various witnesses to give evidence. When the meeting in fact took place on 15 March, my hon colleague—I myself was not there—was suddenly confronted with a draft report. On the previous Thursday it was not envisaged at the meeting of that select committee that that would happen.

I do not have much time and I want to finish now. I merely want to ask these hon members something. When one of my colleagues referred to the fact that Rev Hendrickse had said that, one of those hon members asked by way of an interjection: “Do you believe him?” I now ask the hon Leader of the House and hon members of his party whether they believe him and whether they are telling us we must take cognisance of and believe Rev Hendrickse, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives.

Do you believe yourself?

There is another matter as well. The hon member for Lichtenburg reacted to a report which appeared in Die Burger. I ask hon members of the NP whether Die Burger ought to be believed or not. I ask them those two question and I think that on this note I might as well resume my seat.

Mr Speaker, throughout this entire debate, the CP tried to do two things. The first one was to continue to present the nonsensical story of bribery as a possibility. The second was to throw a smokescreen round the second leg of the investigation, namely the investigation of allegations the hon member for Lichtenburg levelled at the hon the State President. Die Burger, The Star and The Argus never wrote about this. He made those allegations in this House.

I want to deal with both these matters. Firstly, as regards the myth that this matter might possibly be true after all, I can ask who would have preferred this statement to be true more than the hon member for Berea, for example. Surely he could only benefit by it. He is also a lawyer and also served on that committee and he said it was crystal clear to that committee that in this regard we were dealing with a lot of nonsense.

No, that is not what he said there.

He said that it was clear that there was no substance to these stories.

That is not what he said.

Who would have a greater interest than the Labour Party itself in proving if they could that an hon member of this side of the House tried to bribe someone, thereby making himself guilty of a serious offence? But what did the hon the Leader of the Labour Party say? The hon member for Soutpansberg asked me about this after all. Months ago, long before the hon member for Hartzenberg spoke … [Interjections.] … the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke, and long before it became an issue in this House, Mr Breier said:

What did Rev Hendrickse himself say? In paragraph 4.5 of the report it is written inter alia:

Surely hon members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives can corner the Labour Party as well as the NP. But what did they do while serving on this committee? They accepted that there was no substance to these allegations. The hon members of the House of Delegates, together with the rest of the committee, accept that there is no substance to these allegations.

Did the hon members of the CP ask the hon the State President to come and give evidence? No! Did they ask that Mr Jack Viviers to come and give evidence? No! The CP is still trying to keep alive the myth of a story which is obviously nonsense—it was a foolish statement made on a political platform which was quoted and the very same man who made the statement, according to evidence before the committee, said that he did not take it seriously.

After perusing everything it is clear to me that here we are obviously …

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

No, I now want to develop my argument. It is clear to me that we are dealing here with a story which at no stage had any substance to it whatsoever. Everyone is convinced of it, and only the members of the CP are still trying to keep it alive.

Where does the R10 000 come from?

Order!

Secondly, they use legal technicalities as a smoke-screen. I do not want to raise these technical legal aspects again. Hon members who put forward arguments are ignoring, however, the important key provisions, namely the provisions of section 10(3)(b) which reads as follows:

1. (b) refusing to be examined before, or to answer any lawful and relevant question put by, a House or any committee, unless such refusal has been excused in terms of section 20.

According to the law in operation!

There was a factual finding by the committee that in respect of the journalists it was not a suitable question.

It was the one important question!

For that reason section 20 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act was not relevant. However, they continue to read in section 20 an obligation which is not stated there.

Do you know what Kilpin says about that?

In the first place I am looking at the Act. Kilpin did not write about this specific section 20 as written here.

He does in fact refer to section 20.

Here it is stated that the Speaker may submit a report in this regard to the House. The entire procedure for which provision is made, is that a committee, when a question is not replied to, reports it to the Speaker.

That is correct!

The Speaker then brings it to the House of Assembly.

That is how it was done.

That was not done, because it was found that in the two cases the questions were not appropriate. [Interjections.] In the other case, right at the end of the proceedings, the issue of Rev Hendrickse was dealt with. The committee did in fact deal with the situation in paragraph 10 of its report. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

Section 20 was therefore not ignored by the committee, but in fact applied. This debate is partly concerned with the fact that we must also take a decision in respect of paragraph 10 of the report. For this reason it was a smokescreen. Why was it a smokescreen? It was a smokescreen to explain away and conceal the real allegations which the hon member for Lichtenburg made, as well as the charge against him of which he was found guilty in this report.

This committee has already found it to be a lot of nonsense and that it had no substance to it. However, it also was the mandate of the committee to investigate the allegations by the hon member for Lichtenburg. In his speech he went much further than the newspaper reports did. He said:

It is an unjustified conclusion based on the words which he himself quoted from the newspaper reports in that speech.

It is a malicious conclusion.

It is an unfair conclusion, and I shall now come to the malicious aspect of it.

What is the hon member in fact saying when he says it? One makes an assumption because one has grounds for doing so. In perusing the evidence, the hon member was given the opportunity, over a long period of time, to indicate reasons, but his reply was that he did not initiate any investigation and that he did not have any other source of information, but merely relied upon those two quotations. There was no reference to the hon the State President in them.

In his quotations there was no reference to the fact that a telephone call was made to the hon the State President’s office. What emerged in the evidence about that telephone call? There it was submitted that it was referred back to the newspaper and it was said that they should rather come back if they were able to acquire a little bit more information; we cannot react to such vague nonsense! Would The Star not like to get hold of a story against the NP? Would it not have been the biggest scoop of the year to find out which MP on this side of the House had allegedly wanted to pay a bribe? Sir, what did the seasoned journalists of The Star do?

They asked Hendrickse!

They left the story at that. They left it exactly where it was because in November last year they realised that it had no substance to it. [Interjections.] They did not come back to the hon the State President and they did not make any further enquiries. They let the matter rest. Are those grounds for the hon member to suspect that the hon the State President knows about something which does not exist? No, Sir!

The hon member went on to say that an investigation could be initiated, “want die ondersoek sal waarskynlik bevestig dat dit wel so is”. He did not say that the investigation “might” confirm that that was in fact the case; it would “probably” confirm that it is in fact the case. What does that mean, Sir? The insinuation is that he has a little information that something improper happened here, and that the hon the State President is distressed because an investigation would find that some of his people are guilty. That is the insinuation implicit in what the hon member said. [Interjections.] However, when he had to give an account of himself, he stood naked, exposed as a person who had maliciously wanted to tarnish the hon the State President’s dignity without the hon member having had any real grounds for doing so at all. [Interjections.] We are now charging him with it and that is why we say that this investigation in respect of this aspect has clearly shown that the hon member for Lichtenburg acted in an irresponsible way when he made those statements, and in a way which was not in keeping with the best traditions of this House. [Interjections.]

Secondly, we are saying that this investigation has very clearly revealed that there is not a shred of substance in the allegations which were made, and no argument which I have heard has in any way indicated the contrary of the statement I am now making. That is why I say the issue in respect of this investigation is now closed. It is clear that it has no substance to it. It is also clear that the hon member for Lichtenburg’s statements had no substance whatsoever and I therefore move:

Mr Speaker, I move as an amendment that what I have just read be moved as a motion if there is no other motion, namely:

1. “(1) the House rejects the Report because the Joint Committee on Alleged Bribery—
   1. (a) was wrong in finding that the Rev H J Hendrickse and Messrs J N Vosloo and D Breier need not answer certain questions put to them; and
   2. (b) by the said finding deprived itself of the opportunity to obtain the facts on which a decision could be taken on the correctness or otherwise of the quotations and allegations that formed the subject of the enquiry, and in so doing made it impossible for itself to carry out its assignment properly; and
2. (2) a new select committee be appointed to form part of a joint committee with the terms of reference as stated in the resolution adopted by all three Houses of Parliament on 16 February 1988 in connection with the matter concerned.”.

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

The House divided:

AYES—115: Alant, T G; Andrew, K M; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Burrows, R M; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Dalling, D J; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Eglin, C W; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Hugo, P F; Hulley, R R; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; King, T J; Koomhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Lorimer, R J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malcomess, D J N; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, N J J; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Schwarz, H H; Smit, F P; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Suzman, H; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Swart, R A F; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Viljoen, GvN; Vilonel, J J; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—21: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Order! Before calling upon the Secretary to read the next Order of the Day, I wish to inform the House that after having heard the arguments advanced by the hon member for Yeoville, I have given further consideration to Notice of Motion No 1 appearing on today’s Order Paper. The Notice of Motion will be placed on the Order Paper as a contingent notice of motion immediately after the Order of the Day to which it relates.

Mr Speaker, the CP wifi not support this Bill.

The Bill has as an object, inter alia, the establishment of a Town Clerk’s Council and the registration of professional town clerks. In the definition of the concept “town clerk” a town clerk is defined as the chief executive, administrative and accounting officer of a local authority.

If I look at the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, however, I notice that he said the object of the Bill was to give professional status to the profession of town clerk. The CP has no objection to that; on the contrary, I think the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa has done important work since 1946 to establish the status of the profession of town clerks in South Africa. The acceptance of an appeal procedure to our courts—I am referring to clause 27 in this regard—is welcomed.

In the memorandum in regard to the objects of the Bill the following is stated, inter alia-.

The argument is in point of fact that here we are not dealing with another profession to which professional status has been granted, but with a profession that is ostensibly regarded by the Government as a cardinal part of the Government’s reform process.

The matter will, however, be rectified by the municipal elections on 26 October, so that town clerks may merely proceed with their normal business.

At the outset I mentioned that the object of the Bill was inter alia to establish a council for Town Clerks. In terms of clause 3(1) this council shall consist of four town clerks, one from each province, who are designated by the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa; four town clerks, also one from each province, who are members of the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities and three town clerks designated by the Co-ordinating Council established by section 2 of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, 1983.

In clause 3(2)(c) the Bill, however, already provides that if any of these organisations do not co-operate and appoint members, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may appoint people to fill their posts. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said the following about this council—it in fact deals with the principle under discussion—and I quote it in full:

This is unacceptable to us in principle, although we have no objection to the enhancement of the status of town clerks. We therefore find the Bill unacceptable and the CP will not support it.

Mr Chairman, the announcement by the hon member for Randfontein was altogether to be expected. It is in line with their party’s policy of resistance to everything in which colour is involved. It is just the old story and we shall leave it at that. We accept it.

†It is a well-known fact that the Government has committed itself—as has been mentioned here—to reform on various levels such as the constitutional, economic, social and administrative levels. In the process of reform certain ideas are of great importance, such as the idea of decentralisation of administration, deregulation of measures and the devolution of power. All three of these ideas require, however, that there should be competent bodies to fulfil these particular functions properly, otherwise reform becomes a process of the dismantling of order.

The bodies to which important functions are delegated must be properly organised within themselves. The degree of importance of some of these functions may vary, but it remains the task of the Government to create, inter alia through legislation, a smooth transition from a centralised form of government to a decentralised form of government.

In local government the town clerk plays a very important role. Local government has two important elements, namely councillors and officials.

*Increasing responsibility in decision-making and determining of policy will be vested in these two groups and, as has already been mentioned, the town clerk plays a very important role in this process.

In consequence, this Bill attempts to lend professional status to town clerks and to make it a more professionally orientated career. The Bill succeeds effectively in doing this. Here we are dealing with a recognised professional organisation, the members of which themselves determine the professional nature and character of their profession. As the chief executive officers of local authorities, town clerks play an important part and it is fitting that they be enabled in great measure to regulate their own profession as a professional group in terms of this legislation.

Town clerks have a great deal of administrative experience and we may therefore expect them to guard the interests of their specific profession with total thoroughness and dedication for the benefit of their profession and the community but also for the benefit of the country.

Once again, it is due to a lack of political and administrative comprehension on the part of the Official Opposition—a total lack of comprehension—that they are opposing this Bill. This side of the House takes pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to support the Bill on behalf of this party. Initially we also had reservations about according professional status to a profession—that of town clerk. After the standing committee had considered the matter and other members of the party and I had held discussions with town clerks, we were convinced that if town clerks felt the need for that position to be turned into a profession, it was not for us to stand in their way in this regard. That is why we supported the Bill in the standing committee, as we have also done here this afternoon.

The statement is often made that since the system of joint committees has become operative, we are actually getting better legislation than in many cases in the past. In my opinion this Bill is also evidence of this and here I am thinking in particular of the improvement introduced in that the possibility of appeal to ordinary courts, which was not included in the original Bill, has been introduced here.

There is certainly an element of flexibility in the Bill. Certain qualifications are set for a person who is to be registered as a town clerk but the flexibility is built into clause 20 in that provision can certainly be made for cases in which persons have been designated or appointed and do not have the necessary qualifications.

In general, I therefore wish to express our support for this Bill but you will pardon me, Sir, if I add something that is to some extent in line with what the hon member for Randfontein said. I do not know why the hon the Minister introduced certain general elements which are actually highly contentious into his Second Reading speech which had nothing to do with the Bill as such and cast a shadow over it. The hon the Minister said:

It continues in this way, Sir:

†Sir, I wish to contend that this statement is, in fact, incorrect. What has happened, with the institution of regional services councils, is that in certain very important respects the powers, authority and functions of local authorities have been substantially diminished. Therefore, the hon the Minister’s remark that this Bill serves to prove that the Government has committed itself to the “maximal devolution of power to and the minimum control over local authorities” is simply not correct. What I cannot understand—and I will be grateful if the hon the Deputy Minister will convey this to the hon the Minister—is why the hon the Minister made himself guilty of using cliches which were, to say the least, debateable, when he introduced this Bill here—a Bill which in itself is sound and good—by making what I want to call incorrect broad, general statements. By doing so he actually did himself no credit and also detracted from the validity of the Bill and our support for it. We have been placed in an awkward position because, if one supports a Bill, it can be assumed that one necessarily also supports the motivation given by the hon the Minister for the Bill itself.

Sir, purely from a rational and logical point of view, I want to place on record my protest against the way in which the hon the Minister sometimes deals with Bills. He sometimes introduces totally irrelevant matters in the form of general and vague statements and clichés which have nothing at all to do with the matter under discussion. Along with this protest which I want to place on record, however, I should like to express again our general support for the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I wish to associate myself with the hon member Prof Olivier as regards the appreciation which he expressed toward the standing committee for the work which was done on this Bill. It is altogether fitting for me to express my thanks now. I think the standing committee considered it thoroughly and certainly also adopted fitting amendments for the improvement of the Bill.

I next want to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North and the hon member Prof Olivier for their support of the principle contained in the Bill and therefore for the institution of a professional body such as this.

If I understood the hon member for Randfontein correctly, he attacked and queried the professional status of town clerks here this afternoon. After all, that is what he said, Sir. The hon member perhaps made this statement without having considered it thoroughly. His statement refers to the status of town clerks and the role which they play at local government level in South Africa. I think it is a great pity that the hon member made these remarks on the subject. It is unfortunately the case that the hon member and his party, who exhibit a certain degree of political narrow-mindedness, are so eager to have their objection to the Government’s standpoint on local government recorded that they also bring discredit to the chief executive officers at local government level in the process.

I think this is a great pity. I consider it very important for the House to take note of this but also for town clerks to take note of this. The hon member expressed this standpoint on behalf of his party. He said that the CP would react quite differently about this matter after the coming municipal elections. In other words, he said the CP would review the profession of town clerks after 26 October. They would adopt a different standpoint on this than is the case in the current situation. The question is what that view is. What do they want to make of the profession of town clerks?

Why do you make deductions without information?

I am not putting words in the hon member for Randfontein’s mouth.

You are making an entire speech on the deduction.

The hon member queried the professional status of town clerks very directly here. He said so; there is no doubt about it. He added a rider and said that the position would change after 26 October. From his party’s point of view, he placed a serious question mark against the future of the profession of town clerks. That is a pity. [Interjections.]

Order!

Perhaps the hon member was thoughtless but I think the hon member and his party will have to provide clarification on their party’s standpoint on this in the interests of town clerks. I think it important that the House and town clerks take note of this serious reservation which the hon member has about the professional status of town clerks.

I should like to confirm that the Government has great appreciation for the work done by town clerks. We have great appreciation for the chief executive officials of local government in South Africa. If one examines the extent of the duties which those officials carry out and the extent of the responsibility which they bear, one realises that it is certainly a very important position. It is not only a position of status but certainly a position of important authority and responsibility in the entire structure of local government in our country. On behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the Government, I want to confirm that we have the greatest appreciation for the profession of town clerks and the task which they undertake nationwide, whether the local authorities on which they serve are large or small.

I gain the impression that the hon member and his party are unhappy about the fact that we have drawn up a law which provides for town clerks regardless of the group to which they belong. Because he is unhappy about it, he actually wants to indicate his disapprobation in this way, without saying so directly. He therefore puts forward this reservation about the position of town clerks in a veiled manner. It is a pity that this is his opinion but we have to take note of it and note will also have to be taken of it outside.

Let us look at the opinions which have been expressed in the past on this subject. The hon member said that the Government was politicising the occupation of town clerks through this legislation. As regards the framing of this legislation on the profession, it is certainly no recent matter. It is not this Government which has decided now that this legislation should be drawn up. To tell the truth, the Institute of Town Clerks was established in 1946. One could argue that since that time a course has been followed which has ultimately culminated in this legislation.

What for instance were the findings of the Marais Commission which inquired into local government affairs in the seventies, if my memory serves me? I cannot fix the date exactly now but I think it was in the seventies. It was found inter alia that the success or collapse of a local authority would undoubtedly be primarily attributable to the characteristics of its chief official.

In the report of the Browne Committee the following was quoted:

These are therefore the findings of quite independent committees of inquiry of some years ago which certainly served as guidelines in the drafting of the legislation which is before the House today.

After all, the Institute of Town Clerks itself strongly supported this legislation. Consequently the initiative for this did not come from the Government in the first place but specifically from independent inquiries and from the Institute of Town Clerks itself. To my knowledge, there is great satisfaction in the ranks of the Institute of Town Clerks that the legislation has been taken so far at this point that it has almost been passed by Parliament.

I therefore want to refute the hon member for Randfontein’s argument if he is suggesting that this legislation is before us on the initiative of the Government and not that of the organised profession actually affected by it.

The hon member Prof Oliver said that he supported the legislation in principle. He had to say something in this regard about the Second Reading speech, however. I have the Second Reading speech in front of me and in the introduction there is reference to the importance of local government structures and local government as such. The necessity for local government to form part of the evolutionary process of development in South Africa is emphasised. Against that background we must certainly also take note of the greater responsibility with which town clerks are being entrusted.

I think the hon member Prof Oliver unfortunately made statements here quite outside the context of the Bill, which in my opinion are really not relevant to it. If he would read the speech again …

But the hon the Minister …

The hon member Prof Olivier surely does not want to tell me that he does not agree with the essential content of that introduction to the hon the Minister’s speech.

That is precisely my problem.

If he agrees with the fundamental statement that we are dealing with an important institution here, that of local government, which is in the process of being accorded an enhanced status, and that development goes hand in hand with that, why is he raising so much dust about it? This is a statement which nobody in this House ought to deny. In addition, the Second Reading speech deals with the argument of the legislation as such. I think the hon member quoted it somewhat out of context.

I wish I could agree with you.

Well, let me argue the matter with the hon member as follows: If he has a problem with it now and if he therefore says that local government is being politicised in a way and to the extent that it will become an instrument in the hands of the central Government, it would nevertheless be correct to say that the town clerk as the chief executive officer should be in a position to enable him to be objective and neutral in his position as chief executive officer of that local government body.

That is not what was said. [Interjections.]

I therefore want to argue that this legislation is important because it certainly protects the professional, neutral and impartial status of town clerks.

Right.

The hon member is satisfied with that and therefore it confirms that his argument was actually rather invalid. [Interjections.]

As I have already said, this legislation is the culmination of efforts which reach back to 1946. One may therefore say that this Bill is the culmination of developments over a number of decades. There have already been quite a number of draft Bills and they are evidence that this Bill is neither ill-considered nor the product of undue haste.

I should like to express my thanks again for support of this Bill and for the work which was carried out in the joint committee on this Bill. Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I want to say at the outset that the Official Opposition will not oppose the Bill.

I shall be brief. I only want to refer to one aspect of the Bill and then talk about Customs and Excise in general. Allow me first to thank the officials of the department for their information and for the fact that they sent us the Bill fairly timeously so that we could look at it.

I want to refer specifically to clause 8 which effects amendments in respect of decisions taken last year. I recall that when we expressed our doubts last year in this debate regarding the practical implementation of the repayment of fuel levies to the farming community in particular we unexpectedly had to deal with derisive remarks by the two Deputy Ministers, one of whom is now a Minister. The present Minister of the Budget and Works said to us inter alia at that stage that we did not have a standpoint on that matter, that we were not leaders and nonsense of that kind. When we, as practical people, pointed out that practical problems would arise in the implementation of this as regards the farming industry, this was disregarded.

I should now like to say that shortly after we had expressed our doubts about this, the department itself introduced the necessary administrative changes. This was with effect from 1 November of last year. We are therefore of the opinion that the changes now embodied in this Bill with retrospective force to 1 November of last year in order to give legal authority to administrative measures which the department had already introduced to make it more feasible in practice, prove that the standpoint we adopted last year was the right one. I want to suggest that hon members on that side should not be so quick to ascribe motives to their opponents which are not justified. I do not expect the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, who is handling this Bill, to do so.

I want to come back to a matter to which I have referred ad nauseam. This concerns the matter of the division of the revenue from Customs and Excise between ourselves and our Customs Union Partners, the TBVC countries and the BSL countries.

If one looks at this year’s figures, one sees that the hon the Minister of Finance has budgeted for revenue from customs and excise duties totalling R6 050 million. Last year R5 475 million was budgeted for and our Customs Union partners received R1 530 million of this. This year’s budget provides for their receiving R1 900 million. I tried to make calculations, and this means that the increase in the share of our Customs Union partners from customs and excise duties totals approximately 24% this year. The increase in the Republic’s share is, however, a mere 6%.

The Margo Commission also recommended that this situation receive urgent attention. I know it is a sensitive matter, but if I remember correctly, three or four years ago the hon the Minister of Finance gave us the assurance here in this House that this situation would receive urgent attention.

Years have passed and I think it is simply not good enough for us to drag our feet any longer in this regard. If we want to subsidise these Customs Union partners of ours, let us say so and do so openly. Let us not do so indirectly.

I do not think the hon the Deputy Minister can give me an adequate reply today, but I merely want to repeat our serious concern in this regard. How is it possible for South Africa’s total share in customs and excise to be R3 800 million in terms of the present Budget whereas the share of the Customs Union partners will be R1 900 million? I think simple common sense should tell one that the extent of the economic activities of all those countries together could not constitute 50% of that of South Africa.

I know there are additional arguments in this regard, but we again want to express our dissatisfaction regarding this situation. For that reason we are looking forward to the Government starting to do something positive about this.

With these few words we support this measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton will excuse me if I do not react to his speech in regard to clause 8. My colleague the hon member for Heilbron will discuss it.

The hon member again raised the question of the division of the cake amongst the Customs Union partners. I do not want to react to that now, but I want to tell him that I believe it is a matter that falls under the Department of Trade and Industry and not the Department of Finance.

I want to associate myself with the compliments that were paid to the commissioner and his staff for the good work they have done during the past year. At times they work under difficult circumstances and they are to be admired for the forbearance and politeness that they display, sometimes under great provocation from the public.

This legislation is submitted to us every year. It is necessary in part to close loopholes that have been contrived by the more ingenious members of the private sector to evade customs and excise. These people will, as in the case of the poor, always be with us. It remains the responsibility of this department to always be on its guard in this regard. Irregularities result in law-abiding citizens having to foot the bill for those citizens who are less law-abiding.

Certain changes to this legislation are amendments as a result of the introduction of the harmonised commodity descriptions and coding systems. We consequently find that the expression “rolled metals” has been substituted by “metals coated with precious metals”.

†Most-favoured-nation-rate is now written with hyphens, as opposed to formerly being written as separate words. This is not an improvement, but for the sake of international harmony, must be accepted.

*Clause 1 gives the Commissioner the discretion to allow the disposal of spirits produced from fruit other than grapes, by agricultural distillers in the Transvaal or the Free State in the circumstances and at places that he deems fit and subject to conditions that he imposes in each case. I understand that this amendment has to do with the right to sell maroela mampoer at agricultural shows or cultural guilds.

Hear, hear!

Yesterday the hon member for Wellington described with great zeal how he had enjoyed a glass of old Constantia wine. I can assure him that the same amount of this mampoer will quickly change the look of bliss on his face. [Interjections.] I have had the privilege of drinking this mampoer, and I just want to state that it is not for the person who wants to remain sober.

†Most clauses in this Bill are technical adjustments. We thus find in clauses 5 and 6 an amendment to include costs incidental to placing goods on board a ship or into a container. It is pleasing to note that we are returning to the concept of “free on board” instead of “free alongside ship”.

I would like to thank the hon members of the opposition for not opposing this Bill. It is my pleasure to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it would have been a most surprising event if there had not been some dramatic reference to mampoer in this debate. I think we have become accustomed to that and there seems to be great enthusiasm for this. As a matter of fact, I was somewhat disappointed in the hon member for Barberton that he did not start this debate on mampoer. Actually, I have always thought that the hon member for Wynberg was a little more experienced in other forms of alcohol, but there is always something new that we learn as we go along! He appears to be an expert, not only in one field of alcohol, but in a number of those.

My problem with this clause is of a technical nature. There is a principle involved and that is that in this clause we deal with a discretion which is given. I am not in favour of discretionary situations as a general rule.

Here one can actually apply a discretion, not only generally to the sale of these spirits, but one can actually deal with each particular case separately. That opens the door to problems, because one will find that one particular manufacturer—perhaps “distiller” is the correct word—of this will get one kind of facility and another will get another. When that happens one lays oneself open to criticism and problems. I personally would prefer it if the Commissioner were to lay down a set of rules, that those would apply to everyone and that we would not have an ad hoc approaching specific cases. It actually subjects him to tremendous pressure. Personal representations are made and I do not like that. It exposes him in a way in which he should not be exposed.

Having started off in that kind of spirit, may I then also join in the thanks to the Commissioner and his staff for the courtesy they have always shown. In particular, I want to thank them for the detail we get in the explanatory memoranda.

On this occasion there was also an additional briefing. I am still unhappy about the fact that financial Bills do not go through the normal committee procedure. We should have that procedure. It should be dealt with in the proper way in which ordinary Bills are dealt with. I hope that one day we shall overcome this reluctance to allow a financial measure to be dealt with in the proper way in which a committee deals with them.

There are a number of other things which arise which I would like to deal with. The first is the question of the misdescriptions relating to exports. I appreciate the provision in this particular clause and I will support what is being done here but it requires a little more than merely the seeking of this information. To my mind we need to have a greater inspection of the export products themselves, particularly in regard to metal and mineral exports. I suspect—and there are rumours to that effect—that many things are being exported under the pretence of being something else. This has to be stopped and it will not be stopped merely by documentation checking. There have to be more thorough physical checks. Unfortunately, this requires more staff but in the end it is going to pay, because each one of these inspectors will save the State more than their salaries will cost the State.

I would like to make an appeal in relation to this. Last year I spoke about second-hand motorcars and action was in fact taken in that regard. I want to congratulate the authorities on having at least done something to deal with the second-hand motorcar problem. It is not completely solved and in my opinion more action is needed, but I am grateful that action has been taken in this regard. However, exports are a problem and we are losing vast sums of money in relation to the fraudulent exports which are taking place at the moment.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with a matter relating to the question of imports. In my opinion one of the biggest problems that still exist in South Africa in relation to the lease of foreign exchange, is the question of over- and under-invoicing. This also needs very urgent attention. Once again, I do not think the department has adequate staff in order to deal with this. We keep on saying we have to cut down on the size of the public service but this is one field where people are needed. When one has enough staff—the same thing applies in regard to the other inspectors I mentioned—they will actually produce revenue. They will actually pay for themselves. There is no way that anyone is going to suggest that this department should be privatised. If it is to be privatised I would like to put in a tender to take it over.

I have an offer!

There is no way in which it can be privatised and to my mind it needs more staff. Does the hon the Minister want to bid against me?

