Mr Chairman, I should like to deal with the matter under consideration, which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon the Minister of Finance, because it deals principally with the Department of Education and Training, for which I am responsible.

I should like to move that this report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts be adopted, but at this stage I should also like to indicate in advance that after its adoption, when the motion of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens comes up for discussion, I shall move an amendment to it.

This report is of considerable importance for at least two reasons. First of all it is important due to the necessity of ensuring that regular and responsible expenditure of public funds takes place. In this regard an important contribution has already been made by both the Advocate-General in his report and the Joint Committee through its investigation.

Secondly, this report is also of great importance because it deals with the provision of computer-assisted educational systems in Black education, where colossal numbers are involved, as well as with acknowledged backlogs in education. This modern technical method serves as an important aid towards increasing the efficiency of this type of education, for example in relation to the training of teachers; particularly in relation to the skill of pupils with regard to mathematics and science—it is particularly the former which are at issue here—there being a great need, but a shortfall in production in both subjects; as well as in relation to the combating of the unacceptably high failure rate, specifically at the senior secondary level in the Black schools, and in particular in standard 10.

All these problems have a major effect on-the cost-effectiveness of education, as well as on the degree of practicability or suitability of education and its relevance.

I should briefly like to adopt the following standpoint regarding the content of the report of the joint committee.

Firstly, I agree with the final portion of paragraph (a) of the committee’s report, which relates to the necessity for strict adherence to the appropriate instructions in relation to obtaining equipment for the State. I myself emphasised this very matter, in the closing sentence of my statement which accompanied the tabling of the Advocate-General’s report, by saying that I had issued instructions that the department should henceforth adhere strictly to prescribed procedures for the procurement of equipment.

However, this also includes procedures for the approval of deviations from or exceptions to the normal prescriptions for procurement, because it is sometimes necessary, for example, for such deviations from the normal tender procedures to take place, particularly when one is dealing with choices between various suppliers with regard to what one could call contracts relating to creative work.

Secondly, I should like to associate myself with the serious concern which the joint committee expressed in paragraph (b) of its report about proper follow-up procedures in order to ensure that all the requirements for the State Tender Board’s approval have been complied with. It would appear that this aspect is indeed worthy of further investigation.

Thirdly, I refer to the lengthy first portion of paragraph (a) of the recommendations of the joint committee, which deals with the evaluation of the application, the effectiveness and the potential role of computer-assisted educational systems, which should take place through a committee of the four executive education departments and be initiated by the Minister of National Education.

However, I understand this instruction as follows: That the words “evaluate fully”, which describe the instruction to the committee concerned, do not mean that everything must be done again from scratch, but rather that the evaluation will build forth upon a large number of investigations and evaluations of this subject which have already made and which have also been embodied in the policy guidelines of the various education departments.

The House must therefore realise that this investigation in regard to the evaluation does not entail something new which must only now be redressed or rectified, but that a massive amount of work has already been done and that it already forms the basis of departmental policy in respect of the various education departments with regard to computer-assisted education systems.

In pursuance of the De Lange report, the HSRC has issued a series of five reports on the computer in education and training, dated 1983, at the request of the then Minister of National Education—that was me personally. These reports were released to the Press and made available to the public at the end of October 1983, whereafter they were considered by the various departments and led to a number of decisions by the then Committee of Ministers of Education in August 1984, in which certain relevant policy guidelines were adopted.

I therefore repeat that whilst this evaluation may indeed fruitfully be updated, it can build on a great deal of work that has already been done.

The fourth remark I wish to make with regard to the report is that as far as the last paragraph is concerned—that is paragraph (c)—which relates to the referral of the matter by the committee to Parliament for further investigation, I agree that further investigation is indeed necessary. Further investigation into many aspects of the purchase of computer-assisted educational systems by the Department of Education and Training is necessary for various reasons. I nevertheless have my doubts as to whether, at least at this stage, an investigation by a Parliamentary joint committee is desirable.

My doubts are based on the fact that such an investigation by a parliamentary joint committee will probably take too long and that it will probably only be possible to report back to Parliament at the beginning of next year. However, this matter demands urgent investigation and should be speedily dealt with so that further steps may be taken in the near future, if necessary.

That is why I referred the matter, quite some time ago, to the Chairman of the Commission for Administration for further investigation. I made a request in terms of sections 7 and 8 of the Commission for Administration Act and section 5 of the Public Service Act that the Commission for Administration conduct an investigation or have an investigation conducted, issue a report and submit recommendations to me in regard to the matter as a whole.

I want to give the undertaking that I shall report to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, and in so doing to Parliament, on the recommendations which I receive from the Commission for Administration and on any further steps that are taken. Then the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, and eventually Parliament itself, will naturally be at liberty to consider, if need be, whether further investigation and further steps by the joint committee. Parliament or another joint committee are required.

In response to my request to the Chairman of the Commission for Administration I was informed that the commission had already issued an authorisation for this investigation and that a senior judicial official had been found to conduct the investigation. I expect that it will be possible to complete the investigation within a few weeks.

It is important, however, to realise that the Commission for Administration must, in any event, devote attention to this entire matter within the framework of its statutory obligations. It is their function to take cognisance of and to investigate alleged irregularities or inefficiency in respect of both functionaries and administrative systems in the Public Service.

The Commission for Administration is a statutory body of high standing, and such further investigation may confidently be entrusted to it. It has a reputation for integrity and strictness. It sets and maintains high norms and standards. Furthermore, by virtue of the Act governing it, the Commission for Administration also possesses extensive powers, almost like those of a court or a commission of inquiry, with regard to the summonsing, swearing in and questioning of witnesses and calling for documents.

The advantage of this investigation is that both the judicial aspects of the matter, as well as the administrative or managerial aspects involved, will receive proper attention. That is why I do not believe it would be appropriate for Parliament to decide, at this stage, to appoint a committee of inquiry itself before the Commission for Administration has completed its investigation and submitted its report to me. Thereafter—I want to re-emphasise this undertaking—I shall report to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, and they will be able to decide whether or not the matter has been dealt with satisfactorily, and what further steps they wish to take.

I therefore wish to emphasise that in following this approach I shall by no means accept a cover-up or concealment of the matter, but that the proposed procedure is, in fact, the quickest way and that it will also take place through the offices of an authoritative independent investigative body. I shall therefore move, as an amendment to the draft resolution moved by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, that the matter be referred to the Government in this light.

I therefore move:

Mr Chairman, overall course taken by this matter has been very interesting up to now, and it appears to me that it is going to become even more interesting from now on. At the very outset, as a result of a report which appeared in Finansies en Tegniek, the hon the Minister referred the entire matter of the purchase of this computer system to the Advocate-General, who investigated the matter and released his findings at the beginning of this year. As far as I know, the House of Assembly has not yet had an opportunity to refer to those findings of the Advocate-General.

However, the hon the Minister himself reacted, by way of a public Press statement, after the Advocate-General’s report was released. At the end of that statement he said that he was leaving the matter at that, and that he regarded the issue as closed. However, what I found interesting in the hon the Minister’s public statement, in which he attempted to furnish his reasons for regarding the matter as closed, was that he said, inter alia, the following and I am referring to paragraph 3 on page 2 of the statement:

The hon the Minister left the matter at that. What I want to know is why the hon the Minister ended his quotation from the Advocate-General’s report just there. In the same paragraph as the one from which the hon the Minister quoted, the Advocate-General went on to say:

The hon the Minister reacted this afternoon by availing himself of paragraph (a) of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts in order to avoid a further investigation by a select committee of this Parliament.

I agree with the hon the Minister; a scientific investigation into the necessity for or importance of—call it what you will—the new, technical methods of education, which I unfortunately do not know much about, is perhaps not the function of a select committee of Parliament, but rather that of experts who are well-qualified in that particular discipline.

However, the important recommendation of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts is contained in paragraph (c). The joint committee, as the ultimate watchdog of Parliament with regard to the proper expenditure of State funds, is of the opinion that this matter should be referred back to Parliament for further investigation. Parliament can only deal with this by issuing further instructions to its watchdog to conduct a thorough investigation, on behalf of Parliament, into whether or not malpractices have occurred.

Now the hon the Minister wishes to advise us that he is referring the matter to the Commission for Administration for further thorough investigation, and that he will then submit the findings of the Commission for Administration to the joint committee for its approval.

As far as we are concerned, it is simply not good enough to refer the actions and the modus operandi of the administration to another part of the administration for investigation. It is simply not good enough for the South African Parliament. We insist that the Joint Committee on Public Accounts is the real watchdog in respect of the proper expenditure of State funds, and that it is this committee of the House of Assembly and of Parliament which, as its watchdog, must prevent malpractices from occurring.

I want to point out to hon members that the committee members of all three Houses of this Parliament were unanimous in their recommendation. There was no party-political division in this regard, because there were certain unsatisfactory aspects—I do not want to go into the facts now—in the evidence which came before the committee which, in our opinion were not thoroughly investigated.

What is strange is that the very same Minister who, subsequent to the findings of the Advocate-General, said that he regarded the matter as closed, now says that he is no longer satisfied either, after the joint committee has asked Parliament to pay further urgent attention to the matter. Now he is in favour of a further investigation by the Commission for Administration. It is simply not good enough!

For our part, we think it is absolutely vital, and in the interests of clean administration in South Africa, for this matter to be subjected to a public enquiry. We are very sorry, because we do not want to institute a witch-hunt in regard to certain persons. We nevertheless demand a public enquiry in the interests of clean administration in South Africa. That is why we are satisfied that the report of the joint committee should be accepted, and we shall support the amendment which will be forthcoming from the PFP. I am saying this in advance.

We cannot allow even the impression to be created in this country that certain matters are being covered up. I am prepared to accept the Minister’s word that he does not intend to allow a “cover-up”. However, the semblance of a cover-up must also be avoided in South Africa. Even if this instance does possibly represent a heart-rending tale, I think the message to everyone who is involved in the expenditure of public funds must be that the rules are there to be obeyed, and that if one does not obey the rules, one must pay the price.

I want to conclude. We on this side of the House find it regrettable—I am not, however, saying that the hon the Minister is attempting to evade or avoid the issue, or whatever—that the hon the Minister has given an indication that an effort is being made to circumvent the mechanisms of this Parliament in the form of a further investigation into an important facet of this entire issue.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Barberton was somewhat embarrassed a little earlier on, because in my view the hon the Minister’s introductory remarks caught him a little unawares.

I just want to deal briefly with what the hon member for Barberton said here. [Interjections.] The hon member pointed out that in the statement the hon the Minister issued shortly after the contents of the Advocate-General’s report had been made public, he said that in view of an explanation he had given in his statement he did not consider any action necessary. It is also a fact that the Advocate-General—this becomes clear when one reads his report a number of times—indicated that there were certain aspects surrounding this matter which fell outside the scope of his powers of investigation. Even after I had read the report, those aspects were unclear to me.

On a later occasion, after the hon the Minister had looked at the report once again, it eventually came home to him that there were certain deficiencies in the Advocate-General’s report, not because the Advocate-General did not wish to investigate those particular aspects, but because in terms of the legislation applicable to him, he was not competent to do so.

Aside from the investigation which was launched in the normal fashion by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, the hon the Minister decided, as it behoves a responsible Minister to do, also to refer certain aspects to the Commission for Administration for investigation.

The procedure that was followed was the correct one, and one ought to thank the hon the Minister for that. Now that the hon the Minister has taken action in delivering his speech here today, no one will reasonably be able to argue that he is engaged in a short-term or a long-term effort to cover up something which ought to be made public. That is not the situation.

The hon member for Barberton says the Joint Committee on Public Accounts is the watchdog of this Parliament, and it would be irresponsible—in fact, it is unacceptable—for the hon the Minister to attempt to circumvent the activities of that watchdog of Parliament. However, that surely is not what is happening. Practically the first words the hon the Minister uttered when he stood up here this afternoon were that he accepted the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts.

How, then, can one argue that the hon the Minister is attempting to circumvent that committee? No matter how the member attempted to structure his argument, I would not be able to grasp that aspect of it. He says he does not want a witch-hunt, but then again, not one of us wants a witch-hunt in regard to this matter either.

The only reason why I am standing up here today to participate in the debate, is because last year I became the chairman of the Standing Committee—now the Joint Committee—on Education. I was deeply impressed by the singular importance of the education and training of Black children for the future of our country; in other words, for the future of us all. There is a tremendous backlog in relation to many aspects of Black education, a backlog which must be eliminated. I am concerned that what has happened in this instance is not, in fact, in the interests of education or in the interests of that matter which is of such great importance to all of us in this country.

In order to place this matter in perspective, I want us to look very briefly at its background. The need for this sort of computer-assisted education for the improvement of the skills of specifically mathematics teachers in the Black communities, was identified by the department quite some time ago, in fact as long ago as 21 December 1977 when the department addressed a letter in this regard to the HSRC. At that time there was no system in existence which could satisfy this need. The first system which could possibly fill this need was only introduced internationally in 1984, namely the system which was known as the Computer-Assisted Interactive Video System. Furthermore, when it made its appearance it was not yet even applicable to education, but it began to be used in the United States for training purposes. The normal mono-medium system is not suited to this purpose. Shortly thereafter, after preliminary inquiries had been made and discussions had been held, the department received a proposition from the founders of the company, Learning Technologies. The Advocate-General referred to these people as young entrepreneurs who had seen the possibility of doing good business by way of computer-assisted education. In relation to the proposal that was made to the department, he said that it was contained in an extensive and well-compiled volume in which all the facets were elucidated. In other words, this was professional work by those young men who had displayed this initiative.

For the sake of perspective, and in order not to conduct a witch-hunt, I want to say that in view of the crying need for the retraining of teachers, particularly in mathematics, I would have found it strange—in fact, I would have found it inexcusable—if the officials of the department had not immediately shown an interest in this new development. I would also have found it strange if they had not become involved in what the Advocate-General has called an interdisciplinary team effort to develop the curriculum software, particularly in view of the fact that the department was not liable for any costs and was not required to take any risks either, and in view of the fact that it was an entirely new field that had to be entered. It is very easy to criticise procedures in retrospect. In any event, according to the Advocate-General, the Deputy Director-General of the department, Dr Meiring, openly admitted on 3 February 1986, before the purchase had been approved, that the department had not handled the matter correctly. That action was then condoned. I, who work with the officials on a regular basis, can well understand the enormity of the challenge with which they were confronted and the frustrations they have to endure. I admire their dedication and enthusiasm. They are people who are prepared to sacrifice everything for the cause to which they have devoted their lives. Viewed against that background, I understand their action. They acted in the interests of education. They wanted to reduce the high failure rate, particularly that of Black mathematics pupils. In fact, they succeeded in doing so, and they are still achieving success.

Further investigations at this stage, by a committee comprising politicians, can only be detrimental to the cause of education. No new light can be shed on the matter. The facts are already known. The hon the Minister has explained what steps he has taken and what steps he still envisages taking. Even an investigation by a joint committee of this Parliament has not been ruled out by the hon the Minister. I think we should leave the matter at that.

Some officials made a mistake, and they admit it. They therefore deserved to receive the reprimands which they have already received. In the process, however, they have also rendered a service to education by helping to develop an excellent system which produces wonderful results, and by making it available for the education of developing communities in this country. They have rendered a service to education. Whilst we are criticising and admonishing them, I believe that at the very least they also deserve our understanding for what they have done, through dedication, in the interests of the cause for which they have sacrificed so much.

Mr Chairman, I must tell you with respect that I do not find the speech of the hon member for Stellenbosch surprising, bearing in mind that the hon the Minister, I think, has been somewhat surprising in his approach to this matter. I actually find the presence of the hon member for Stellenbosch as the first speaker in this debate on the Government side, other than the hon the Minister, surprising, because the chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance should have been the first speaker and he should also have moved for the adoption of this report. That is the way in which it is normally done. There must be some significance as to why that has not happened in these circumstances.

Here we have a situation on which there was complete unanimity among all the parties in this House and complete unanimity among the representatives of all three Houses. The importance of what has happened in the Joint Committee on Finance lies in the fact—I think it should be made public—that the committee was not prepared to wait for the normal time for its report to be printed and tabled, but decided to present this as a first urgent report. In that way it could still be debated fully during this session of Parliament. It was regarded as that important that it should be a special report to be put before this House at the earliest opportunity.

That report was also, in fact, a consensus decision based upon the belief of the members of that committee that this House would urgently appoint a joint committee in order to investigate the matter. Every one of the members there, in fact, believed that this would happen. The reason for this is that the Public Accounts Committee has a specific mandate, namely that it has referred to it the Auditor-General’s report. It is only entitled to operate within the ambit of that report. It is only entitled to operate within the year in question. That is its function and it cannot go beyond that. That is what Parliament has referred to it and how it should deal with that.

The view was held within the committee that if we were to delay this, in order to continue to do so we would have to take it into the latter part of this year. Then we would not have been able to report fully in respect of this matter until next year. The matter was so urgent that it had to be dealt with now.

However, I venture to suggest that there is no one here who, if he is honest, can get up here or can get up anywhere else in any other House and suggest that the enquiry was going to be conducted by anything except Parliament. Parliament conducts its enquiries through the medium of committees. By accepting this report the hon the Minister has in fact accepted that principle, because the report itself states that it requires to be sent back to Parliament for urgent further investigation.

Nobody considered that it would be investigated by a department of State, by the Commission for Administration or anyone else. I shall tell hon members why that is so. It is because the Commission for Administration is itself involved in this matter and one does not appoint people to investigate a matter in which they themselves are involved.

Let me explain the situation which arises and look at the record of the evidence that was given. This very short and simple question was addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury:

He then gave a very long answer which ended with the following words:

The answer given to the committee was therefore a non-answer. The next witness to give evidence again gave a long answer, after which the following question was asked by someone who was not a member of the PFP or the CP or of another House, but of the NP. He said:

The question was therefore asked again after two pages of evidence. The answer Mr Coetzer supplied was the following:

After two pages of evidence!—

The hon the Minister had now asked the Commission for Administration to investigate the matter and it had already been referred back to the commission twice—

It is remarkable that we are asking the Commission for Administration to investigate what the Commission for Administration did! To my mind this is quite remarkable and perhaps the hon the Minister has not seen this evidence. That is the only possible explanation I can think of.

More evidence was given in regard to the availability of the system and what should take place in regard to it. There followed a long diatribe and my colleague, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, who was involved in this, said he gained impression that there was playing for time in respect of the answer. He asked the following question:

Dr D H Meiring replied as follows:

Everyone who has read the report of the Advocate-General knows that when the Tender Board asked for an assurance, the assurance was never given in the terms in which it was asked for. That was the finding of the Advocate-General.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens asked the following question:

Mr J C Coetzer gave the following answer:

The chairman then asked the following question:

Mr Coetzer’s answer was as follows:

The chairman then asked:

Mr Coetzer replied:

The following question was asked by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens:

Mr Coetzer replied:

The very people who are involved in this are being asked to investigate this matter! What does that look like? It is crazy!

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens asked another question:

The reply of Mr Robson, the secretary of the Commission for Administration, was as follows:

Mr K M Andrew then asked:

Mr Coetzer then replied as follows:

What happened here, is that on the one hand the Tender Board says it is not their responsibility, but the responsibility of the Commission for Administration; the Commission for Administration says it is not their responsibility but the responsibility of the Tender Board or the department; and the department says it is somebody else’s responsibility. How can one in these circumstances ask one of the parties responsible for this debacle to investigate it? I attach no question of impropriety to the Commission for Administration—I want to stress that. I think it is the height of lunacy! It makes this whole Parliament look ridiculous to suggest that that is what we should do, instead of doing the investigation ourselves, and the only way to do it ourselves is to do it through a committee.

Let us, however, go a little further, because the hon member for Stellenbosch was very anxious. He kept on saying that we should not have a witch hunt—“ons moet nie ’n heksejag hê nie”. I want to read a simple passage from the Advocate-General’s report and then I will deal with the function of the Advocate-General. I ask you, Sir, as an ordinary individual and not as the Chairman of the House, to form an opinion in your mind as to what this is all about. I read paragraph 6.25:

The words are: ”… was concealed from Dr Fourie”. Let us consider that statement on its own. That in itself gives the simple connotation and the simple meaning that a person who has contracted with the State, as a shareholder and a director of a company concerned, decided to conceal a certain fact from a head of a department who also happened to be his father. That is a concealment. The finding of the Advocate-General that it is a concealment in itself requires a considerable amount of comment, and as I will deal with the limited function of the Advocate-General in a moment, an interrogation in an adversary situation by an advocate or an attorney might have produced even more evidence.

Paragraph 6.25 continues:

In other words, this young man found it necessary to go that evening to the hon the Minister’s house to tell the hon the Minister that he had in fact concealed something from his father. That is the conclusion. I merely read the facts. I make no comment. I quote again, this time from paragraph 6.25, on page 10 of the Advocate-General’s report:

That is what we have before us now—that Willem was some or other manager of Learn Tech during the relevant period. Then it continues:

Obviously—these are my own words—he then knew that Willem was some or other manager in this firm. The Advocate-General says the following:

I merely quote this. I make no comment. According to paragraph 6.27 the Advocate-General comments as follows:

I do not think that requires any comment from me, Sir. None at all. What is remarkable, however, in this whole thing is that the Tender Board asked for certain declarations to be made. I refer here to page 7 of the Advocate-General’s report. They asked for a declaration and there was then a letter written, which did not comply with what the Tender Board had asked for. One can read that in paragraph 6.17. When it becomes clear that it has not been complied with, we have the following situation, and I quote paragraph 6.19, on page 8 of the report:

I stop here for a moment. The hon the Minister wants the Commission for Administration to investigate that fact. [Interjections.] I do not know how one should deal with it.

Almost like the Police Force investigating the Police Force!

He goes on to say:

Mr Chairman, we can refer to what happened in regard to the visit to the USA in 1985. We can refer to a whole series of things. It is quite clear that the Joint Committee on Finance could not investigate the situation fully in the time available. It is quite clear that matters of this nature have to be investigated. It is the function of Parliament—of a committee appointed by Parliament—to investigate them; not the function of somebody who, or whose administration, is involved in it. That we cannot agree to.

In fact, Sir, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens will move an amendment to his motion to the effect that the Commission for Administration, the Director of State Purchases and the Tender Board should be included in his motion specifically. We cannot allow this sort of situation. We have been told—I accept the bonafides of the man who said this—that the administration should be clean, and that there should be nothing which is wrong or which is seen to be wrong. It is as important that nothing should be seen to be wrong as it is that it should not be wrong.

In these circumstances where, in the first place, this report of the Advocate-General was accepted and then the standing committee found that the report could not be accepted and that the matter needed urgent attention; and then, in the second place, it is sought to prevent Parliament from investigating the matter any further, we are to my mind doing an injustice to Parliament and to the concept of clean administration to which the hon the State President and the Cabinet have committed themselves over a period of years.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville is extremely upset because the hon member, who is chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, was not the first speaker on the Government side, but the fact is that the Joint Committee on Public Accounts submitted the report in which it stated that the actions and activities of the department must be investigated. That is a unanimous recommendation.

What is more, the hon member for Yeoville is extremely upset about it, but in the motion of his colleague, which will come up for discussion shortly, there is reference to the fact that the correctness or otherwise of procedures followed by the Department of Education and Training and its officials in regard to computer-assisted educational systems must be investigated.

The ball is now with the hon the Minister, the hon chairman of the committee dealing with Black education and the other hon members who are members of the particular study group to participate in the debate. That, then, is also the reason why we are participating. It is, in fact, the department which is at issue here, and that is why I think it is correct for the hon the Minister to participate in the debate.

The second mistake made by the hon member for Yeoville was to take very great umbrage at the fact that the Commission for Administration was to investigate the procedure, but he was not listening to what the hon the Minister had to say. That is the problem, because if he had listened, he would have heard the hon the Minister say that a lawyer had already been appointed to investigate this matter. It is not just the Commission for Administration; there is a lawyer who has been appointed to investigate this matter.

What facts do we have before us? I believe the hon member for Yeoville will agree with me that the following are the correct facts that are before us: Firstly, that the Advocate-General says that the Director-General of Education and Training, Dr Fourie, showed extremely poor judgement. That is what appears in the report of the Advocate-General. What is also of importance is that the Advocate-General found no covert or unlawful enrichment at the expense of the State. That is the first important fact we have before us.

The second is that the Commission for Administration and the State Tender Board accepted the department’s certificate that Learn Tech was the firm which had the expertise and which should go ahead, by way of negotiation, in order to develop these systems further. The Commission for Administration and the State Tender Board accepted that certificate of recommendation of the department, and that is important. In this respect I want to quote point (2) of the Press statement issued by the hon the Minister in this connection:

The Advocate-General found that the declaration made by the department and signed by the Deputy Director-General, Dr Meiring, did not in all respects reflect the true state of affairs as it existed at the outset of the department’s negotiations with Learn Tech, in that at least one other firm had the potential to develop comparable systems. What is of importance now is that the Commission for Administration and the Tender Board did, in fact, accept the certificate as adequate proof of that fact. That is the important point in this connection.

The next fact that we have before us is that there are already two evaluations on the go at the moment. The first is by the HSRC in regard to the educational effectiveness of this computer-assisted system. I do not know of a better qualified body than specifically the HSRC which could investigate the educational effectiveness of this system.

The second evaluation which is already on the go is the evaluation of the Commission for Administration in regard to the administrative procedures, in regard to the way in which the department and its officials kept to these administrative procedures, and whether the guidelines laid down were adequate. Here again I say to the hon member for Yeoville that a lawyer has been appointed to carry out this investigation of the Commission for Administration.

What is also of importance is that the result of these investigations, that of the HSRC as well as that of the Commission for Administration, must in any case, via the Government, once again be submitted to the department, or at least to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts.

We argue that if we appoint a parliamentary committee to investigate this whole matter, it may cause a delay in regard to the result of the investigation. It will, of necessity, result in a delay because we are nearly at the end of the first portion of this session, and it may just so happen that the appointment of a parliamentary committee of this nature will make it impossible to have that information made available urgently. [Interjections.]

What is of importance is that if we receive the reports of the HSRC and the Commission for Administration, this Parliament may, in any case, decide to appoint a committee of this Parliament to investigate the matter, and it will therefore have very much more information available to enable it to do so.

Finally, let me also say what in my opinion, is a further important fact. If it were not for the fact that a family member was involved in this matter, everyone would in all probability have expressed great praise for the excellent progress that had been made with this teaching system. [Interjections.] If it were not a family member who was involved, there would probably not have been any problem, but because it is a family member who is involved, there is a great problem. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens is the hon member who is to move the draft resolution. [Interjections.] I suggest that his proposal is premature. He is jumping the gun. Let us rather await the results of these two investigations which are on the go, and then this Parliament itself can decide whether it wishes to appoint a committee to make further investigations, either in regard to the evaluation of the educational content of the systems, the procedures and so forth or into whatever problem there may be. We will then also know precisely what sort of parliamentary committee we should appoint and which members should serve on that parliamentary committee.

However, I want to suggest that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has other motives for his proposal, and I hope that he is going to participate in the debate so that he can tell us. [Interjections.] He is seeking to discredit the hon the Minister. That is what he seeks to do. He wants to get at the hon the Minister, but in the process he is hitting the officials of the department and of all the other departments hard. He does not care about that because it makes no difference to him. It is the people who are devoted to their calling as pedagogues whom he is actually trying to get at. [Interjections.] He has manifested a persecution mania, because in all probability he is going to argue—we are going to listen to his arguments—why he would probably want these officials to be summarily fired.

Be careful what you say, my friend …

I should like to know now from the hon member how many officials we have to fire before his witch-hunt is over, his persecution mania has been satisfied and his blood-lust has been sated. [Interjections.] That is what we want to know. How many must we fire? [Interjections.]

The hon member has a problem in wanting to get at the hon the Minister. His problem is that many of the officials of this department have often seen him around when Black scholars have been causing trouble. Together with the hon member for Constantia he is very active at these places where, together with the Black children, they overturn rubbish bins so that they can be photographed by foreign Press photographers and so that he can get at South Africa abroad. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member says that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens overturns rubbish bins together with those children. In other words, he is saying that an hon member of this Parliament is acting unlawfully in conjunction with other outsiders.

Order! I do not understand it in that way. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed. [Interjections.]

I say that the reason why he is trying to get at the hon the Minister, and ultimately the officials, is that they too often see him where this sort of thing is happening.

That is the problem! That is why he is trying to get at the hon the Minister and, through the hon the Minister, at the officials of this department. My plea now to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is that we should not act precipitately, but first allow the Commission for Administration to conclude this investigation. Then we can see what parliamentary committee should be appointed to investigate this matter.

Mr Chairman, prior to his last few remarks the hon member for Sasolburg was following a pattern not dissimilar to the speeches of the hon the Minister and the hon member for Stellenbosch earlier in this debate. I was going to say I would be replying to him during the brief time allotted to me. I take things whence they come. If that hon member chooses to gurgitate slime in this House, I wish him good luck. He will drown in it himself in due course, but that is his concern and not mine. I do not plan to waste my time on that.

May I just say that this House and each of the hon members of this House has a responsibility in respect of departmental officials or anybody else, as well as ourselves, to look after the interests of the public and the State’s funds. I believe we have that duty, whether it is easy or not. I might say that when I raised this matter in this House for the first time on 4 May 1988, I made a specific point that I had no intention or desire to besmirch innocent individuals. I believed then, and I still do now, that a proper and thorough investigation would prove all the facts and that would satisfy people. Those who are not guilty of any impropriety will be shown to be innocent and clear of any such thing, and those who may have done something wrong, must accept whatever treatment is meted out to them. That is my attitude now, and if the hon the Minister’s attitude had been different on 4 May, it may all have been history already.

The feature of discussions on this matter—both previously and today—by hon members on the Government side is essentially one of a filibuster. I must ask myself what the reason for it is. Why is there this playing for time? One of the tactics used is to talk of the need for computer-based education and the value of interactive video systems. That in essence is not what the debate is about. That is not what is being queried. The Human Sciences Research Council is essentially the body to look into that purely educational aspect. That, in my view, is part of the filibuster.

On 29 March this year the hon the Minister, after giving a full statement, ended up saying the following:

That was at the end of March. Today the hon member for Stellenbosch, cast in the role of a pacifier, as he often has to be, says the hon the Minister did not read the report properly—that if the hon the Minister had actually taken some care in reading the report, he would have realised that the Advocate-General had reported that there were aspects outside the ambit of his enquiry in terms of his powers.