I want to be your partner!

An interesting auction of the department is taking place!

He wants to be your partner!

Does the hon the Minister want to be my partner?

[Inaudible.]

We can have an interesting auction for the Department of Customs and Excise.

I want to tell hon members that we have not heard the last word on the point which was raised by the hon member for Barberton with regard to farmers and diesel. I am not sure that these provisions are now adequate as they stand and I think we shall perhaps have to do more in relation to this.

There are some further problems that I would like to raise. They arise from the detailed schedules to the Bill. I would like to pose some specific questions to the hon the Deputy Minister in this regard. In the first place I find it very difficult to understand why we should reduce the duty in regard to dried tomatoes. Do we not produce enough tomatoes in South Africa? Do we not know how to dry them?

The next question is in relation to citrus peel. [Interjections.] I would have thought that we have abundant quantities of citrus and there should be no reason at all why anyone should import citrus peel, let alone reduce the duty.

Special marmalade!

No, it is not marmalade. It is actually peel which is being imported and not marmalade. The same applies to products such as barley.

I can understand that there is a desire to create competitive conditions, but I believe that South Africa needs to be self-sufficient agriculturally. I believe there are activities in the agricultural field which are not adequately covered at the moment. We should encourage those activities, and we should cut down on the import of unnecessary agricultural products which in fact have their origin here.

I would not be surprised if some of that citruspeel that comes into South Africa comes off the oranges and off the lemons that we export.

They are Outspan!

They are probably Outspan but under another name. I just cannot understand this, and I would like to know what the hon the Minister’s policies are in this regard.

Then we come to what is a touchy subject in regard to the history of the matter, and that is urea. In respect of urea, I find here that on the one hand we are increasing the duty, and on the other hand, in another notice, we are actually allowing an exemption so that there can be a rebate on the duty. What is actually the policy in this regard? Here again we have a discretionary situation being created, and I do not like a discretionary situation; I like certainty when it comes to duty.

Then I want to ask the hon the Minister what his policy is in regard to the textile industry in South Africa because I find, for instance, that in regard to certain types of handkerchiefs we have a reduced duty which is imposed, and in regard to certain material for infant clothing we also have a reduced duty. Surely, these again are not matters which are related to a purely competitive situation or where we need the product. I think that we need to get a statement as to what the policy is in relation to this.

The same also applies to the footwear industry. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to tell us how he sees the footwear industry in South Africa, because we still have the situation—one can still see it by going around to the supermarkets and elsewhere—where local footwear is utterly unable to compete with the footwear which comes from the East. I do not understand this, and I put this to the hon the Deputy Minister in the context of what I believe is a major key to South Africa’s industrial future—inward industrialisation. There are jobs which are at stake here—there are jobs that could be created—and I would like to see a policy in relation to this.

I would also like to have the hon the Deputy Minister tell us what the outcome has been of the reduction of the duty in respect of television sets. What has the effect of that actually been in respect of television sets in South Africa? My impression is that it has certainly not reduced the price of a television set, and I would very much like to see what the purpose of this was and whether we have achieved the purpose which the hon the Deputy Minister set out to achieve.

There are other things which we can talk about. Let us take, for example, the rebate on duties on certain toys such as toy bicycles. I have some difficulty in understanding this because we could manufacture all the toy bicycles that we need in South Africa. I do not know what we are doing in that regard.

Finally, Sir, permit me to deal with an antidumping provision and an Iron Curtain provision. I feel very strongly about goods being dumped in South Africa which are surplus, which are Government supported elsewhere and which are produced, in many cases, with cheap labour, but I feel even more strongly about goods that emanate from behind the Iron Curtain. Those things we have to watch and we have to be very careful, and I note that at least we have done something in regard to some of these things and the documentation has been made available to us. I wonder, however, whether the hon the Deputy Minister would try to explain something to me. How does a Russian car get into South Africa for private use? How does it get here? What is the purpose of having Russian cars allowed into South Africa? [Interjections.] I can understand many things. I can understand that they could have come from the border. I can understand that they were used by somebody with hostile intent, but I have some difficulty when they are actually imported legitimately into South Africa and used on South African roads.

We have to look into the whole question of the role duties play in relation to our inward industrialisation. The hon the Deputy Minister, I believe, should tell us what, for example, our real advantages are of remaining a member of an international body such as GATT. I should like to hear his views on the advantages of membership of GATT. I can think of some advantages but there are not terribly many.

I believe we have to look at this whole picture with a view to realising that we have millions of people who have to be employed. We need to encourage our own industries. We need to encourage the formation of more and more industries. I know one cannot in an unhealthy way build up industries merely by the imposition of protective measures. There is much more to it than that. This plays a role in it, and when I look through these volumes we have received—I am indebted to the department for making them available—I realise they are important because they actually tell a story. They tell the story of what is happening in regard to our imports and to our whole economy. When I look at these volumes I ask whether we are actually doing enough in order to make sure that South Africa produces enough for its own people and creates enough jobs for its own people to solve the problems confronting us.

We will support the measure, but there are various questions which I have posed and to which I hope I will receive answers from the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to congratulate the hon member for Yeoville most sincerely on the award he received yesterday. When one sees how attentively he studies the financial affairs of the country, one can understand why he received that award. I was astounded to hear in how much detail he dealt with the schedules.

Of course the hon member for Yeoville also has his moments of weakness. I am referring, for example, to his arguments regarding the position of the inter vivos trusts in yesterday’s debate. In that regard we have as much likelihood of finding common ground as we have of finding common ground with regard to my arguments.

Mr Chairman, I should like to confine myself to the statutory amendments in connection with agricultural diesel. I should like to say a few words with regard to what the hon member for Barberton said. I nevertheless feel that it is essential for us to have clarity as to why there was a change last year, what that change meant, and what the present change means.

Last year there were rumours that there was so much cheating with regard to the concessions in respect of agricultural diesel that there was even a suggestion that the country was suffering damages of up to R500 million in the form of uncollected taxes. In the long run it was the agriculture study group of the NP which quantified this figure and proved that it was far lower than R500 million. It was this study group which provided the Government with a realistic figure, on the strength of which certain changes to the old system could be decided on.

The basic point of departure in the scheme introduced last year differed from the original, in that in terms of the original point of departure the State had to prove that the organisation which had received the rebate had acquired it illegally. Then this rebate had to be reclaimed from it. The new scheme provides that the consumer must pay the full price. He must then prove that he used the diesel in the prescribed manner. Only then, after he has complied with the conditions laid down, could he claim back a rebate on the amount he paid for the diesel.

There was consequently a fundamental difference in the point of departure. On the one hand the State had to prove the mistake and reclaim its money. On the other the person receiving the rebate had to prove that his claim for a rebate was in order.

Now the hon members of the CP know that they never agreed to that change in the point of departure being introduced. They opposed it. They not only opposed it, but they also rubbed their hands in glee … [Interjections.] Yes, as they are now sitting there … [Interjections.] Yes, that stupid hon member who is sitting there letting off steam was one of them! [Interjections.]

You are talking unadulterated nonsense! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton says I am talking nonsense! [Interjections.]

This evening I want to tell him that he should consult my Hansard of last year in which I pointed out to him that so-called facts which he had given regarding the diesel scheme were incorrect. He referred to diesel schemes which had already lapsed. [Interjections.] He can sit there saying “ah”, but he need only look at the facts of the matter. However, he was not the only one, the hon member for Lichtenburg was another culprit. They did not have the vaguest idea what the scheme entailed. They only had one idea in their heads. That hon member said the farmers of South Africa would chase us. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that while they were shouting and complaining in order to make political capital out of this, the agriculture study group of the NP put forward proposals and asked that we recognise the change in the fundamental standpoint regarding the claims. We recognised the problem of the Government; we accepted it, but we requested co-operation to make this new scheme as acceptable as possible. That was our point of departure.

Two weeks after the opening of Parliament the NP’s agriculture study group made certain submissions to the hon the Minister.

That was a mistake.

Let us hear what the mistake entailed.

Then the Government, as always, held consultations with the SA AU, organised agriculture in South Africa, for two months. What was the result of that scheme. It was precisely what the agriculture study group of the NP had proposed. Those hon members simply made a noise and made political capital out of this.

Today is a happy day for me, because we have got everything we asked for. If we look at clause 8, we see that it makes provision for several far-reaching changes to the old scheme. According to this clause an organisation can now explain afterwards what it used the diesel for. It can also appoint someone else to make the application on its behalf. It can, for example, appoint the cooperative, in contrast with the previous scheme in terms of which it could not do so, because a link between the farmer and the Department of Customs and Excise had to be direct. In the third place, on the strength of these two points, every time it filled up with diesel it could make preliminary claims for rebates on diesel.

Surely these are all things which are totally different to the old scheme or what the CP said the scheme was. The CP can look up—they must show us the Hansard—where they proposed what the scheme should be like or where they discussed these matters with the hon the Minister.

The fact of the matter is that today in clause 8 of this amending Bill, provision is even being made, by the insertion of section 75(1)(f)(v), for the division between diesel for agricultural and agricultural transport purposes to take place in terms of the provisions of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, because we pointed out to the hon the Minister that we had problems on the farms with labourers with no schooling and the fact that one did not know what was going on in the diesel tanks, because they did not have meters, etc. When we had got half-way with the scheme, we realised that the division between diesel for agricultural and agricultural transport purposes was a complicated matter. In April the department introduced a new amendment, in terms of this provision, to the effect that only one price would be levied on all diesel used for agriculture, whether it was used for agricultural or agricultural transport purposes. All these are matters which gladden the hearts of us farmers.

I have a minor query regarding the proposed new section 75(1)(g)(ii). This provision concerns the right which the Commissioner is receiving to make payments directly to farmers in the TBVC countries, as regards their levies. My problem is that I am not sure that the control mechanisms of the TBVC countries regarding this diesel and their concern in this regard will be as great as ours, for example, because our Treasury has a direct interest in the control of this diesel, whereas I am not sure what the TBVC countries’ ihterest in the control of diesel levies is. This could give rise to certain malpractices. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all, I want to thank hon members for their support for this Bill. Customs and excise legislation is always very technical, but I think the various speakers have made some very interesting points here.

I want to start with the hon member for Barberton, and I am also referring to what the hon member for Heilbron said about diesel. The diesel question has provoked a great deal of emotion, but let me first say something in this regard to the hon member for Barberton. I think the hon member for Heilbron said that what the CP suggested was not working very well at the moment anyway.

I can also tell the hon member for Barberton that before these levies and the new system were introduced, in-depth discussions were held with all the interested parties. A committee was also appointed immediately after the introduction of the levy. I must give credit to the CP’s agricultural group, because they immediately came forward and said that there were certain practical aspects that had to be addressed.

When one introduces such a complicated system or—let us call it something else—such a reorganisation or rationalisation of one’s system, it is to be expected that there will be loose ends here and there that need to be tied up, and I think we managed to do this. We listened to various proposals. Looking back this evening, we must say this system operates exceptionally well, also because of many of the recommendations we accepted at the time.

One could, for example, begin with the fact that—I think this is true—the diesel consumer is far more responsible today. The reason for this is, of course, the fact that he has to sign himself. Previously—we simply cannot deny this—the labourer sometimes signed, but now, where action may be taken against him, one finds that there is more responsible behaviour, and the statements are definitely also more reliable.

According to the indications the incidence of abuse has decreased considerably. I think few people realize that previously the customs and excise inspectors were used only for the excise part. Now the inspectors are used for all facets. Hon members must realize that the levy does not consist merely of excise duty, but includes quite a number of contributions. Whereas this was previously dealt with by the various departments, customs and excise now deals with this. In other words, the inspectors now only need to look at one amount, one invoice and one document to enable them to form an idea of what is going on.

I asked my Commissioner to provide us with some figures, and the information is very interesting. When one compares the period August 1986 to March 1987 to the period August 1987 to March 1988, one finds an interesting increase of 250%. I think that figure proves that there was ample reason for introducing another system. I must admit that we withdrew certain concessions that also contributed to this increase of 250%. Even when this is deducted, though, we must admit that there were many other ways in which our money was lost.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr Chairman, I want to come to the second point I wish to make. I know the hon member for Barberton has on many occasions dealt with the problem relating to the customs and excise pool here. The Government has obviously given much attention to this matter. The hon member knows that we had the McCarthy one-man committee, and I think the hon member knows what Prof McCarthy’s recommendations were. We must simply look at them again. The McCarthy committee’s recommendations were also conveyed to the Margo Commission. The latter based some of its recommendations on the McCarthy proposals.

Of course, the negotiations are actually taking place at the Department of Trade and Industry and not so much at the Department of Finance. However, it might be a good thing to reconsider the matter. Following on the recommendations in the White Paper, the Cabinet has indicated that we should negotiate once again. We are at present engaged in negotiations.

However, customs and excise is not all that is involved. Hon members know that we are going to introduce the new Value Added Tax next year. This will, of course, affect our neighbouring states as well. We are, after all, going to derive an income from products that are manufactured here before they are exported to those countries. A decision will have to be taken as to the amount that will be paid out. A process of negotiation is, therefore, in progress at the moment.

One should see the whole matter in perspective. It is of course true that excise and customs are, structurally, showing a relative decline because new forms of tax have in the meantime been introduced. Moreover, as hon members know, excise duty remains static because of inflation. Furthermore, we should also remember that these countries are at the moment considering, or have already concluded, agreements with a view to becoming less dependent on South Africa. We should also remember that most of South Africa’s industrial exports go to African countries. Therefore, one should not act too hastily or too drastically. Life does involve a negotiating process here and there after all. We are trying to find the best deal for them as well as ourselves. Therefore, negotiations are taking place at present, and I believe that we shall reach a good agreement. However, one cannot claim the largest part of the cake for oneself; one must remember that one has neighbours. As Dr Rupert said, if there is a fire raging all around one that does not mean that there is not going to be a fire at one’s own place.

The hon members for Wynberg and Yeoville—I shall come to the latter in a minute—mentioned the interesting developments with regard to mampoer. It is quite a long story—I am, of course, referring to the mampoer festivals that are going to be held—but, strangely enough, it has an almost cultural value attached to it. Like the hon member for Wynberg I, too, was a student in the Cape. All we know is witblits, for which one needs a licence too. I hear the witblits distillers had a jolly time late in the evening when it came to the sprinting item. The desire has now arisen to make mampoer almost a commercial product in view of all the big festivals that are held in the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

Oh, the jollity in the Bushveld! I suppose when there is a festival like this one should allow people to taste the stuff. In terms of the current legislation, one cannot actually allow them to have a taste. Now and then a person wins a prize and then he wants to buy a bottle of the stuff. That is not permitted either. Bottles are even auctioned. This amendment will at least make it more accessible to the person who attends the festival.

I found it terribly interesting when I read a very harsh article by a certain minister of religion in the Sunday Times about a fourteen-year old girl who was standing in front of the distilling unit with a glass in her hand. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, was severely criticized because he happened to open the festivities. We should regard all this in the right spirit, because it is really part of our culture. I am talking about the Transvaal. Here in the Cape we drink witblits.

†I would like to address the hon member for Yeoville now. I have come to know him well since I working with him on the standing committee and I know he does not like discretionary power. He is in favour of straight rules and regulations. I support him. I asked the Commissioner …

[Inaudible.]

Yes. We are going to have a set of rules.

The Commissioner also likes it.

He also does. The moment one has to handle ad hoc cases it is not the easiest thing in the world. For example, if Warmbad comes with a certain proposal and Barberton is against it, or not getting the same treatment, one has problems. I can assure him that we are going to have set rules for this clause in the Bill.

As far as exports are concerned, inspections are being carried out. I would like to refer to the system we use in regard to consignments of scrap metal.

*I think the hon member knows that proper investigations are carried out whenever these products are exported from South Africa.

†I would like to mention to the hon member that we even have court cases coming up to investigate exports from this country. I support him when he says that it is not only a matter of investigating the contents of the containers but also of establishing the value which is given in the documents. We have a problem in South Africa—we know it—of transfer pricing and it is very important to have good control over exports and imports.

I also agree with the hon member that customs and excise is income generated and one can use some of that income to get better staff or, to put it differently, the more staff one has in this department, the more income is generated.

*I also agree with the hon member for Wynberg that we have a good team. When I think of the tariff adjustments and the enormous task they managed to complete within a very short period, as well as the excellent work they did, I am convinced that they are a good team.

†Over- and under-invoicing is a serious problem. We are also working together with customs of other countries and if we get information from other countries with regard to customs and excise, we follow it up. I would like to mention that our Commissioner is going overseas next week where he will take part in a conference, working together with people from other countries. It is a healthy development that we are working closely with other countries in regard to our imports and exports.

With regard to what the hon member for Yeoville said about dried tomatoes and orange peel, I know the hon member is a perfectionist who likes to work page by page, and then to discover very interesting information.

The reason why we have removed the tariffs on dried tomatoes and orange peel is that the value of these products imported is very small, but it is still an item. Every time we place control on certain imports, even if the value is small, it is the administration which must control it. The reason for these amendments is to remove the tariff. There are small amounts involved which require a lot of administration. We must make our system, from an administrative point of view, as simple as possible to manage.

As regards textiles and footwear, I wish I could take the hon member for Yeoville back to the days when I was a member of the Board of Trade. I do not think one can solve the problem of textiles. Many years ago Mr Merriman wrote a letter to Gen Jan Smuts to ask why the general did not give more attention to this problem. He never answered him, and when they met again at Parliament, Mr Merriman asked Gen Jan Smuts why he never replied to his letter and why he had not discussed the problem he had mentioned to him. Gen Jan Smuts said it was not a problem, because one could solve problems.

I want to say to the hon member that one cannot solve the textile situation, therefore I do not see it as a problem. However, the Board of Trade is continuously investigating the textile industry. It is a case for the Board of Trade, and we follow their recommendations.

Concerning television sets and the import of bicycles, I wish to point out that there are once again items to be handled by my colleague, the hon the Minister for Economic Affairs and Technology. I should, however, like to point out that it is not the policy of this country to boycott or apply sanctions to any imports. If a Russian car is brought into the country and they pay their 106% tax, we are quite happy. There are people who like special Mercedes Benzes, like the 450 …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? Does he seek to convey that exchange control permission will be given to provide the foreign exchange for the payment of the Russian car in order to earn the import duty on it? One needs foreign exchange to pay for the car.

Actually, when one imports a product, it is brought in by means of the commercial rand.

One needs foreign exchange.

Yes, one needs foreign exchange, but if one imports something, we have no control over that.

Mr Chairman, I have one minute left. I should just like to mention that we must be careful not to come to easy conclusions about GATT. I think we still need GATT. We are in a difficult situation in this country and we still need to work together with international organisations.

*As far as the hon member for Heilbron is concerned, I should just like to mention that we do second officials to the TBVC countries to help them to fall in with our procedures and to exercise control.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

(Second Reading debate)

Mr Chairman, there are a few matters which arise from the reply of the hon the Deputy Minister which I think require some attention.

Let me deal with this case of the tomatoes. There is something which I do not understand and which the hon the Deputy Minister may perhaps explain to me. If it is necessary to keep control in respect of an item such as dried, dehydrated and evaporated tomatoes and if, according to the hon the Deputy Minister it is necessary, therefore, to impose a low duty, do we then have to incur the administration which is involved in changing a tariff downwards from 4,15 cents per kilogram to 4 cents per kilogram? If it is such a small amount why do we have to go to all that trouble of publishing Government notices, changing all the books etc in order to change the tariff from 4,15 cents to 4 cents? Can the hon the Deputy Minister explain to me what is intended to be achieved by a reduction in the tariff of ,15 cents per kilogram on dried tomatoes? With all due respect, it does not make sense.

I can give the same example in respect of the derivative of citrus. We have an unlimited quantity of citrus and of rind. Yet, we seek to control it, we reduce the tariffs and in that sense we are actually assisting imports to compete with someone who should be producing the same thing locally. With great respect to the hon the Deputy Minister, I should like him to explain to me what difference an extra ,15 cents per kilogram will make in these circumstances. It does not make sense. I am afraid his argument does not convince himself, let alone anybody else in this House.

The second question is that of shoes. The hon the Deputy Minister has not dealt with the question of shoes. This is a very important industry in South Africa and the question has to be asked whether we are going to nurture that industry or whether we are going to knock it every time that it is doing well. I agree that one must have a competitive situation but there is such a situation among the people who produce shoes. There is no monopoly. There are various producers who are competing with one another. Therefore, the way the Government sees the shoe industry is, to my mind, very important.

With regard to the next issue, the textile industry, the hon the Deputy Minister says—and I appreciate his way of putting it—that it is not a problem because there is no answer. But, Sir, there has to be an answer. It is no use saying that some of it is the responsibility of his colleague the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology who was sitting here in the front bench earlier during the debate and enjoying it because he knew that the hon the Deputy Minister would have to answer and not him, and now he is not here. Let us look at the Turkish adventure with regard to textiles. It has been a utter debacle. In this respect duties can play a role. Therefore, to my mind, the textile industry needs very careful attention. I do not think we can solve the problems of the textile industry in a five-minute debate in this House. I concede that it is a difficult problem but it does need attention. It requires more than just a casual investigation and we must give it our serious attention.

The other matter that I would like to raise with the hon the Deputy Minister is his view on customs and excise—obviously customs duty in particular—and the Customs and Excise Act coming into play in what is going to develop on an increasing scale, viz barter trade. I think we are going to have to adapt our customs laws to deal with barter trade in a new way.

I wonder whether that has received attention. If not, I think it should be receiving attention, and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will deal with it again.

The question of GATT was somewhat brushed aside, but the hon the Deputy Minister will have a fair amount of time to reply if he wants to. GATT cannot be brushed aside. Membership of GATT is an issue in the whole scene in South Africa as to what the benefits are, how we are going to play the game etc. The difficulty I have relates to the question of Russian cars, Hungarian furniture and Chinese sweets. There are dozens of things that I can quote. I have difficulty in understanding that when people boycott us, when they apply sanctions to us, when they seek to strangle us economically, in the circumstances it is fine to say that we do not believe in counterboycotts and counter-sanctions. However, do we believe in seeking to encourage imports from those countries in preference to imports from countries which are more friendly disposed towards us?

In this connection I want to come back to the case of the Russian car. I am not going to leave the hon the Deputy Minister alone over this issue, because I happen to object to Russian cars in South Africa. To my mind it is not a question of collecting the 110% duty, but a question of using foreign exchange. It is a question of principle. The only time I would like to see Russian cars is when they are exhibited as war vehicles captured from people who seek to attack us. I do not want to see Russian cars in the streets. Nothing will persuade me that there should be a Russian car on the street in preference to a car from a country that trades with us.

What about a German sports car?

I would rather see a German sports car on the street than a Russian sports car. I think there are many hon members in this House who will agree with me. [Interjections.] I cross swords with the hon the Deputy Minister on that. To my mind one must draw a line somewhere. I think a line is drawn when people act antagonistically towards us. We do not have to have a counter-boycott or a countersanction, but if we have a choice as to where we buy, I would rather buy from a friend than from an enemy.

Mr Chairman, the problem is that the hon member is preaching to the converted. I do not want to cross swords with the hon member. I just want to say to him that the principle that is involved here does not fall under this department. Therefore, I am now speaking almost from a personal point of view. The principle is whether we want import control or not. This is a very important decision on principle that we have to take.

The second decision one has to take, is the following: Is it fair, when there is no import control, to prohibit certain imports?

One could also make the tariffs as high as possible.

The hon member asked me about barter trade.

†He mentioned the case of urea between Rumania and South Africa. If we can sell or trade for coal with any country inside the Iron Curtain, then the question is, why not? Sometimes enemies are better than friends, especially when one considers the Bill before the American Senate at present. I would like to put the case to the hon member in this way. I do not think we must look at people we like or dislike or at products we like or dislike. We must ask what is the best for South Africa.

*The hon member will agree with me that that is the real issue.

Clothing.

Yes, if we buy from them.

I might just mention that we are at present conducting a thorough investigation into textiles. I do not think one can take a general decision in respect of these two industries without having made a study of them. I presume the hon member knows about these little plastic shoes that were imported and then suddenly caused the South African industry great harm. Those shoes did, however, at a certain stage, open the market to the lower income groups. I know the hon member has a great deal of sympathy for the lower income groups. The question arises whether one should immediately ban the importation of those shoes which provide for the needs of the lower income group.

I do not think the matter is that simple.

†I put it to the hon member for Yeoville that we must try to have the objective of a much higher growth rate. When one has the target of a much higher growth rate, one has to look at one’s imports and one’s exports, and the hon member will agree. One has to ask if it is worthwhile to waste one’s money on Russian cars and Russian motors and American comics. I do not want to have tunnel vision and concentrate on Russian products alone. As I mentioned to the hon member right at the beginning we must look at what is best for South Africa. When one looks at what is best for South Africa, one has to decide what is more disastrous—to import comics and drugs from America or to import cars from Russia.

*I just want to say that I do not think the hon member and I have so many differences. I think the board that sees to these matters is giving particular attention to these problems. I know the hon member to be a very thorough person and we could perhaps at a later stage continue with the argument concerning certain items from these reports that were highlighted by him. We need not argue; perhaps we could just see what is to be done in this regard.

In conclusion I should like to say that I am grateful for the support for this Bill that I received from the hon member and his party. As I have already mentioned, I do not think his philosophy differs all that much from our’s.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, although it is no longer an absolute necessity, I would like to make a few introductory remarks.

The practical position has arisen that not only the services, namely the SA Defence Force, the SA Police and the Prisons Service, wear servicestype uniforms, but also other bodies in both the public and private sectors. The State has both an interest and, indeed, a responsibility to ensure that unnecessary confusion does not arise in this field and it is with a view to rationalisation that this Bill is now before this House.

I must stress that the Acts governing the three services have proved inadequate to bring about a solution to this problem, and umbrella legislation has been found to be necessary in order to achieve the desired aims. The aim of this Bill is to make provision for the effective control of services-type uniforms by means of the introduction of a register in which details of such uniforms will be entered.

Comprehensive registration procedure is envisaged which will include notices in the Government Gazette, in order to enable interested parties who are of the opinion that a proposed registration will encroach on rights to which they are legally entitled, to lodge objections thereto.

The Bill further provides for the establishment of a representative advisory council for services-type uniforms, which shall consist of seven members. The Minister responsible for each of the services shall nominate a member for appointment by the Minister of National Education. The remaining members, including the chairman and executive officer, are also appointed by the Minister of National Education. The members of this advisory council shall be appointed for their specialised knowledge and not to represent a particular interest.

The functions of the council are set out in clause 8. It shall advise the Minister on matters of general policy which he may determine with regard to services-type uniforms in terms of clause 7.

The Bill in effect makes provision for preferential treatment of the three abovementioned services that will register their existing uniforms in terms of the provisions of clause 9(a), after which other bodies will be able to lodge applications to register any of their uniforms which are similar in appearance to those of the services, under clause 10. If any service should, after the initial registration, wish to add to or amend any registered uniforms they shall, as in the case of other bodies, have to apply to do so.

Until such time as registration as envisaged above can take place, all legitimate users of services-type uniforms shall be permitted under the provisions of clause 19, to continue using their existing uniforms until a decision has been reached regarding their registration.

Provision is made in clause 13(1)(a) that each application for the registration, the amendment of the registration and any objection thereto shall be referred by the Director-General of National Education to the council for its advice to the Minister in terms of clause 8(b). Such reference shall only take place after the Director-General has, in terms of clause 11, given notice in the Government Gazette of an application lodged in terms of clause 10. Clause 11 specifies that the period within which, and the manner in which, anyone who wishes to lodge an objection in terms of clause 12 shall be contained in the notice.

Clause 19 further provides that registered services-type uniforms may be used in stage productions, historical pageants or any other form of production or entertainment or in the manufacture of films. Such use of services-type uniforms must, however, be done in such a manner that the uniform is not ridiculed or brought into contempt or that national security is not endangered.

A service or other body in whose name a services-type uniform has been registered shall in terms of the provisions of clause 20 be able to claim damages not exceeding R5 000 from someone who misuses such a uniform in any way. [Interjections.] Clause 21 contains the penalties for the misuse of registered services-type uniforms.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Joint Committee on Education for all the work they have put into this Bill to bring it to its present form. Were it not for their insight and hard work this would not have been possible. I am convinced that the final product for which they were responsible, is a vast improvement on the original Bill with which they began.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the measure before the House.