To start with I find it in itself astonishing that after an enquiry, requested correctly by the hon the Minister himself of the Advocate-General, the hon member for Stellenbosch says that the hon the Minister did not read the report thoroughly and properly when he received it, but issued a statement. If he had read it thoroughly, however, he would have realised that there were further things to be investigated.

On 4 May in the debate on the hon the Minister’s Vote, I drew attention to the need for a parliamentary select committee or a standing committee on this subject. I quote the hon the Minister’s reply from his unedited Hansard:

Now we have a recommendation from that committee which the hon the Minister told us to wait for that the matter be referred back to Parliament on an urgent basis for further investigation. With those words, as the hon member for Yeoville has pointed out, that committee meant further investigation by Parliament.

So we waited for the committee he told us to wait for and they came back to Parliament and said that we should undertake further investigation.

Now the hon the Minister says Parliament will take too long. On 4 May he said that we must wait for the other committee, and having waited more than a month now we have reached the point where we will have waited too long if it is necessary to wait any more.

Furthermore, I believe the hon the Minister has deliberately attempted to pre-empt this matter by referring it to the Commission for Administration. He told us all to wait for that report. Today we are debating that report as well as the question as to what further action may be necessary. Now he tells us he has already taken steps, and therefore we should not take any further steps because he has already done what he considers desirable. I might say, in addition he has not told us the specific terms of reference of that enquiry within the Commission for Administration. Of course, it will be interesting to know whether it is going to be handled within weeks and, if so, how thorough that investigation is going to be, which witnesses are going to be called and what papers are going to be examined.

In anticipating what Parliament may feel as to how this matter should be handled, I believe the hon the Minister has in fact shown contempt for this House and for Parliament, because he is not waiting to see what we decide concerning a report of one of our own committees; he has decided to go ahead and do what he considers best.

I have mentioned that the joint committee’s report expresses serious concern. It says that the matter must be referred back to Parliament urgently for further investigation. In those circumstances I believe a joint committee is the only appropriate way in which to handle the matter, and that it should not be referred to the Commission for Administration. The reason why a joint committee is necessary is that the funds we are talking about were voted by Parliament, and it is therefore our job to investigate the question as to how those funds were used. It is also clear that there is a great deal to be investigated.

Let us look just briefly at some of the questions that remain unanswered.

Firstly, why were no companies advised in 1985 that the department was seriously interested in working with others to develop inter-active video systems? Secondly, why were no other companies invited to tender at that stage? The hon member for Sasolburg misses the point completely in this regard. The categorical declaration read: ”… at the commencement of the investigation”. He talks about Learning Technologies as if they were the only company able to do it. In actual fact that is impossible, because Learning Technologies did not even exist at the time of the commencement of the investigation. Somebody must therefore be telling a lie if that hon member thinks that is really the truth. They did not even exist then; therefore it was a legal and physical impossibility for them to be the only ones available at the commencement of the investigation.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Thirdly, having not even spoke to other companies at the developmental stage, how could the department claim that it was not aware of any other supplier? The hon the Minister also spoke about this point when he said on 4 May—

He was referring to an alternative firm mentioned in the Advocate-General’s report.

He misses the point, however. If they were in fact working closely with the department, a firm that came into being for the purpose of developing these things together with the department, was a year or more down the track. Clearly other firms would not have been in the same position to tender at that stage.

Fourthly, if the department acted correctly, why did Dr Meiring admit that they did not? I am referring to paragraph 6.13 of the report.

Fifthly, why did the department refuse to comply with the Tender Board’s request for a categorical declaration that Learning Technologies was the only supplier?

The sixth unanswered question is the following: On what grounds did Dr Meiring state in a letter that Learning Technologies is the only firm “capable of developing” the coarseware and hardware when other firms were not approached at the initial stages?

Seventhly, the purchase was conditional on the giving of the categorical declaration demanded by the Tender Board. As this was never given, on whose authority was the purchase made?

The hon member for Yeoville has gone into that matter and the relationship between the Tender Board, the Commission for Administration and the department in some detail, and I will not elaborate on it.

Eighthly, what did the Director-General think his son’s involvement with Learning Technologies was?

Ninthly, did the Director-General not have a duty to find out exactly what his son’s connection was? Here we have a straightforward situation that requires answers. It is said in the Advocate-General’s report that Dr Fourie, on his own admission, knew all along that Willem was some or other manager of Learning Technologies during the relevant period. Yet, in a financial magazine, Dr Fourie is reported to have said: “No, my son is not involved with Learning Technologies.” This was a year after the event. The magazine says it taped the interview. Why would Dr Fourie want to say such a thing? What is correct—what the financial magazine said or what the Advocate-General says in his report? We are dealing with the circumvention of tender regulations in most unusual and suspicious circumstances. An amount of at least R4,8 million is involved. It is not a trivial matter, and it does need to be investigated by this House.

I do not want to justify and to talk about the value of the system; that is not my particular argument. I do not want to discuss whether the system has developed into a good or a bad system. I do not have a personal opinion of the system—I have not seen it, and I am not qualified to assess a system such as that. However, the hon the Minister in his reply to me on 4 May said that it was the department’s opinion that there was only one firm really capable of producing this kind of material in the foreseeable future. He then quoted from Computer Week. He referred to a foundation called the South African Vocational Endowment, established in South Africa by a group of United States based companies and said that they had decided and announced that they were purchasing from the firm Learning Technologies computer-assisted educational material to the tune of R20 million, all of which was to be invested in material to be provided for the education department of KwaZulu.

In view of the fact that the hon the Minister and the Government appear to be wanting to block a select committee, I want to tell hon members that there is at least a suspicion that this foundation is a front to be able to channel money to Learning Technologies. Because attention has been drawn to the original agreement, to the original lack of tendering and the procedures followed, and because of the fact that Learning Technologies has not made as much money as quickly as it originally had hoped, this is being used as a possible way of getting money into Learning Technologies’ pocket by having other people order similar systems, possibly by way of the financial rand. That is just one example of the sort of thing that needs to be investigated. I do not think it is quite as straightforward as we are led to believe. I would like a committee to get to the bottom of the matter and to find out whether those allegations are true or not. One knows that the department holds the copyright on the coarseware. How and when this copyright is going to be used by others, and how strictly that is going to be adhered to, is another critical matter in this regard.

I think this matter is very clearly the responsibility of this Parliament in the first instance, so Parliament should be handling it through one of its committees such as a joint committee.

Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. He really only repeated, to a large extent, what had been said by the hon member for Yeoville. Actually there was nothing new. We have now heard twice about the inquiries of the various bodies that investigated the matter. What strikes me is that the suspicionmongering, by way of innuendo, in respect of the actions of the officials and of the hon the Minister actually amounts to accusations against those particular officials. I object to that most strongly. The matter is under consideration and, when a matter is under consideration, one does not accuse other people. One first allows an investigation to be properly concluded.

What struck me in this report of the committee was that there were, in fact, questions which were not answered. That then is the reason why it was also referred back to Parliament, and for that reason this side of the House also accepts the report. There is no doubt that this matter will have to be investigated, and the question is just how that investigation should take place. Is it now the function of Parliament to decide that a joint committee should make the investigation, or is it the function of Parliament to decide that the course to follow is the one proposed by the hon the Minister? That is ultimately what this House will have to decide today.

After Charles Lindberg had flown the Atlantic Ocean, a young, very enthusiastic reporter rushed into his editor’s office and asked him with great enthusiasm whether he had heard of this fantastic and wonderful achievement of Charles Lindberg. He just could not talk his editor into getting excited. He then asked the editor whether he was not excited about such an amazing achievement. That individual then replied that he was not, in fact, excited because it was one man who had planned it, undertaken it and carried it through. The editor had just left a meeting of his board of directors, and he told the reporter that if the reporter could show him a board, management body or committee which could plan, carry through and finalise anything, he would become excited. That is precisely what the hon the Minister has in mind in regard to this inquiry of his.

The matter is urgent because we cannot allow this cloud to hang over these events any longer. A committee will not be able to dispose of this matter during the course of the current session. That is quite impossible. There is still a great deal of business to be completed and so this matter cannot really be given first priority. In fact, the dates of meetings and similar matters will first have to be determined. Only then can there be a report back to Parliament, after which any further action will have to be decided upon.

A one-man committee appointed by the Commission for Administration will be able to dispose of this matter swiftly and then make known its findings. Those findings will then come back to Parliament.

It is not as though findings or facts will be withheld from Parliament. It will always by up to Parliament, on the strength of what the findings are, eventually to take certain decisions, if necessary. In other words, we are not engaged here in covering anything up or withholding anything or trying to buy time; on the contrary, we do not want to buy time; we specifically want to use that time so that we can get as much done as possible within the timespan available.

There is one further matter to which I should still like to refer, namely the whole question of paragraph (b) of this report to the effect that certain procedures were not followed. To link this neglect to follow certain procedures to the Commission for Administration and then to say that what we are doing is to enable a specific party, which is actually being equated with all the other parties—also a party which could possibly have neglected its duty—to investigate a matter in which it was itself involved and in which it was itself guilty of neglect, is something I just cannot accept.

This is a statutory body which has particular powers. Its record is a good one and there is absolutely no indication that it did not, in anyway or at any stage, properly perform its duties and comply with its statutory terms of reference. In point of fact that is also what the argument of the hon member for Barberton, as well as that of the hon member for Yeoville, amounts to, namely that what we are doing is actually making a judge party to these events. I think the hon the Minister has banished any fears that we could have had in this regard by telling us that a lawyer has been appointed to investigate the matter and to report back.

I can imagine that when that report-back takes place it will, at the behest of the hon the Minister, again be referred to the committee concerned and that that committee can, in its turn, again refer it to Parliament, should it see fit to do so.

This whole matter deals with procedure, and it is now not a question of determining the merits of accusations or sowing suspicion here. It simply boils down to the fact that a certain procedure is to be followed in problem cases. We are not treating Parliament with contempt, and the hon the Minister issued these terms of reference before it was suggested that the matter be investigated by a committee. In my opinion, therefore, the action of the hon the Minister in this case is above any suspicion.

Mr Chairman, it is noticeable that not a single NP member of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts has participated in this debate. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister under whose name the report stands, is also not leading this debate, and yet the Joint Committee on Public Accounts of which my colleague the hon member for Yeoville is a member, proposed and accepted that:

Is the problem not perhaps that if a member of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts had to get up and give evidence in this House on this matter, he would have to say that the Joint Committee on Public Accounts actually wanted a committee of this Parliament to investigate the matter?

I want to separate two things quite clearly. The one is an investigation into the system itself and the second is an investigation into the procedure. With regard to the first matter the report of the committee—the hon the Minister has accepted it—is quite clear:

We are in the process of accepting that. I agree with the hon the Minister that considerable evidence has already been found. The Department of Education and Training, the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly and the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives have been investigated and I have no doubt that the HSRC will be investigating these and reporting on their findings. We must therefore not talk about delaying the implementation of a system for the children. That is well under way and the department and the hon the Minister accept that. What we in fact want, is a joint committee to inquire into and report on expenditure incurred and the correctness or otherwise of procedures that were followed. That is the key issue.

Speakers on that side of the House have asked us not to condemn the officials as the matter is under consideration. There has been a comparison to Lindberg to indicate what one man can do and we have been asked not to allow a committee to handle the matter. The hon the Minister has said that a one man committee appointed by the Commission for Administration should investigate and will be investigating this matter. The hon member for Walmer has said that the record of the Commission for Administration is good and that they have in no case not done their duty. I have no reason to argue with that. However, that is not the issue.

The Commission for Administration is mentioned as one of the involved parties in this matter. There is only one higher body that can investigate the Public Service of South Africa in its totality and that is this Parliament and its committees.

We felt very strongly about this matter right from the start when we looked over the evidence presented in the Advocate-General’s report. I quote paragraph 6.6 of that report:

No one is gainsaying that. The procedure was followed that one month later a proposal was made for the improvement of mathematics education through the use of interactive video. Learning Technologies (Pty) Limited then gets registered. Then, and I quote from the report:

The following events then occurred, and I quote from paragraphs 6.10 to 6.12:

It looked at 15 detailed problems. The Central Mechanisation Committee again considered the problem in February and requested Dr Meiring to enlighten the committee thereon. The report then continues as follows in paragraph 6.13:

Then we carry on to the Chief Director: State Purchases. After correspondence with him, the matter is placed before the Tender Board. The Tender Board then condones the Department’s actions, “solely in view of the sensitive nature of education and training for Black people, with certain reservations”. So it goes on, Mr Chairman.

As far as the certificate is concerned, the report states that, and I quote from paragraph 6.19: “It is strange that the said certificate was accepted as adequate by the Commission for Administration and the Tender Board”, … note that the Advocate-General’s report states that it is “strange” … “especially when it is considered that during the negotiations between the Department and Learn Tech there was, to the knowledge of the Department, possibly as least one other firm that had the technological knowledge and skill to have developed a similar interactive video system.” The report then goes on to name the firm. In paragraph 6.22 three other systems are named that could possibly have been used at the time.

What does the Advocate-General then do? He comes to the following conclusion in paragraph 7:

He then goes on to refer to the HSRC’s investigation.

It is the procedures, the way of handling this matter, particularly the role both within the department and without, that we are concerned about. On 29 March the hon the Minister indicated in his Press statement that:

Mr Chairman, that is precisely the problem—that in fact the approval should have been obtained, and the Advocate-General clearly suggests that. The hon the Minister also said the following in his Press statement:

Mr Chairman, what we have said in this House today regarding this matter is not that there are officials who should be condemned and must be condemned, as is suggested by the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member for Walmer. We have not said that. What we have said, and it is clear throughout, is that we have called for the most stringent, deepest enquiry to be initiated into the correctness or otherwise of procedures and that, following that, action should be taken, if necessary, against the persons involved.

The key issue that arises—the hon member for Walmer put his finger on it—is that an investigation must take place—his words—but which should be the avenue, Parliament must decide today. We believe the correct avenue is a committee of this Parliament.

Mr Chairman, …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: According to the Order Paper for today this report is to be considered by the House. In terms of the old practice the procedure was that somebody would move that the report be now considered, and thereafter that the report be adopted. That could, of course, be subject to amendment.

As I understand the new Rules nobody moves that the report be considered. It is actually done automatically. Therefore, nobody moved the consideration of this report. The hon the Minister was merely the first speaker in this debate and he has no right of reply.

Order! I thank the hon member for Yeoville for notifying me he was going to take this point of order. That gave me time to consider the matter. I thank him for his courtesy.

In terms of Rule 89 a member is called upon by the presiding officer to take part in a debate in accordance with a list of speakers. I must point out that the name of the hon the Minister appears on the list of speakers. According to the list he is the next speaker to address the House. A time allocation was also made for him. Therefore I rule that the hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: There is also a Rule which says that no single hon member may speak twice in the same debate except for the purpose of reply. There is no reply to this debate, Sir, and therefore the hon the Minister cannot speak twice.

Where do you read that?

Order! That was the case in terms of the old Rules. I am applying the new Rule 89 now. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, this is an important and serious debate about a serious matter. As I have already emphasised in my previous contribution—when I moved the adoption of the report—I want to emphasise yet again that it is not my intention or that of the Government to cover up this matter in any way or to have it covered up.

I should however, like to deal briefly with certain main points that have come to light. The question that was asked was why Government members on the Joint Committee on Public Accounts had not participated in this debate. I have been informed that after consultation those hon members were of the opinion that in the light of the motion that was to be moved, this debate was going to result in a discussion of the merits of the case and that eventually the matter would have to go back to them. They therefore decided to remain uncommitted by not participating in this debate with a view to the eventual consideration of what was to be reported to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts in the light of the further inquiries which are envisaged.

You cannot be serious! [Interjections.]

The further question that was asked was why, after he had initially considered no further action to be necessary, the Minister now does consider such further action to be necessary. I want to say frankly that there are specific reasons for this which I should like to sum up briefly.

In the first place it appeared that the Advocate-General was limited by the statutory definition of his functions in section 4 of the Act, in terms of which he is appointed, and that he deals primarily with cases of dishonesty in regard to public money as well as charges that someone has been improperly or unlawfully enriched at the cost of the State. Among the accusations that were made in regard to the particular purchases, there are various matters which, strictly speaking, do not fall into these categories, but which nevertheless require further investigation.

Furthermore, in the closing portion of his report the Advocate-General stated that he had received various documents and pieces of evidence which were not in conformity with the strict parameters within which he had to operate. For that reason they were not included in his report. In a discussion which I had with him, in the light of this fact, he indicated that he would like to make that information available for further investigation.

In the third place it is also true that various accusations which were made, and in regard to which questions arose at the time, would not have been adequately answered if they had just been left hanging in the air because they could not be dealt with in the report on account of the fact that they did not fall within the statutorily defined operational paramaters of the Advocate-General.

I also then approached the Advocate-General and asked him whether he could make some of the evidence, which was basic to some of the fundamental issues available to me. I received the particular documents from him. I also want to say very frankly that I was also very strongly influenced in my decision by the impressions that were created and the further elucidation of the whole matter which flowed from a study of that evidence.

After I had considered all these aspects, it was clear to me that further action was, in fact, necessary. That was why I approached the Commission for Administration, which in my opinion is the Government body which deals with such matters and which had not yet expressed an opinion in this regard, to institute an inquiry and make a finding too. The Advocate-General had already made his contribution, and the Auditor-General liaises with the Joint Committee on Public Accounts which had already played its part at the outset. It was therefore my opinion that the Commission for Administration should also be involved in this and that their opinion should also be part of the contribution to this matter.

One of the questions that arose out of the speeches of almost all the speakers who were opposed to the point of view I had adopted was the fact that the joint committee had made a unanimous recommendation. The unanimous recommendation contained in paragraph (c) of the report specifically refers to the report being referred back to Parliament for further enquiry, although no specific mention is made of a joint committee.

For that reason I was of the opinion that it was not an evasion of the closing recommendation of the report which we are adopting, but that it was an arrangement of the sound chronolical order in which further investigations had to take place.

A further point made by hon members opposite was that I was by-passing or circumventing Parliament or, as one hon member put it, treating Parliament with contempt. Let me repeat what the hon member for Walmer stated very clearly here—the hon member for Sasolburg also did so—and that is that there is no question at all of doubting or opposing Parliament’s every right to investigate this matter and also eventually to pass judgement in this regard.

I want to repeat that because of the urgency of further investigation and speedy results in the short term, it is my view that it would not be proper for Parliament to begin an inquiry until the Commission for Administration has carried out the terms of reference it has received—these are moreover, statutory terms of reference falling within the framework of their lawful activities—and the Ministers concerned have fulfilled their responsibility to Parliament by reporting on that.

I want to repeat that that report was submitted to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and will be considered by it. If that committee finds that there are still questions which have not yet been adequately investigated, or that there are steps that should have been taken but were not taken, the committee itself will be able to take the necessary steps, or else the matter can then again be considered by Parliament. Ultimately it will be this Parliament which will have the final say in this regard, and it is not at all a question of trying to circumvent that right. In fact, it is simply not possible to do so. Neither is it envisaged that Parliament will be circumvented because of this action.

I think an argument that merits serious attention is one advanced by hon members that an inquiry by the commission would not be satisfactory because in a certain sense the commission itself was involved, particularly in the final consideration of the certificate which the Department of Education and Training submitted in respect of the availability of other possible contractors in this matter.

As far as this question is concerned I want to emphasise the fact that I have been informed by the chairman that the commission has obtained the services of a senior judicial officer to make the inquiry and to report accordingly to the commission, after which the commission will make recommendations.

Furthermore, as I have said, the fact remains that the commission will not have the final decision but that, as I have undertaken to do, I shall submit the commission’s report to me to the joint committee and to Parliament. There is therefore no bypassing of Parliament. It is simply a question of the orderly chronological arrangement of the enquiry.

I also want to reiterate that the commission has a statutory obligation to ensure good order, responsible expenditure and just action on the part of officials in the Public Service and in regard to organisational systems, with a view to the efficiency of the Public Service. They have to give attention to this matter in any case, and I think we ought to take note of their findings before a final decision is arrived at in this regard.

It is therefore not a question of the commission’s being appointed inter alia as final arbiter, in regard to the actions of its own officials, but rather a question of action having to take place here according to a particular chronological sequence.

Once again I strongly want to emphasise the fact that there is no question here of anything being covered up. As I stated just now, the State has particular means at its disposal to promote clean administration, eg the Auditor-General, the Advocate-General and also the Commission for Administration, and it has to give all those channels a proper opportunity to express an opinion and pass judgement in regard to an important matter such as this.

The Commission for Administration is not simply a subordinate body, but has an independent status which has been created in terms of an Act of this Parliament. This Parliament has imposed specific supervisory and report-back responsibilities upon it. In terms of the Act applicable to it and its obligations, the commission is also ultimately responsible to Parliament. It is therefore not a foreign or subordinate element which is being inserted here in the chain of consideration of this matter, but a responsible body which has status and which must play its part.

Therefore I once again want to reject any insinuation of a cover-up and state quite unequivocally that the commission’s enquiry will not take the place of the responsibility of Parliament or of its Joint Committee on Public Accounts eventually to deciding for itself, investigating the matter for itself, if necessary, and giving a final decision and instruction in this connection.

Seen in this light, therefore, I believe that the standpoint of hon members, ie that even at this stage a joint committee should be appointed, is not a valid one, and I want to suggest that, as Parliament decided last year in connection with a proposed enquiry into alleged exchange irregularities in the SATS, the matter be referred to the Government, together with my undertaking that we will report back in this regard.

I do not wish to try to deal here with the details referred to by hon members. I think if I were to deal with those details I would, in a sense, actually be anticipating and prejudicing the referral of the matter to the commission for inquiry. However, what I do want to say, in respect of a remark of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that there was a whole series of unanswered questions—as he put it—is that I agree with him. I think that those unanswered questions must be properly investigated, and I have other questions as well. I myself have questions which I feel merit further enquiry, and I am sure that when the investigation takes place, even more questions will arise in the light of the documentation.

I should, however, just like to refer to a matter which the hon member for Cape Town Gardens mentioned at the end of his speech when he contended that there were rumours or suspicion that the Foundation referred to in the debate of 4 May could possibly be a front in order to channel more money to Learn Tech. This is a very serious accusation which in my opinion, should be dealt with to as quickly as possible. I shall consider it together with those of my colleagues into whose sphere of operations it may possibly fall. If not, I myself will make arrangements, as soon as possible, to have this investigated at the most effective level available to the State, and to have the necessary steps taken. I hope that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens will assist me by providing me with the necessary information and statements.

That matter will receive immediate attention, but it is a matter which stands apart from the actual matter under discussion and which should not, in my opinion, be included in the whole complex of the enquiry dealing with the purchase of computer-assisted teaching systems. However, it is a matter which seriously affects the whole question of the channelling and handling of money in this country.

In regard to his question in connection with what has in the meantime become of the copyright which the Department of Education and Training obtained in respect of the courseware of this interactive video system I want to tell him that this is also a matter that merits serious attention, particularly because the allegation that the organisation mentioned in the debate on 4 May had placed orders for the complete system, including the courseware, for delivery to KwaZulu, implies, if that report is correct and true, that Learning Technologies had then apparently offered something for sale in regard to which they did not hold the copyright.

On my instruction this matter is the subject of an in-depth investigation by the department because the department is absolutely determined, in terms of its copyright, not to allow any further dealings in extra copies of this courseware by its developers unless this takes place with the approval of, and under the conditions laid down by, the department itself.

In fact, the intention behind the obtaining of that copyright by the department was precisely to ensure, for example, that all education departments in South Africa could immediately, at the lowest possible cost—purely for the reproduction of the material—share in the benefits of this course purchased by the department after it had been developed.

I want to assure the hon member that if any problems arise from the investigation in regard to the copyright, they will be investigated within the framework and on the basis of what I have just stated, and that the question of the Foundation to which he referred will receive immediate attention. I hope that he will co-operate in this regard.

In the light of everything that I have said, I feel that the House can adopt this report in the spirit in which I have explained it, and that we will move the necessary amendment when a motion is moved.

Order! Did I correctly understand the hon the Minister to say that in his first speech he did, in fact, move that the report be adopted?

That was what I did, but I understand from the objection of the hon member for Yeoville that it was not the correct procedure. If it is not necessary, then …

Order! There is no problem. I simply want to clarify what I intend doing, unless hon members can convince me otherwise. I should now like to bring the report to a vote and, if I understand everyone correctly, I think it will be approved unanimously. I shall then give the hon member for Cape Town Gardens the opportunity …

Mr Chairman, may I address you?

Order! Just one minute. I want to finish this.

’Once the report has been agreed to in principle, I should like to give the hon member for Cape Town Gardens the opportunity to move his motion and then give the hon the Minister the opportunity to reply or to move amendments to the motion.

I mention my intentions specifically because that is what I should like to suggest so as to enable hon members, if they have any objections, perhaps to put forward an opposing argument.

Mr Chairman, may I draw attention to what transpired here in regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Alleged Bribery. I refer hon members to page 196 of the Minutes. What transpired there was that the hon the Minister moved without notice at the end of the debate that the report be adopted. He would have had to give notice in terms of the new Rules. When one looks at the Minutes, one sees that the consideration of the select committee report took place, the debate was concluded and then the hon the Leader of the House moved without notice that the report be adopted. When the hon member for Soutpansberg tried to move an amendment before that, he was ruled out of order. He could only move it after the hon the Leader of the House had moved that the report be adopted.

What is transpiring now, is that there has been no notice of any motion to adopt the report. Therefore, what should happen according to how I understand it, is that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens’s motion is before the House; then there will be amendments to that motion, which either he or I will move; and then the hon the Minister can move what he wants to move. However, there is now actually no motion before the House other than the hon member for Cape Town Gardens’s motion. I do not like that, I must tell you. I am unhappy about it, but that appears to be the situation in terms of the new Rules. When one looks at page 196 of the Minutes, one sees that that was Mr Speaker’s ruling at that time. That was a matter of only a couple of days ago.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville seems to be correct in that regard. I was under the impression that there would have been no objection to the adoption of the report because everybody spoke in favour of it. Let us continue with the suggestion as set out by the hon member then. I think he is correct.

Mr Chairman, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to alter the notice of motion printed on the Order Paper in my name and to move an amended motion, as follows:

1. (1) expenditure incurred, and the correctness or otherwise of procedures followed, by the Department of Education and Training and its officials, the Commission for Administration, the Director of State Purchases and the State Tender Board with regard to computer-assisted education systems; and
2. (2) matters arising from Report No 11, dated 14 March 1988, of the Advocate-General on the purchase of the Ivis interactive video system by the Department of Education and Training.

I wish to respond to a couple of points raised by the hon the Minister. The critical issue I think which has arisen at this stage is not the question as to whether the matter should be taken further or not. The Joint Committee on Public Accounts, the hon the Minister and the opposition parties all believe the matter should be investigated further. The question which arises is, which is the most appropriate way in which to proceed.

The hon the Minister made reference to the fact that no hon member on his side of the House who was a member of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts spoke to their report. I believe he gave some rather strange reasons for this. To me it is the clearest thing in the world that if one has a report before a body such as this House, people serving on that committee would stand up to motivate and justify the report which they have submitted. It is extraordinary—in fact, it is very revealing—that they, as I believe, do not wish to admit that what is happening here during this debate is not at all what that committee wanted to happen. [Interjections.]

In respect of the Commission for Administration it has been pointed out—I am not going to labour the point because the hon members for Yeoville, Pinetown and Barberton have drawn attention to it in great detail—that in terms of the procedures as to who did who’s duty to the full extent in respect of this matter, it was one of the parties said to be involved that need to be investigated. For that reason alone it is highly inappropriate that the commission be the sole custodian of any further investigation.

The hon the Minister has also not enlightened the House as to what the specific terms of reference of that commission are concerning the enquiry within the commission. That leaves us even further in the dark as to whether they are going to be doing a thorough investigation, because in exactly the same way that the Advocate-General clearly could not investigate everything that should have been investigated, because he is restricted by the Advocate-General Act, obviously, whatever enquiry is taking place will be restricted by the terms set for that enquiry.

The hon the Minister has also said in response to my point—that in anticipating the decision of the House, he shows contempt for the House to have set up all this prior to our discussion of the report of the committee that he was not interfering with the right of Parliament eventually to investigate this matter if it so chooses. I would suggest, however, that when it comes to the question of public moneys that are voted annually by this Parliament, it is in the first instance the right of this Parliament to decide whether it wants to investigate how moneys are utilised. It is not a question of whether it should do so after whomever else may wish to do so, be it the Government, an hon Minister or anybody else, and that Parliament may then be so generously given permission to investigate what has happened.

The hon the Minister also pointed out that the reason for the chance in his attitude between the end of March and today, as to whether this matter needed further investigation, resulted from his realising that the Advocate-General Act prescribed the breadth of the investigation he could undertake. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to tell us when that fact came to his knowledge. I am not quite sure whether I specifically made reference to that fact on 4 May when I addressed the House; I think I may well have done so. However, assuming that that information came to his knowledge some time after 29 March, if he had then set about this enquiry within the Commission for Administration, as he now proposes, he would not have had to wait for the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts.

He also knows, if he has read their terms of reference, that their inquiry would also, by definition, have to be fairly narrow. Given both those facts he could have appointed the inquiry, that he is now asking us to accept in lieu of a proper parliamentary investigation, some weeks ago. In fact, he said earlier that it could be handled in a matter of weeks. The timespan from 4 May until now is already a matter of five or six weeks. That inquiry could have been over already, and we could have been looking at that report together with the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. Then Parliament would have been in a position to decide what to do.

I do not accept the logic behind what the hon the Minister is saying. I do not accept that the Commission for Administration or an inquiry within the commission is the appropriate body to do this investigation.

Mr Chairman, I wish to move as an amendment:

I do so very clearly with the assurance that I have given this House in terms of reporting back to the joint committee and through them to Parliament regarding the result of the further investigation which I have caused to take place. I just briefly want to reply to the four points which the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has made.

Because, he said, the Commission for Administration was partly involved in this matter, he found it unacceptable that the Commission for Administration should now become the sole custodians of any further investigation. That hon member gave the impression that he was very serious about this debate. However, it has been stated repeatedly, and I argued this a minute ago, that the point is not to make the Commission for Administration the sole custodians of any further investigation. His repetition of that point seems to bear out the fact that there is no real substance in his attitude.

He also asked me whether I would care to give the House the terms of reference with which I approached the chairman of the commission. In the essential part of my letter I set out several circumstances which I have just now outlined as the reasons why I thought it necessary that the matter be further investigated. Then I said:

What is the date of that letter?