The legislation being considered by the House this evening and on which the hon the Minister gave us full particulars in his speech, has come a long way. As early as 1981 the Heraldry Council brought the possible confusion arising from the increase in the number of uniforms and badges to the attention of the State Security Council. The State Security Council reported this to the then Prime Minister who in his turn instructed the Minister of Law and Order to ensure that proper control was exercised over the wearing of uniforms and the use of badges. It should not be possible to confuse the uniforms and badges of other organisations with those of the Services.

Eventually, after an interdepartmental work group had been appointed, it was decided that new legislation should be submitted which would make the registration of services-type uniforms compulsory.

The legislation was actually a thorny issue to the standing committee on education in two respects. Firstly it had to be decided whether it should be discussed by the standing committee on education at all, particularly in view of the standpoint of the Chairman of the Heraldry Council that it should preferably be transferred to another, more suitable department. Secondly it had to be decided whether the legislation, as formulated, could work in practice and would not give rise to unnecessary red tape. Although those of us on this side of the House have our doubts as to whether this specific legislation can best be handled by the Department of National Education and whether what has been proposed is the best practical way in which we can solve the problem which has cropped up, we are convinced of the necessity for this legislation.

Uniforms with a military appearance are at present proliferating on a large scale, as the hon the Minister indicated. Although there are provisions in certain Acts which make it possible to take steps against people who wear a uniform which can be confused with the uniforms of the Services, the standing committee was assured by representatives of the Services that it would not be possible to amend these Acts in such a way that effective steps could be taken in the present situation.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the legislation because we believe that it is necessary for security reasons for there to be no confusion between the uniforms of the Services and those of other official or unofficial organizations. We want to say that we would like to see, when next the Act is amended, that provision is made for a right of appeal if the Minister were to reject the registration of a services-type uniform. With these few words we simply want to pledge the support of this side of the House to the legislation.

Mr Chairman, it was a privilege to serve on the standing committee and deliberate on this Bill, and I can actually associate myself with what the hon the Minister said—that at this stage it has become necessary, for the sake of the security of the country, as regards services-type uniforms, to consider the use of uniforms which are similar to those worn by the Services and which eventually could lead to a degree of uncertainty among members of the public. The respective Acts falling under the different departments most definitely could not fully address this problem. The Bill is not aimed at introducing rigidity either, because in actual fact it also protects those persons in the private sector who attach just as much value to their own uniforms.

The registration should be fairly simple, and we also believe that this will totally eliminate confusion and will afford everyone, including private organisations like security companies, an opportunity to develop a pride in a uniform which is specially registered for that particular organisation. The particular legislation prohibits all uniforms which substantially resemble those of the Services. However, we cannot expect of the Services themselves to give any guidelines to the private undertaker to prevent their uniforms from coinciding, and for that reason it is also a good thing that there will be registration at a central point so that protection can be afforded to everyone in this way.

Mr Chairman, I consequently support the Registration of Services-type Uniforms Bill.

Mr Chairman, listening to the first three speakers on this piece of legislation, one would have thought that it was the most innocuous, happy piece of legislation that we have had, at least today, if not for a long time.

Don’t tell me that you are the odd man out!

I want to say to this hon Minister that if he thinks my talking about teachers’ salaries is wearing him down, he is going to be worn down by this Bill, because every year I am going to ask questions about its implementation because this Bill is unworkable. It is a Bill that is unnecessary and it is a Bill that the PFP will totally oppose.

That is not strange!

No, Mr Chairman, if there are measures which we believe are in the interests of South Africa, we will support them. This Bill, however, is not one of them.

This is a measure which was condemned by Assocom. It was slated by the uniform manufacturers as unworkable. Yet it is being suggested, and we have already heard from one of the NP speakers—they are desperately clinging to it—that this is a measure that can be executed by using two men and a computer to run the register. I believe that is impossible.

We have heard the case being put that the services need to be protected. In the standing committee the PFP acknowledged that amendments had to be effected to existing legislation. The point that we raised there was that existing legislation—the Defence Act, the Police Act and so on—already contained measures to guard against passing off, and few, if any, prosecutions had occurred. Section 26 of the Police Act, 1958, stipulates that:

Section 5 of the Protection of Information Act, 1982, stipulates that:

The PFP believes very strongly that if the services require protection in the use of their uniforms the requisite statutes to amend are those three Acts concerned. This measure goes far beyond that. This measure, I would submit, goes in fact into the sector of interfering with private commercial organisations’ dealings and everyday business.

I should like to begin my presentation by relating how the Bill came to be placed before the standing committee. It was originally circulated for comment right at the beginning of last year. Allow me, Sir, to quote briefly what the Financial Mail of 20 March 1987 had to say about this measure:

That was in March last year.

Who said that?

The Financial Mail of 20 March 1987.

Have you ever read anything positive about us here?

Occasionally, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] Strangely enough, Sir, it concerned that Government’s economic policy announced at the beginning of this year. [Interjections.] The rest was of course not good policy. [Interjections.]

Let us also point out that a year ago, in June 1987, the standing committee received the Bill. It also received written submissions from Assocom, from the Chamber of Mines, from the United Municipal Executive and so forth. Later, oral evidence was given by Assocom. The general view prevailed in the standing committee that the Bill had little going for it, and that the department could take it away and use other means, for example the amending of existing legislation, to achieve the purpose of preventing passing off.

The standing committee reached that view by the beginning of this year. About a few weeks ago, however, representatives of the services arrived. A detachment of senior and junior officers came to present the case of the services to the standing committee. When the officers arrived people stood up in salute. That was what happened. The rest of the standing committee became convinced that the services had a case to put. [Interjections.] That is all I am saying. They believed that the measure before the committee was in fact not strong enough. In fact, Sir, they amended the measure considerably. We can see that from the submissions received. They amended the measure in order to tighten it up and to make it considerably more restrictive than before the presentation by the forces. That is the Bill we have before us now.

In essence, it forces all organisations using a service-type uniform to register. It permits the Minister to reject or accept an application on the advice of the council, but let me make the point that it is the Minister’s decision, and not the council’s.

“Services-type uniform” is defined as follows:

I should point out that the latter reference appears to exclude school blazers and the like.

I must make reference to the Bureau of Heraldry. The State Herald was in fact the person who was before the standing committee with the Bill, and he and his bureau will be the ones responsible for the register. The present staff complement of the bureau is one State Herald, one Assistant State Herald, one senior provisioning administration clerk, one principal heraldic artist and five heraldic artists. If this Bill is passed, I wonder what the staff complement will be next year.

I would like to turn to the Bill itself. The hon the Minister has already made reference to clause 3, which deals with the constitution of the council. In his introductory remarks he mentioned the fact that people with specialist knowledge would be appointed, and that they would not represent interest groups. I should point out, however, that the representation received from the United Municipal Executive in fact asked for the third tier of government to be represented, and that the private sector made the point that the council might possibly be constituted with no private sector representation.

Clauses 9 and 10 are the key to the Bill, as they deal with the registration itself. Clause 9 determines that the services, namely the SADF, the Prisons Service and the SA Police, will be deemed to be registered in terms of the legislation. In other words, their uniforms get in first and not those of anybody else, whether other Government departments or the third tier of government.

Clause 10 determines the following:

I must point out with regard to the private sector, which is affected the most by this measure, that their representation to the standing committee was not accepted. The effect on the private sector, particularly organisations which use official or services-type uniforms, could run to thousands of rand. I believe that this measure has not been thought through and is, in fact, unworkable.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister a specific question in respect of objections to registration. Clause 12 reads as follows:

The services get the first bite of the cherry, so they will all be registered, and other bodies will be registered after that. On what basis is the order of registration of those other bodies going to be determined? Let us say I own security company A, and I register my uniform. Security company B, whose application happens to come in tomorrow, has a similar uniform to mine. Because my application arrived the day before, will I have the right to object? Is it a matter of first come, first served? This is a reasonable question, because if that is so, those organisations should already be queueing at the hon the Minister’s door.

I think we have an important point in respect of the rejection of applications for registration, and I want to ask another direct question. In clause 14 four grounds are specified for the possible ministerial rejection of an application.

I understand the first three fairly well, but I am particularly interested in the fourth one, which appeared in the amended form of the Bill tabled a few weeks ago, according to which the Minister may reject an application if he is of the opinion that registration will not be in the public interest. I want to know what the ramifications of this provision are because, when we were asked to comment on this measure a year ago, I raised the question of both the uniform and insignia of the AWB. As hon members are aware, this matter has been an issue of contention in this country. I want to quote from an article in Business Day of II June 1987, headlined “Bill will restrict use of uniforms”, as follows:

The report continues:

I want to ask the hon the Minister directly whether he intends to use this legislation to restrict the AWB’s use of both uniform and insignia. I think we deserve an answer.

I would now like to discuss an interesting legal point arising from clause 20. As a legal man the hon the Minister can no doubt happily—or perhaps unhappily!—explain this away. According to clause 20, a person who is not in the employ of or given written authority by a service or other body using a uniform, and who wears, uses, sells, exchanges, barters or trades in that uniform, a material part of it or any imitation which might reasonably be confused with it, may be sued in a court of law. I will come to the penalty in a moment, but first I want to ask an interesting question. This means that Mr Smith, who runs a clothing store and happens to deal in secondhand clothing, may be sued in a court of law by such service or body for, and I quote:

So no damages need to have occurred before the person can be sued—

I have discussed this provision with legal experts, and they have termed it a weird, bizarre and unique clause. On the face of it, it certainly appears to be an extraordinary clause. [Interjections.]

I would also like to point out that according to clause 21, a company director who permits these things to happen, that is, who allows somebody else to wear, trade in, barter or sell a uniform or something similar, can be fined R5 000 or sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

The requirements of this Bill ensure that regulations will have to be drafted. A register will have to be created, kept and updated. [Interjections.] Objections from users will have to be noted and acted upon. Generally, it is going to create a regulatory system on such a scale that the State President himself may have to act in this clear case of overregulation.

One of the more fundamental objections to the measure is the inordinate cost brought about by the necessary changes which security, financial and other companies will have to make. South Africa needs to get away from this kind of measure. We need—we agreed on this point in the standing committee—amendments to security legislation to protect the services from passing off, and we said so. Secondly, we believe that legislation on uniforms and insignia which are offensive to sections of the community needs to be introduced.

What we have here is a sledgehammer which is going to be to the detriment of Parliament and South Africa as a whole. We believe that in the end it will prove to be a totally unworkable system.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown has now taken up a great deal of the House’s time in trying to create the impression that we are dealing here with a cruel, draconian measure. [Interjections.] He said inter alia that the piece of legislation before us had not been considered properly. However, he himself said that the legislation had come a long way. The hon member for Brits explained the history of the legislation to us very effectively here. I am therefore not going to repeat it.

I want to link up with a statement which the hon member for Pinetown made, namely that the legislation had also been published for comment. This is true. Comments were received from various quarters—inter alia from the United Municipal Executive, which is a very important representative organisation in South Africa. For some or other reason, however, the hon member for Pinetown did not consider it necessary to inform the House that that organisation supported the Bill. [Interjections.]

Sir, one cannot be that selective either. Although the UME supported the legislation, I want to tell hon members that the Chamber of Mines was totally opposed to it. I want to go into this, because in my opinion the Chamber of Mines—I am saying this with all due respect—assessed the legislation incorrectly. This applies to the hon member for Pinetown, too. [Interjections.] It is simply seen as an attempt to punish those persons wearing services uniforms. However, this is not the case. The actual purpose of the Bill is to prevent confusion of identity. They also felt that if the Defence Act, for example, provided inadequate protection, it should be adjusted in order to allow it to function more effectively.

The Services themselves are of the opinion that they are not the correct organisation to administer a matter of this kind. They feel there is only one way to handle the matter if it becomes their responsibility, and that is to place a total ban on the wearing of any uniform with a military appearance. They saw this as the alternative to the registration procedure which will be adopted in terms of this legislation. However, the standing committee considered such a total ban as a too drastic approach.

Representations were also received from Gen Du Toit, the Chairman of the Heraldry Council. We invited him to come and see us. He felt that in the first place, the measure did not belong under this department and, in the second place, that the Heraldry Council would not be a suitable registration instrument. However, it was felt that it would be unwise to entrust the registration responsibility to the respective services departments, for the simple reason that they had an interest in the registration. It would therefore not be desirable to entrust that responsibility to them. Of the other three departments which could possibly be entrusted with the responsibility, namely the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Economic Affairs and Technology, and the Department of National Education, the last-mentioned was considered the most suitable. Be that as it may, the hon the State President can in any case, in terms of the Constitution, at any time it is deemed necessary entrust the administration of this legislation to any other Minister. For that reason this argument of Gen Du Toit was not considered decisive.

Secondly, with regard to the argument that the Heraldry Council is not equipped to administer the measure, no less a person than the State Herald himself told the standing committee that he and his staff, if the staff was increased slightly—this has nothing to do with what the Financial Mail, according to the hon member, called “a mini-army of bureaucrats”—will be quite capable of handling the matter.

Surely one cannot have a more authoritative opinion on this matter than that of the State Herald. He is an expert and his opinion must be authoritative.

The hon member also referred to Assocom. We also invited Assocom to come and see the standing committee. We held a long and full discussion with them, and after that I, as chairman, requested them to put their arguments in writing. The arguments which they then put in writing differed fairly dramatically from the arguments which were first submitted after the Bill had been published for comment.

Notwithstanding the fact that the arguments had little substance I, as chairman of the standing committee, requested the department to reconsider the matter.

In support of my contention that the arguments had no substance I want to quote one of them, which is representative of their approach, to hon members. I am quoting:

I consider this a little naïve. I ask myself how a representative of the business world can ask us to give them an opportunity to put their house in order. Why did they not do so in the first place? They knew this matter had been pending for years. What is more they admitted in the submission which was also sent to the department that they would not be able to influence all their members and that all their members could not be expected to accede to their request. One cannot do things in such a haphazard manner.

After the department had given further consideration to the matter, we met the representatives of the various Services. What the hon member said, namely that we suddenly decided that those people should be saluted, was not true. Why did he speak in such a derogatory fashion?

When those gentlemen came to see us I, as chairman, had a long discussion with them first. I was very critical of their approach. I questioned them intensively. In the committee the hon member for Pinetown and other hon members on this side of the House, too, put penetrating questions to those representatives of the Services. However, they had a good case and they therefore convinced us that it was necessary to go ahead with this legislation.

I shall tell hon members what the decisive considerations were. The first—tell me whether this is not a good argument—is that South Africa has an international obligation in terms of the Geneva Convention of 1949 to ensure that other uniforms are not confused with the combatant forces. One cannot simply ignore one’s responsibilities in terms of an international convention.

Secondly it is a fact that the distinguishing identity of uniformed authorities is in danger of being totally overwhelmed by the increasing proliferation of military uniforms. National security consideration were at stake and these cannot be ignored either.

Thirdly the danger exists that uniforms of private organisations can be confused with the uniforms of military organisations and that those private organisations may expose their staff to danger and that the staff could find themselves in the firing line. Yet again this consideration is one which could not be ignored.

Fourthly we were given the assurance by the State Herald and the representatives of the Services that the legislation would be phased in in the fairest manner possible. There will not simply be a clamp-down. The rightful interests of the private sector will be fully taken into account. I want this assurance placed on record because this was an important reason why the committee decided to agree to the legislation.

Fifthly the standing committee was given the assurance that it was possible to implement the registration process in a simple, cheap and quick, but effective way, and that this would in fact be done. That assurance dealt decisively with one of Assocom’s most important arguments, namely that the registration procedure would be clumsy and tedious. They said that it would take up to 100 pages to describe a specific uniform. When we received information from experts in the field—people who already register uniforms—this appeared to be an unfounded argument.

The measure now before us was, in the opinion of most of the members of the standing committee, the only practically feasible alternative to a total prohibition on the use of military-type uniforms outside these Services. Consequently a dual purpose has been achieved. The present confusion in identity between wearers of uniforms is being eliminated. At the same time guidelines are being laid down which are reasonable and fair. [Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stellenbosch has given us a certain amount of historical background to this measure, but he has essentially missed the main point of the argument we are involved in this evening. The objectives of this type of legislation, such as to prevent confusion, are not something we have a problem with. The problem is the workability of what is proposed. We also differ fundamentally with him as regards the staff required and the complications of registration.

I was not present at the last meeting of the committee when some evidence was taken. Prior to that very last and fairly brief meeting the committee as a whole, having heard other evidence and having had considerable discussions, certainly gave me the impression of realising the futility of this Bill.

The problems identified in the committee by people giving evidence concern the question of uniforms and the confusion of the public as to who is who. I accept that that confusion exists, so I do not have a problem with that thought. One needs only go to a Black township in the Cape Peninsula, for example, and one will see a police presence in a variety of uniforms, including fatigues, safari suit type uniforms, more formal kinds of uniforms, and there are the special constables or “kitskonstabels” in their uniforms. Sometimes there are municipal police and board officials and possibly some Defence Force personnel as well. Therefore there is confusion as to who is who, and who is official and who not, even within the services. That confusion worsens when there are all sorts of other uniforms as well. The fact that there is confusion in the minds of the public is something I accept. I do not think that it is the point at issue.

Secondly, one accepts entirely that nobody should be entitled falsely to present or pass himself off as or to deceive others that he is a member of one of the security forces, be it the Defence Force, the SA Police Force or the Prisons Service. That is something which is at present not allowed by legislation, and one has no problem with that.

The explanatory memorandum on this Bill says—

That is the problem. The reason why we have this Bill before us is that there is something of a problem, and one accepts that. One has a “do something” type of approach to this matter. The approach that we should do something, and it does not matter whether it actually solves the problem or creates more problems than it solves, just as long as we do something. Then nobody can say we did not do anything about the problem.

The proposed solution as contained in this Bill is, I believe, a waste of time and money. I wish to illustrate what I mean by that.

Before doing so, I might highlight the point made by my colleague the hon member for Pinetown that this Government, at the very time when it is talking most loudly about deregulation, is now planning to introduce the most complicated and complex set of regulations that one can imagine. It will touch very many spheres of private sector activities, let alone many aspects of Government activities. [Interjections.] The key problem, as far as I am concerned, is the definition of a services-type uniform. In the Bill it is described as follows:

To me this is essentially where the problem begins. What is “similar apparel” and what is not “similar apparel”? How similar does it have to be? In mathematical terms similar actually means identical. In colloquial terms and presumably in legal terms—I am not a lawyer—it means nearly the same.

Like the ANC and the PFP?

If the hon Whip wants to ask a question he must do so in the proper manner. [Interjections.]

The NP is similar to the CP.

It would appear that the hon Whip has not only lost some of his faculties but his speech as well.

He did not have any faculties to lose.

The essence of the problem is to define “similar”. How is a reasonable person to decide what is similar and what is not?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I understand that the hon Whip on the other side said that the ANC was similar to the PFP.

Hear, hear!

Furthermore, Sir, there is an hon member opposite who has just said: “Hear, hear!”. [Interjections.] I would submit that in terms of previous rulings the hon Whip is out of order as is the hon member for False Bay. [Interjections.]

Order! Can the hon member for Boksburg tell me what he said?

Mr Chairman, I asked a rhetorical question following on the statement made by the hon member that certain things can be similar or not. I then asked the rhetorical question: Like the ANC and the PFP? It was a question and not a statement.

Order! Did the hon member seek to imply by means of that rhetorical question that there was a resemblance between the ANC and the PFP?

In my mind, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order!

The hon member for False Bay, who said “Hear, hear!” must also withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The question of what is meant by “similar”, as far as I am concerned, is where the essential problem arises. If one looks at the representations that were made by Assocom in respect of this matter, one sees that they had the following to say:

Further on Assocom again comments on this point and refers to one of their members, who is also a uniform manufacturer contracted to numerous Government and private bodies, and who states:

One also runs into the problem—this was pointed out to the committee—of defining a particular colour. When one gets tangled up with colour codes and things like that there are almost infinite possibilities. One can define the colour of a particular uniform but that colour may fade in the sun or after being washed and then one has a problem again.

Clause 14(1) empowers the Minister to reject an application for registration and in terms of subsection (a) he can do so if—

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by conveying my sincere thanks to those hon members who supported the Bill. I also thank the CP speaker for his party’s support. I want to thank the hon members for Stellenbosch and Kempton Park. The hon member for Kempton Park is wearing a very beautiful uniform this evening, which will not be registered in terms of this legislation, since it is not a military type uniform. [Interjections.] This does not mean that we would have had problems distinguishing its colours, in the same way that the PFP has problems with colour distinction in politics. I thank her sincerely for her support, and I also thank the hon member for Stellenbosch, who was the chairman of this committee. I thank him for his full replies to some of the arguments raised by the PFP. He managed to allay many of the fears they expressed and proved that there was nothing sinister and nothing to be worried about.

The hon members of the PFP are trying to create the impression that we are dealing with a terribly draconian measure. They say the existing legislation relating to the three services is nearly adequate and may be adapted by means of a few amendments. However, what they seem to overlook, is the fact that we are going to establish a democratic council that will be representative of the three interested parties, viz the three services, but on which people from the private sector, with their expertise, will also serve. For the first time in history a body that is not politically motivated, that is not politically constituted, will decide about a situation which is chaotic. It affords protection to the private sector, for example. If we were to follow the advice they are offering us at the moment, any of the services may change its uniform tomorrow to resemble that of an existing private sector uniform. Then it would be a transgression on the part of the private sector to continue using the uniform it has been using for, say ten years, because it is now in conflict with the services. After the initial registration by the services, the private bodies, too, may register in this manner. The services will then not be entitled to register a change in their uniforms at a later stage which will bring them into conflict with the existing and vested rights of any private body. Do they wish to afford private bodies that protection? We do! It seems to me they are the ones who are being undemocratic and will not afford the private sector that protection. [Interjections.]

Secondly, this independent body—this should provide the answer to many of their arguments—is an advisory body without whose advice the hon the Minister cannot act. They foresee many problems with distinguishing between various colours and with regard to the question as to what is similar and what is not. There will be a specialist body which will lay down its own directives. I can see that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens does not have a legal background. If he knew anything about trade marks, he would have known that there is a multitude of decided cases on the whole issue of whether there is a resemblance or not and whether there is similarity or not. I am not suggesting that these decided cases will be directly applicable, but making a proper distinction is not such a problem when one looks at the multitude of possible conflicts that may arise in the sphere of trade marks. A thorough and proper system has been established in South Africa in this regard, involving many court cases. This system protects the vested interests of people who already have trade marks. However, it also affords newcomers the right to register their unique trade marks.

At the Bureau of Heraldry we do not have enormous and insurmountable problems distinguishing between what is similar and what is not, and what is in conflict with existing registrations and what is not. With a little commitment and a slightly more positive attitude towards life it is far easier than hon members can imagine. I can understand their pessimism. If I were a Prog I would also have looked at the world through dark glasses.

Give us one international example!

Well, the fact is that we have a situation …

It is unique for us!

… in which security companies are springing up like mushrooms.

We have heard it!

Is it true or is it not true? And the uniforms are multiplying like mushrooms. There have been cases of people passing themselves off as persons in authority, acting on Government authority. These things happen. Hon members can read about them in the newspapers. That is why I am saying to the hon members that they are being unnecessarily pessimistic about the matter.

†The hon member for Pinetown also criticised the fact that the services support the Bill.

No! I was critical of the standing committee.

Yes, he was very critical of the fact that suddenly the officers turned up and were supportive of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member for Pinetown is the only hon member who was allowed a 20-minute speech.

His time was limited. He wanted 30 minutes.

I say that we are bringing into being an objective body … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Cape Town Gardens must not argue with the Chair.

I am not arguing, Mr Chairman.

The hon member forgets that we are bringing into being an objective body which will be making decisions without a direct interest. That is the reason why the services, inter alia, welcome this Bill. They themselves, with a direct vested interest, are now also charged with …

They promoted the Bill!

… ensuring that their interests are not negatively affected. They would prefer an objective body which cannot be accused of being partisan because of an own vested interest. This is the underlying principle of the whole Bill and the reason why I am astonished that the PFP of all parties does not support a Bill which is really placing a difficult situation on a real and fair democratic basis.

One man, one uniform.

Both hon members of the PFP said that we are now going to create a tremendous new body of public servants which will almost be impossible to handle.

*If we receive many applications for registration, what will that prove? It will prove that people need this. [Interjections.] This Bill does not say that one is compelled to have one’s uniform registered. This Bill forces nobody to register, except the three forces.

That is not true. Clause 10 says that everybody must register.

No, let us read clause 10.

†Clause 10 states:

Yes, “shall apply”!

It goes on to say:

So I am right!

When one looks at clause …

They have got you!

No. Clause 21 states:

That is where one wears a uniform which is for instance similar to the uniform of the Police Force. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I am not going to allow these continual interjections while the hon the Minister is replying to the debate.

The point is, when one reads clause 21 in conjunction with the clause that the hon member referred to, it is not a crime not to register a uniform. It is a crime to use an unregistered uniform which is similar to and can be passed off as a uniform of another service.

Have you looked at clause 21(2)?

Yes, let us read clause 21(2):

To lodge an objection!

Order! No, I have repeatedly appealed to the hon member for Pinetown and he will now make no further interjections.

In clause 15(2) the Minister is authorised to order a company or a body to apply. I am saying that it is not a crime to use a uniform which does not fall into a category where it can be confused with a services-type uniform. Such a uniform need not specifically be registered. If there is doubt, the Minister has the authority to order that application should be made to clear up any possible doubt. Therefore, one should read all the clauses in conjunction with one another. It is not absolutely necessary to register innocuous dress which looks like a uniform but which is not similar to a services-type uniform and runs no risk of being confused with one.

Hon members say that this is going to be labour intensive.

*I do not agree with them. We might experience a throng initially, but after that the applications for registration should come in at a very slow tempo. Once this situation has been ordered, it is unlikely that a new uniform will be introduced somewhere every week. I think they are just inventing obstacles.

I am asked on what basis applications will be considered.

†I am asked whether it will be on a first come, first served basis. Obviously, I shall immediately ask this body to advise me once it has been constituted. A first come, first served basis would under certain circumstances be just and equitable but if a body lodges an application on the same day but maybe an hour later, for a uniform which has been in use for 20 years, one might, for the sake of justice, also take that into account. I would like the council to lay down guidelines in that regard and to advise me. The purpose and the ultimate goal will be to deal with applications on a basis which is just and equitable and in terms of fair measures and fair guidelines.

*Mention has been made of the insertion of a clause referring to the public interest. This was included in the Bill not by me, but by the standing committee. The amendment was not included on my insistence, but originated in the standing committee. Personally, I think it is a good amendment.

The hon member is right when he says it is difficult to render such a law absolute, definite, final and exact. One has to have a general authority. However, a general authority that was too broad, for example, a clause that stated that “or for any reason the Minister deems fit”, would have been even more unacceptable to the hon member. The terminology “public interest” does, therefore, imply a restriction of the authority. I, or any successor of mine, will have to account for our actions in this House, and will have to prove, when I reject an application under that umbrella clause, that it is in the public interest. Is is better, and it is a more restricted authority than it would have been to say “for any reason the Minister deems fit”.

The “public interest” is a term that has been defined in many court cases. Judgments have been pronounced on the issue and lots of background material exists that may be consulted whenever doubt should arise as to the correct interpretation of that term by a Minister.

Reference has also been made to the damages clause. Let me concede at once that I regard it as a fairly drastic clause. I think it is supported by the same principle in many other laws. When a person who does not have the right to use specific insignia or anything that is characteristic of another person, that are protected by some form of registration, does actually use them, there are grounds for civil action in the case of trade marks, models and patents. In the case of a uniform it would be easy to prove damage, and that is why we have this fairly severe provision.

Mr Chairman, does one not have to prove damages in the examples that he has given, namely the copying of trade marks, patents and models, and is this not an exception to that kind?