30 May. The chairman of the Commission for Administration informed me that of its own volition, and in terms of the provisions of the Act applicable to it the commission will, from the very nature of the case, also have other matters investigated which, strictly speaking, do not fall within the sphere of responsibility of my department and which I have not mentioned here either.

The hon member also stated: “It is for Parliament in the first instance to decide". However, my whole argument was specifically that the Commission for Administration was not simply an incidental adjunct, but a statutory body which had to express an opinion in this process. I think it is right that in its consideration of the matter Parliament should eventually also have that opinion of the commission at its disposal. For that reason there are certain authoritative bodies which play a role in regard to this matter, as I argued just now, and one of them is the Commission for Administration. I think it is only right for Parliament and the joint committee to give the commission an opportunity to make its findings and to submit them, and then to take those findings into consideration.

The hon member also asked why I had not realised the limitations of the Advocate-General’s sphere of responsibility sooner and acted accordingly. I just want to say here that my decision is related to a complex of four circumstances which I have mentioned, of which this is one, and, in fact, a very important one. I believe that the decision I took to refer this matter to the commission for further investigation was not only desirable but also necessary. I must also point out that awaiting the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts also played a part in regard to this matter. I wanted to have insight into that report first before I decided finally because they could have come to completely different conclusions to those to which they did in fact come. With this, I should like to move the amendment of which I have given notice.

Mr Chairman, I must tell you again that I find the attitude of the hon the Minister surprising, because not only has he not moved for the adoption of the report of the joint committee, but he has also actually moved an amendment which will have the effect of not having the report adopted.

I did move it!

The hon the Minister did not move it. He should read his own motion.

I moved originally that the report be adopted.

No, the hon the Minister has not moved it. As a matter of fact, I want to move as an amendment to his amendment:

He has not even moved the adoption of his own committee’s report! I find this whole debate quite startling. This is a question of irregularity, a question as to whether there is a valid contract and a question as to whether people have acted properly. This is a matter which involves the Government and in such a case to have a motion moved in this House that it be referred back to the Government, is an act of contempt of Parliament. It is a contempt of the people, because we have been elected here in order to see that the money of the people is safeguarded. What the Government is doing now, is the very thing to prevent what Parliament has been instituted for since the time of Magna Carta.

Nonsense, Harry!

It is a fact! That hon member should go back to his ash-cans and his insulting remarks. He does not know what it is about and has been put into this debate because the hon members of the Public Accounts Committee have too much integrity and too much honour to get up here and to go back on what they said in the committee. Those are responsible people and they have integrity. I want to tell hon members that I take my hat off to them, because they did not get up here today in order to go contrary to what they said. That is the reality and we must face it.

I want to put a very simple point to hon members: Is it actually within the power of the Commission for Administration to do this? The powers of the Commission for Administration are set out in section 3 of the Act. What is happening here is that they are asking the commission to do something for which it does not have the power. It cannot investigate whether there has been a financial irregularity. That is not its function.

The hon the Minister is not listening.

Yes, the hon the Minister is not listening. He is not interested, because he has the power of votes behind him and therefore he does not care whether an argument is good or bad.

Here it is. I invite him to look at section 3 of the Public Service Act. He must look at the powers of the commission and tell me where it is stated, that the commission has the power to investigate financial irregularities. It does not have the power. They are asking the commission to do something for which it does not have the power and something which it was never intended to do. The hon the Minister has not dealt with the fundamental point that they are asking people to investigate a matter in which they themselves are involved. The hon the Minister has not dealt with that and he cannot deal with it. No one should be a judge in his own cause.

The hon the Minister then comes with the most remarkable argument. After making these people judges in their own cause, he says that the members of the Public Accounts Committee have not participated in this debate in order not to discuss the matter for which they have been appointed. I can give a dozen examples of cases in which members of committees of this House have participated in the debates, for example, the debates on privilege, the question of bribery and the debates on public accounts on more than one occasion.

They have all taken part in it, but the hon the Minister now comes with something new altogether that no one has ever heard of. [Interjections.]

I want to draw hon members’ attention to another matter. Since when does the Commission for Administration have the power—according to the legal advice that apparently the hon the Minister has told them to take—to cross-examine or to subpoena witnesses? Since when does it have that power?

That is a joke!

It does not have that power! It has none of the power which a parliamentary committee can have. We can subpoena and cross-examine the witnesses and make factual findings in relation to the evidence. None of these powers reside in the body which the hon the Minister wants to investigate this matter. [Interjections.]

What makes it worse, is that according to the Minutes of this House, the report of this committee was tabled on 8 June. On 30 May the hon the Minister decided to investigate the matter, which is fine. I have no problem if the hon the Minister wants to do his own investigation, but it cannot be a substitute for an investigation by Parliament; on the contrary, if the Commission for Administration were to want to carry out an investigation—which it can do without directions from the hon the Minister—it could give evidence on the matter before the committee appointed by Parliament. It could produce the results of its investigation. However, we need a committee to conduct this investigation and we need it now!

If the public has to sit in judgment on what is happening here today, they will cast their minds back to events that took place here before, which caused the downfall of Ministries and changed the succession in regard to the Prime Ministership of South Africa. All of that happened because people were not prepared to have a full and open inquiry, to let the facts be made public and to subject themselves to the cross-examination of hon members of the opposition.

In my opinion one of the reasons why the hon the Minister does not want this, is because there are some very able advocates in the CP who are very good at cross-examination. Certain hon members in our party are also pretty good at that. Why does the hon the Minister not want the people to be cross-examined before these committees? That is a question he has to answer to the public and not to us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I find the clever manoeuvre of the hon member for Yeoville rather transparent.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask in terms of my motion under what provision the hon the Minister is now allowed to speak a second time?

Order! Let us hear what the hon the Minister has to say before we decide.

Is this a point of order or a speech?

Order! I do not know yet.

I wish to move a further amendment. [Interjections.]

Order! Now we know.

I move as a further amendment that my amendment be changed to read as follows:

The intention is therefore to retain the words “the Report to be adopted and”. This is exactly what I moved at the outset of the debate, assuming that it was a valid motion, and I now wish to move it by means of a further amendment.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister has now sat down, but he has moved another amendment and I wanted to ask in terms of what Rule, having moved a second amendment to my motion, the hon the Minister was allowed the right to speak to the amendment.

The rule of “benoudheid”!

Order! The hon member for Cape Town Gardens asked leave to move an amendment to his motion.

Yes.

Order! Apparently the hon the Minister is doing exactly the same. [Interjections.] What is sauce for the goose, obviously must be sauce for the gander. That is how I understand it. I am also advised that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville. I think all parties ought to be satisfied in substance.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that point? Bearing in mind the fact that there happens to be a majority of hon members on one side of the House, if the amended motion of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is defeated, there is no proposal before the House to have the report adopted. It is perfectly correct that there is a proposal to adopt the report included in the motion of the hon member for Cape Town-Gardens as amended by him, but if that is defeated, all that is before the House is that the matter be referred back to the Government.

In those circumstances one is entitled to move an amendment to an amendment to ensure that the report is adopted, and that is all I am doing. Sir. It is not a duplication of what in fact the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has moved, because if his motion is defeated, there is nothing before the House to adopt. I am therefore entitled to add to his amendment and that is what I have done.

Order! Let us just go back and see what we have before the House. It might take some time; hon members must please bear with me. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has moved an amended motion to the one on the Order Paper in which no reference is made to the fact that the report be adopted. The hon member requested the leave of the House to amend his amendment. Now, if the majority of this House should refuse …

No, it is not an amendment

Order! It was an amendment of his original proposal. Correct? Sorry, that was what I meant. It was an amendment to his amendment. [Interjections.]

Sir, his original motion was a motion and not an amendment.

Order! Thank you very much. It was an amendment to his motion. If that is defeated by the House—by the majority of the House, as was so ably put by the hon member for Yeoville—we still have no motion whereby the report could be adopted. The hon the Minister has moved a motion which reads as follows in Afrikaans:

… die onderwerp van die komitee se verslag na die Regering verwys word.

It makes no mention of the report having to be adopted. The hon the Minister then stood up to amend his motion by means of an amendment which does in fact imply that the report would be adopted. He also needed the permission of the House to do so. Therefore, should the House agree to it, there is in fact a motion to adopt the report and refer the subject of the committee’s report back to the Government. This is where we now stand.

Meanwhile the hon member for Yeoville also indicated—he forestalled the hon the Minister—that he wished to move an amendment to that motion of the hon the Minister. We can keep voting here for days on end, but the fact remains that the substance of the motion of the hon member for Yeoville—if I may put it like that—is incorporated in the hon the Minister’s amendment. It would be much easier for the Chair to incorporate the hon the Minister’s amendment in the Minister’s motion—then we need not vote three or four times, but only twice. I trust that hon members would oblige me in this regard.

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

Division demanded.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Before a division is called one has to establish whether five members are in favour of calling a division. In other words they are asked to stand up in order to show that they want a division.

Order! I have to be satisfied, in terms of the Rules, that there are at least five members present of the party calling for the division. Without even counting I can see there are many more than five. Therefore I rule that we continue.

‘Before I give the order to proceed with the division, hon members have the opportunity, if they so wish, to make declarations of vote.

Declarations of vote

Mr Chairman, we believe this debate here this afternoon is an event of some importance. There are important matters relating to the Advocate-General’s report. There are important matters relating to the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. There are also important matters relating to the Department of Education and Training.

I believe, however, that the most important matter of all that we are looking at this afternoon in view of the turn this debate has taken, is what the standing of this Parliament is and what procedures have to be followed when this Parliament is trying to do its work of accounting for public moneys and investigating how public moneys have been used. I regret to say that each successive discussion we have had here since the debate on this matter began has made me more and more suspicious rather than less and less suspicious about the question of whether people want the whole truth to be revealed. I regret to have to say that, but that is honestly what I believe.

The easiest and quickest way for all parties in this House to be satisfied that we know the facts and that justice has been done—irrespective of whatever that justice might be—is in fact for a House committee to be appointed to form part of a joint committee thoroughly to investigate this whole matter. I believe it is a matter of deep regret for us on this side of the House, and I also believe it is a sad day for this Parliament, that a matter which is referred back to this Parliament should then merely be handled by the Government—accomplished by sheer weight of numbers—as opposed to its being handled by Parliament.

The hon member for Yeoville made the point—I have not investigated that point—that it may even be so that the Commission for Administration does not have the powers, in terms of the Act under which it functions, to investigate financial matters of this nature. Again, Sir, we could come to a dead end, which would only cause us to start all over again. For that reason we on this side of the House call for this Parliament to do its job in investigating what has happened to public moneys and not to leave it to an arm of the Government to undertake its own investigation.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition—I do not want to repeat arguments unnecessarily—I just want to say that this is a strange experience. The Joint Committee on Public Accounts considered the matter and decided unanimously that Parliament should carry out further investigations, and I will not believe that there was a single member of that committee who entertained the idea that there would once again be an administrative investigation.

It is quite unthinkable that whilst an investigation was carried out into possible administrative irregularities—it does not matter how far it went—the hon the Minister should now ask Parliament to have those possible administrative irregularities investigated by the administration. It is, after all, absolutely imperative that an objective investigation be launched, and that the people who carry out that investigation have the right to subpoena people to give evidence so that an objective investigation can be carried out but here the hon the Minister is asking us to accept that he and his officials will investigate possible irregularities in his own department. In that way the matter will then apparently be settled. The Official Opposition will therefore support the motion of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens.

The House divided:

NOES—78: Alant. T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, FW; Delport, J T; De Villiers, D J; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, I; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

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

AYES—35: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schwarz, H H; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

Question rejected and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Minister of Education and Development Aid put.

The House divided:

AYES—79: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Villiers, D J; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, I; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

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

NOES—35: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schwarz, H H; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That the Report be adopted and the subject of the Committee’s Report be referred to the Government.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make certain individual remarks in regard to the 10 Votes dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate, and thereafter I should like to devote myself more specifically to particular aspects of transport.

As far as Vote No 7 is concerned, we note that an additional amount of R20,43 million for additional budgetary assistance is being appropriated for the TBVC countries. The CP’s approach in this connection is more than well-known. We should like to know what becomes of that money and for what it is being appropriated. From the nature of the case there is now less information in regard to the supplementary amount appropriated than in regard to the amount in the main Budget. At this stage we want to ask the hon Minister concerned what this amount has been appropriated for, and at the same time we want to ask why this amount is not mentioned in the main Budget.

As far as Vote No 9, Administration: House of Assembly, is concerned, and the first amount referred to there in respect of the improvement of social pensions and allowances, I should firstly like to draw a comparison between this additional amount of R13,158 million being asked for here and the amount of R15,589 million being requested for the corresponding item under Vote No 24, Administration: House of Representatives. The amount requested for the House of Representatives is almost R2,5 million more than that for the Whites, in spite of the fact that the population figures differ drastically—that according to available statistics, the Coloureds at the moment number fewer than 3 million and the Whites about 5 million. We should like to know why there is such a difference and why the appropriation is such that the Coloureds are actually receiving a larger slice of the cake in respect of this specific aspect. We should also like to know in respect of which aspect of social pensions and allowances the amount is being appropriated. Is it being appropriated in respect of disability allowances, or in respect of which other aspects?

We just want to mention the fact that it is noticeable in this connection that the same tendency has already appeared in the main Budget. On page 9-2 of the main Budget document we see that an amount of R29 934 000 has been appropriated in respect of the Vote Administration: House of Assembly and, on page 24-2, that an amount of R36 048 000 has been appropriated in respect of the Administration: House of Representatives. Therefore, we already see the same tendency in the main Budget. The difference between the two is now even greater as a result of the continuation of that tendency in the supplementary estimate.

I now want to refer to the second item under Vote 9, namely R100 million that is being appropriated for the national flood disaster. In this respect we just want to ask whether the total damage has already been determined and whether, at this stage, a reasonably clear indication of what the total damage is going to amount to. What percentage of it does this R100 million represent?

In respect of the amount of R26 505 000 appropriated under Vote 10 for assistance to the governments of self-governing territories, we want to ask for what specific reason this amount is being appropriated.

Under Vote 14 an additional amount of R80 million is, inter alia, being appropriated for financial assistance to municipalities. This differs enormously from the original amount in the Main Appropriation namely R111 400 000. The additional amount now being requested is R80 million. In other words, this amount represents a very high percentage of the original estimate and we should like to know why the amount is so large.

An additional amount of R550 million is being requested under Vote 23, Transport, in respect of a contribution to the National Road Fund. We have taken note of the announcement by the hon the State President on 5 February this year, on the occasion of the opening of Parliament, when he said (Hansard, 1988, col 11):

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs also indicated to us at a later stage what the effect of that announcement would be on the National Road Fund. On Monday, 18 April of this year, he said in (Hansard, 1988, col 6130):

The figures that I have obtained in this connection indicate that the present balance in the National Road Fund is in the vicinity of R420 million. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is now budgeting for an additional amount of R550 million. This gives us a total of about R970 million. According to the latest available figures, in the previous financial year the hon the Minister’s department spent only an amount of R677 million in toto from the National Road Fund. The amount for which he is now budgeting, together with this supplementary estimate, is therefore nearly R300 million more than the amount he spent in the previous year.

We should like to know why there is this enormous difference, because the whole idea of the new method of budgeting—that is, as we understand it—is specifically to give a more accurate estimate of the precise budgeting for a particular financial year and to ensure that no odd amounts lie around in funds established for specific purposes.

However, when we look at the enormous difference between the budgeted amount for this year and last year, we become a trifle suspicious, to say the least. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I refer you to Rule 165 which states the following:

I was a bit surprised at the hon member who just sat down, because these matters which are being discussed, have not been requested by anyone. I have checked the Budget and I refer you to the Budget Speech in Hansard, 16 March 1988, col 4027 to 4028 when different amounts were requested. Therefore we are not discussing the amounts which have actually been requested, but a different supplementary document. I do not know what the hon member or any other hon member is discussing, because in my opinion Rule 165 only entitles us to discuss supplementary amounts which have been requested. According to Hansard a total of R1 032 million was for example requested in respect of supplementary amounts. This amount and the items are completely different and therefore I do not know what we are discussing. In my opinion this is not a regular debate because we can only discuss matters in terms of Rule 165.

Order! I want to refer the hon member for Yeoville to Bill 55A which is also referred to in the agenda for today. That is the Bill under discussion.

But if one looks at Bill 55A a different figure is stated.

Order! It is the difference between the figures in this Bill and the original figures that is under discussion.

No, Sir, with great respect, the estimates that were Tabled originally amounted to R52 933 million and we were then told that they amounted to R53 965 million. Now they amount to R53 985 million and we are told …

Order! Is there a difference in the figures?

There is a difference of only R100 million. It is not much! [Interjections.]

The Nats can squander that in a day!

Order! In Schedule 1 to Bill 55A the amount of R2 528 million is estimated for Foreign Affairs, for example. Is that correct?

Mr Chairman, there are schedules in the supplementary estimates before us. Schedule 1 is related to the State Revenue Account, whereas the other schedules are related to the Provincial Services Account. Presumably that is what we are dealing with in relation to this particular Bill. However, this is the Bill dealing with the supplementary estimates and the amount does not coincide with these other two figures. That is my problem. I do not mind discussing anything. Let me give you an example of what I would like to discuss.

Order! I want to refer the hon member to paragraph 1 under the heading “Schedules” in this Bill. It states there:

Mr Chairman, what I am trying to say is the following. The amount for the Foreign Affairs Vote in the Supplementary Estimate is R2 528 631. Here I have as the total amount now required R2 530 034.

Where do you get that?

In these two documents I have here. I have three sets of figures and they are all different. I do not mind discussing any of them, but I would like to know which ones we are voting on. As I understood it, the Appropriation Bill on the Supplementary Estimate, [B 55A-88 (GA)], the Supplementary Estimate of the Expenditure to be Defrayed from State Revenue Account, [R.P.4-1988], and the proposal of the hon the Minister of Finance should coincide, but they all have different figures. I do not mind which one we discuss, Sir, but would you please tell us which one we are in fact discussing?

The average figure!

Order! As far as I am concerned, we are discussing the difference between the original figures estimated and the figures which now appear in this Bill.

But they are not the same, Sir; that is my difficulty.

Order! That is my ruling.

Let us take the average!

Mr Chairman, certain amounts have been appropriated, but not necessarily used, because those for the provinces also have to be taken into account. I can give the hon member the figures if he wishes to do some sums. For the provinces under “Social Pensions” there is …

Order! I should just like to hear the hon the Deputy Minister. I cannot hear the hon the Deputy Minister.

The amounts in respect of social pensions going to the provinces now come from statutory funds. Then again, in the case of Vote 27, Police, there is the suspension of the amount of R108 000 which was allocated to the provinces. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the statistics. The amount appropriated is not necessarily the amount used because it is appropriated in various accounts for the same purpose which then necessitates an adjustment.

But they are different figures …

Yes, Mr Chairman, but then the figures will differ. Just as this specific amount, which is allocated to the provinces for social pensions and which now comes from statutory funds, changes the figures, so has an amount now to be appropriated for the municipal police of the province.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I really cannot see the problem. There is only one document before us at the moment which we are being asked to approve, namely that which appears on the Order Paper—Bill 55A of 1988 read in conjunction with Bill 55. If there are differences between the amounts which we are now being asked to vote and the amounts in this original document—the Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure which has actually been tabled as a memorandum—we will be voting for what is contained in the Bill, and then hon members who have debating time at their disposal will be entitled to ask for a clarification of the difference between the amounts.

Order! It is also my ruling then … [Interjections] … that Bill 55A is under discussion and, if there are any differences, as pointed out by the hon member for Yeoville, he may put questions in that regard to the Minister concerned.

Mr Chairman, last year in this debate the hon member for Yeoville blamed the hon Minister for the fact that his books did not balance. I want to ask him frankly today what is going to become of that argument of his this year.

Now apparently there is no balance in his legislation. [Interjections.]

Very well, this year he again says that there is no balance in the legislation. [Interjections.] I understand he is going to be the next speaker. I want to ask him to motivate that statement of his then. I put it to him that the figures per se are the entire basis on which this debate is structured. Therefore when we deal with the figures, the hon member will have to concede that it is clear, as has been the case for the past few years now, that the hon Minister and the department are continuing to succeed in reducing the amounts in comparison to what was the case previously. We therefore owe a vote of gratitude to the hon Minister and his department for the effective action taken by them. I believe that this should be placed on record.

If we calculated the percentage ratio between amounts in the supplementary estimate of this year and those of, let us say, ten years ago, I think we would be unanimous in our agreement that there has been a tremendous improvement. When we analyse the figures more closely—the hon member for Roodepoort asked certain specific questions about this, and I think the individual hon Ministers will give him adequate answers—generally speaking it would appear, on analysing the separate departments, that supplementary estimate amounts appear only in extremely exceptional cases. This is not the general rule.

Considering the various departments and estimate figures further and, for example, take note of the supplementary amount with regard to the Vote: Foreign Affairs, I think everyone will agree that this amount is intended for an additional essential matter which involves an element of assistance; not a mere element of expenditure. This, then is also the concept that is followed throughout. We find that this is the same with regard to the Administration: House of Assembly, supplementary amounts being included to improve social pensions and grants as well as for the national flood disaster. Money is voted further on for assistance to the governments of self-governing territories. The hon member for Roodepoort referred to this specifically.

Money has also been voted for the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for financial assistance to municipalities. We also find the same separate facets with regard to the Administration: House of Representatives and the Administration: House of Delegates.

I think the hon Minister deserves our congratulations for the way in which he dealt with this matter which is improving year by year. I believe that we are now reaching a stage in which we really have to ask whether they are not being too strict in regard to the estimate figures. Is the control that is being exercised not to strict? Should sufficient manoeuvrability not be built in here so that the supplementary estimate figures, which are essential, will not be less than they should be?

With these few words I convey my congratulations to the hon Minister. At the same time I ask that care should always be taken so that adequate manoeuvrability is maintained to enable the essential elements to be dealt with.

Mr Chairman, we are presently debating the Supplementary Estimates furnished in Appropriation Bill B55, of which there has been neither a First nor a Second Reading, nor has anybody moved it. Nobody has moved the readings. We also have before us three sets of documents. We have this Bill, in regard to which there has been no motion. We have the Estimates, which are tabled in accordance with old convention and practice, and, I believe, the Rules.

Furthermore we have the statements of the hon the Minister of Finance during the Budget Debate. We also have three sets of figures which do not coincide.

The public was told there would be supplementary appropriations for an amount of R1 032 000 000. The one document which we have now says this amount is R1044 866 000. The third document does not say anything at all. It does not say anything at all! It is divided into individual items.

I believe that, firstly, the procedure is wrong and that, secondly, if it is technically right it is an abortion, which, by the way, should receive the attention of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development!

Interestingly enough, with respect to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, I must point out to him that while the total amount for National Health and Population Development was R2 323,376 million according to the published estimate, he will see, if he looks at the Bill which we are discussing, that he has lost R300 000. I would like him to explain why he is getting R300 000 less and what has happened to that money. Nobody has yet told us anything about this at all. [Interjections.] I must say that I do not understand what is going on. [Interjections.] Nobody has stood up to tell us that R300 000 less is needed or to which specific programme that reduction applies.

Let me give another example. I am a person very much inclined to believe what I am told. [Interjections.] I was hoping that the hon the Minister of Finance would be here to tell me things. The hon the Minister of Finance is not here, and neither is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs nor the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. The only one holding the fort is the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, but he is in the fortunate position of knowing that because I like him, I will not give him blazes!

However, let me ask him something. Earlier this year, we were told—I believed the hon the Minister of Finance when he said so—that we were going to get R110 million for social pensions. [Interjections.] If one looks at Hansard, col 4027, one sees that he promised us R110 million. Where is that now? When I try to total up the figures we have now, I see that the House of Assembly is getting approximately R13,1 million, the House of Representatives R15,589 million, and the poor House of Delegates nothing. Will the hon the Deputy Minister please tell us what has happened to the R110 million? Where has it gone? What is going on here? I simply do not understand what is going on with these figures. [Interjections.]

Let me take flood disaster money. I have tried to trace the flood disaster through this whole thing and, according to these estimates, Indians apparently do not have flood disasters. There seems to be some provision of the Group Areas Act that applies only to Whites and Coloured people, and perhaps to Blacks, so that there is nothing for the House of Delegates. What has happened to that money? 1 just do not understand what is happening.

I have looked at the proposals of the hon the Minister of Finance, and I invite the hon the Deputy Minister to read them; that is why I gave him the Hansard column number. I would like him, when he deals with this matter, to deal with each of these items, then to deal with the estimates which we were given and which were circulated, then to deal with the Bill, which has never been introduced, and then to tell us what is actually happening to the finances of this country. This really is becoming a farce.

Let me ask him a question in relation to his own department, which concerns me. There is one amount which has actually—remarkably!—stayed the same. The subsidy on savings instruments for senior citizens has remained at R20 million. Strangely enough, it is the one figure that seems to be consistent throughout and yet it is the one figure that should not be consistent. I will tell hon members why.

The interest rate patterns have changed since the Budget was introduced, and therefore the subsidy should in theory be less now than it was then, because—I hope this is so—we are subsidising the banks and building societies only to the extent that the amount which is being paid to senior citizens exceeds the current market rates which would be payable for that money. I would imagine that if the rates go up, one would pay a lesser amount and if they go down, one would pay a greater amount. We should not be paying a consistent amount to the building societies. Otherwise this thing does not make sense at all.

I would like to know what the arrangements with the financial institutions actually are, what the basis of those arrangements is, and how they have come to be altered, bearing in mind the change in interest rate patterns. Perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister could at the same time tell me how the amounts which have been invested in this manner through the various institutions coincide with the amounts that were there before.

As I understand it, what has happened in most cases, is that new money has not been invested but investments have merely been changed from one investment to another and so have been subsidised.

There has been all the talk about not subsidising the rich but the people who are most entitled to it, but there is no means test as to whether a person over 65 is very wealthy or very poor; therefore everyone over 65 has been able to participate in this. I would like to hear what the hon the Minister has to say about what has actually happened in regard to the attraction of new savings, the shifting of savings and the alteration of interest rates.

It would also be fascinating to know why we are not told when proposals in the Budget are changed, why we are just presented with pieces of paper without any explanation and why we find ourselves in this rather remarkable debating situation in which we are given documents and really do not know what the final figures are going to be.

When hon member for Vasco raised the matter, he said that I would obviously comment on what he said. The difficulty is that one can never pin this Government down to a particular figure. One can never pin them down! We believe that when Parliament votes money, in accordance with ancient tradition, we do so because it is the one power that Parliament is left with. Everything else is now controlled by the executive. By withholding the power to give funds, however, one actually exercises a degree of control of the executive. Unfortunately, of course, as events turn out, the executive is appointed by the majority party and the majority party rubber-stamps whatever the executive wants. Therefore, even that power has been dissipated in this Parliament. At least we can raise our voices in protest at the manner in which these figures have been presented to Parliament and the public of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react to the hon member for Yeoville, but I should like to refer to the hon member for Roodepoort who raised certain matters here with regard to transport. I am pleased that the hon member adopted a reasonable attitude towards this increase. Also, a very reasonable answer can be given for this increase of R550 million and for why it is, in fact, R300 million more, in total, than in the previous year.

There has been agitation for a long time because we had so many national road projects which were lagging behind and to which the necessary attention could not be given as a result of a shortage of funds. People have therefore been agitating for a considerable period for the fuel levy on petrol and diesel, which had to be available for the National Road Fund, to be increased. It was increased. Now, as the hon member has so correctly said, this levy is, however, no longer going into this special Road Fund; it now goes to the Treasury. It is absolutely correct, as the hon member has said, and as the hon the Minister has already announced, that the Department of Transport will now have to compete for the amount it requires.

If the position had remained unchanged, it is very likely that this amount would have been more than the R971 million mentioned by the hon member due to the fact that there had, of course, been an increase in the sales of fuel and so forth.

However, the point I want to put to the hon member with regard to the increased revenue, is that one need not be suspicious about the amount or about what will be done with it. For the benefit of the hon member I can mention a considerable number of projects which have come to a halt during the past years and in regard to which this increased revenue will assist us in incurring increased expenditure in order to improve our road-building programme considerably. These projects have been delayed quite a few times in the past due to a shortage of funds, and so we ourselves are pleased that there is an increase now of nearly 40% for this, an amount which we shall now have available to us.

I can also tell the hon member that the intention is—I think this has also been envisaged by the hon the Minister himself—that a number of provincial roads will be reproclaimed as national roads. The roads that will be affected include those between Worcester and Colesberg and between Louis Trichardt and Beit Bridge on National Route No 1; on National Route No 2 we have the roads between Grabouw and Mossel Bay and between Grahamstown and the border of Ciskei. National Routes Nos 6 and 8 will also be affected. All these routes I have mentioned, are involved in this. I could mention a considerable number of projects for the benefit of the hon member, if he wants to discuss them with me, the hon the Minister or the department. This information will be available to him, and we shall be available to tell him about all the projects which have lagged behind and been delayed and which can now be speeded up considerably in the future. This increase of R300 million is therefore really manna from heaven for our road-building programme. There is nothing for the hon member to be suspicious about. I nevertheless want to thank him for putting the question, because it gives us the opportunity to satisfy the House about the fact that we are now going to give things a bit of a shot in the arm. More money will be available to us. As far as the road-building programme is concerned, I think the travelling public will also be more satisfied.

What is also of importance is that it is the approach of the Government to privatise and deregulate. Undoubtedly more vehicles will appear on the roads, and in order to make provision for this situation this R300 million will come in extremely handy with regard to eliminating this backlog that has unfortunately accumulated.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs will forgive me if I do not comment or what he had to say as there are other matters I wish to raise.

Last Friday we debated in this House among other things the question of manufacturing ethanol from sugar. That is a very important subject. However, while that was happening, some faceless individual in Pretoria was churning out Government Gazettes restricting the liberties of South Africans. In those Government Gazettes there are regulations pertaining to the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech and the freedom of movement. Those matters were not debated in this House or elsewhere in Parliament. They are measures which affect the daily lives of our people, and the decision concerning measures of that kind has been taken away from Parliament and given to functionaries to administer.

The one function which has not been taken away from Parliament is to appropriate funds. Provided the executive satisfactorily answers questions put to them, Parliament is still required to approve the estimates. We may put questions to Ministers, but that does not necessarily mean that we are provided with competent or satisfactory answers. I shall return to that problem in a minute.