Sir, in those cases one often has to do with a commodity that involves specific business interests, where it is possible, by means of evidence and circumstantial evidence, to prove quantifiable or reasonably quantifiable damage. In a case such as this, where we are introducing something totally new, it would be very difficult to prove and support damage in respect of a uniform that is not a commodity perse, but which could still be an extension of the identity of, inter alia, a business. I think the ceiling of R5 000 takes out the sting that many hon members are looking for in this measure, since it is not a very large amount. When one talks about damages in respect of trade marks and patents, one is talking about damages that could amount to more than R1 million or R2 million. Here we have a ceiling. It is fairly harmless; it almost a civil fine that we are imposing. With this I think I have dealt with most of the criticisms.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to ask the hon the Minister to respond to the queries that we made in respect of the AWB—whether he has in mind putting limitations on those sorts of insignia and various sorts of uniforms.

Sir, at present I am trying to get the Bill passed. I have not lined up certain people whom I intend to shoot down by means of this legislation. This is not how we on this side of the House approach the law. [Interjections.] A council will be appointed which will be granted certain powers in terms of this legislation. Is the hon member asking me to anticipate decisions about matters on which the council has to advise me? Is this how he want the country to be run? Is this how the PFP has landed itself in the trouble it is experiencing at the moment? Is this his style of management? This is not how we manage our affairs, Sir. I am not prepared to react to hypothetical situations at this stage. I would say that anything that can be proved to be essentially offensive to certain sections of the community will have to be considered in terms of the concept “in the public interest”. That is a principle that is contained in our legislation. Our legislation on publications control contains the principle that something that is offensive to a certain section of the population may be prohibited, and I should think that the example he mentioned, and any other example that he might mention, should be judged according to the same principle once this legislation has come into operation.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, the Mining Rights Amendment Bill makes provision for the lifting of the present restriction of 156g on the quantity of a precious metal that the holder of a jeweller’s permit may process per day. Furthermore, it also makes provision for the extension of the rights that holders of jewellers’ permits had to acquire an unutilised precious metal, to include the rights to acquire raw precious metals from another permit holder.

The obligation that rested until now with a person who transported a raw precious metal, with the exception of silver, to acquire a permit for this purpose from the Commissioner of the SA Police or a person nominated by him, is being abolished with regard to the holders of jewellers’ permits.

Furthermore, the measure makes provision for the increase of fines from R5 000 to R50 000 when a person is found guilty of contravening section 141(1) and (3) of the Act. In the case of an offence in terms of section 1421(1)(f), the fine is being increased from R200 to R2 000.

The CP will not oppose the measure under discussion. We support all the amendments contained in it.

Mr Chairman, we thank the CP for their support for this amending Bill.

When we consider this piece of legislation it appears that we are actually digging around in the history books. The Cape of Good Hope proclaimed the Mining Leases Act as long ago as 1865, which, of course, was only repealed many years later. Nevertheless there are interesting aspects which have remained in the present legislation, and which we are now going to change. One of the many interesting aspects is that the present Act, which we are now going to change, provides that at present one may not trade in unrefined gold after sunset and before sunrise.

A further interesting aspect of the present Act is that one may not deal in raw precious metals on a holiday either; and never on Sunday. These are some of the interesting provisions that have been on the Statute Book for many, many years. We are now going to remove them.

However, there is one aspect that I want to bring to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister. I believe that we are affording great relief to the jewellery industry with regard to the utilisation of raw precious metals. Nevertheless, there is still one major problem, and this afternoon I want to request the hon the Deputy Minister to discuss it with the hon the Minister of Finance. I want to request them to investigate the possibility of addressing the problem of ad valorem tax. At the moment our country’s jewellery industry is really struggling. Therefore, I request the hon the Deputy Minister to please discuss the possibility with the hon the Minister of Finance of bringing about relief in this regard as soon as possible.

We on this side of the House should like to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, we enthusiastically support the object of this Bill, which is to facilitate the development of the jewellery manufacturing industry to its maximum potential. It is obvious that many jobs could be created if we could develop this industry. A lot of foreign exchange could be earned for this country. It is internationally a very valuable industry. Then there is of course also the question of our national pride. South Africa is the West’s, and possibly the world’s, foremost source of diamonds and precious metals and other stones, and I believe we should take pride in being the foremost manufacturers and processors of the base metals with which we are blessed.

It should also be a spur to us when we think of the fact that other countries that do not have the resources we have such as Israel and Italy, have actually led the way in this field. Let us consider a practical example, Sir. I refer to the Swiss. Switzerland is known for its watches. There is a great national pride among the Swiss in their being the foremost watchmakers in the world. They do not have the raw materials we have to create the fine time-pieces for which they are so well-known. It is known, however, that one can go to Switzerland and buy there the excellent watches made in that country on a most inexpensive basis.

Yet, we in this country have the peculiar situation that although we produce the materials and precious stones, in many cases we can actually buy the processed products of these materials more cheaply overseas than in this country. This is ridiculous.

That brings me to the Bill. Obviously we welcome the steps that have been set out here. Three steps have been taken to clear the way and make it easier for our jewellery manufacturing industry to operate. However, I want to support what the hon member for Stilfontein said. The biggest problem facing this industry is the excise duty burden placed on it by the Government which is payable on all transactions in the jewellery trade. That is a massive shackle placed on the industry and we urge the Government—this hon Deputy Minister must urge his colleague—to lift that restriction.

We have a situation where up to 35% of the basic cost of the material to the jeweller has to be added to reach his costs and on top of that he has to make a profit. Not all the jewellers are able to discount that. As is the case in most countries when foreigners buy their products, they cannot discount them unless they have special licences, but these licences are limited to a very small percentage of jewellers.

Another issue is the question of differential pricing. This is a sensitive issue, but there are some products which South Africans must buy in dollars at the same price at which overseas manufacturers can buy them. One asks why it is not possible for local manufacturers to buy gold, diamonds and other materials found in this country at a more favourable price than overseas competition, bearing in mind proximity and local sourcing. We are playing into the hands of our competition by making our local people buy at exactly the same price, regardless of the location. I do not think all other countries in the world operate on this basis. I referred to the Swiss and the fact that one can buy Swiss watches more cheaply in Switzerland than outside, specifically in order to raise the question of differential pricing of our base metals to our local jewellery manufacturers. Is it not possible for us to look at this issue? By itself that single step of differential pricing for local manufacturers and beneficiaries can stimulate the industry to a massive degree, and I ask the hon the Minister to look at this.

I know it would perhaps be difficult to police this and ensure that only legitimate recipients receive the benefit of that differential pricing, but I believe the effort will be worthwhile, and the stimulus to the industry would be of great benefit to this country in terms of strengthening our international competitiveness, creating employment opportunities and earning extra foreign exchange.

With those thoughts, Sir, we welcome the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the hon member for Carletonville for his speech. I am sure he knows that South Africa produces almost 40% of the world’s gold and the bulk of its platinum. This country is also one of the leading producers of rough diamonds.

†While we in South Africa have achieved perhaps the greatest expertise in the world in the actual mining of these precious metals and stones, we certainly have not reached that level of expertise in the manufacture of the jewellery which uses a large proportion of these precious metals and stones. There are many reasons for this. Some of them have been mentioned by hon members in this debate, but one of the main reasons, of course, is that there have been regulations which have restricted the open handling of these metals in the jewellery industry.

It is for this reason that the Government, in following its policy of looking at all our legislation with a view to reforming and modernising it so that it can meet present-day needs, has come forward with these amendments. As the hon member for Carletonville said, they are quite simple. He also listed the amendments, and I thank him for doing so as I do not intend to elaborate on them.

This measure certainly opens the way for jewellery manufacturers to go about their work with less bother and nuisance than they have been saddled with in the past. I thank all the hon members for their support in this regard.

The hon member for Stilfontein raised the matter of how antiquated our law is, and mentioned the section according to which one cannot trade in or work these metals between the hours of sunset and sunrise and on Sundays and public holidays. This goes right back to the early days of our mining industry. Perhaps this is a historical moment, in that we are removing something that was on the Statute Book as far back as the days of the Cape Colony.

The hon member raised a matter also mentioned by the hon member for Constantia, namely that of the ad valorem tax. I would like to tell both hon members that this subject was very fully addressed by the Board of Trade.

And the Margo Commission!

The Margo Commission looked at it too, but the Board of Trade specifically—I think it was at the request of the hon the Minister—looked into the whole matter of trying to promote a jewellery industry. One of the recommendations that emerged was that the ad valorem tax had to be looked at closely. I would like to assure both hon members that this is indeed being looked at by the Department of Finance in conjunction with our department, and I sincerely hope that perhaps next time my dear wife would like to buy a piece of jewellery, the ad valorem tax will be, if not removed entirely, certainly reduced to a level which makes it less of a burden on South Africans buying jewellery.

The hon member for Constantia also raised the matter of differential prices. This is an interesting subject, and I think it bears looking at. Naturally this applies primarily to gold, as well as platinum, I think, and certainly diamonds, as these are probably the three most important substances involved in the jewellery industry. Of course, these are sold on the South African market at the quoted New York or London price, and this is what the hon member was talking about.

He conceded that it might be very difficult to police. I would like to suggest to hon members that one of the reasons why we are introducing these amendments is to assist the law enforcement authorities in the rather onerous task they have had in the past of trying to police some rather outdated regulations. I think we would have to think very deeply before we introduced a new system which would require more policing, but I take the point the hon member has raised. I think it is a very valid one, and we certainly will have a look at it.

I would like to thank hon members once again for their support. In conclusion, I would like to say that I sincerely hope that our entrepreneurs in South Africa will now take advantage of these reforms and this deregulation. We have great potential. South Africa could become a leading jewellery manufacturing nation in the world, and visitors from all around the world could come here to buy jewellery produced in South Africa.

I would just like to add that I believe that our designers and our craftsmen in South Africa and indeed in this city of Cape Town are amongst some of the best in the world. I do not think we have to worry about that aspect, because we have the talent. As the hon member for Constantia said, it could become an attraction for overseas tourists. They could come to South Africa to buy their jewellery, just as people go to Switzerland to buy their watches. This is therefore a challenge to the jewellery manufacturing industry, and I sincerely hope they take it up.

Meanwhile, I am sure all hon members hope that the hon the Minister and also the hon the Minister of Finance will endeavour to do something about the rather onerous 35% ad valorem duty on jewellery. With that, I thank hon members again.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few introductory remarks. This Bill is not the result of good work done by the joint parliamentary committee alone; recommendations to this effect were originally put forward in the National Transport Policy Study as well. Originally the National Transport Commission commissioned a study aimed at an in-depth investigation into transport matters in our country.

The recommendations flowing from the National Transport Policy Study were divided into four categories, namely rationalization, passenger transport, freight transport and across-border traffic. This Bill forms part of the rationalization process. It is part of a whole package of Bills on transport matters. This package of Bills was envisaged in the White Paper which was published in January 1987. The White Paper also contains the major recommendations which the Government accepted.

*For the sake of clarity in this regard I should like to summarise these recommendations briefly. Firstly, it has been recommended that a statutory body such as the Roads Board, which this Bill deals with, be created within the Department of Transport. That is the most important recommendation.

This Roads Board must take over the functions which were previously entrusted to the National Transport Commission in terms of the National Roads Act, 1971. The Urban Transport Act, 1977, as well as the National Road Safety Act, 1972, also dealt with this matter. In future the National Road Fund and the Urban Transport Fund will be controlled and administered by the Roads Board which is going to be established. A further function of the Roads Board is that it must exercise control over agreements affecting the financing and construction of toll roads. That includes agreements which will be concluded with the private sector and therefore does not apply only in respect of toll roads which we ourselves build and administer.

The composition of this Roads Board must be such that members will be drawn from the public as well as the private sector.

The chairman of the board must be a member from the public sector. That is the background, Sir.

Furthermore I want to make a few observations about the body itself. Firstly, we must not lose sight of the fact that this South African Roads Board will be a functional body. Clause 3 very clearly indicates that the members of the committee must have sufficient knowledge of the planning, construction and maintenance of roads.

Furthermore, hon members must be familiar with transport, commerce, finance, mining or agriculture.

Many of this board’s decisions will be of a highly technical nature. With a view to the deregulation of our road transport system the need for sound road systems, namely national roads, will increase considerably. We already have a tremendous increase in vehicle drivers and road transport operators. That will be the case to a much greater extent in future.

In order to comply with these requirements, toll roads and the income derived in this way—by means of toll roads—are absolutely essential. Toll roads have been approved in principle. This Toll Road Committee is necessary in order to exercise proper control. Clause 7 makes provision for this. The South African Roads Board will transfer certain functions to this toll road committee, especially in order to ensure that the contracts and the concessions which will be given to the private sector are properly monitored.

Finally, I merely want to express my appreciation and that of the Ministry to the joint committee which once again performed their task superbly and proposed and accepted a considerable number of amendments as well. This session this committee has a lot of hay on its fork, and this will be the case for quite sometime to come. It requires a lot of dedication in order to finalise all these functions. However, they did it in the spirit of deregulation and privatisation, which are just around the corner as far as transport in South Africa is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister spoke before me, because he used a term that I am going to refer to in my speech, namely the term “legislation package”.

We want to say that by choosing this juncture to submit this Bill to Parliament to be debated, the Government showed a gross disregard for the authority of Parliament as the highest legislative body in the country. I shall explain to hon members what we mean by that.

For many years the Government has been engaged in the formulation of a new national transport policy and the legislation that, in its opinion, must implement the policy. In the White Paper on the National Transport Policy, that was published as early as 30 January last year—about eighteen months ago—the recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study and the decisions of the Government on them are set out. The legislation contemplated therein is set out in paragraph 7.3 of the White Paper.

The importance of this is that as early as last year, the Government admitted that it had worked out the full statutory basis of its new policy in a so-called legislation package—a group of laws that should be seen as a unit and which would give expression to the new transport policy of the NP.

Now, in June 1988—a year and a half later—we have still not had all the proposed Bills in this legislation package tabled. There is a noticeable failure to timeously submit certain legislation in the legislation package to Parliament. The result is a Babel-like confusion, because there are cross-references in the various pieces of legislation, which cannot now be considered because not all the pieces of legislation have been submitted, and others that have been submitted are still being considered by the standing committee.

Clause 5(1) of the South African Road Council Bill—the Bill presently under discussion—states that the functions of the proposed road council can be found in section 3(1) of the Deregulation of Transport Act, 1988—that is what it is called in the present Bill. This so-called Deregulation of the Transport Act is not yet an Act of this Parliament. It is still in the form of a Bill and under discussion in the standing committee. Were we therefore to accept clause 5(1) of the South African Roads Board Bill, we would be binding ourselves not only to the acceptance of the legislation on the deregulation of transport, but necessarily also to accepting the new section 3(1) in that Bill, despite the fact that that measure is still under discussion on the standing committee. We must still decide on the merits of that clause. That clause, as it stands at the moment, will result in some, but not all, of the functions of the National Transport Commission in terms of the National Road and Transport (Co-ordination) Amendment Act, the National Roads Safety Act and the Urban Transport Act, being transferred to the South African Roads Board, which is going to be created by the Bill at present under discussion.

The one piece of legislation is therefore dependent on the other. Yet, the Government does not wait until the standing committee has decided on clause 3(1) of the Deregulation of Transport Bill before bringing the South African Roads Board Bill before the Houses of Parliament to be finalised. [Interjections.] These two provisions, read together, contradict the White Paper on the National Transport Policy, in which it is proposed that the National Transport Commission be totally abolished. It is therefore very important that the standing committee is satisfied with regard to, for example, the desirability of this deviation from the White Paper on the national transport policy.

The CP says that this modus operandi of the government makes a mockery of the right of Parliament to be able to consider all legislation purely on merit, and subsequently to exclusively agree to or reject it itself.

Why did you not raise that objection on the standing committee?

Clause 8(b) of the Bill at present before this House is probably the most glaring illustration of this modus operandi of the Government … I heard a remark made by someone here who asked why I did not object on the standing committee. It seems to me that that hon member was either not on the standing committee, or he was asleep, because I adopted that standpoint on the committee, and I raised it at the earliest possible opportunity.

You abstained!

The hon member who made that remark is now also out of his depth; he does not know what he is talking about, because that is not the issue. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I was informed that it was arranged among the Whips that I had fifteen minutes in which to speak.

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

Order! I regret to say that according to the list that I was given, the hon member could speak for five minutes. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?

Order! The Rules are very clear in this regard. An hon member has the speaking time that is indicated on the list, and if the duration of his speaking time is not indicated, the Rule that allows him ten minutes applies. [Interjections.] Order! I do not know what the hon members want to address me on. The rules are emphatic and binding.

Mr Chairman, the Whips on the government side will agree with me that it was arranged in that way.

Order! No valid arrangement between Whips can be made that is contrary to the Rules of the House.

Mr Chairman, is it not possible for the hon the Leader of the House to rise to move the suspension of the Rules to honour an agreement between Whips? I ask him to do so.

I do not understand anything that is happening now. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in reply to a few of the statements which the hon member for Roodepoort made, I merely want to tell the hon member that, like the standing committee, Parliament can also only deal with Bills in chronological order. If the hon member was busy—which he is not in the standing committee—he must talk to his colleague the hon member for Middelburg. He will be able to tell him that we are dealing with the other three Bills in the package, and once the standing committee has disposed of one Bill, there is no reason why that legislation should be set aside. This is the legislation we are discussing now, the South African Roads Board Bill. This legislation can consequently also be debated and disposed of by Parliament.

There are not only three Bills in the package. There are four.

Very well. This is the fourth one. The hon member should listen more attentively. I said there were three others waiting. This one is now being discussed.

However, it is clear that the CP do not play a role in the standing committee. In that standing committee which decided on this specific legislation, they abstained. The role which they consequently play there is minimal. They simply come there and state their standpoints. [Interjections.]

I think I have wasted enough time on the hon member. I am not going to debate this with him any further.

As the deputy chairman of that joint committee I should like, on behalf of all the members of the committee, to express our thanks and appreciation to the chairman. I think he is definitely a member of Parliament whose position fitted him like a glove. As a former professor and a transport economist he really played a tremendous role in the handling of all the legislation dealing with the regulating of transport as well as this specific Bill. I want to thank him in his absence for the guidance he gave us. Under his guidance the committee proposed several amendments which were accepted by the hon the Minister and the department. In my opinion this proves that the joint committees in this tricameral system are an excellent instrument to promote better legislation.

The committee proposed no fewer than 37 amendments to this legislation and it is for that reason that I take it amiss of those hon members that they did not play a part in this. All 37 amendments were accepted which proves that we have broadened the democracy. We are, in fact, affording the opposition the opportunity to adopt a standpoint on legislation, but when that party gets there we do not hear from them. They do not take decisions, they do not make proposals, but boycott proceedings. [Interjections.]

When that hon member does not boycott proceedings, he disappears from the committee and sends a seconder in his place. There is consequently no continuous involvement in legislation on the part of that party. However, they then rise here and criticise the legislation. [Interjections.] When that hon member had the chance to make one of those 37 proposals, he was as quiet as a mouse. One can say he takes after his leader.

This Bill, as I have already said, is part of a package. The statutory board which will be known as the South African Roads Board will be vested with different powers decided on by the hon the Minister, and we believe that the Board will take the place of the National Transport Commission. The Board also has several other responsibilities in that it is being expanded to exercise control over and manage the allocation of concessions for the building and financing of roads. With the establishment of this Roads Board we believe we are paving the way for privatisation. This is how we are going to handle the entire package better. This Bill actually has to be dealt with first in order to deregulate the entire transport system so that privatisation can take place.

In addition this measure is paving the way for a Toll Road Committee. I believe this Committee will be able to take decisions on the most important road transport issues in South Africa. The political party which thinks it can use toll roads for political gain is putting its own party’s interests above those of South Africa.

You are afraid of the CP.

Of course, that hon member belongs to the kind of party to which I am referring. Every party which is seriously trying to turn South Africa into a winning country should not whip up public opinion against toll roads. I hope we have now reached the level of political maturity in South Africa—when I listen to the Official Opposition I am not so sure of that—at which we know when economic circumstances necessitate certain legislation in this Parliament. We must take this into account in this country. As the country develops, every community and every region will have to decide which road must receive preference over another and I hope that this Toll Road Committee will be able to give guidance in this regard. The ability to pay for this is going to become increasingly difficult in future. The hon the Minister has said that the issue of toll roads has already been discussed and that we need not mention it in this Parliament again.

In our opinion this measure will succeed in establishing better roads without our having to increase fuel prices or other taxes again. The Bill also makes provision for the furnishing of secretarial services. The committee dealt with the matter of the appointment of officials to assist the Roads Board and the Toll Road Committee and they will be officials from the Department of Transport which will also effect a saving. This is a matter which enjoys the support of all parties, because it also encourages rationalisation.

In conclusion the Bill prescribes how the Board and its committees must defray expenditure, namely through the National Road Fund.

Finally I must also mention that 26 organisations, which are all involved in road transport, helped to achieve this package of legislation. The standing committee is still dealing with the legislation, but we hope to be able to table it before the end of this session. We are also still negotiating with those organisations, and we believe that when we eventually sit down around a table together, both Parliament and the private sector will have ironed out and adjusted this legislation so that through the deregulation of transport and the establishment of this new organisation, the SA Roads Board, we will have established a better body to help to provide South Africa’s transport networks of the future.

The Roads Board will have to submit reports to Parliament every year at prescribed times. In this way Parliament will be able to monitor and control the activities of the Roads Board. Opposition parties will therefore gain the necessary insight to be able to criticise whatever they wish. Like every other board appointed by Parliament, Parliament can also supervise this Board. I therefore do not believe that we need concern ourselves any longer regarding how the Roads Board will function. I think this is an extremely good body which has been appointed. On behalf of this side of the House I take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Boksburg has given spirited praise to the package of transport legislation that is coming before us. I felt that he was somewhat ungracious when he attacked the hon member for Roodepoort for his viewpoint. The spirit that appeared to be prevalent at the committee meeting which I attended showed a fair unanimity of opinion on this whole package of transport legislation that is coming forward as a result of the Government’s White Paper.

This Bill is just a part of a whole series of transport legislation. It establishes the South African Roads Board, a body which takes over most, though not all, of the duties of the National Transport Commission. I think the input of the standing committee was considerable in this respect. I think the hon member for Boksburg said there were something like 37 amendments. There were quite a number of amendments, and some very good ones. For instance, the original draft Bill wanted a board consisting of 18 members. I think the standing committee very sensibly opted for a much smaller board consisting of only eight members. The composition of the board is interesting in that, apart from the Director-General of Transport who is there by virtue of his office, there are two members of the department. One of them has to have considerable knowledge of the planning, construction and maintenance of roads. There is a member nominated by the administrators of the various provinces. There is also a member with experience of local authorities, who has to be in the employ of a local authority. Three members come from organised commerce, industry and agriculture, that is, road users, so that the consumers are represented to a certain extent, and from persons in the private sector concerned with the planning of roads. I believe there is a reasonable balance of public sector and private sector people on the board.

The hon member for Roodepoort said quite rightly that the powers, functions and duties of the board are laid down by a Bill which we have not yet had before us in the House. I think this is undesirable; I would have liked to have a situation in which we could have brought in this transport legislation in a more reasonable order so that we were not creating a board which technically has no powers, functions and duties at all, as they have not yet been assigned.

Hopefully before the end of this session of Parliament, we will have the Transport Deregulation Bill before us. We will then be able to pass it and give the Bill before us now some meaning. The attack of the hon member for Boksburg on the speech of the hon member for Roodepoort was certainly unjustified and, I though, somewhat ungracious and superficial. [Interjections.]

The duties that the National Transport Commission are handing over to the National Roads Boards have to do with duties assigned to them by the National Roads Act. They will acquire land for national roads; they will plan, design and construct national roads, and I think that they will also do a fair amount of recommending to the Minister on transport legislation in terms of safety, for example, as set out in the National Road Safety Act. They will fulfil a function that the commission used to fulfil in that they will consult with the National Road Safety Council with regard to a programme for road safety research. They will also perform the National Transport Commission’s present functions in respect of the Urban Transport Act. They will have responsibility in respect of various aspects of urban transport policy as well. In most ways they are the successor to the National Transport Commission.

They will also take into consideration existing and contemplated road facilities and existing and contemplated transport facilities. They also have the right to set up subcommittees which may advise them from time to time on various aspects affecting national roads. Specifically detailed in the legislation, and actually mandatory, is the establishment of a Toll Roads Committee. Here I want to offer a warning to hon members, and to the hon the Deputy Minister, who is handling this Bill, that we are not satisfied with the way in which toll roads have been dealt with up to now. There has been too much secrecy involved. There has been a veil of secrecy over the whole establishment of toll roads. Suddenly the public is confronted with plans which are afoot, for example, for a toll road to span the Witwatersrand. Too little is known of whether or not this is a good idea. There is lack of knowledge.

I believe that there must be public consultation all along the line. I believe that the public should be brought into the picture right from the start. I hope that the new Toll Roads Committee, the subcommittee of the Roads Board, will fulfil this function. I believe that the whole public relations aspect of toll roads is very important indeed.

I have a slight criticism of the Bill before us in respect of the instructions given to the Toll Roads Committee with respect to consultation with commuters and road users and, as the Bill states, those who are within a 20 kilometre radius of the toll gate. I actually believe that we should go further than this. I believe that anybody who is affected by that toll road and who travels that road regularly, should be consulted. I, for example, living on the Witwatersrand, travel more than 20 kilometres if I want to go into the centre of Johannesburg. I do it frequently. There are many commuters in that area who travel a good deal more than 20 kilometres on a daily basis just to go to their place of work. I do not believe that 20 kilometres is adequate. I believe that consultation with commuters must be on an extended basis.

Being unaware, at this stage, of exactly what the functions of the Toll Roads Committee will be, I would urge the hon the Deputy Minister to ensure that there is a maximum contribution from people who are going to use the roads in the long run. It is all very well planning in a vacuum, but if one is going to upset the people that you are trying to serve at the same time, it is going to be a useless operation.

Other committees may be established to advise the Roads Board on various other aspects of transport. However, these are not mandatory committees and may be called into existence as and when required.

We are sure that being able to call in experts of one kind or another when they are needed, is going to help the new Roads Board in its task. Of course the Roads Board always retains total control. Committees, although they are given, assigned and delegated powers of one sort or another, still have to defer, in the final analysis, to the decision of the Roads Board itself.

The majority of the second part of the Bill has to do with operating procedures for boards and committees. I do not think there is anything contentious at all in this regard and I would like to say to the hon the Deputy Minister and to the House that we in these benches will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this evening the member for Boksburg made the same mistake which the hon member for Parow made last year, by using precisely the same untruths in his personal attacks on hon members of the CP. Last year the hon member for Parow also said with regard to a Bill that the CP had made no contribution in a certain standing committee towards improving the Bill. That statement was as untrue as the statement the hon member for Boksburg made this evening.

They are NP tricks!

I can give two examples of how in the present joint committee, the CP improved the legislation before it. In the first place I should like to remind the hon member about the entire question of the legal status of the Toll Road Committee, which beyond all doubt was stated only by the contribution of the CP. Nobody else made that contribution. I just happen to have here, in writing, amendments which I moved and which I read out in the standing committee in order to have certainty on the provisions of clause 3(1)(e) and (3)(2).

That was to give yourself certainty!

That hon member knows this, but he tells an untruth in this House. [Interjections.] That hon member’s political credibility is also nil after this evening. [Interjections.]

I am continuing with my speech on the Bill. Clause 8(b) of the Bill at present before the House is probably the gravest illustration of this new modus operandi of the Government. It provides that the envisaged Toll Road Committee will monitor the implementation of so-called concession agreements concluded in terms of a so-called section 9A of the National Roads Act, 1971. What is so funny is that there is no section 9A in the National Roads Act!

When I made enquiries this morning the Department of Transport confirmed that the Bill which envisages the insertion of that section in the National Roads Act, has not yet been tabled. [Interjections.] This is the provision and this is the importance of it: It is the provision which will authorise the privatisation of toll roads. It has not been discussed by any committee of this House yet.

Yet again the implication is that if Parliament accepts clause 8(b) of the present South African Roads Board Bill, it is also committing itself to accepting the envisaged concession agreements with the private sector in respect of toll roads. The question is why the Government is handling its transport legislation in this new way. At first glance it would seem to have more than enough time to prepare its legislation and calmly debate it in the normal course of the legislative process. Why is it adopting what seems to be a highly disorganised modus operandi?

We can consider a few possible reasons. In the newsletters by PCA Focus in April and May 1988, I read that agreements had already been entered into between the Government and certain private companies in respect of the administration of certain toll roads by these private organisations. [Interjections.] According to these articles millions of rands have already been spent. I am reading a few sentences in this regard from PCA Focus of April 1988.

Take note: “minor changes” …

I am quoting from the PCA Focus of May 1988:

So-called concession agreements in respect of certain toll roads have consequently already been entered into between the Government and these private organisations in spite of the fact that no legal authorisation exists for this.

And no tenders either!

That authorisation will only come into existence if the envisaged section 9A is inserted in the National Roads Act. In order to comply with its confidential undertakings to these private organisations, the Government must therefore ensure that it gets the necessary legal authorisation from Parliament. We submit that this may explain why this otherwise inexplicable course is being adopted by the Government to deal with transport legislation in this back to front way. This implies that time and again it is logically committing Parliament to agree gradually to other legislation even before that legislation has served before the relevant Parliamentary institution.

Is that the owl or the chameleon?

Earlier this year we already objected to the way in which Parliament was being misused simply to authorise the privatising of the Port Shepstone-Harding railway line, which was already finalised in a contract between the Government and the relevant private organisation before the authorising legislation was passed by Parliament.

Yet again!

Here we have a variation on precisely the same theme. The financial implications are merely far more drastic. The CP refuses to participate in this totally unacceptable way of creating legislation. We request the hon the Minister to submit the transport legislation through which the Government wants to implement its overall policy as a package to Parliament, and that he wait until the implications of the entire package have been investigated before he tries to pilot it through.

In the light of what I have just said, I shall not take up much more time in indicating the CP’s specific objections to the Bill. To start with, I merely want to mention that the front page of the Bill—the last copy I received—indicates that the original text was amended by the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry. Obviously this cannot be correct. I am sure that this Bill did not serve before the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry but before the Joint Committee on Transport.

As regards clause 2—this concerns the desirability of a Roads Board—one could probably argue that, seen against the background of the total transport set-up in South Africa, circumstances might necessitate such a Roads Board, but yet again there must first be investigations into the position and the powers of such a Roads Board in the entire transport set-up. This deviates from the White Paper on the National Transport Policy because, in terms of clause 5(1), of this Bill read in conjunction with clause 3(1) of the Transport Deregulation Bill. The National Transport Commission is continuing to exist in respect of civil aviation the proposed rationalisation in the White Paper is therefore being thrown overboard, and in our opinion this is not desirable.

Secondly, as regards the provisions on the constitution of the Roads Board in clauses 3(1)(e) and 3(2)(b), the wording in clause 3(2)(b)(i) is incorrect. As it now reads, in our opinion, it implies that the nomination for an appointment from category (i) can only come from an umbrella organisation which represents commerce, industry, mining and agriculture. Organisations which only represent one or more of these disciplines but not all of them do not therefore qualify. For example, agricultural organisations are totally excluded. Agricultural unions are also excluded because they are not representative of mining, for example.

We raised this objection in the standing committee. As a matter of fact the law advisers agreed with us. They agreed that this was an inherent danger because this would be the correct interpretation. In spite of this the NP and their colleague who agreed with them decided in their wisdom to accept it as it stood, in spite of our recommendations.

As regards clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9, in view of the prevailing circumstances I have set out, the CP is opposed to the introduction of a Toll Road Committee. The entire envisaged system of private toll roads is still largely confidential. We have not been allowed to see the existing agreements. We asked to be allowed to. I am telling the hon the Deputy Minister, who the last time we raised this point with regard to another piece of legislation said that we could ask to inspect the agreement, this in advance, he alleged that we had never taken the trouble to ask to inspect the agreement.

Now we have asked to do so. Nevertheless we were informed that the department was not sure whether it could allow this because they were under the impression it was confidential. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who have participated in the debate and expressed their support for this measure. I must honestly say that it was not quite clear to me, from the contribution made by the hon member for Roodepoort, what the attitude of the Official Opposition to this legislation was. I understand that the hon member made it quite clear on the standing committee that they had fundamental objections to this legislation. The hon member also said there that the Bill contained a clause which he believed was wrongly worded. In spite of this, the hon member claims to have played a very positive role on the standing committee. It surprises me, though, that he did not move a proper amendment to the relevant clause on that committee.

In the first place, I want to convey my heartfelt thanks to the hon member for Boksburg for his kind support of the legislation. He also made it very clear that he knew what the legislation was about and that he realised that it flowed from the national transport policy study. He also showed that he realised that it was contained in the White Paper which the Government accepted quite some time ago.

Next I come to the hon member for Bryanston. He also adopted a positive attitude, I think.

†The hon member says the standing committee opted for a smaller body. Of course, Sir, the hon member is perfectly correct. Originally it was suggested that the body should only consist of five members. After that, however, the legislation was drafted and published, and I want to tell the hon member that in time to come it might still prove necessary to increase the number of members serving on this particular body. I want to point out, however, that it is not an advisory body in the true sense of the word. It is a functional body. It is a technical committee. Therefore it is perfectly right that it should be a smaller body and that it should at the same time have the right obviously to include other committees and to co-opt members. I believe that represents a step forward.

The hon member made a point in relation to the toll-road committee. He said the public should be consulted and I think he has a point. We certainly have appreciation for that. At the same time, however, the hon member must realise that we will never be able to satisfy all the members of the public.

Secondly, the hon member made the point that there is some secrecy in the handling of tollroads. There is no question of secrecy. The major projects announced had to be finalised as business deals before being made public. It will be our aim to ensure that the public is always fully informed. He also spoke about the 20 km radius. Obviously border interests will be taken into account. The 20 km radius was to cover the particular interests of certain communities in the immediate vicinity which would be affected directly, for example by the exact placement of the toll-gate. However, as I have indicated, one will never be able to satisfy all the people all the time.

Nevertheless, the hon member must agree with me on one point and that is that people are asking for more and better road facilities. Unless we can find enough funds—we can only find it through tolls—we will not be able to accede to the requests of the public of South Africa. I do not want to go into the question of toll-roads. I have already said we have finalised that matter. We had a select committee on the issue some time ago as well as amendments to the National Roads Act in 1983, and it was accepted by Parliament that we should have toll-roads because it was in the public interest. The hon member can read the report on toll-roads and the toll financing of roads. He can read all that and he knows that is was generally accepted. The overwhelming weight of the evidence was in favour of toll-roads.

You have changed the principles since then.

Yes, we have changed the principles as far as the private sector is concerned. [Interjections.] However, I am not going to argue that point at all because we have already accepted that in Parliament. Nevertheless, I would like to thank the hon member for his support.

The hon member also referred to the package. This is also in reply to the hon member for Roodepoort. Originally it was envisaged that we would have one big Bill dealing with all the different aspects—freight, passenger transport, national roads, the South African Road Board, the Advisory Council etc. However, this is just impossible because it involves so much consultation.

*I am also saying this in reply to the hon member for Roodepoort, who is suggesting that this is a terrible crime. We are bypassing Parliament, the hon member says. We are introducing legislation here and putting the cart before the horse. That is the hon member’s argument. However, the legislation has to be submitted to various bodies. This has in fact been done, and in the memorandum to the Bill the hon member will find a list of all the institutions that were consulted before the legislation came before the standing committee. I should also have preferred to have dealt with the Transport Deregulation Bill first, but that measure is before the standing committee at the moment.

If the hon member were to look at clause 19, for example, he would see that certain provisions in the legislation may be made applicable in stages in South Africa. The law advisers say it is not impossible to have a piece of legislation at this stage in which reference is made to legislation which has not yet been placed on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] It is done in anticipation …

We do not know what we are agreeing to.

If the hon member is completely in the dark, he can look at the Deregulation Transport Bill. He has it before him, after all. I am asking the hon member whether he has the Road Traffic Bill in his possession. Of course he does. Has he not even looked at it? He tells the House that he has studied the White Paper, but the provisions of this legislation are all in accordance with the proposals contained in the White Paper.

Where is the Bill that is to insert section 9A into the National Roads Act?

The legislation to which the hon member refers is the only small piece of legislation that has not yet been published. [Interjections.] However, he is going to get that one as well. According to the law advisers who are advising us on this matter, this is not an insurmountable principle, and there is nothing novel or unprecedented about dealing with legislation in this way. When that legislation is published, the hon member will be able to make his proposals, after all. If he is not satisfied with it, the hon member will have an opportunity to make proposals.

The hon member for Roodepoort should rather be frank and sincere, as he was on the joint committee. He said on the committee that he had fundamental objections to the legislation. The hon member has the right the vote against this legislation. All I want to tell the hon member in that case is that in the first place, he is going to vote against something that his party supported in this Parliament in 1983, namely toll roads. I could read to the hon member …

Frank le Roux.

It was not only the hon member for Brakpan.

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

No, Sir. I could read to the hon member what Dr Van Staden said in this House at the time. He was strongly in favour of toll financing. Now that hon member is casting all kinds of reflections on the legislation, while he has an opportunity to support it. He could have stated his standpoint on the joint committee, because he said there that he had a fundamental objection. For this reason, the hon member has to oppose a concept that was supported by his party in the past, because he is actually opposed to toll financing.

No, that is quite wrong. That is what you do not understand.

The hon member has to say that, because he wants to be able to tell the public outside that the NP Government is making them pay for using roads. That is the reason, and the hon member had better take the opportunity of voting against it. However, I want to tell him that it is on record that his party adopted a particular attitude in 1983, and he knows that if he were to adopt a different attitude now, we would direct the attention of the public to that inconsistency in the attitude of the Official Opposition, which is found in many other spheres as well.

I think this legislation is in the interests of South Africa; it is in the interests of the our transport system. I have no doubt that the public outside supports this legislation; most of the organisations involved in the matter have no objection to the contents of the legislation.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

Order! Is there an hon member of any party who wants to make a declaration of vote regarding his party’s standpoint on the division?

Mr Chairman, the CP cannot support this legislation because it is part of a legislative package which forms the basis of the whole new policy of the NP, the government of the day. There are cross-references in the individual pieces of legislation, the result being that it is not possible to evaluate any one of them separately and decide what its implications will be for us without having the other relevant legislation before us. [Interjections.]

Say something about power-sharing!

Keep quiet!

Stick to the ANC! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: An hon member of the Official Opposition told the hon member for Innesdal to rather stick to the ANC. Is that parliamentary?

Order! The hon member who said that must withdraw it.

I am not prepared to withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! We can sit very late if hon members want to sit. I call on the hon member for Barberton to reconsider his decision.

Mr Chairman, I did not say the hon member for Innesdal was a member of the ANC. I said to him: “Rather stick to the ANC.” From morning to night that is his favourite speech in this House …

Order! I am not going to allow the hon member for Barberton to make a speech about it. In the opinion of the Chair that statement casts a reflection on the hon member for Innesdal. That cannot be allowed. I have asked the hon member for Barberton to withdraw the statement. He has indicated that he is not prepared to do so. I ask him again to reconsider his standpoint.

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to withdraw the statement. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but then I must ask the hon member to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Say that outside …

Order!

The people for whom you intercede with the Government murder my people! [Interjections.]

Order!

On a point of order, Mr Chairman …

Order! It is definitely not in order for any hon member of any party whatsoever to take it upon himself to try and maintain order on behalf of the Chair. The Chair is quite capable of maintaining order. That applies to all hon members.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: As I heard him, the hon member for Roodepoort told the hon member for Innesdal that he co-operated with people, or something to that effect, who murdered his people. [Interjections.] I could not hear exactly what the hon member said and therefore ask the Chair to ascertain what he said. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon member for Roodepoort say in this connection?

Sir, I said the people for whom that hon member interceded were people who murder my people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

The hon member may address me.

Mr Chairman, this hon member has said in debates in this House, and on previous occasions outside this House, that the ANC is an absolutely essential part of the political—the constitutional—solution for this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

He has said it repeatedly. In other words, if he says it is essential to involve the ANC in the solution of the constitutional problems of this country, he is interceding for the ANC. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those are the people who are murdering the people of Roodepoort!

That is not what he said!

Order! The interpretation the hon member for Roodepoort now gives to the words is not what I understood him to say. I therefore ask the hon member to withdraw the words.

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to withdraw them.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I am still dealing with a point of order. If the hon member for Roodepoort is not prepared to withdraw his words, I shall have to ask the hon member to leave the Chamber.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I heard the hon member for Roodepoort say what he told you he said, and I want to suggest that you listen to the tape … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to address you on this point of order: The hon member for Roodepoort, after you had asked him to withdraw a statement, misused the opportunity to explain by making a whole speech when what he was saying was obviously a blatant lie about a specific accusation he had made.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the statement that the hon member told a blatant lie. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

Order! If the hon member wishes to address me on this, he may do so.

Mr Chairman, as an hon member of this House you must please protect me now. You must help me by telling me what I must say if an hon member of the Official Opposition uses a point of order and a point of explanation to obviously make a completely false statement?

Order! The hon member must not make use of unparliamentary language in the process. That is what I am asking him to withdraw.

Mr Chairman, would it satisfy you if I said that such a statement was obviously completely false and untrue?

Order! The hon member must first withdraw the words “blatant lie”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the words “blatant lie” and say it is obviously a total untruth. [Interjections.]

Order! That brings me back to the previous point of order, namely that the words used by the hon member for Roodepoort created the impression, in the circumstances, that he associated the hon member for Innesdal with the ANC, because he said the hon member interceded for the ANC. I again ask him to withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, I have given my explanation. I cannot withdraw it.

Order! I am sorry, but then I must ask the hon member to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Just say it outside, you coward!

Order! No, the hon member for Innesdal must also withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that also, but I …

Order! No, the hon member cannot substitute anything. The hon member must just withdraw his words.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I maintain that a division is not necessary because there are no longer 15 members on the other side. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not the norm when calling for a division.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon members who have now left the Chamber all stood up and indicated that they supported the division. I submit that they may not leave the Chamber now.

Order! If four members or more support the call for a division, the division proceeds, regardless of how many members are present while the bells are ringing.

The House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Van der Merwe, J H) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! Mr Speaker has given consideration to Notice of Motion No 1 appearing on the Order Paper for today in the name of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, Mr P T Poovalingam.

The Notice of Motion is not in order as it anticipates consideration of the First Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts which appears on the Order Paper as Order of the Day No 15 for today.

In terms of Rule 96 he has consequently ruled that the Draft Resolution cannot be moved and must be removed from the Order Paper.

Mr Chairman, I wish to respond to some of the statements made by the hon members of this House, one of whom was the hon member for Bayview. He inquired about protected workshops and sheltered employment for the handicapped.

I wish to inform this House that my department has taken the lead in South Africa in establishing occupational rehabilitation centres. These centres are specifically required for continued training and rehabilitation of disabled children leaving special schools, who have acquired certain skills and who have been unable to obtain employment on the open labour market or in sheltered workshops.

They will also serve for the retraining of people who as a result of an accident or illness are unable to continue working in the normal field of employment. I wish to announce that this particular centre which is known as the Assessment Centre in Phoenix will be officially opened in August of this year.

Over and above that, the hon member for Red Hill and some other hon members referred to certain aspects relating to the Social Pensions Act of 1973. I want to mention here that the full powers of this Act have been transferred to our Ministry. A report is now being prepared in respect of disparities in residential qualifications, annual income limitations, asset limitations, free asset limitations, pensions and grants, tenants’ allowances, occupied fixed property and means tests. We normally undertake an application of funds on an annual basis but for this we depend on the hon the Minister of Finance. That is the reason why we have had problems in reaching parity or trying to give the increase that we had anticipated.

There are one or two other announcements that I wish to make with regard to some of the developments in the Administration. I am sure the hon member for Umzinto will be delighted to learn that the new regional office in Umzinto is nearing completion and my department will take occupation in July this year—that is next month. We will provide the full services so often mentioned by the hon member for Umzinto. Presently pensioners receive their grants at the Post Office and this is very inconvenient to them. I trust that the hon member is pleased to hear this. [Interjections.]

Earlier this year I referred to the Halfway House at Verulam for psychiatric patients. I am pleased to be able to announce today that we are taking occupation of this in August this year—that is in two months’ time. The hon member for Phoenix will be very pleased to learn that my department will be opening the Health and Welfare Community Centre at Spire Road in Phoenix in September 1988. [Interjections.]

Last but not least, the subject of a rehabilitation centre for alcoholics and drug dependents is of great interest to many of us here. This will be established in Newlands West. The first residents will be enrolled by September 1988. [Interjections.] Not only is this institution the first rehabilitation centre for the Indian community in South Africa but it is also one of the most modern in the country. That is all I wish to say at the moment.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members who participated in the debate on the Budget and the Supplementary Budget yesterday. If I do not answer all the queries raised by various hon members in my reply here this afternoon, then I will certainly reply to their queries in writing.

I want to reassert my position as well as those of the other members of the Ministers’ Council. We want to do our very best in the positions and functions allocated to us. The Ministers’ Council works as a team but we rely very heavily on one another for supplementing each other in our financial and monetary requirements. Therefore, if the estimated amounts in the Budget do not meet the requirements of hon members I would like to reiterate what I have said before, namely that when the first estimates were drawn up in 1984 we could not refer to previous experience gained in the House of Delegates because it had not existed previously. We relied very heavily, therefore, on the information given to us by the then Ministry of Finance. I hope that I have now cleared up that issue, Sir.

I now want to refer very briefly to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. I did not in any way infer or imply in the preamble to my speech yesterday that hon members in this House were not aware of their responsibilities. All hon members here are indeed aware of their responsibilities, so people should not doubt them when it comes to dealing with the issues that confront them.

The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture raised the matter of extra privileges for Ministerial staff who are here. I want to say to my hon colleague, who should have been well aware of the situation, that concessions to officials are part of their remuneration package—as is the case with members of Parliament. Nevertheless, with the assistance of my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I shall approach the Commission for Administration in respect of this matter with a view to improving the present position of our staff.

I now turn to the hon member for Southern Natal. He said that we had not even spent as much money as we estimated we would and that it was inappropriate, therefore, to make demands for more money. However, Mr Chairman, our estimated expenditure is merely an estimate. What we do—this we do before the start of each financial year—is to table an Additional Appropriation Bill, ie our estimated additional expenditure. That Additional Appropriation Bill reflects the amounts that have been spent. I may just mention to hon members that we have previously submitted supplementary and additional budgets to provide for our additional needs. The balances or unspent amounts reflected in the Appropriation Bill are indicative of our financial control and of how we prevent the wasting of money. Those unspent amounts do not mean that the Administration: House of Delegates does not provide services. We do utilise the monies in full.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Red Hill who spoke on primary health. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, has given the hon member some information. I should like to add, however, that primary health care centres are being built as money becomes available. We have to take cognizance, however, of the availability of paramedical and welfare staff in order to prevent the centres from standing empty. We do not want to build the health centres unnecessarily—which we would be doing if we did not have the necessary personnel to man these health centres.

Meanwhile, the people are suffering without the personnel.

No, that is not quite true. We are very vigilant when it comes to the requirements for health centres. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council spoke about Sanitas, I want to say the following about that organisation. Sanitas is a private scheme having members from all walks of life, and is not restricted to public servants. It is recognised by the administration as rendering medical insurance to its employees. Therefore, the administration cannot interfere with the running of the scheme and has to negotiate its views on the scheme. In conjunction with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, I shall issue a Press release at a later date concerning future relations with Sanitas.

I want to come back to hon members individually. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has repeatedly made the point that the identification of land and the price to be paid for such land, are important issues. We appreciate the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s concern but normally the availability of suitable land is very closely linked to the price that is asked for such available land. My colleague the hon the Minister of Housing has to look at all prices very carefully, simply because we need to provide homes on an affordable basis for those who need homes.

The hon member for Actonville spoke about the development of the Indian community in the Free State. I do want to say that the provision of schools is dependent on the population in the area. Should the population, and particularly the school-going population, in Bloemfontein and other places—and we know that there are areas in the Free State that are being identified for the Indian community—warrant the erection of a school in the area, it will certainly receive the attention of my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. However, before that takes place, I think there has to be a population explosion among the Indian population of the Free State. [Interjections.]

I fully appreciate that the points raised by the hon member for Eastern Transvaal are very relevant. They do not refer particularly to the Ministry of the Budget. I know they were directed mainly at the hon the Minister of Housing and I feel sure that he must have taken note of the points raised by him during this debate.

Coming to the hon member for Southern Natal and the issue he raised about the Ministerial representatives, I want to say that this matter will receive the attention of the Ministers’ Council and that we shall then perhaps provide him with the information he requires.

They do not know what to do yet.

In response to the interjections I have had, I want to say that we in the Ministers’ Council are aware of what the functions of the Ministerial representatives are. However, at this stage they are highly delegated powers. These are delegations that we shall have to look at and perhaps we shall be able to give hon members further information about them in the future.

I also want to say that the hon member for Cavendish raised certain very important points in relation to the teacher : pupil ratio and a link road to Shallcross. Here again, it is a matter for the Ministers’ Council and the relevant hon Ministers will take up those matters.

The hon member for Durban Bay also touched on the availability of land, which should be at affordable prices, and said that we should look into this. I think the point he made was that Durban and the urban areas are fully developed and that we should go beyond the periphery of these areas to find land to identify for Indian ownership and development and for the provision of low-cost housing.

My colleague the hon the Deputy Minister also spoke out about what would happen in the postapartheid era, and I think that is the issue that needs to be addressed and that requires the attention of us all. We need to look at the future and at how best we can contribute in our own way towards a peaceful South Africa and an evolutionary process for the achievement of what all South Africans are hoping for.

The hon member for Camperdown also spoke on the subject of the Housing Act and the responsibility of local authorities. As representative for his constituency I believe that hon member should be taking this up in a more aggressive manner—if I may use that expression—with the local authorities concerned. The hon member for Lenasia touched on the same subject and the hon the Minister of Housing has taken note of his contribution to the debate. The hon member for Allandale also spoke about the land identification for housing and the reply to his contribution would be the same as that for the other hon members who addressed housing.

The hon member for North Western Cape very seldom contributes to our debates, but I would like to tell that hon member that his contribution yesterday was very relevant to the issues in his constituency—particularly the educational facilities at Vryburg. My colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has taken full cognisance of this contribution and of the desires of the people in Vryburg. Certainly he will give attention to the matters which have been raised by the hon member.

However, I would like to say that like all Indian communities settled in areas such as Vryburg and elsewhere, this House needs to acknowledge and recognise the self-sufficiency of the Indian group in the area. The Indian population, wherever they are in the Republic of South Africa, have shown self-initiative and interest in and their responsibility to the particular community and the particular area. It is indeed a feather in the cap of the Indian community. Where there are no essential services, the Indian community themselves provide the services. Therefore, in addition to what hon members provide—which is the responsibility of the State—now the House of Delegates has to see to the improvement of the services in these areas.

I refer to the hon member for Tongaat and again it is a question of more land and more housing for Tongaat. I am sure my colleague, the hon the Minister of Housing, has taken note of the hon members’ points.

I now come to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Housing who is also the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I agree fully with him that we in this House have a tremendous responsibility to act and behave in the best manner possible to project ourselves and the image of this House where we are responsible people. I have no qualms with that and I am sure not one hon member in this House is at variance with this conviction. However, we must remember that it takes two to tango; there has to be interdependency in the House as a whole for the progress and success of this House. Therefore, when one refers to the instability in this House I, and particularly the members of the alliance in this House, have no doubt whatsoever about stability in this House. We have demonstrated this by our numbers and therefore there really should not be any fear of a continuation of instability in this House.

Therefore, as a member of the Ministers’ Council, I take the point made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that the possibility of the implementation of section 39 of the Constitution exists, namely an election for the House, so that the voters will decide for themselves and in the best interests of the House. However, I want to say that the Ministers’ Council as such, collectively, has to make such a decision in the best interests of this House.

My colleagues in the Ministers’ Council, and, I am sure, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, will agree with me that going for an election is not intended as a threat to hon members of this House. We would certainly like to go for an election, and we would not hesitate to do so, provided that when we go to the electorate, we go with the conviction that the allegations and counter-allegations in this House have been proven either wrong or right. If we go for an election, we must go with a clear conscience to our electorate and tell them: “This was our charge, this was our responsibility, and we have acted accordingly.”

In the light of the earlier appointment of the select committee, and if the judicial commission of enquiry which remains on the Order Paper should see the light of day, we will be able to go to our electorate in a very convincing manner. I am not hoping that I will be the candidate for my constituency, but any candidate, and particularly those of us who want to go for re-election, must be able to face the electorate with a pair of clean hands.

I repeat that if there is going to be an election, we must face that election without any fear whatsoever. However, before the election, we must clear the name of our House and remove the stigma that hangs over this House.

We must clear this House of cabals.

Cabal or no cabal, the fact is that aspersions have been cast in this House, as a result of which there has been a select committee and there are notices of motion on the Order Paper asking for commissions of enquiry. Therefore we need to face the public with, as I said, a pair of clean hands.

Having said that, I want to assure hon members who participated in the debate that I value the contributions they made and if I have not directly answered questions which were raised, I will do so in written replies to all of them.

I do not know whether Mr Ismail Omar has any objections.

Order! That comment is not relevant. Mr Ismail Omar is not a member of the House.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to start this debate with a few remarks. I do not want to spend much time on this. I think there is one argument of which the House will be interested to learn, namely that during another debate in another House certain revelations were made about activities of the Bureau for Information. I do not want to comment on what was said in another House. However, this matter was reflected extensively also in the Press and it is with that in mind that I want to address this question very briefly.

The basis of the document is a campaign which the Bureau, on behalf of the Government as a whole, intends to conduct to inform people about the coming municipal elections on how, where and why to vote and in that way also to encourage people to participate in these elections. It is the attitude of the Government, while not forcing people to vote as is done in some other countries, to create all the circumstances, as well as the climate, to make it possible for people to participate, in full knowledge of what they are doing and why they are doing it, and also to make it physically possible for them to vote. It is with this in mind that the Bureau, in consultation with other Government departments, designed this publicity project. I mention this because there was one criticism brought against me, namely that the time of the Bureau for Information had already run out, but that the hon the Minister did not mention anything. I want to contend that the vote of the Bureau for Information will only be over after today. It is therefore quite unjustified criticism which reeks somewhat of paternalism.

Another reason why this was not mentioned before, is that although the Cabinet had approved the basic campaign last week, only this morning were further decisions taken regarding the allocation of money to the Bureau for Information. That means that the matter had not been finalised until this morning and for that specific reason I wanted to put this argument before this House.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the Bureau for Information has nothing to hide. We do not administer secret funds, or execute any secret plans at any time. It is very difficult to imagine how a project based on publicity could ever be called a secret project.

There is something else that links up with this matter which I want to clear up, namely an attempt to bring about a feud between myself and my namesake, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications. It is alleged that I want to advertise in certain papers, while the hon the Minister is at the same time closing down those papers. This either indicates gross inefficiency on the part of the people who made this attack, or else it is malice.

In that document there is one paragraph that suggests that perhaps it would be opportune to advertise also in what is very vaguely called the alternate Press. If one looks at the very same document—it was made available to the Press and politicians who made these accusations—one notes that while an exact figure was mentioned as to how much was being spent in terms of this campaign and on what publications, none of those featured in that Budget. That means that no money was allocated to advertise in those papers.

There is therefore no difference of opinion between myself and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications. It is not a new thing, and from time to time one finds concerted attacks which are nothing but an attempt to drive a wedge between a certain Cabinet Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. In the past week there have been various attempts to divide me from three of my colleagues. I can only say that there is no basis for these allegations. With these words I wish to conclude.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is guilty of stealing my speech! [Interjections.] He said everything that I wanted to say. I was going to touch on the very subject with which he kicked off this afternoon. He started off with the very article that appears in today’s Cape Times. The headline reads: ‘“Slim” and “Dom” cause red faces in the Cabinet’. The hon the Minister has explained the reasons behind this article. For the benefit of those hon members who do not understand Afrikaans, “slim” means “clever”, and “dom” means “stupid”. [Interjections.]