There is a provision under Vote No 14, “Public Works and Land Affairs” for an additional amount of R90 million, R80 million of which is, as was indicated by the hon the Minister of Finance during the course of his Budget Speech on 16 March 1988, for amounts due to municipalities in terms of the Rating of State Property Act of 1984. This Act is to come into effect on 1 July 1988 when the State will have to comply fully with its obligations in respect of municipal rates. Therefore, this amount of R80 million is estimated for that purpose.

As I have said, R90 million has been requested. That means that an additional R10 million is required for hiring and adaptation of office accommodation.

This is happening at a time when the posts in the Public Service have been frozen—provision is being made for the hiring of additional office accommodation. I am sure that part of this R10 million will be used for the adaptation of office accommodation, but no doubt a great deal of that amount will be for additional office accommodation. At this stage, when posts in the Public Service have been frozen, I think it is inappropriate to spend this amount of money for additional office accommodation. I think the size of the Public Service should be reduced rather than posts frozen, but that is another matter.

No provision for expansion is made with regard to the almost one million individuals in the Public Service and the other three categories mentioned by the hon the Minister in his Budget Speech. However, I hope that one of the hon the Ministers—I see the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs is not here—will explain why it is necessary to ask for the supplementary amount of R10 million.

As far as Vote No 10, “Development Aid”, is concerned, in the one schedule we are asked to vote a supplementary amount of R26,505 million. That is the amount being requested. One of the documents we have records that this is an additional amount required for assistance to governments of self-governing states. The main estimate was for an amount of approximately R2,788 billion. This amount is to be increased to approximately R2,815 billion—an increase of R26,5 million requested by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. R25,6 million is a great deal of money. I hope the hon the Minister will tell us how this amount of money is to be apportioned among the various self-governing states.

I return to my statement that we can ask questions, but that we are not necessarily given competent or satisfactory answers. Hon members will be aware that I have raised the question of KwaNdebele on a number of occasions in this House. I make no apology for doing so again today. In fact, I have raised that question on three separate occasions during the Budget Vote debates, and I have not been given satisfactory answers.

Briefly, there is a state of affairs in KwaNdebele which can no longer be tolerated. The group running that territory wants independence, among other things, so that they can become another casino state. The hon the State President has, I believe, wisely asked them to show that they have support for the concept of independence. In order to show that there is support for this ridiculous idea, there is, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, a reign of terror in KwaNdebele. The citizens of that area are being coerced into agreeing to this concept, and the police in KwaNdebele are a law unto themselves. They are out of control, and they are apparently answerable to no one. I have three affidavits in my possession, drawn up by people held for up to nine months in jails in KwaNdebele, stating that they would not be released until they signed an undertaking not to oppose independence. The one affidavit reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With respect to the Chair, I want to ask what these aspects which the hon member for Johannesburg North is now discussing have to do with these supplementary estimates. I contend that they have nothing to do with this debate at the moment.

Order! I am listening to the hon member and, if I am correct, I relate his remarks to Vote No 10.

That is correct, Sir. It is money to be voted to the self-governing states.

Order! The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. I quote further:

Is this what the state of emergency is being used for in KwaNdebele? There the state of emergency is used by the police to terrorise harmless individuals and to force them to abandon their fundamental democratic right to oppose independence.

Order! The hon member cannot discuss the state of emergency in the homelands.

Yes, Sir, thank you. South African taxpayers’ money is being voted today—in fact R26,5 million is requested—to be given to the self-governing states. I want to know how much of that is for KwaNdebele and what the purpose is of these funds.

During the course of his Budget Vote the hon the Minister of Law and Order said that he had no jurisdiction over the police in KwaNdebele. Who is responsible for the KwaNdebele government? Who is the KwaNdebele government in turn responsible to? They are not independent, they are part of South Africa. During the course of the discussion of his Budget Vote I asked the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid the same question and I did not receive satisfactory answers. During the debate on the Budget Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning I put a number of questions to him. He sat there like a goldfish, opening and closing his mouth, not answering a single question.

Who is responsible for what is happening in KwaNdebele? Is it the faceless individual I referred to at the beginning of my address or is it the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid who is asking for this supplementary amount of R26,5 million? I hope he will tell us when he replies today.

Mr Chairman, to return to the hon member for Yeoville—he is always very good at arithmetic—I shall give him a careful explanation of what went on here. Firstly, if he carefully examines the summary of the supplementary estimates of expenditure that have to be defrayed by the State Revenue Account during the financial year ending on 31 March 1989, he will see that there is an amount of R1 044 866 000. The hon member probably has the figures in front of him.

Go and look at Hansard, col 4028.

Fine, I am now going to take the hon member through these calculations step by step. The hon member knows that the municipal police are now being taken away from the provinces. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

R72 million is being provided for that in the estimate. Is that correct?

Yes.

In the supplementary estimate R180 million is now being provided for that. Is that correct? The hon member for Yeoville, however, must remember that R108 445 000 is being provided for the municipal police in the different provinces. One should surely prevent a double-count from occurring in this R180 million. Correct? This means that one should eliminate the amounts budgeted in the provinces for that. This of course alters the Vote: Development Planning by reducing it by R108 445 000. Correct?

But the municipal police are still receiving R72 million?

No, the hon member must wait. For the municipal police a supplementary amount is …

Order! The hon Deputy Minister really should not provoke the hon member for Yeoville into answering. The hon member for Yeoville may not react to every question that is asked either.

Let us continue. R108 445 000 has now been frozen because it comes out of the R180 million, but the provinces have now received new expenditure under social pensions. We know about the R60. I could just mention, for the benefit of the hon member, that these social pensions are a supplementary expenditure of R30 374 000. The provinces are also responsible for providing compensation for flood damage.

Flood damage is not the same as social pensions!

No, the hon member is interrupting once again.

Mr Chairman, you said I may not provoke the hon member. If he examined it, he would ascertain that an amount of R65 million for flood damage has been budgeted under the Development Planning account. If the hon member adds to that amount that part of the social pensions which the provinces are going to finance themselves, which fall under the Development Planning account, namely R30 374 000, and the R108 445 000 that has been frozen, the total is a negative amount of R13 071 000. If the hon member were to do these few calculations, he would establish that this was correct. The net position with regard to Development Planning is R13 071 000. If that amount were subtracted from the amount of R1 044 866 indicated in this statement, the total would be exactly what we wanted here, that is to say R1 031 795.

You are therefore telling the social pensioners that their money is now going to be used for flood damage.

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member does not understand that the provinces are providing the amount of R30 374 000 for social pensions, whilst the State is providing R79 866 000. This amounts to a total of R110 240 000 for social pensions. The hon member should write down the amounts. It does not look as if he is writing them down, because he is making interjections.

In this supplementary estimate provision is made for the State to budget R135 million for flood damage. The provinces budgeted R65 million for this, and that amounts to a total of R200 million. This fully explains the difference between the amount of R1 044 866 and the amount of R1 031 795.

Let me continue. The investment subsidy for senior citizens, which the hon member dealt with here, represents an amount of R20 million. From the hon the Minister’s statement, and a Press statement that was made subsequently, it appeared that the subsidy would amount to approximately 2,5%. In the estimate provision is made for the amount of R20 million. This system came into operation a short while ago, and we cannot make any adjustments before we have more information. Therefore, if the amount is more than R20 million, we shall have to allocate an extra amount for this purpose.

But do not change the interest rates only!

The hon the Minister announced that he was fixing the interest rates at 15% and that the subsidy would be approximately 2,5%. An adjustment was in fact made, but one amount was budgeted for subsidies on temporary bonds and another for subsidies on building society deposits. Of course, at this stage we cannot say precisely how much more than R20 million will be needed.

I also want to mention to hon members that shifts are, of course, made. People who are older than 65 years will naturally move across to receive the subsidy. At this stage we have appropriated an amount of R20 million, and if we need more, we shall go back and do it in the supplementary estimate.

I want to return to two specific cases that were mentioned here. An amount of R20 million was budgeted for Foreign Affairs, and the hon member for Roodepoort asked a question about this. The decision to increase the pensions of social pensioners by R60 was taken for all three Houses. After this is approved by the three Houses, the national and independent states will come up for consideration. This amounts to a sum of R20 430 000. Exactly the same argument applies to the self-governing states. Their pensioners will also each receive R60 more.

This then gives one an amount of R26,5 billion. This will answer those two questions put to me by the hon member for Roodepoort.

I could just mention that the amount of R550 million for the National Road Fund has been dealt with. What remains now is the assistance to the municipalities by way of the property rates. In summing up I can therefore say that the assistance of the State, if one adds up the figures, amounts to R1 044 866, and if one then makes the adjustments for the amounts to the provinces which now come out of statutory funds, it adds up to a net amount of R13 071 000, and that gives one the amount of R1 031 795.

Mr Chairman, I have come to the conclusion that at least there is always something to be grateful for in this House. I am glad it was the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance who had to explain these figures this afternoon and not the hon the Minister of Information, because if this hon the Deputy Minister, with his head for figures, finds it a struggle, I do not know how the hon Minister of Information—I would also fall in that category if I had to do so—would have been able to explain them. [Interjections].

As regards the improvement of social pensions and grants, I want to ask the hon Deputy Minister which part of that amount has to be used as a result of parents who are liable to pay maintenance for their children but do not do so. It is a fact that this is becoming a tremendous social problem which, in turn, also obliges the state to provide assistance for those needy children in order to support them in cases where the parent responsible for paying maintenance evades his responsibility. I therefore want to ask that we address this social problem very seriously and see what can be done about taking up the matter with the relevant parents, who are not doing their duty with regard to maintenance for their children, and really making sure that they do their duty.

I do not think that there is a problem in principle with the laws relating to maintenance, but I think that we do have a problem enforcing them. I know that the Police are also involved in the effort to trace these people, but this is a difficult problem. It is a problem which is costing the state more and more—directly and indirectly—in terms of human material as well as direct costs to the Police and other people who become involved in it. I think all of us in this House agree that something has to be done about this problem. It has also emerged, from the debate on the Justice Vote, that we all agree that this problem has to be addressed and that it should really be looked into.

One can understand what a problem it creates for a single parent at the end of the month when she has planned on receiving R300 or R400 and that money is not forthcoming. I therefore want to ask that this problem be examined, that the hon Minister of Justice could possibly refer it to the Joint Committee on Justice and that much heavier penalties for maintenance evaders be considered. There should be suitably heavier penalties because it does not help to impose a fine, since then the money that had to go to the child goes into the State coffers. It does not help to send the person to jail either, because then he would probably lose his job and the burden becomes more onerous. In this connection I am thinking of suitable penalties in the form of week-end jail sentences or community-service sentences. However, the fact remains that we can no longer continue in this way, because this problem is increasingly becoming one of a parent who is responsible for paying maintenance but simply avoids his maintenance responsibilities and takes to his heels. As a result other people are placed in a very awkward situation and saddled with problems. Sometimes they cannot even pay their rent, and eviction orders follow. Hire-purchase goods are repossessed.

I therefore want to argue that the hon Minister of Justice should pay attention to this matter. The Standing Committee on Justice or another suitable body could even carry out an in investigation into the matter as well. The hon the Minister could instruct them to investigate and report on the speedier enforcement of maintenance orders, more effective and heavier sentences for maintenance evaders, methods of tracing evaders who do not report changes of address, and assistance by the State in connection with such tracings, as well as the consideration of week-end sentences and community service as sentences for people who evade paying maintenance.

In fact I want to ask that an examination be carried out into the statutory authorisation for information which could be made available to the State with regard to peoples’ addresses so that they can be made available to maintenance officers who have to assist with tracing such maintenance evaders.

Order! The hon member should really bear in mind that we are discussing a financial measure. We therefore cannot let our discussions deal too widely with general aspects of specific Votes.

Mr Chairman, I have dealt with that point. I should now like to raise a few matters for the attention of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. These are matters which I believe deserve consideration.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order to give serious consideration to a danger allowance for members of the Force when they perform duties involving the combating of unrest. It is a fact that the Police are on duty for twenty four hours a day and that they certainly run risks. Nonetheless, when they combat unrest they do, in fact, become the number one target. Their risks increase. Not only do they have to brave the possibility of hand-grenades and carbombs, but they also become the target of bullets, and even worse, the butt of ridicule. They also have to be able to exercise self-control because people often spit at them.

I want to ask that consideration be given to paying a danger allowance to these members of the Force who have to take major risks in order to guarantee our security and to combat unrest. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have been fascinated by previous speaker, who have indicated that the purpose of this debate, in which we are discussing the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure, is to enable us to extract answers from hon Ministers. With respect, Sir, that almost seems to have become something old-fashioned now.

I have a problem in this respect, in particular this evening, because I want to put certain questions to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is not in the House. His hon Deputy Minister is not in the House either. That seems to me to defeat the whole purpose of this exercise.

Neither is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs study group in the House!

Mr Chairman, I am told the chairman of the Foreign Affairs study group is not in the House either.

I want to address myself to matters relating to Vote No 7—“Foreign Affairs”—in which an amount of R20 million is being voted for Foreign Affairs. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance has referred to it briefly, but I would have expected that either the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs would be in the House to reply to questions on a matter of money being voted for their department. They are, however, not here to answer those questions. Who, Sir, is now going to answer whatever questions I am going to put? Is it going to be the hon the Minister of Finance? Is it going to be the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance?

Mr Chairman, in the Supplementary Estimates an amount of R20 million is being voted in respect of Vote No 7 for foreign aid and development co-operation budgetary aid to the TBVC countries. I want to know what the breakdown of this amount is among the TBVC countries. That is my first basic question. How much money is being voted for each of those countries respectively? I should also like to know what sort of control is being exercised over funds voted for those countries.

We accept that although they are de jure independent, they are very much dependent on the Republic of South Africa. One has to accept that, and we in these benches accept that they will obviously need financial aid. We do, however, express concern, and we have done so before, at the way in which funds which are appropriated by this Parliament are being used when they are allocated to the TBVC countries. I had hoped to receive replies in this connection from either the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. What negotiations have taken place? What representations have been made in regard to the manner in which funds are controlled in those countries?

We raise this issue each year when funds are voted for this purpose. The Government ought to know that there is very considerable disquiet as to the manner in which funds are expended in the so-called independent states. I want to know from somebody in the Government benches what progress is being made and whether any agreement has been reached as to the exercise of effective control in respect of funds of this kind. There have been instances in the past of money being spent on extravagant airstrips, aircraft and all sorts of things in respect of which there has been no real indication that there has been an appreciation of priorities in regard to the people of these so-called independent states. I hope that somebody, in the absence of either the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs or the hon the Minister himself, will be able to give some satisfaction on this, as we will be voting an amount of R20 million.

Mr Chairman, I should like to apologise on behalf of the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs, because he is abroad on urgent business.

I should just like to react to what the hon members for Roodepoort and Johannesburg North asked in regard to the amount of R90 million. I think the hon member for Roodepoort made a slight error in his calculations, because he referred to R80 million. [Interjections.]

The amount of R90 has been divided between two programmes. An additional amount of R10 million is being appropriated for programme 5, which provides for buildings, structures and equipment. The police functions in Black areas first fell under the provincial administrations, and were transferred to the SA Police as from 1 April 1988. The function of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs is to supply the police with office accommodation and municipal services. The hon member for Johannesburg North spoke about the possibility of erecting numerous new buildings, etc, but that is not true. The amount of R10 million is in respect of the supplying of municipal services and for office accommodation which is leased from the local authorities.