This particular newspaper drew a comparison between the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry, and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs—Stoffel and Stoffel. The one is called a clever (“slim”) Minister, and the other is called a stupid (“dom”) Minister. The column, Midweek Politics, which was written by Anthony Johnson, reads as follows and I quote:

This is typical of what the media sometimes does. The hon the Minister will know how the media operates, as it is part of his campaign to improve the information sections.

I briefly want to touch on a few points which concern his Vote. I am not going to go back on what I was going to say. As I said, the hon the Minister has already stolen my speech. I shall therefore have to talk about something else. The hon the Minister is a very charming person, as all hon members know. We have heard him previously, but he has since been elevated to a full Minister. We want to congratulate him. I think this is the first time that he has participated in his new capacity in this House.

Hear, hear!

I just want to say to the hon the Minister and his staff that we think he is a very good man. I hope he will continue his good work.

I want to come back to some of the programmes within the Bureau for Information. One of them deals with bringing visitors to South Africa. We in this House—as the hon the Minister knows—are often in contact with the hon the Minister’s department. We speak to a lot of people who come from overseas. We have to see that they leave here with a good image of South Africa. It is part of the task of the hon the Minister’s department to improve the image of South Africa locally. The other part falls into the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I am not going to touch on that.

In this regard I want to assure the hon the Minister that hon members in this House have always done their best to improve the image of South Africa to overseas visitors. This can be ascertained from the hon the Minister’s department, his hosts and the people who bring these guests to us.

The other aspect that I want to bring up this afternoon deals with the SABC, and this also falls under the hon the Minister’s portfolio. We are aware of the fact that little time is given to national programmes on Sundays, but no time is allocated to Radio Lotus in the Cape. Radio Lotus cannot be heard in the Cape Province and certain areas outside the Pretoria-Witwatersrand area in the Transvaal. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this service cannot be expanded.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether he would investigate the feasibility of introducing to the SABC a programme similar to the one on the BBC, namely an open university programme. That is an educational programme. It has been very successful in the United Kingdom. I think in a country like South Africa a programme of this particular nature is needed. I think the hon the Minister is aware of what this programme entails. It is an educational programme which brings university lectures into the homes of ordinary people who cannot afford to go to university. It spans several hours at certain times of the day when everyone is at home.

With the high cost of university education, it would help most of those people who want to improve their educational standards in this country if we could have a feasibility study in order to find out whether we could introduce this type of programme on TV. I am aware of the fact that the hon the Minister and his staff are very aufait with this type of programme. In the UK it is known as the open university programme. My appeal this afternoon is that a thorough investigation should be made in regard to this particular programme.

Coming back again to what the hon the Minister has said in his opening remarks with regard to the sum of money that has to be expended on promoting the municipal elections in October, I feel that making a success of these elections will need more than the sum of money that has been mentioned. We know that the extra-parliamentary forces are working very hard to ensure that the municipal elections in October are going to be unsuccessful and that the percentage poll will be low. We hear of these things over the media and read about it in newspaper articles.

An article that was published in the Business Day recently stated that certain threats had been made to the people that were going to participate in the elections in Soweto. People received death threats and were told that they should ignore these elections completely. I think a lot of education is needed, not only in the field of Press releases, but also in the field of reform in this country. Reform will do away with all these threats at election times and it will also do away with these extra=parliamentary forces that want to stop things such as elections from taking place.

As part of the report of the Department of Information, a booklet was issued in regard to the Group Areas Act and it stated how the hon the State President felt the Group Areas Act was going to be implemented in future. I am not going to comment on the contents of this booklet. However, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that the type of remarks that were passed in another House against this House do South Africa no good. I am referring to the statement issued by hon members of the House of Representatives and the remarks of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

When the House of Representatives had the debacle in regard to swimming on White beaches, we did not interfere in their domestic affairs. My advice to the House of Representatives is that they should not interfere with what is taking place in this House. We know in which direction we are going. We did not interfere when that House had a problem with the hon the State President. Why should they therefore interfere in our affairs?

Where is the R10 million school?

It is misleading propaganda and it is the responsibility of the Department of Information to inform the local public of the true facts. I appeal to the hon the Minister that this type of debate should not be allowed as it does not promote good neighbourliness if an hon Minister of State reacts to remarks of that nature.

Sir, in the time that is allocated to me I would like to wish the hon the Minister well in his new portfolio as Minister. We on this side of the House will fully support him in his endeavours to improve the image of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I believe that the task and responsibility entrusted to the hon the Minister is to project to the country and everybody outside the steps taken in South Africa with regard to reform. I do not think that the department is there to support or defend what is wrong, but rather to project the new image that we are trying to create for South Africa over a wide field of activity.

I have been privileged to read a publication, Phoenix. I understand some 35 000 copies are printed. In fact, this publication seems to be gaining increasing support in countries like Mauritius. I want to say that hopefully by reading its contents the Mauritians have now begun to realise that there is movement in this country and consequently that South Africa should be given the opportunity to try and resolve its problems without the imposition of harsh and unrealistic sanctions. I would like to believe that to be the position.

What I would like to say is that, following upon what the hon member for Laudium has indicated, I believe that what is happening here and what is being planned for the upliftment of the community and what is mooted as part of the overall programme for change, is not adequately conveyed to the man and the woman in the street. There are hundreds and thousands of simple people who do not have access to information for any number of reasons.

I believe that the kind of publications that emanate from the department could be used to project what is going on even in this House of Delegates. I believe that the debates on housing, agriculture, education and the viewpoints of the whole spectrum of members representing all parties here could be given some publicity. I think the public wants to know more. They do not get that kind of information. If one has a paper that is circulated within the ranks of the Indian community I believe something could be done to give fair representation of what goes on here so that both the positive and the negative aspects could be appreciated and understood by people. I believe that if one goes through the debates of 1984, one will see that on many occasions the best contributions on general affairs came from the House of Delegates. There are people who are competent to speak, yet suddenly because of an event that took place about a week ago, dynamite is suddenly thrown into this House, which is totally unfair.

I believe the people and the country—and for that matter, other people who are interested, such as the people in Mauritius—ought to know what is happening and this paper should also be made available to them. It should not be for the purpose of drawing a curtain over what is wrong in South Africa, but should give them an indication of what we are trying to do to change the old order and to create a new order that will be acceptable to all South Africans and that will be in keeping with what our friends abroad require of us.

I also want to say that as far as our TV programmes are concerned, there are businessmen in our Indian, Coloured and Black communities. Why are they not given an opportunity to participate in some of the discussion programmes that are featured on TV? The people of colour have a lot more to say as far as business in this country is concerned than they are given the opportunity to do. It is often said that what is represented does not reflect the facts of the situation. These people have to live in this country and efforts are now being made to give them mobility, and to give them the incentives and financial assistance to enter business. They should be able to make an assessment of the progress over the last two or three years. Let the nation and the Government hear them; let everybody else hear them.

I have read recently about some consideration being given to the broadcasting of religious programmes. I believe there is nothing wrong with that and I believe there is nothing wrong in listening to discourses by scholars belonging to any and every religion because in a country like ours where there is freedom of religion, and where people are guaranteed freedom to practise their religion, it will contribute immensely to fellowship and understanding across the barriers of colour, language and religion—if religion is a barrier. I think we must allow this to go ahead; not to propagate dogma, but rather to propagate the philosophy so that we can see the common brotherhood of man which is manifested in every teaching of every prophet and leader that has been born to propagate religion in this world.

My hon colleague from the South Coast told me in a hurry that Radio Lotus cannot be heard beyond Umkomaas, for some reason or the other. If that is true I should like this matter to be looked into. What is more, I believe we are now in the formative years of a broad programme for the members of the Indian community. I think we want to make the programmes acceptable. They should be all-embracing, like those of any other community in this country.

I do believe, however, that there are peculiar circumstances and problems pertaining to the Indian community, and I should like to commend to the hon the Minister that for the next year or two he constitute a committee representing a wide spectrum of the Indian community to help to formulate that policy and to provide guidance in the formative years. I know that he has a representative on the board, but I believe that the suggestion I have put forward will be meaningful and helpful, only until such time as an acceptable format is arrived at. I do not think any harm can come from getting half a dozen brains together to help the hon the Minister in his task.

There is another point that I want to make. I think it was a fortnight ago in this House that a decision was taken with regard to establishing a committee of inquiry. The decision was based on certain facts; the majority in the House wanted a select committee to enquire into certain matters that were discussed in this House. One member talked about there being some religious feud which was discussed outside. That was given prime place and consideration in a news broadcast, and everything else—umpteen members of this House participated in this debate, and what they said, and the answers they gave the one member who raised this unfortunate subject—was not given any publicity.

I do not think that reporting must take sides or must try to comfort any member or party in this House. AU I am saying is that reporting must be objective, and more particularly, when a decision of such far-reaching consequences was taken in this House, it should have been objectively reported, not only for the knowledge of the Indian community, but also so that the country at large could know about it. If this were done, then some of the unpleasant episodes with regard to articles in newspapers, etc, would not have come about.

All I want to say is that we do not expect the SABC to take sides, but we do not want them to be silent. What we want them to do, is to do a job of work, which is to report factually, so that what is reported will help people to formulate their opinions and approaches to this topic under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I want to emphasise that the South African community is glued to its TV sets at news time to listen to and see the visual effects of news. The first impression that one has is the most important one. Therefore they should be impressions worthy of remembering, and they should not be damaging to the cause of the people concerned in and outside this House.

I refer to the point made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we in this House and in the Indian community, as well as the South African community, do not expect the presentation of news on TV that is damaging to the reform processes that obtain in this country. I am not accusing or pointing fingers at the newsreader, but I do want to say that whoever gives the input or writes for the reader to read on TV must show responsibility.

As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned, the prime time was taken up to emphasize an issue which did not manifest itself in this House, namely factions in this House on a religious basis, on a sectional basis. I want my colleague the hon the Minister to see whether there is any sectional or religious faction on this side or the opposite side of the House. Damage has been done and it was construed outside this House.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question? Does the hon the Minister intend to convey that the media invented that particular item or were they reporting what somebody else had said?

I do not imply that the invention was that of the SABC TV. What I said, was that what was important was what was said to the newsreader. I want to say that it is construed outside this House that we are fighting on a basis other than what we came here for. That idea is circulating in the community and that is why letters are appearing in the newspapers, which worsens the detrimental effect of what had already been done. The Indian community will not tolerate or condone this.

I also want to refer to what happened in this House two weeks ago. I want to state very clearly and unambiguously that the hon members in this House want to see balanced reporting of what happens in this House. I have here a transcript that I received from SABC TV. I will not read all of it due to my time Emit. This is not the viewpoint expressed by hon members in this House but by a news representative in this House. It says the following:

The House does not know from where the inference of “full support” comes. We expressed confidence in the Ministers’ Council but the word “full” was never used in this House. I want to say that we are working for a purpose and our purpose must not be misrepresented outside this House. I quote further:

How can the alliance be in jeopardy when it supports the motion of confidence in the Ministers’ Council? That is not the point that was emphasised in this House.

I want to go further. We are politicians and we have to face our electorate and our supporters outside this House. This kind of reporting does us harm and that is why I am adopting the tone in which I am speaking this afternoon.

I’ll destroy the PP!

The hon member is the destroyer and he must remember that. [Interjections.] I want to quote further:

[Inaudible.]

It is that hon member’s misconceptions and misgivings. Where in this House has it been established that the balance of power in the House of Delegates has once again shifted to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? The alliance is on this side of the House between the Solidarity Party and the Peoples Party of South Africa.

I want to assure my colleague the hon the Minister that we as members of the Ministers’ Council have assured the hon the State President that we are his delegates in the House of Delegates. We will not be subjective but objective in relation to our responsibilities and duties. That should have been highlighted. Perhaps this was not clearly understood by whoever compiled this report.

I now come to the basis of the Ministers’ Council’s concern. We feel the hon the Minister of Information should allow job opportunities in his department for people of colour.

Hear, hear!

The Department of Information could do with more people of colour on its staff. We have people with potential in our communities. We have university graduates emerging with degrees in public administration, with knowledge relating to public information and with a sense of public responsibility, and they should be considered for a career in the hon the Minister’s department.

The former Leader of the Official Opposition and now my hon colleague in the Peoples Party, spoke of the Phoenix, one of the bureau’s publications. I think that is indeed a wonderful achievement by the hon the Minister’s department, and I should like to see more coverage being given to newsworthy items relating to the RS A. What we are seeing at the moment is mostly news that is confined to areas in Natal such as Durban, North Coast and South Coast. The items on the RSA which are of general interest seem to appear in isolation. I should like to suggest to the hon the Minister that he enlarge Phoenix’s personnel so that he has a representative of the department working in the Transvaal and in the Cape Province. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the selling of the product is not the case at issue with regard to the forthcoming municipal elections in October. What is at issue is educating the people of South Africa and bringing to their attention the processes that are taking place. That is the importance of the forthcoming elections in October. When it comes to independence, the most important thing to do in any country—this was done in India before independence—is to bring the processes to the attention of the people. Information should be disseminated amongst the public of that particular country so that they are made aware of just how important elections are. Therefore, my hon colleagues in this House and I cannot find fault with the hon the Minister’s campaign to educate people as to how important it is to cast a vote.

In conclusion, Sir, I want to say that this House received with a measure of sadness the news of the imminent retirement of our worthy Secretary to Parliament. Indeed, his career, his service to Parliament, will not go by without due recognition of what he has done in the interests of Parliament.

Hear, hear!

Sir, I want to say to the Secretary to Parliament, who is present here, that we value his services and his advice and the fatherly manner in which he has looked after—as we call ourselves—the babies of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to record our appreciation for the courtesy, consideration and helpfulness shown by this illustrious descendant of the Huguenot Settlers.

Mr Chairman, we do not have much quarrel with what the media represent, for the media merely reflect what has been going on; and what has been going on has to be reflected somewhere. The print media have also said substantially what the electronic media has portrayed. Sir, we are not here to condemn the whole of the print media as well.

One criticism that may be levelled against the electronic media is the fact that too much time is spent on the portrayal of Government figures. One can understand this, however, because Cabinet Ministers make news. Moreover, the hon the Minister should openly say what Indira Ghandhi said in India and what Charles de Gaulle said in France, viz that the government controls the media and that it will use the media for government purposes.

My criticism of the electronic media, and particularly television, relates to TV2.1 do not believe it is necessary to maintain a separate channel for the benefit of Black South Africans. Clearly, the poor viewer rating for TV2 is largely attributable to the fact that so few Black people own TV sets or have electricity, but is also substantially due to the fact that a large number of the educated Black people want to know what is going on on the other channel. They prefer Channel 1 and therefore we should really have more than one channel, but not on a racially differentiated basis.

On a very subjective level, I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister kindly to bring back some good Westerns. Gary Cooper films should be available free of charge to the corporation. [Interjections.]

What about Tom and Jerry?

In regard to the information cap which the hon the Minister wears, the hon the Minister is fully aufait with the Thurston Social Distance Scale and the McCrone Attitudinal Scale. The hon the Minister knows full well what Allport had to say about prejudice. The hon the Minister has done some good work within his own community in an effort to educate his own people, but not enough. I have written to the hon the Minister, commending him on two very good articles written by him, but he ought to be doing more in an effort to remove the scales of prejudice which have built up over the years among his own people. He has the capacity for it. He should do more in that regard.

As to the marketing of voting, we do not have compulsory voting, and I can see nothing wrong with a marketing programme. In fact, I believe the capitalists in England actually advertise in the Sun newspaper, which is pro-communist, because they want to reach that particular market. Therefore, it is the market one is aiming at that determines the media one uses.

I can see nothing wrong with people advertising in the ethnic sections of Die Burger, The Sunday Times, and the Sunday Tribune, although I do not like the ethnic factor in journalism. However, people advertise because they want to reach that particular market.

I want to deal with the question of the Phoenix. I agree that the Phoenix is a commendable newspaper. It is unfortunate that the State has to compete with the ordinary commercial newspapers. It is perhaps unnecessary that the State should have to compete with the commercial newspapers. Nevertheless, those who are running the Phoenix are doing a very good job. However, what an ironic name! When we say to the revolutionaries that they want to destroy the country and reduce it to ashes, their answer is that a phoenix will arise from the ashes. [Interjections.] Is that what is meant? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to take the Phoenix issue further. I agree that the Phoenix, a monthly newspaper published under the aegis of the Bureau for Information, is a remarkable newspaper. [Interjections.] The quality of news disseminated by that newspaper is admirable.

What perplexes me, however, is this. There are 660 000 registered voters. If one divides that figure by three, disregarding infants, one obtains a minimum of 220 000 Indian homes. For that number of people only 35 000 copies are printed every month, and 35 000 copies will not even suffice for the suburb which is the newspaper’s namesake, namely Phoenix, where there are over 45 000 people. Or is this newspaper being printed specifically for that Indian suburb of Durban, Phoenix? [Interjections.] I see that the hon the Minister is shaking his head. Then he is guilty of negligence, Sir.

It is just a question of money.

What is amazing is that a similar State newspaper, printed by the House of Delegates and called Fiat Lux, costs R400 000 per annum to produce. However, the national newspaper Phoenix only receives R95 000 per annum. That is 25% of the cost of Fiat Lux, and the latter only promotes members of the Ministers’ Council and its hon Chairman in every copy. [Interjections.] They are prepared to spend R400 000 of the taxpayers’ money for that promotion and yet the general public does not know what transpires in this House.

From this year we receive the consolidated Hansard and I read mine from cover to cover and I am satisfied that the quality of debate emanating from this House is second to none. It surpasses even the House of Assembly with its experienced hon members of Parliament and its heavyweights. This lightweight House overshadows them, but the general public of South Africa is unaware of that admirable achievement of this House. Therefore the hon the Minister must take due consideration to ensure that the editors of the …

Fiat Lux?

No, the Phoenix, please! Those editors should be fully appraised of the proceedings of Parliament on a day-to-day basis where they could highlight all that happened here.

Do you want your photo on the first page?

I agree that the Phoenix is a first-class vehicle for propagating the image of the House of Delegates, regardless of what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development may say in another House about being disturbed or dissatisfied with the performance of this House. I will take that up with that hon Minister personally when he comes here again. [Interjections.]

Did you eat your cabbage today?

I hear the hon Mr Nowbath speaking about cabbages. As a grass-eater I believe he is the biggest goat. [Interjections.] If the man dislikes cabbages he must eat grass and goats eat grass. [Interjections.]

I take it from John. He does not know better.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member will kindly resume his seat I will proceed with my point of order: The hon member for Camperdown referred to the hon member Mr Nowbath as a goat. If he did so, then I contend that that is unparliamentary.

Order! Will the hon member for Moorcross resume his seat. Did the hon member for Camperdown refer to the hon member Mr Nowbath as a goat? Exactly what did the hon member say? [Interjections.]

Will hon members please keep quiet? [Interjections.] There is a semblance of a goat there, too. Mr Chairman, I said I think he must be a goat because he dislikes cabbages. [Interjections.] I said that goats love grass and therefore he must be a goat. [Interjections.]

Order! Therefore the hon member did not refer to the hon member as a goat?

I said that I think, Sir.

Order! Will the hon member for Camperdown tell this House whether he in fact referred to the hon member Mr Nowbath as a goat.

Mr Chairman, I do not recollect my exact words, which I suppose is normal. If it was disparaging against the hon member’s name and character I withdraw it unconditionally. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: During the time when the hon member was speaking he said in passing that the hon member for Laudium, by virtue of having a beard, is also a goat. I submit that this is also unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Camperdown make any inference of that nature?

He did, yes.

Order! I am addressing the hon member for Camperdown. Did the hon member make such an inference?

Mr Chairman, I think I must put things in their proper perspective. The hon member for Moorcross is just delaying me and I claim three minutes injury time.

Order!

I said that the hon member had a semblance of a goat. I did not say he was a goat.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: My intention was not to delay the hon member. The hon member definitely uttered the words …

Order! The hon member for Moorcross must please resume his seat. I made a ruling that the hon member for Camperdown may proceed.

Mr Chairman …

Order! I have made a ruling. The hon member must please resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, I submit, in terms of the Rules, that three minutes of my time has been wasted and I crave injury time. I was talking about television reporting. It is rather disgusting …

What happened is rather disgusting.

… that the approximately 900 000 Indian members of the South African community are totally disregarded on television. It is quite often said by the hon the State President that people should nurture their culture.

Talk about the Blacks.

Not a single programme on Indian culture appears on television. I believe that that is due purely to racial discrimination.

My colleague speaks of the Blacks. The Blacks have TV2. Therefore I will not speak about the Blacks. They have daily programmes on TV2. However, what about the Indians?

Own affairs. [Interjections.]

I would like to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who speaks of the Blacks: Sagubona, we mfana githi qunjani? He does not understand that. It is off the record. It is Zulu.

I said during the opening of my speech that the State continually points out the division between the various ethnic groups is based on culture. We as members of this House nurture the Eastern culture. That is the distinctive feature. Although we are compelled to learn foreign languages like English, Afrikaans, Zulu or whatever, our culture is the Eastern culture. What is the hon the Minister doing to promote that culture?

Let us wear a dhoti.

I would like the hon the Minister to consider that we, members of the Indian community, also hold television licences and contribute to whatever subsidy the SABC receives which is derived from taxation. We contribute direct and indirect taxation, part of which goes to subsidise the SABC. I would like to know from the hon the Minister why this privilege is denied to us. It is not a right, but a privilege.

Arising from this, I cannot find a suitable adjective to express my disgust and distress about SABC TV’s political reporting of affairs of this particular House. It seems to me that a particular party and hon members of a particular party get prominence on the television. Our constituents ask us about this. Do we not represent Parliament? They call the people by name. They ask us: “Is Mr Pat Poovalingam no longer in Parliament? Probably they do not speak in Parliament, because we do not see them on television.” However, the record proves that hon members from this side of the House contribute the best quality of debate in this House. [Interjections.]

Never.

This is a challenge. Arrange a television debate and we will prove it.

As long as you get on television.

Yes, that is my intention. I want the world to see me. Mr Chairman, that discrimination is also disgraceful. The hon the Minister must pay attention to this matter. If one could play back those TV recordings and listen to them again, maybe the hon the Minister would appreciate what I am talking about.

As far as reporting is concerned, several hon members complained about biased reports. On May 20 in this House, the hon member for Brickfield got up and made certain statements, alleging that the hon member for Isipingo was practicing sectionalism in this House. That hon member was rebutted immediately, but what we read in the Press was disgraceful.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he denies that the hon member for Brickfield did in fact make that statement?

Sir, if the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture asks for trouble, I will give it to him. The point is, the hon member for Brickfield had been found guilty of fraud, a heinous crime in the eyes of society. I can forgive a man who steals a kilogram of butter, or sheep, or even R10 000 if it is done by a desperate man out of necessity.

What about the bearded goat?

Let it be a goat or even a pig. However, if a person commits fraud just to satisfy his personal ego, I for one cannot agree with that.

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

Sir, I am not prepared to answer any questions. That hon member took the matter on appeal, but he lost his appeal.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We have to confine ourselves to the debate we are discussing and not discuss court proceedings, or any other personalities.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown may proceed.

Sir, I am responding to the question put by the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. Does he in fact expect the country, as well as hon members in this House, to accept a statement made by somebody who was found guilty of fraud? What do they take us for? Do they really expect us to accept—as the absolute truth—anything said by someone who was found guilty of fraud? I will never accept that hon member’s statement under any circumstances, because, whilst he was a Justice of the Peace, he committed fraud. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to change the subject for a while. I rise here not to put complaints to the hon the Minister. My complaints are against the retirement of the fatherly figure of the Secretary, Mr A J de Villiers, who has decided to leave us. This distinguished figure has served under various Prime Ministers, for example Gen Smuts, Dr Malan, Mr Strydom, Dr Verwoerd, Mr John Vorster, and of course the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha.

During Mr De Villiers’ term of office he has come across some very individualistic and interesting personalities, like Arthur Barlow, the father of Joyce Waring. Mr Barlow was a very colourful figure, who at one stage criticised the then Minister of Agriculture for the quality of food sold in supermarkets. He actually brought a piece of meat to Parliament to show the Minister and wanted to know from him whether that was the type of meat the Minister wanted people to eat.

Mr De Villiers also worked with a certain Mr Walter Madeley, a LP member of Parliament for Benoni and Minister of Labour. This Minister was at one time addressing the hairdressers’ problems. There was a bald man in Parliament, and he pointed at this man and said: “That man’s need for hairdressing has long gone by.” Then there was the time the MP for Namaqualand got up and said: “Mnr die Speaker, dit is baie droog in Namaqualand.”

*Mr Adriaan Johannes de Villiers was born in Stellenbosch on 20 December 1921. In 1941 he obtained a BA degree at the University of Cape Town. In 1942 he obtained an MA degree at the University of Cape Town. In 1943 he obtained a B Ed degree at the University of Cape Town and in 1963 he obtained an LLB degree at the University of South Africa.

From January 1944 to December 1946 he was a teacher. He was appointed assistant translator in the House of Assembly with effect from 1 January 1947. He was later promoted to first assistant translator with effect from 1 September 1951. On 1 August 1949 he became Chief Translator in the House of Assembly. With effect from 1 April 1963 he held the rank of chief clerk. He was then transferred to the newly established public bills section of the House of Assembly.

I should like to tell hon members the secret of his life. On 16 March 1970 he married Audrey Blignaut. From 1 September 1972 he was Assistant Secretary. On 1 July 1974 he became Undersecretary. On 1 August 1984 he was promoted to Deputy Secretary, and on 1 October 1985 he became Secretary to Parliament. He could have retired on 1 January 1987, but was requested to continue to serve as Secretary to Parliament for a further period of two years. His period of service should therefore have expired on 1 January 1987. This will be the last time that we discuss the various Budget Votes in his presence, because he is going to retire later this year.

†I want to wish him all the best for his retirement. I wish him a happy life. I hope he will have many, many years ahead and I hope he spends the rest of his life in ease, comfort and tranquility. He served this Parliament in a very colourful manner. In the four years that I have been here, I found him to be a very helpful person. I want to express my personal gratitude to him, and I think I speak on behalf of all hon members in this House. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, please allow me to complete the hon member for Actonville’s speech. All hon members of this House want to wish the Secretary of Parliament well. This illustrious gentleman will be missed tremendously, for he shared his invaluable expertise with us over the years.

Sir, the unwarranted attack on the media and the SABC by the hon the Minister of the Budget was, in my opinion, unnecessary. It has revealed the immense impact of the SABC and the media during the current political crisis in this House. In its coverage of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—or what is left of him after hon members of the opposition had tried their damnedest to destabilise him—the SABC in particular and the media in general have brought home the effect of the concerted campaign to dislodge the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the majority party’s response to such vilification.

As yet, there is still no evidence or substance in hon members’ criticism. The facts of the report do not appear to be in dispute, and therefore the targeting of the SABC is groundless and unfair. On the contrary, if the SABC has a weakness, then it demands that sheer hard work, and the drive of the political news staff and their determination to get a story and deliver it, should be recognised.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a reasonable question?

Mr Chairman, due to my time constraint I cannot take a question. In this respect I want to single out the political editor-in-chief, Mr Johan Pretorius, the editor, Mr André le Roux, Messrs Riaan Nel and George Mason-Jones, and the political team as a whole, including Messrs Ami Nanackchand and Douglas McClure. I have no evidence of them being predisposed to any of the political factions, unlike one newspaper reporter in particular who unashamedly crusades for the Official Opposition. We did not object to that; neither did the Official Opposition mind. Then why is the SABC being victimised? Hitherto we have been complimenting the SABC on the important role it has been playing in providing information, even though grudgingly at times. Why the paranoia all of a sudden?

Sir, I want to analyse a remark made by the hon the Minister of the Budget. He spoke of the full support that has been expressed in the Ministers’ Council and he analysed the statement made by the news reporter. Of course this House expresses its full support in the Ministers’ Council and we have full confidence in them, and by virtue of the fact that this House resolved confi dence …

Read the notice of motion. Please man, there is no difference between “full confidence” and “confidence”.

Mr Chairman, the House did not unanimously support the Ministers’ Council but they received the full support of the House and the reporter accordingly reported the facts as they took place.

Did you anticipate what I had to say?

For the past four years all I have heard have been compliments for the parliamentary reports on Radio Lotus and the English service, but certainly no brickbats. I would like to know from the critics of the SABC in this House if that is not true. Why is there so much fuss? Why all the hysteria? Is it simply because the truth is unpalatable? I believe that some of us became so self-centred and intoxicated with an appetite for power that we lost control of reality. [Interjections.] Presumably those who are peeved about the media are the ones who have not seen their names in print or their faces on the screen. Yet those who claim that they are concerned about serving the people, are the ones that are complaining. Why the fanfare?

In my opinion this does not make for sensible discussion and for constructive criticism of the SABC. If anything, neither of these critics seems capable of inspiring any emotion more powerful than a stifled yawn. Let us not victimise the messenger. Let us rather give credit to those sterling journalists of the SABC and the media in general.

Mr Chairman, you will forgive me if we in the PFP express the hope that we do not wish to be caught in the cross-fire between the two parties …

Ask him who wrote his speech. [Interjections.] I speak without notes.

Order! The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

Nonetheless, I will accommodate the hon the Minister of the Budget and ask the hon member for Moorcross whether he wrote his speech himself or whether somebody else did it for him.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member accept that I wrote my speech myself and that due to time constraints I had to rush through it in order not to leave out all the salient points?

Mr Chairman, I have always said that that hon member is a gentleman, and if he gives me his word that he wrote his speech, I obviously accept it.

In the few minutes at my disposal, I would like to take the opportunity of raising a particular issue with the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry. It concerns him directly because I understand he has only just been given the very special portfolio of filming as well.

The House will recall that on several occasions I have raised the issue of subsidies that are available to film makers in this country. The House will also recall that I welcomed the relaxation on the part of the hon the Minister of Finance in regard to subsidies that were available to film makers in this country. This is a welcome step. I also want to record that we welcome the fact that this Government has now decided to give due recognition and due importance to this very young and important industry in our country.

The hon the Minister knows that film making has been going on in this country for a fair number of years now, but it is only in the last couple of years that it has really assumed the kind of importance and stature that it now has. This has been due to the fact that various overseas companies have taken advantage of the facilities that are available to us here, facilities in the form of personnel, good climate, the investment of the public here and not least of all, the fact that we have a very able crew of technicians available in this country.

However, it is sad to record that in spite of all this South Africa has not been able to produce films of a calibre that would not only satisfy the boxoffice, but would also satisfy the discerning international community. Therefore, I appeal to the hon the Minister this afternoon that we should in fact look very seriously at the requests that have come from this industry to investigate whether it is at all possible to create some kind of a film institute at one or other of our eminent universities so that people who are serious about going into the film industry would in fact be able to get the training that is necessary in that regard.

It has been suggested that the University of Stellenbosch has already made some kind of effort as far as that is concerned. I am not quite sure what the facts are, but I would like to hear something more positive from the hon the Minister in that regard this afternoon.

I would like to take this opportunity of commending the hon the Minister and his officials who are here with us this afternoon, particularly in so far as the visitors programme is concerned. I have from time to time been involved in this programme in the sense that I have had discussions with various people who have been brought over by the department or whose itinerary has been arranged on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I must say, to me the people who come here certainly represent a good cross-section of the thinking international community. They are people who want to come here to see for themselves what the conditions that prevail in this country really are. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, overseas and abroad the PAC and other missions of the ANC as well as other extraparliamentary bodies condemn South Africa in extreme terms. There is a lack of balance in their reaction, but the facts must not be distorted. Yet the truth is very different. For example, South Africa has the strongest and most independent trade union movement in Africa. There are African countries that cannot boast of independent trade unions in their countries and there are countries where the trade unions cannot speak against the Government. On the other hand, South Africa has such a developed economy that it can feed, house and clothe its citizens far better than almost all the non-aligned countries. There has been a steady, if slow, progress towards the ending of apartheid as, for example, in the ending of discrimination in the railway system of the Western Cape. Therefore the information services of South Africa could possibly disarm its major critics, but the Government must speed up the ending of all forms of apartheid. It must also establish democracy with safeguards for the minority.

The information services could score a bull’s eye overseas if the Government would take a few simple, decisive steps such as the release of Mandela before his 70th birthday and all other long-term prisoners while recognising the valid and important work that is being done by the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba, which has produced a viable form of power-sharing for the future of South Africa.

In conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to compliment all those who are involved in compiling the Phoenix newspaper. I believe that this paper is really catching on amongst the Indian community.

Mr Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity of wishing the Secretary to Parliament well on his coming retirement. I also wish to congratulate my colleague the hon the Minister of Information on the occasion of his being promoted to the rank of a full Minister. This is the first time that we are discussing the Vote of his department. I should also like to express our appreciation to the Chairman and members of the SABC Board. We had discussions with them last year and I can report that some improvements did take place as a result of the discussions we had, especially in respect of Radio Lotus and the expansion of that service. It has not been expanded to the extent we wished, but nevertheless today we can record the fact that there have been improvements.

South Africa has a composite culture. In South Africa we have samples of Africa and we have samples of the world. I sincerely express the wish that television does not report the hon member for Camperdown’s digression because then we will have complaints against TV or radio. Here the blame must be directed not against people who are doing the reporting; it must be directed at those who are acting in the situation that brings disrepute to this House. To digress and speak about goats, etc is, in my considered opinion, to make irresponsible statements in this House today.

SABC-TV has important shortcomings. In response to a remark made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, the hon member for Camperdown indicated that Blacks have a channel. There may be a need for a cultural society to present its own culture to its own viewers, but there is a need, in regard to which SABC TV in particular can play an important role, for promoting inter-group relations and, moreover, intergroup understanding.

The other day I received an invitation from a community in Bloemfontein who indicated that they did not know anything about Indian costumes, and asked whether we would go to Bloemfontein and explain to the Afrikaners there how Indians dress. This is just one example, namely the variety of Indians costumes; one could show at least 50 to 100 types of costume to represent one aspect of Indian culture in this country.

We have artists, musicians and dancers who can compete among the best in the international arena, whereas SABC TV portrays them once or twice instead of presenting to South Africa what the Indian community could present in this country. In a positive way I want to say that it is a very severe shortcoming.

Of course there is a Black channel—we are not going to demand an Indian channel. However, I believe that there should be a general channel on which one could, for example, have a cultural programme showing African and White culture as well as the culture of the Chinese, the Japanese, the Greeks and the Indians. That is where I think SABC TV has been lacking.

I did not like what television had reported, but I could not fault the facts of the report. Somebody gave a document to the Advocate-General and that was given prime time on television news. However, I would not complain, despite the fact that it hurt me.

Let us look at the reporting that the hon the Minister of the Budget referred to. It is splitting hairs to make a distinction between whether there was confidence or full confidence in the Ministers’ Council. I would not expect an hon member of the Ministers’ Council to split hairs in deciding whether this House expressed its confidence or its full confidence. The report said further: “The opposition alliance appears to be in jeopardy.” That is factual reporting because one member of the alliance voted with the NPP and another member of the new party actually voted with the independent members against his own party. They were not only in jeopardy but subjected themselves to embarrassment.

The report said further: “It appears that the balance of power has shifted.” One cannot fault that, in spite of the fact that someone is always referring to the numbers gained. One must realise that the numbers gained in this House must be judged in terms of Section 39. The numbers gained were determined last Thursday when by 28 votes to 6 this House decided that it had confidence or full confidence in the Ministers’ Council.

I want to make an appeal: If television reported statements about communalism we should direct our attention to their actors. That is why we must not do anything—not even silently or at 1 am in Pelican Park—to fan the flames of communalism. That is why I refused to comment or to be drawn into any debate.

I also want to take this opportunity of replying to the sentiments expressed by my colleague the hon member for Moorcross. We did not always receive the attention of the SABC TV when we wanted it. The SABC has its priorities. Sometimes we feel that we need the camera but they decide that priority must be given elsewhere and our events are then not covered. That does not mean, however, that we must complain. I want to express the appreciation of the Ministers’ Council and the administration to the following persons: Mr Johan Pretorius, Mr André le Roux, Mr Riaan Nel, Mr Douglas McClure, Mr George Mason-Jones and Mr Ami Nanackchand.

Sometimes we in Natal are accused of spending too much time in the Transvaal. The reason lies in the number of television cameras the Transvaal has compared to those of Natal. That is the problem. The people of Natal are doing work but the SABC TV does not regard Natal as part of South Africa. Is it because it is the last outpost of the British Empire? If I had to move an amendment to this Vote it would be that a sum of R50 000 be added so that we can get two television cameras for Natal. I want to suggest to my colleague the hon the Minister to buy four or five cameras for Natal because there are many actors and many people who are doing the job. Let us have additional estimates next year. [Interjections.]

I now come to the question of employment opportunities. We have enough people in this country who can be trained as technicians. Every time we need the services of television in Durban, for example, a Black cameraman comes along and he has performed excellently. We would like to see people of colour being given more opportunities in our television service.

I now come to the Phoenix. I would like to add to the sentiments expressed by my hon colleagues in respect of the Phoenix newspaper. It started off badly and we were concerned about its quality. Here I want to pay tribute to Mr Devan Moodley who plays an important role in the production of Phoenix. I am satisfied that ever since he joined the Department of Information the quality of news in Phoenix has improved. It is nonsense to suggest that every Indian household in South Africa should get a copy of the Phoenix newspaper. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should also like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the outgoing Secretary to Parliament. I really think he has been doing a sterling job, and he has been doing his work humbly and quietly even though Parliament has been going through difficult times.

Mr Chairman, I have always been received very well in this House. The hon members have always been courteous to me. We have not always agreed on the things we have spoken about, but I have always been very well received and I should like to say thank you to the hon members of this House for the courteous way in which they received me and also for their compliments and congratulations. I should like to pay a compliment in return. I feel that anyone who has been following this debate here this afternoon will agree that it has been a very good debate. Of course, we cannot agree on everything, but recognition has been given for good work. There has also been constructive criticism and I think this is what democracy is all about: To exchange views and also to criticise when criticism is necessary, but to do so in a constructive way. I cannot think of one instance today in which the criticism has been negative or destructive. I wish to pay tribute to the hon members, therefore, for the way in which they have conducted this debate here this afternoon.

I do not have very much time, Sir, but I should like to deal with the various subjects that were dealt with. Allow me to start off by talking about a subject which was referred to by virtually every hon member who spoke this afternoon, viz the newspaper Phoenix. It has been a long time since I heard such unanimously positive comments from hon members belonging to various parties. They have paid a singular compliment to the Bureau for Information and specifically to the editor and staff of Phoenix. Their compliments are supported by the fact that the circulation of this newspaper grew from 10 000 to 35 000 within 18 months, and it is increasing every day. We hope that by the end of this financial year the circulation will be in the vicinity of 50 000 copies. We should very much like to increase it even further, but there are, of course, budgetary restrictions.

A restricted budget is another facet of this. When one looks at the set-up in which this newspaper is produced, one sees that this is somewhat of a shoestring operation. I do not say this disparagingly; on the contrary, I do so in a very complimentary way. With very few resources—human and financial—this very good paper is being produced. Hon members asked, for instance, for more attention to be paid to what happens in the Transvaal and to what happens in this House. All of these requests have merit, but they all also have financial implications, and that is the problem. We shall definitely consider what has been suggested in the House and we shall see how far it is possible to meet these requests, but I cannot promise that all of them will be met in full.

I also want to pay tribute to the Bureau for Information in this regard. Like the editor and the staff of Phoenix, the head of the Bureau for Information and his staff deserve to be complimented. In fact, when one takes into account the magnitude of the task that needs to be tackled and one considers the relatively small number of people and the relatively small budget, one realises that these people are all doing a sterling job. I know from personal experience that these people work unselfishly at all hours and I wish to pay a compliment to them. If this spirit which is present among the staff of Phoenix and among the staff of the bureau in general could be imbued into everyone in South Africa, we would be able to become the great country that we are actually supposed to be.

Another point about Phoenix was raised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who mentioned its possible distribution to Mauritius. I believe that we are receiving an increasing number of requests from Mauritius for this newspaper. In fact, someone said in a jocular fashion that we must be careful that Phoenix does not perhaps become the most widely circulating newspaper in Mauritius. This is a very interesting dimension of the impact of a newspaper of the Bureau for Information.

A newspaper like Phoenix does not compete with the commercial media; it in fact fills a slot which the commercial media cannot fill because the commercial media need a commercial end result and therefore they cannot devote their attention to the specific things which obviously fill a need. Another aspect of the Bureau for Information to which more than one hon member referred, was the question of the guests who are being received by the Bureau for Information. I also want to thank hon members for the assistance they give to the Bureau for Information in talking to guests from overseas. I can assure hon members that this makes a huge contribution towards creating a positive image of South Africa, and hon members of this House are particularly well placed to talk to at least specific sections of the guest programme.

I want to make an appeal to hon members because it has come to my attention that a certain thing has happened a few times, although not only with regard to hon members of this House. What happened was that appointments were made and those appointments were not kept by some hon members of Parliament, not only hon members of this House. Then again, of course, one must bear in mind that if that happens and an hon member of Parliament does not turn up for an appointment, it becomes tremendously counter-productive. Not only does one lose the possible beneficial effect which such a conversation could have had but, in fact, it reflects very negatively. I should therefore like to request the co-operation of hon members so that whenever something happens which prevents them from keeping an appointment, they should advise the staff of the bureau as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, I am just glancing through my notes to recap on what hon members said about the Bureau for Information and the main topics that were covered. Some hon members also referred supportively to the advertising campaigns which we run from time to time. I thank hon members for that. I can assure hon members that the Bureau for Information at no time attempts to advance the interests of one political party over another. It is true that there is a built-in advantage for the governing parties and the majority parties in each House in the activities of the bureau because …

But that is not democracy!

That is exactly what I am going to explain to the hon member. There is an advantage in the sense that what the bureau needs to convey are those actions of the Government which, in fact, affect the daily lives of the people. Therefore, in order for the members of the public—the voters—to react to those transactions, they need to know what is happening in the country.

From time to time it does happen that opposition parties or minority parties do take some actions which have an influence on the daily lives of people. However, that actually happens very seldom and when it does happen it is normally carried very widely by the normal daily media.

The normal things which a government does in order to improve the situation of its citizens of all colours and all groups is regarded as news that is too mundane to be good news. Therefore it is not very attractive to the normal media and they do not carry it to the extent which is necessary to inform people.

I would like to use an example which I also used in the House of Representatives. All of us in this House will know very well what the proposed national council is. In other words, this is in connection with the proposal for the creation of a national council for discussions. In political circles this has been discussed very often and every one of us knows a lot about it. However, the news media have carried this message only in so far as the main newsworthiness is concerned. In fact, we conducted a survey among Black people and we found that only about 14% knew anything about the concept of a national council. Only 14% could recollect that they had heard about it.

Such a national council is in fact a proposal of an instrument to be created which will affect the lives of Black people intimately. It will have a profound effect upon Black people, but the Black public is in fact very poorly informed about this very thing. This is because the Government has not, as yet, seen fit to run an information campaign. There are good reasons for that, but the point I would like to make is that unless the Government embarks upon a campaign in connection with something like the proposed national council—and one can have many other examples—in the end the public does not know what is happening in that regard in our country. The public does not know how to react to that and then they would probably react in the wrong way, to the detriment of the country.

For the Bureau of Information there is a tremendous task to be executed and we try and do this as objectively and impartially as possible—always with the aim of promoting the interests of South Africa as a whole and of all the people of South Africa. We are not ashamed of the fact that we are openly anti-revolutionary. We do not promote revolution and we do not give equal time to revolutionaries to promote their cause, because we believe that the health of the country and its future are best served by expanding democracy, continuing reform and not by the destruction which is concomitant with a revolution. Therefore, in that sense we are biased. We are biased for democracy and we are biased against revolution. However, as far as possible we try to eliminate any other bias.

I would like to mention a last point regarding the Bureau for Information. We do have some Indian employees—in fact about seven of substantive rank. I may stand corrected there, but we would very much welcome more Indian people into the ranks of the bureau. There is a policy of total non-discrimination as far as appointments and promotions are concerned—total non-discrimination right across the board.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister to tell this House how many Black personnel are employed by the Department of Information and if none, why not.

Mr Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, we have 29 Black people in professional and administrative sections in our employ. Also here, there is a policy of nondiscrimination. What is true, is that we cannot afford to appoint people just because of their colour. With the very small budgetary allocation and the hard pressure there is on people, we have to make sure that we appoint the best people, regardless of colour. We therefore look forward, for instance, to greater participation by members of the Indian community in the activities of the Bureau, provided it is on the basis of merit.

I would like to turn to the SABC in general. Some hon members have been critical and some have even been more critical than others. Some hon members have been supportive, for which I thank them. Here again, I would just like to outline a few points of departure regarding the SABC. Firstly, I also want to pay tribute to the SABC and its staff. The chairman and the director-general are here this afternoon, together with senior staff.

A huge task is being undertaken in the SABC with relatively limited resources. We can just picture for ourselves the huge cultural variety which exists in South Africa. I am now talking about cultural variety and I am sure hon members will know what I mean. I am not talking about colour differences. Each of those cultures which exist in South Africa has inherent merit and deserves to be reflected and expanded by the exposure which television can provide. If one looks at the great variety and one considers the relatively limited resources of the SABC, one realises that it is indeed a daunting task, especially regarding the reflection of Indian culture. There is no specific Indian culture.

In fact, we do not have White, Black and Coloured channels on SABC. It is conducted on a language basis. Within the language groups, there are of course sub-cultures, in other words, the Indian community would basically be subsumed under that group in South Africa which serve themselves with the English language. Within the group of people who serve themselves with English, there are a variety of sub-cultural groups: The basic Anglo-Saxon group, immigrants like Greeks, Italians, Portuguese, the Indian community and large sections of the Coloured community. It therefore becomes extremely difficult to reflect all those cultures and to do justice to them in the relatively limited time that the SABC has available for its English-language, First World transmission.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills suggested that the TV2 channel should be abandoned because of lack of support. It is true, as he has pointed out, that many Black people also tune in to TV1, but the majority of Black people enjoy transmissions in their own cultural medium. There is no discrimination here. Again, it is not a Black channel, but a channel which serves people of certain indigenous languages of South Africa. In fact, when services were initially offered, they were offered on a wider basis, and when this was curtailed due to cost, with the introduction of TV4, a large number of objections were received from the Black community.

One should also take into account that Black people are getting more and more prosperous by the day and so the biggest increase in new television sets sold, is in fact in the Black community. The TV2 service is therefore in fact the growing service of the SABC. Even if the viewership is relatively small at this stage, the prospects are that this channel may become a very strong channel. At this point in time, it is not as economic a channel as the others, but one invests a little there in order to give a service to a particular section of the community with the hope that it will serve those people well and that in time it will also become an economically viable service.

This brings me to another point on the agenda, namely Radio Lotus. I think appreciation was also expressed here for the services of Radio Lotus. In as much as hon members complained that it was impossible to receive this service in certain areas, I can say that generally Radio Lotus is received by about 80% of the Indian population and on Sundays between 11 o’clock and 1 o’clock transmissions are broadcast on Radio 2000, when it reaches about 98% of the Indian population. I do agree that this is only for two hours per week and one would like to extend this to reach 100% of the Indian population 100% of the time. Here again, we are limited by financial restrictions.

If one would like to erect a new transmitter, for instance, in the Eastern Transvaal to serve the Indian people there, that alone would cost about R3 million and one would reach a very small number of people. In fact, in all communities we have this problem that the people living in the outlying areas receive a less complete service from the SABC. This is due to financial reasons. It works like this: If one erects a transmitter in a very densely populated area such as the PWV area, the maintenance of that transmitter is very cheap, because it is calculated per head of the population that is reached. It can work out to as small an amount as R0,14 per head of the population per annum. However, if one tries to give the same service to people in an outlying area, it could be as high as R37 per head of the population per annum, which is quite out of proportion.

Here again, therefore, the SABC works with a set of priorities. If more money were to become available, of course, a better service could be rendered, both in the sense that more people could be reached through additional transmitters, and through a greater variety of programmes. However, one has to balance the gains against the cost.

This brings me to another point, namely the financial position of the SABC. Maybe I should just interrupt myself for a moment and say that I am greatly encouraged by the improvement that has taken place in the finances of the SABC. We are looking forward to even further improvement.

The SABC derives its income from two main sources, namely advertisements and television licence fees. At this point in time the percentages would roughly be 30% from licences and 70% from advertisements. This makes the SABC very vulnerable. As soon as the economy takes a dip, the money available for advertisements become less. This has a negative effect on the income of the SABC, and this could land the SABC in very serious financial trouble within a very short time. It therefore becomes very vulnerable to fluctuations in the economy.

The income from licences in proportion to the SABC’s total income, is disproportionately low, because the SABC has over the years tried to limit increases in licence fees. They would like to keep them to the lowest possible minimum. I do not think we will be able to keep this up. I think one will have to reconsider the whole structure of the SABC’s income, but that we can discuss at some other time. That is just another point.

The hon member for Camperdown referred to taxpayers’ money and tax subsidies. I want to give the hon member the assurance that there is no tax subsidy to the SABC from taxation. In fact, the SABC derives its income from advertisements and licence fees. There is no subsidy to the SABC from taxation. That argument therefore falls away on these grounds. Fair enough, one can say that everybody has to pay a licence fee.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister give us an indication of how much the dubbing of films into another language costs?

Sir, right now I am not able to supply figures that will answer that very specific question. However, I shall write to the hon member when I have that information. Dubbing of films is a fairly expensive exercise. This is why, for instance, it is much cheaper to use films or videos on the English channel that originate from an English-speaking country. It would be more expensive to use a German film that has to be dubbed into either Afrikaans or English. One has that extra cost when dubbing is needed. It is an expensive exercise, but I shall write to the hon member in due course.

This brings me to the main complaint that was lodged against the SABC, and that is the way in which matters in this House were reported. I just want to deal with this in a general fashion. One must bear in mind that newspapers and the SABC news staff are always under pressure of deadlines. They cannot very thoroughly consider things which transpire in the House until such time as they have consulted everybody and obtained all the information, because by then it would be old news. A deadline transpires at a certain point and they have to file a report before that time. The point that I want to make, is that they are always under pressure.

The SABC normally tries to reflect anything that happens during a debate as objectively and representatively as possible. Of course, they cannot reflect everything. They must, of necessity, distil what they regard as the essence of a debate. Of course, when something that sounds sensational comes up, any newsman would be attracted to the sensational statement, rather than any other statement. This is true of every medium. As Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry, I sometimes have arguments with news people about this.

However, that is also a fact of life and one has to take it into consideration. Furthermore hon members objected to something which, according to them, was not said in the House. One should also bear in mind that a news bulletin is a audiovisual report. What has actually happened is reflected in the body of the report. However, the headline and the introductory paragraph normally contain a summary of what took place. I think one of the statements to which hon members objected, was the “headline” of the report.

One of the problems that I, as Minister of Information, encounter with regard to newspapers is that the headline does not always fully represent the contents of a report. However, this again is something that does not reflect any bad intentions on the part of the SABC, but it happens from time to time because of undue pressure. Therefore, one also has to look at the other side of the story.

If a report is not fully representative of what has actually taken place, and hon members feel aggrieved because such a report was not correct, the SABC will be only too willing to go into the matter and, if a gross error was made, give hon members the opportunity to appear on television in order to put the record straight.

Too late after the horse has bolted.

Mr Chairman, this can happen from time to time. [Interjections.] Sometimes mistakes will be more regrettable than at other times. One cannot avoid this completely. If one tries to do it, one will never be able to file a new story. The value of a debate of this nature is that complaints can be brought to the attention of the particular body that has to deal with it—whether it be the Bureau for Information or the SABC—and that body can take corrective steps.

The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council indicated that last year’s debate resulted in positive changes in the activities of the SABC. I hope that a year from now on we will be able to say this again. We can even investigate the possibility of more cameras for Natal.

Unfortunately my time is running out and I did not mention every hon member who participated in this debate and I did not cover all the particular points that were raised. Hon members will bear with me as I will read through the speeches of this debate and if I missed any substantial points, I will come back to individual members. I should like to thank the House again for the good reception and the constructive debate. I hope hon members will also find that my contribution, as Minister of Information, and that of the Bureau for Information and the SABC will also be of the same constructive nature.

There is just one last point I want to make. I see I have completely omitted one point that was raised here and that is the point mentioned by the hon member for Springfield. He was the only one who referred to the film industry. As the hon member might know—I was glad to hear that he also felt that something was happening in this industry—for the first time in the history of South Africa the film industry has expressly been entrusted to a Minister as a portfolio.

Until now I have had some problems on my plate and have not been able to devote sufficient attention to the film industry, but we have already appointed a small group of people to investigate the problems of the film industry and amongst other things the question of training in the film industry. The hon the State President has expressed his support and his positive evaluation of the film industry and of the contribution that it can make to the future of South Africa. I should just like to assure the hon member that we are looking into this and I hope that by this time next year we shall have a lot more to report.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the Bill that is before us this afternoon is known as the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill. This particular Bill is more or less a uniform and scientific Bill for testing people to ensure that they can handle and possess fire-arms. We know from past history that there were problems as far as the control of arms was concerned. In order to prevent malpractices with regard to the illegal construction of arms out of parts, the introduction of stricter control measures with regard to the safekeeping of arms is necessary because of the enormous increase in the loss of arms.

It is a daily occurrence in this country that arms are either stolen or lost and then fall into the hands of criminals. Therefore, the Bill before us this afternoon is more or less for the purpose of tightening up the old law of 1969 and to bring about a uniform system of controlling the issuing of licences or permits to people.

It also introduces a new era or a new system where a person has to be declared fit or competent to possess arms and there will be the establishment of certain venues where people will firstly have to undergo a test and will then be declared by the Commissioner of Police to be fit to be licensed to own a fire-arm.

The Bill concerned fell under the able chairmanship of the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order. We had no problems in the standing committee as far as this Bill was concerned. It was accepted by all parties and the desirability of this particular Bill was not only requested by the committee but also by people outside Parliament. It was published more than a year ago for comments from various people and all the comments that were received were favourable.

The Act also provides for regulations to be implemented and here I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that the difficulties we have experienced in the past will be overcome by the new legislation. In the past, although the law did not have any discriminatory factors enacted in it we found that there were certain problems as far as people of colour were concerned when it came to obtaining licences. There were certain departmental regulations that were implemented from time to time by the police themselves. This included the taking of fingerprints, the producing of balance sheets by people of colour, which was not necessary for the White community. I hope that this practice will not take place in the future.

We know that the taking of fingerprints was also made compulsory in the past as far as people of colour were concerned. In one of the clauses of the legislation before us it states that fingerprints can be taken from all groups. I hope that this will be implemented as far as everyone is concerned and not only for a person of a particular colour.

I hope that the regulations that the hon the Minister is introducing here will also be fair to everybody else and as such the need for this particular legislation is indeed what we need. As I have said previously, every one of us supported this particular piece of legislation and I therefore, on behalf of this side of the House, support this piece of legislation.

Mr Chairman, in the troubled times that we are living in it is essential that it should be possible for every law-abiding citizen, regardless of race or colour, to possess a fire-arm to protect himself and his loved ones as well as his property. This amending Bill now makes this possible.

Secondly, one must bear in mind that a fire-arm is a dangerous instrument, and as such it can be an exceptional menace to society in the hands of a person who is unfit to possess it, or a criminal. Good fire-arm legislation should, therefore, firstly prevent criminals from possessing firearms, be it legally or illegally. Secondly, it should ensure that people who legally possess fire-arms know how to use them legally and safely.

At the end of 1987 there were 1083 880 people in the Republic who were licensed to possess firearms. Among them these people owned 2 633 175 fire-arms. The competency of none of these people was formally tested before they were issued with licences. Clauses 3 and 4 of the amending Bill now provides that a person must be tested by the Commissioner before a licence can be issued to him.

Concerning the possession of fire-arms by criminals, the Bill now makes it possible for a person who is found guilty of crime such as murder, rape, kidnapping or robbery to be declared unfit to possess a fire-arm.

Another manner in which criminals acquire arms is by stealing them. In 1984, 6 566 fire-arms were stolen; in 1986 this number increased to 10 111. These fire-arms end up in the hands of criminals who use them to commit violent crimes against the law-abiding citizens of this country. This situation cannot be tolerated.

In terms of the amending Bill, fire-arms must now be locked away in safes. It is submitted, therefore, that the amending Bill goes a long way towards regulating the possession of fire-arms in such a manner that society will be safer for us all. My party and I therefore support the approval of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, before I proceed to deal with this Bill, I should like the hon the Minister to take this opportunity in this House to make a statement in respect of those children who are detained, because I think he has played a very important role, and I think that a statement in this House is absolutely necessary. We should like to know whether there are any children under the age of 15 that are detained. I think that if the hon the Minister can clear this up, we should be obliged.

I think that this is a very important Bill. It updates the Arms and Ammunition Act. First of all, there are certain functions that are at present performed by the hon the Minister which are to be transferred to a board. I think this is a fine thing that the hon the Minister performed this particular function, but that is not all. The Minister has a discretion insofar as that function is concerned, and whenever necessary I think he will perform the function himself.

There is also an amendment insofar as the question of the definition of the word “manufacture” is concerned. The word itself, within the meaning of the provisions of the Bill, has now been properly defined. Previously, illegal construction and manufacture of arms and ammunition was quite free. I think that the Bill now ensures that proper control will be exercised over the production of arms and ammunition by any private enterprise or private individual.

The Bill further makes provision for stricter control measures insofar as safekeeping of arms and ammunition is concerned. It has been reported in many instances that people who possess fire-arms leave them lying around freely. In many burglaries the easiest thing to steal from a home is a fire-arm. The Bill also makes provision for the safe-keeping of fire-arms.

People who have been found guilty of an offence such as treason, murder or rape are disqualified from possessing fire-arms. Instead of having to cancel a licence for the possession of a fire-arm, the amended legislation itself disqualifies any individual who has been found guilty of a first-degree crime from possessing a fire-arm.

The Bill includes many other provisions. It recognises any licence issued or authorised by a neighbouring state. The licence for a fire-arm or ammunition in possession of a person from a neighbouring state is recognised in terms of the amending Bill. The Bill makes further provision for the increase of penalties in terms of the principle Act.

I want to take this opportunity of placing on record our thanks to the chairman of the standing committee, Mr Leon Wessels. He is now the hon Deputy Minister of Law and Order. He handled the Bill to the very last moment and even after he had become the Deputy Minister he came back to conclude the Bill. I also want to take the opportunity of thanking the law advisers, including the law advisers of the Department of Law and Order. They have been most helpful in clearing up various doubts and issues relating to the Bill.

The Bill itself has something like 43 amendments and some of these conform to the requirements of the various political parties that were represented on the standing committee. The standing committee dealt with it in a very fluent way and as a result the Bill was perfected in various aspects. We of the PPSA have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting not only the Bill but the hon the Minister himself.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Minister knows, we in the PFP supported this Bill loudly and roundly in the standing committee and quite obviously we will also support it in this House.

Whether or not there are too many guns in South Africa is a debatable point. Suffice it to say that many who would not have dreamt of possessing a gun several years ago, now do so. What is not debatable, is the way in which many of these people fail to look after their fire-arms. We had ample evidence of this before the standing committee. It is precisely because of this and because of the fact that the Bill before the House tightens up the legislation regarding guns as is prescribed in this Act, that we support this Bill.

It was very interesting for us in the standing committee to note that it was only the CP who opposed this piece of legislation. One wonders whether it was not because of the fact that one of the clauses of this Bill restricted ownership of guns to people over the age of 12.

Sixteen.

Oh yes, that clause was altered. I had forgotten about that.

Mr Chairman, I too would like to take this opportunity of placing on record our thanks to the hon the Minister’s department for the painstaking way in which they went about trying to explain the provisions of this Bill, for the manner in which they answered our questions and, more particularly, for the manner in which they set out this legislation compared to the way in which the original legislation, which this legislation sought to amend, was set out. They made our task that much easier and for that we are grateful.

It was the hon member for Chatsworth Central, I think, who indicated to this House just now that last year more than a million people in this country owned fire-arms and that last year there were more than two million licensed fire-arms in South Africa. That is true, Sir, but it is also worthy of interest that up to March this year some 30 290 applications had been approved out of a total of 32 202 applications. To my mind it is a significant number of applications that have been approved and the question arises whether there are not already too many guns in the country. I am sometimes inclined to believe that too many licenses have already been issued by the department.

What is also disturbing is the fact that during last year—this was also indicated by the hon member for Chatsworth Central—some 10 000 fire-arms were lost or stolen simply because owners were not looking after them. That is very disturbing and is a cause of tremendous concern to all of us. It is also a cause of concern to us, however, that many of these stolen or lost guns were found by the Police and that many of them were used in the commission of crimes or in faction-fighting.

I come from Natal and I was quite astonished to discover in a report issued by the hon the Minister’s department that something like 499 firearms were discovered to have been used in faction fights in the Tugela Valley area, in the Shongweni Dam area and in the area surrounding Vryheid. Obviously, that is very disturbing. What was more disturbing than that, however, was that in many cases the Police were able to tell us that they had recovered fire-arms even before owners had discovered that these were lost. Quite obviously, all this needs to be put right, and the Bill before this House attempts to do just that.

The other thing that this Bill attempts to do is to protect innocent people, particularly children, who may pick up the fire-arm and possibly injure not only themselves but also other people who are in the vicinity. We have been disturbed by the numerous reports of young children who had been able to find a fire-arm or two, which had been negligently left lying around by parents; and the consequences of such a state of affairs was disastrous, to say the least.

Previously, in order for the Police to prosecute negligent owners, the onus was on the Police to prove that the fire-arm had not been under the control of the licence-holder. In terms of the amending Bill the onus now shifts to the owners to prove that in fact they were. Some people may argue that this violates the basic tenet of jurisprudence which maintains that a person is innocent until proven guilty. As a legal man, I could perhaps concede that argument, but the question remains: Can gun owners be allowed to carry on as merrily as they have been doing in the past? I believe not, Mr Chairman, and I agree with the hon the Minister in that regard. [Interjections.] When something like 30 guns a day go missing, this is indeed cause for concern and we naturally support the tightening up of these regulations.

However, during the course of our discussions the hon member for Eldorado Park, I think it was, raised a very interesting point, which I should like the hon the Minister to hear, if in fact he has not already done so. That hon member told us in the committee that according to his information licences were not being given to people who lived in particular areas. Thus, for example, he indicated that licences were not being given to people who lived in close proximity to Soweto, for instance. He was, of course, greatly concerned at this. I am not sure whether he has already raised this matter with the hon the Minister but I would like to know from the hon the Minister what the position is in regard to that matter.

There have also been numerous complaints—and this point was also raised in a briefing—that the criteria that are perceived to be applied, differ from one group to another. Thus, for example, it is perceived that one set of criteria apply to the Indian, Coloured and Black communities and another set of criteria apply to the White community. I know that I have asked this question of the hon the Minister before, but the perception still remains. I would like the hon the Minister to clear up this matter once and for all. I know that in terms of this Bill the criteria are the same for anyone who wishes to apply for a fire-arm licence.

Something that also gave me cause for concern, was the point that was made by the hon member for Lenasia East, I think it was. I see that he is due to speak, and I trust that he will raise this matter, but in case he does not I should like to mention that he indicated in a briefing that he was aware of some people who had easy access to fire-arm licences. He gave us to understand that some people who had easy access to a certain police station were able to obtain fire-arms far more easily than others. Naturally, this gives cause for concern and I would like the hon the Minister to react to that. With those words, we naturally support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to rise this afternoon and speak on this particular Bill.

When members of the community and hon members of this House criticise the Police regarding the issue of licences to possess arms, there are three most common grounds for doing so. Firstly, allocations are made and licences are granted to members of the public who are either incompetent or unfit to possess fire-arms.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are those who are incompetent, and vast numbers of applicants can scarcely tell one where the muzzle or the stock of a gun is. It is like asking someone what a cow is, and he cannot tell one which is the tail and which is the head. That is not to mention the gross lack of familiarity with the legal norms pertaining to the possession of fire-arms.

The current Act requires the mere completion of an application form. It is on the strength of this document alone that the SAP fire-arms department considers an application. The Act does not contain provisions concerning the testing of applicants as to safe and legal procedures with regard to fire-arms, the compliance with which shall be a prerequisite for the issuing of a licence. Hence the amending Bill provides that an applicant be declared competent prior to the issuing of a valid licence. The applicant’s capabilities as to the correct and legal handling of a fire-arm will thus be subject to a test. In addition personal particulars of applicants …

Mr Chairman, if I understand that hon member correctly he is now setting himself up as an authority on the intelligence of Black people to own fire-arms. I would like to ask the hon member where he derives that authority from.

Mr Chairman, I am very sorry but it seems to me that the hon member is a lawyer and yet he does not understand. [Interjections.] Where did I say or when did I mention Blacks or non-Whites?

[Inaudible.]

No, I am sorry. I did not mention that.

*This fellow is deaf. He must visit the doctor again.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central has broken the line. He must please come back. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lenasia East may proceed.

I have my speech here in my hand and nowhere did I mention anything to do with Blacks, Indians, Whites or Coloureds.

The Hansard will state it.

The Hansard will prove it. I can give it to hon members right here. [Interjections.]

In addition the personal particulars of an applicant—as I was saying—such as previous convictions, will also be taken into account before the applicant is issued with a certificate of competence. As no reliable psychological test exists at this stage a test of this nature has not been implemented. More reliable tests may, however, be developed in the near future. In this event the Commissioner of Police may thus exercise the discretion with which he will, when in doubt, accordingly provide for the issuing of fire-arms on a scientific basis.

*I hope the hon member to whom I have just been speaking is listening to me now. [Interjections.]

Yes, we are listening, Sir.

Furthermore, the Police are being accused of protecting other groups against the non-Whites in the issuing of fire-arm licences. In terms of the new Bill it will be impossible for the Police to discriminate. The same test of competence must be taken by all persons. When I say all persons I just want to make it clear that it will not be for the Whites only. It will be the same for the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks. It makes no difference what colour a person is.

Very good. Very good.

In the event of a refusal to issue a certificate of competence, reasons will have to be given for such refusal. An application may not be refused merely because the applicant is a member of a certain race group.

In addition the so-called 12 weapon limit of the present Act is being vehemently criticised. Section 3(6) of the Act provides that no person may be issued with licences to possess more than 12 fire-arms, except with the written authorisation of the Minister, which is only granted in a case which the Minister considers to be exceptional.

†The purpose behind the drafting of the section is to prevent members of the public from securing their own private arsenals. The number 12 has, however, created the impression among certain sectors of the public that the Act entitles them to 12 licences. Secondly, it is argued that the restriction of 12 fire-arms disregards the bona fide needs of sportsmen and collectors. This section has been repealed in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill.

A word of caution is, however, appropriate at this stage. A holder of a certificate of competence will not be able to accumulate unrestricted numbers of fire-arms. Adequate motivation must be tendered by the applicant as to the reason for the issue of a licence, which in turn will be considered on merit. As the Bill now makes it possible for all citizens to acquire a fire-arm, regardless of race, I support the approval of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am not a member of the standing committee which dealt with this particular Bill, but I am a gun enthusiast, and I want to make a contribution in this House.

The United States Police Training Manual gives a very appropriate introduction to fire-arms, and I quote:

Once a bullet leaves a fire-arm, no-one has the power of recalling that bullet. Therefore, in the light of the debate we had this afternoon, it is important, and indeed imperative, that the possessor of a fire-arm knows the mechanical workings thereof, how to handle it, when he must handle it and where he must store it for safekeeping.

Maturity is a state of mind. Confidence comes with the knowledge of handling a fire-arm. A knowledge of the workings of a fire-arm and how to handle it safely, are very important factors for one who possesses a fire-arm. He should know under which circumstances the fire-arm must be used and the rights and responsibilities which are placed on the shoulders of all fire-arm owners.

As the law of 1969 stands, the application for and receiving of a licence does not require one to display proficiency with that arm. However, we now have a very useful amending clause, which provides that a prospective applicant must go through the process of training, which is, I believe, one of the most important features of this new Bill.

Previous speakers have mentioned the loss of fire-arms. I do not know if I should make so bold as to say that there are more unlicenced fire-arms in South Africa than licenced ones. I do not know, but I believe it is so.

How does one come to be in possession of a legal arm? The owners of licenced fire-arms indirectly contribute to this position of illegal arms, because once a person with criminal tendencies gets hold of a fire-arm, he holds the lives of many at his mercy. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to grant a moratorium for all unlicenced fire-arm holders to come forward and gain immunity from prosecution. I think in this way we will succeed to a point in recovering most stolen fire-arms.

The amending legislation makes important amendments and additions to the Arms and Ammunition Act of 1969, as I said earlier on. However, where are prospective applicants to be trained? I know that I went through a very expensive training programme in Durban and it cost me nearly R100. However, I want to thank the station commander of Sydenham who gave me a discount of R50. [Interjections.] However, at the moment training is a very expensive exercise. It is my suggestion that the State or the department of the hon the Minister provide suitable training in centres where lectures could be held and the rights of applicants be made known, as well as all regulations pertinent to the holding of fire-arms and the granting of licences, so that the fully qualified applicant is in a position to use that fire-arm as he was intended to do.

I now come to another very important issue, namely the safekeeping of a fire-arm. It was my previous habit, until I gave it up, to leave my hand gun under my pillow. I soon realised that I have a very short memory, and lest the maid or any other unauthorised person should get hold of my fire-arm, I made it my duty to have it locked in a safe.

In this regard, I see the provision now exists that a safe must be provided by the applicant. I want to know: Which does one buy first, the safe or the gun? I want the hon the Minister to consider this, because if one buys a safe first and one is refused a licence or a test, one has gone to considerable expense in buying that safe. An average gun safe costs about R300.

I welcome the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill and I support it wholeheartedly and hope that it will work without discrimination.

Mr Chairman, I believe I owe the hon member for Lenasia East an apology. I certainly wish to apologise to him. When he spoke, he referred to applicants and we on this side of the House heard that as Africans. This is why I took umbrage at that. However, I went across and the hon member for Lenasia East assured me that he meant applicants and not Africans and therefore I would like to take this opportunity, if I have caused him any offence, to apologise.

Mr Chairman, we, too, welcome this Bill, which, in our opinion, is long overdue. We support the Bill because of the positive measures in it. It has been designed to bring about uniformity. It allows, amongst other things, recourse to the courts by persons who are denied fire-arm licences. I also welcome the establishment of an appeal board. I trust that this board will be representative of all the major race groups.

I also want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the exorbitant fees that some gun dealers charge for shooting lessons. In terms of the amending legislation, a certificate of competence can only be obtained from a police officer. The applicant will, however, still have to go for shooting lessons. I would like to call upon those persons who charge exorbitant fees to refrain from doing so. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would also like to speak for a few minutes, and I therefore want to conclude my speech.

I wish to comment briefly on another matter which the hon member for Phoenix touched upon, namely the large number of unlicensed fire-arms. I want the hon the Minister to give consideration to legislation that will compel applicants who apply for a fire-arm licence for a second or third time, to produce all other registered fire-arms that they possess. When a person loses a fire-arm due to negligence, he does not always report the loss. He simply applies for a second or third fire-arm licence. By compelling persons to produce all other registered fire-arms that they possess, the department can check whether they have, in fact, lost their fire-arms without ever reporting the loss. Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, like all other hon members, I support this Bill.

There was quite a lot of controversy at one particular time when I was still a member of the South African Indian Council. It was very difficult for a member of the Indian community to obtain a licence for a fire-arm. However, I would like to let hon members in on a little secret.

At one stage there were consultations with the mini own affairs department. The Ministry of Law and Order first submitted an application to the Department of Indian Affairs for comment. I was the chairman of the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council, and by mistake somebody brought me a fire-arm licence file. I asked someone to translate the recommendations, and I found that on every application the regional representative had written: Recommended refusal. The police department was therefore not to blame.

I have heard ideas on how to have certain procedures re-established. However, I gained the impression that, notwithstanding recommendations, there are still refusals. I know people who were refused fire-arm licences. One person was a very good cartage contractor, and also a good friend of the hon member for Cavendish. I was surprised when I heard he was refused a fire-arm licence. He then gave me names of people who were actually granted fire-arm licences. I know some of them only too well, and they do not have good credentials.

I want to appeal to the Commissioner of Police to see to it that great care is taken in respect of police officers who actually decide to recommend or refuse a licence. An appeal board is now going to be established to consider appeals of people whose applications were refused. However, I think any member of the public should also be given the opportunity to lodge a complaint with the appeal board if such a person is of the opinion that a licence should not have been granted to another person. Such a person may have certain facts at his disposal, and then he can lodge a complaint against the granting of a licence. In certain circumstances this may be necessary.

I once received a representation from a person who was refused a fire-arm licence. I made enquiries about this, because I was really upset. When I made an enquiry at the local police station, I was informed privately that there was an objection from his wife. Sometimes one does not know the reasons for such refusals. The wife that objects says the public does not know that this chap is self-serving, that he is a hothead and that he is too dangerous to own a fire-arm. One therefore must sometimes know the real reasons for a refusal.

The hon member for Moorcross made a very interesting point. The Bill makes reference to the fact that the appeal board “shall consist of one or more but not more than three members”. It would be difficult, therefore, to have a multiracial board because all the various race groups cannot be represented. I am sure, however, that the hon the Minister will take merit into consideration and if all three members happened to be White, I will be satisfied provided they make fair decisions.

The Bill does not take away the hon the Minister’s right of decision. Parliamentarians have a tendency to seek the support of the people. That is human nature. So a member of the standing committee may have recommended something on behalf of a member of the public … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to thank members on the standing committee for the way in which they handled this Bill. It proves, to my mind, that hon members fully realise the importance of this Bill and that they have a responsibility towards the community. I should also like to thank hon members for their support and for their participation in this debate. They made valuable contributions and I should like to thank them for that. It is also quite clear that they made a thorough study of this Bill.

This Bill deals with important matters, namely the licensing and safeguarding of fire-arms. This is important in every country in the world—and South Africa is no exception. As hon members mentioned, the main object of the Bill is to enforce more rigid control over fire-arms. We do not argue that point. I want to state clearly and honestly that we would like to make control over fire-arms more rigid. There are good reasons for this. One only needs to take cognisance of news headlines to realise that stricter control is essential. An increasing number of fire-arms are stolen every year because of the laxity of the owners. Hon members also conceded that point during the debate this afternoon.

Accidents due to negligence on the part of people who are in possession of fire-arms occur almost daily. Terrorist attacks have become part of our daily lives. The amending Bill therefore, generally speaking, purports to safeguard society against the misuse of fire-arms. The Bill, however, makes it possible for each legitimate and bona fide applicant to acquire a licence to possess a fire-arm without undue difficulty.

I specifically wish to refer to clause 23(d). various hon members referred to the question of discrimination. This clause in the amending Bill repeals the only remaining reference to race in the principal Act. In terms of the Bill it would be illegal, and objectively speaking impossible, for the police to discriminate on the basis of race. The Bill makes provision for the Commissioner of Police to issue fire-arm licences on a scientific basis. Before a licence to possess an arm can be issued to an applicant, he must be declared competent and he must be the holder of a certificate of competence.

The applicant’s capability with regard to the correct and legal handling of the fire-arm will thus be subject to a test and that test will be the same for every applicant. Everyone will have to write that examination and will have to pass that test. In addition, personal particulars of the applicant such as previous convictions, drug addiction, alcoholism, record of violent behaviour and his status in the community will be taken into account before he is issued with a certificate of competence.

Should the Commissioner refuse such a certificate he will have to give reasons for his refusal. This is important; he will have to give reasons for his refusal. The fact that the applicant is a member of a certain race group will not be a valid reason for a refusal. I want to state this categorically.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council spoke about the Bill and he referred to the appeal board. I first of all want to thank him for his support as I really appreciate it. I want to say that this appeal board will assist me in handling a large number of documents relating to applications for appeal that I have to handle in my office on a daily basis. They will really be acting on my behalf in this regard. As my hon colleague mentioned, anybody who wishes will still have the opportunity to appeal to me directly. There will therefore be more flexibility in this whole structure. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council asked whether it would be one person or three persons and whether it would be multiracial. I must say, that to be quite frank I have not had the opportunity to give any thought to this matter. However, I shall look into it.

You can consider the hon member for Moorcross.

Can I consider him?

He must resign from Parliament.

Will you allow him to resign from Parliament? What about his constituency? [Interjections.] The opposition will take his constituency. I shall look at the situation before appointing the appeal board, but I shall take my hon colleague’s recommendations into account.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also referred to the fact that the recommendation on the application form was normally that of the police officer in the charge office where the application was filed. This is a fact and it is correct. However, this new test that we are going to introduce now will be the same for each and every person throughout the country. I therefore think that this recommendation by the officer in the charge office will still be of value. I think, however, the police—and I intend doing this—must carry out more effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding the applicant.

The hon member for Moorcross also referred to the possibility that we should consider requesting anybody asking for a second or a third licence to produce his first and second fire-arm. We shall give due consideration to this suggestion. We do not need to alter any legislation in this regard because section 9 of the Act as amended by this present Bill provides that the holder of a licence must furnish the fire-arm at the request of a member of the SAP. Therefore, if we should decide now that we should do this—and we are in a position to decide on this after due consideration—it can then be implemented. I therefore want to thank the hon member for this suggestion.

We do not want to inconvenience people too much. We would like to help people and to assist them when they apply for a fire-arm licence, but if people do not listen, I believe we must be prepared to act more firmly against them. It is a pity—because by far the majority of people are safeguarding their fire-arms—that it is because of the few people who are not doing so, that we have to change the laws and in doing so make it more difficult for the majority of people. However, I want to thank my hon colleague for his contribution and his suggestions.

He also mentioned the question of the exorbitant prices the public are being charged for fire-arm lessons. I think—the hon member for Phoenix referred to this too, and I shall come to his speech later—that maybe we should be very careful at this stage about trying to get the Police to train people for their fire-arm licences. I think that this is a matter that we should leave to the private sector. This is our viewpoint. We think that this is a matter for the private sector, and that it can provide an income for private enterprise. I do agree with him, however, that we must speak out against exorbitant prices in this regard. Why ask a man too much to train him to shoot straight with a fire-arm? Once again, however, I think that the market place will eventually decide. If a man is asking exorbitant prices and somebody else is charging lower prices, then the people will go to the one who is charging lower prices.

I would like to come back to the hon member for Laudium now.

*I should like to thank the hon member for his speech.

†He also spoke about the question of discrimination, and said it was one of the biggest problems. I agree with him. I want to thank him for that. I have already dealt with this matter.

That hon member also referred to the question of taking fingerprints, and I agree with him. It was necessary in certain circumstances. Now we intend to take the fingerprints of every applicant, irrespective of race or skin colour. I should also like to thank the hon member for his support.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central spoke about the right of a citizen to possess a fire-arm. I would like to say that it is not a person’s right to possess a fire-arm, although there are people in South Africa who think that it is their birthright to possess fire-arms. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, those hon members are again leading me astray!

†A person must have a reason to be in possession of a fire-arm. There are people that should never possess fire-arms. That is why we are really trying to introduce a better, more scientific basis or test to make sure that the correct people are in possession of fire-arms and that fire-arms are not in the hands of people who should not possess them. I want to thank the hon member for his support in this regard.

The shadow Minister of Law and Order!

Oh, the shadow Minister? Well, I can say that he spoke wisely this afternoon.

I should like to thank the hon member Mr Thaver. He asked me to say something about the children in detention. You, Sir, will not allow me to speak about them at the moment. I intend to do so tomorrow afternoon in the President’s Council. I shall have my information available at that stage and I intend to address that matter in full. Listening to the hon member, I should like to say that it is clear to me that he has made a thorough study of the Bill, and I also want to thank him for his valuable contribution.

I want to thank the hon member for Springfield. He spoke on behalf of the PFP. I want to thank him for the support of the PFP. He is quite right; in the House of Assembly the PFP also supports the Bill, and I appreciate that.

They did not tell me that today!

Well, sometimes they are polite! [Interjections.] Like today, Mr Chairman. The hon member is quite right; on the standing committee the CP was opposed to this Bill. I do not know what their reasons were, but they opposed the Bill in the House of Assembly as well, although I tried very hard to convince them that they had read the Bill incorrectly. However, I would like to thank the hon member for his support.

The hon member also mentioned the question of lost and recovered fire-arms. I would like to mention that although in 1986 more than 10 000 fire-arms were lost, we recovered 4 700 fire-arms in that year. In 1987 the Police recovered 3 700 fire-arms. However, there is still a very large number of lost fire-arms which we cannot find. Hon members said quite rightly this afternoon that they may be in the hands of people who will commit crimes and kill innocent people with those fire-arms. We must try to prevent that at all costs. I would like to thank the hon member for his remarks in this regard.

The hon member also referred to the question of issuing licences to people living in particular areas and he mentioned Soweto. As I have said, one must have a reason under the present Act as well as in terms of the amending Bill that we are introducing now, to apply for a fire-arm and to be in the possession of one. We are taking into account that certain people live in areas that are more dangerous than others in our country. As an example I can mention the border areas of South Africa. We take such facts into account when considering an application for a fire-arm. If a man is living in the border area or in an area where the crime rate is very high we will take that into account.

The hon member also referred to the possibility of easy access to obtaining a fire-arm licence. If this has been the case in the past, I am sure that it will end now because the test will be the same for everybody. Everybody has to pass that hurdle before he can obtain his fire-arm licence. The hon member also referred to the question of discrimination. I have already dealt with that.

I now come to the hon member for Lenasia East. It is clear to me that he has made a thorough study of the Bill.

*I should also like to thank him most sincerely for the fact that he always speaks some Afrikaans when making a speech while I am in the House. I should therefore also like to address a few words of Afrikaans to him. I want to thank him. We appreciate the way in which he dealt with the matter.

†The hon member also spoke about incompetent persons receiving licences and being in possession of fire-arms. I am being quite honest with the hon member when I say this may have been the case in the past. However, we say that this should not happen—incompetent people should not be in possession of fire-arms and they should not receive licences. We intend to prevent this with the amendments to the existing Act that we are proposing here today.

*I want to thank the hon member most sincerely for these sentiments he expressed.

†It is clear to me that the hon member for Phoenix is a gun enthusiast. May I ask the hon member how many guns he has?

I have only two, Sir.

Only two? [Interjections.]

*Since he is such a fire-arm enthusiast he should certainly acquire more fire-arms. I really think so. [Interjections.]

†He must write the test. I am sure he will pass because he spoke with a great deal of wisdom and knowledge about guns. I want to point this out. The hon member gave us a very apt and correct definition of a fire-arm. I think all of us would do well to take cognisance of that and to act accordingly. There was a great deal of wisdom in the definition of a fire-arm that the hon member gave us and we must take cognisance of the fact.

The hon member referred to the question of training. I have already dealt with that. He also referred to the question of an amnesty or moratorium. In 1986 and the beginning of 1987 we declared a general amnesty or moratorium in this regard. I must say that the response from the public was excellent. Thousands of fire-arms were handed to the Police and we did not prosecute the people; and the Act empowers me to do that again. I shall certainly consider the request by the hon member.

The hon member also referred to the question of the safeguarding of fire-arms. He mentioned that someone may buy a safe, for instance, but then not get a licence. Our intention, however, is to order the person to install a safe after the licence has been granted; but the licence will be handed over to the applicant only once the safe has been acquired. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that brings me to the end of this debate. I should like to thank hon members for their contributions. It really has been a pleasure to work with hon members on an important issue like this one and I should like to thank them once again.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! Further with regard to Notice of Motion No 1 appearing on the Order Paper for today in the name of the hon member of Reservoir Hills, I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has given further consideration to a similar motion appearing on the Order Paper of the House of Assembly and has ruled that the Motion be placed on the Order Paper as a contingent notice of motion immediately after the order of the day to which it relates. The Secretary has been instructed to do the same with the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ notice of motion.