As far as the R80 million estimate for programme 6 is concerned, in 1981 the State accepted the principle that rates and taxes on State land which falls inside municipal areas should also be paid to those municipalities. This principle is embodied in the Rating of State Property Act of 1984. Meanwhile there are various municipalities like Simon’s Town that already receive funds from the State. They are municipalities which render important services which, but as a result of the kind of service they render, do not receive an income for that specific service. The original amount in the main budget was R112,318 million, but this Act comes into actual effect on 1 July 1988. In other words, all the municipalities qualify to levy taxes on State land within a municipal area as from 1 July 1988, and hence the R80 million. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to some of the questions put by the hon member for Johannesburg North. The hon member referred to the question of pensions and with regard to the amount of R26,5 million asked how the amounts were calculated and how they were divided among the various national states. The hon member has most probably forgotten what he said, but that is what he referred to at the commencement of his speech before he digressed and spoke about certain irrelevant issues.

The way in which those pensions are allocated to the various self-governing territories, is that they present a return, as on 1 May, of the people on their pension registers, in other words their actual pensioners. Further provision is then made for an increase in pensioners, as has been occurring on average recently. The number per self-governing territory is then obtained. The total amount of R26,5 million, allocated by the hon the Minister of Finance, is divided among the self-governing territories on that basis.

The hon member specifically asked what portion of the amount of R26,5 million was due to KwaNdebele. The amount is R1 130 000.1 must add that provision must be made for the fact that the inhabitants of Moutse no longer fall under the administration of the Government of KwaNdebele and that the payment of their pensions is therefore now the South African Government’s responsibility, and is specifically a responsibility discharged by the Transvaal Provincial Administration, which manages social services for Black people outside the self-governing territories. That is why an amount of R336 000 will be retained and, in due course, defrayed from my department’s budget and transferred to the Transvaal Provincial Administration for the payment of pensions in the Moutse area. That is the position in regard to pensions. I trust that I have answered the hon member’s questions.

What about KwaNdebele?

He also asked a question about KwaNdebele, and broached the whole subject of independence. Independence is entirely outside the scope of this debate, which deals with amounts which have been allocated for specific purposes in the supplementary budget. I think it would be inappropriate for me to reply to his comments on KwaNdebele’s independence at this stage. [Interjections.]

He also spoke about the question of the police. The police are, in fact, included in the appropriation in the sense that a number of policemen are seconded to KwaNdebele by the South African Government. The seconding costs involved—these people’s salaries—are included in the appropriation for aid to the self-governing territories. The function of control over the police is an autonomous function in terms of the Constitution Proclamation of KwaNdebele and the Constitution of National States, and is exercised by KwaNdebele itself. We are, however, of the opinion that the influence of the South African Police, through its seconded officials, plays an extremely important stabilising role there. The final responsibility for the police in KwaNdebele is, however, that of the KwaNdebele Government.

I think that I have hereby replied in general to the relevant aspects raised by the hon member.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon the Minister but would like to refer to another hon Minister, that of National Health and Population Development. I want to refer to Vote 26, which concerns him, as well as the other Votes on Pensions such as Vote 9, Vote 24, Vote 25 and others.

First of all, I want to quote from the extended Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Finance in which the hon the Minister says the following about supplementary expenditure proposals on social pensions (Hansard, 1988, col 4018):

That concerns the once-off payment of R60. First of all I understand from the hon the Deputy Minister—if I did understand his complicated, oral answers to my colleague the hon member for Yeoville correctly—that this document, which is in fact headed “Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure”, is completely worthless. We can tear it up …

That is mine!

… and it actually means nothing at all! [Interjections.] He talks about a sum of R79,866 million for Black social pensions. It is not in that document. There is a sum of R13.158 million for the House of Assembly which, if one divides it by R60 once off, gives one 218 000 social pensioners. There is a sum of R15,589 million for the House of Representatives, which gives one 258 000 social pensioners, and there is a sum of R3,977 million for the House of Delegates. R110 million on a one off R60 basis would give one about 1,8 million social pensioners in South Africa. I want to ask whoever is going to reply to that whether that figure is correct.

Are there 1,8 million social pensioners? If that is not so, either the amount of R60 is wrong, or the R110 million is wrong. Certainly one or the other is wrong.

Secondly I should like to touch on Vote No 26 and deal with the Government Service Pension Fund. The figure in the document I have torn up does not appear in the Appropriation Bill, Supplementary Estimate [B55A]. [Interjections.]

We are talking about a sum of money which is meant to increase the amount contributed by the State to the Government State Pension Fund. I should like to ask the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development a question. He responded to me some six weeks ago by saying he was looking into the matter concerning civil pensioners who had long retired and were in a difficult position. I ask directly whether they have been provided for in this estimate. If this is not the case, I suggest that a survey of their needs should be made, certainly before next year’s Budget, because they desperately need to be served.

Lastly, I wish to refer to the provinces. Again I direct this question to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance who I think is going to respond to this debate. I ask that hon Deputy Minister—or the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because the provinces are his responsibility—the following question. He indicated that a sum of R100 million was needed for the improvement of beach facilities. I wish to know whether that sum is included in this Supplementary Estimate or not. [Interjections.] Fortunately we do not have a beach in Pinetown, but I know the hon member for Durban Point desperately needs that money to have the facilities in his area upgraded.

The answer to that question is no.

The hon the Minister says it is not included in the Supplementary Estimate. Thank you, Sir. The question that follows is obvious. Where is that money going to come from and when is it going to be made available to the provinces? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, let me first talk to the hon member for Roodepoort. He asked whether the total flood damage had now more or less been finally determined and, if so, what percentage of that total comprised the R100 million for the Administration: House of Assembly. It is very clear that the hon member for Roodepoort—this is most probably why he asked the question—is concerned about the share of the funds being allocated to the Whites. The facts of the matter are as follows. An amount of R200 million is being appropriated in these supplementary estimates, of which R100 million is being allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly, R17 million to the Cape Provincial Administration, an amount of R48 million to the Free State Provincial Administration and an amount of R5 million to the Administration: House of Representatives.

How much for the Indians?

There are no Indians in the Free State, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] I want to point out to the hon member for Yeoville that I am discussing the disaster in the Free State at the moment and not the one in Natal. [Interjections.]

Is not one penny going to the Indians? [Interjections.]

At the moment I am discussing the disaster in the Free State. The hon member for Yeoville knows very well that at the moment there are probably about 20 Indians in the Free State.

The fact of the matter is that the total sum amounts to R304 104 000. I want to tell the hon member for Roodepoort he must remember that an additional amount of R60 239 000 will be appropriated in the Additional Estimates of next year for the Administration: House of Assembly. The total is therefore R160 239 000, and the total damage amounts to R304 104 000. These are the amounts he must use when making his calculations.

I also think it is important that the hon member for Roodepoort should realise that the amounts being allocated to the Free State and the Cape Provincial Administrations are also being allocated for facilities which will be used for Whites. For example, the total sum for the Orange Free State Provincial Administration will ultimately be R61 839 000, and that for the Cape Provincial Administration, R23 508 000. I think that answers his question.

†As far as the hon member for Pinetown is concerned, I would like to say that of course I am worried about the civil pensioners, and of course we would like to do something about their plight. However, we need money for that. The amount of R30 million in the Supplementary Budget is being requested because of the fact that the municipal police activities, which fell under the provincial administration were transferred on 1 April 1988, and therefore we have to provide a part of their pensions, which makes up the amount of R20 million. I think that answers his question.

Mr Chairman, I just want to deal with one specific aspect in this Vote because I want to make several observations in regard to the additional allocation for flood relief assistance. I think there are certain aspects that need to be addressed. May I say that I am pleased to see the hon the Minister of Agriculture is here, because I want to refer to certain agricultural aspects. All in all, I think the flood relief measures have been generous to a degree. I want openly to express my appreciation and commend the Government for the prompt response that has come for calls of help from those who suffered damage in the recent floods in Natal, the Free State and parts of the Eastern and Northern Cape.

Now that the pressures arising from the floods have, as it were, subsided, I do feel it is an appropriate time to reflect on certain aspects of these floods and their aftermath, and also on the assistance measures that Government has provided. In this regard I want specifically to refer to the agricultural sector. While I appreciate that it may not be possible across the floor of this House, I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could provide me, in letter form if necessary, with information regarding the number of applications received for assistance from the agricultural sector, those that have been approved and those that have been turned down. I am receiving repeated reports from unfortunate people who have applied for assistance, but have not been successful.

The one point also that I want to stress in this regard, is how important it is that any assistance measures, relative to floods and natural disasters, be made available on a uniform basis. As I see it, there also is much to be learnt from the bitter experience of these recent disasters. While I accept, too, that floods of the magnitude of those experienced in 1987 and 1988 may not be repeated, and hopefully they will not for many years to come, the damage that has been caused to the agricultural sector will be evident for many years to come. It may be necessary to make provision for an additional injection of funds from Treasury for several years yet to finance the restoration of arable land in the form of longterm soil protection measures, and also to encourage the application of measures which will be aimed at expediting the recovery of the natural vegetation to the condition that it was before the floods.

I also wish to emphasise that a particular responsibility does rest on the Department of Agriculture—this is a point that I want to bring as forcibly as I can to the hon the Minister’s attention—to ensure that where financial assistance has been provided in the form of flood relief, the recipients concerned be required to account to the department to the effect that the funds received have been and are being utilised in accordance with the respective applications that have been made.

While accepting the fact that there is little one can do to contain the devastation of a once in a hundred years flood, I do feel that more positive steps should be taken to identify what one may possibly term “flood-prone areas”. The implication of occupying such areas should be carefully analysed with a view to minimising, as far as possible, the havoc that repeated floods bring in their wake.

As we know, the Department of Agriculture has an important role to play in ensuring also the correct utilisation of our natural resources. It is a job that is not made any easier by natural disasters. At the same time, it must also be at the forefront on any restoration exercise to ensure that any financial assistance provided by the State will be effective, not only in the short term, but also in the long term. This could probably require a greater sense of discipline in the total application of these measures. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River will forgive me if I do not link up with his speech. My hon colleague will discuss the field to which he referred.

I rise merely to make a single comment in response to the request of the hon member for Bethal about the payment of a riot or danger allowance to members of the SA Police. The hon member raised the argument that the police are subjected to tremendous pressure. He said they were the target of revolutionaries and riots in the Black residential areas and other rural areas. I want to tell the hon member that he is right. The SAP is the target of these revolutionary forces and of radicals who do everything in their power to make life difficult for them.

I should like to assure the hon member that we are fully aware of that. No one realises, better than the Commissioner of the SAP and I, under what tremendous pressure the police have to work each day. We come into contact with our men every day and we know how difficult their task is. They are exposed to danger, and because we fully understand this and have every sympathy for them, we have paid attention to this matter on various occasions.

However, we now have a practical situation in our country in which one cannot single out only certain policemen to combat riots. It is true there are riot units, but all members of the Force are available and are constantly being used whenever riots break out in an area. The people in uniform, the riot units, as well as other men and women in the offices, are used to combat riots. Thus members of the Security Branch who are involved specifically in combating and dealing with riots every day and are therefore subjected to far greater danger, are also used.

Because the utilisation of the policemen constantly varies, we decided quite some time ago that we should rather try to pay them all an allowance. After all, they are all subjected to the same pressures and the dangers. That is why a service allowance for privation and for long working hours is being paid to all policemen and policewomen at present. I want to mention to the hon member that a constable with four years’ service at present receives a monthly amount of R155 for that service. It is too little, and I should dearly like to increase it, but that is what we can afford and what we can pay them out of gratitude and to display our understanding for the danger to which they are subjected and for the difficult task they perform.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture I should like to respond very briefly to what the hon member for Mooi River has said.

*The hon member touched on quite a few matters which could, in fact, evoke quite lengthy discussions, but to which I want to add very briefly.

Firstly, I want to thank the hon member for his favourable comments about the aid which the State rendered in the flood-disaster areas. We will undertake to furnish the hon member with the number of applications we have received, the number that have been accepted and the number that have been rejected. It would be very interesting to look at these figures, because no means test and also virtually no merit test is applied in the course of any disaster. The person in question has therefore been plunged into a disaster, and the State accepts a responsibility to restore agriculture in South Africa to a production level similar to that prior to the disaster.

What the hon member said in regard to uniformity is also very true. We must ensure that the flood aid rendered in Natal is rendered to the same extent in the Cape and in the Free State. That is why the assistance that we later rendered in the Free State and in the Northern Cape was also applied with retrospective effect in certain parts of Natal. We therefore specifically did what the hon member requested.

We also went a step further by appointing someone in a reasonably senior position in the department to liaise with the agricultural credit committees and to ensure that the assistance rendered was rendered uniformly and that uniform records were maintained.

The hon member raised numerous other arguments, but I want to conclude by referring to a final one, namely the question of occupation within the high-water mark. It is a fact that people live below the high-water mark. They sometimes even live below high-water marks where the possibility of one flood in ten years exists. During the past floods we learnt our lesson, and I think that the insurance companies will eventually change their insurance premiums to such an extent that the people will move from these danger areas.

As far as the question of farming below the high-water mark is concerned, it is unfortunate that irrigation farming is practiced below the high-water marks along the rivers because the fertile land is situated there. That is why the principle applied in respect of occupation, namely that the people must live above the high-water mark, cannot be applied directly to farming. Even if the State were to grant no assistance during such a flood, the farmers in those areas—I am talking about the Orange River area in particular—would, in spite of the flood danger, still be able to continue farming in those areas because it was so lucrative that the farmer could afford to make good his own flood damage once in a period of 15 or 20 years.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister is, in fact, an expert in the field of irrigation, because he is an irrigation farmer himself and is involved in it.

However, the hon member asked a specific question about the long-term position of these farmers. Hon members know that it is not usually our policy to compensate members for crop losses. It did not occur in Natal or in this area. The matter is very complicated, because people suffer losses in respect of various items. One farmer suffers cattle losses, while another farmer’s vineyards are washed away. Consequently, the permanent vegetation and his crops have been destroyed in the process. We basically try to restore his production set-up so as to enable him to have a crop again.

What should, however, occur in the meantime? In the meantime the farmer should obtain finance and assistance to enable him to produce again. We are considering putting basically the same schemes that are applicable in the summer-grain drought areas, inter alia, into operation in the flood areas. The six-year and 10-year schemes managed by the co-operatives may also be applied in those areas. Hon members will understand that these co-operatives also find themselves in problem situations. Because of the lack of a cash-flow for these flood-ravaged farmers, security could be given to the Land Bank by way of State guarantees, for example. The Land Bank, in turn, would lend money to the cooperatives, and in this way the farmer would obtain capital during a bridging period whilst he systematically returns to full production as his permanent crops recover.

Mr Chairman, there are a number of rather loose ends remaining in this debate, and there are some fascinating ones because it is now clear that this is not a complete supplementary budget at all. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development has already told us that there is R60 million which he is going to spend this year which is not in the supplementary estimates, and that he is going to take it into the additional estimates next year.

No!

This supplementary estimate, therefore, is a lot of junk!

That was not what I said.

But he did say it; I heard it with my own ears and so did everybody else in the House.

Let me go one further. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has made an announcement as to R200 million that is going to be available for beaches, and he has conceded it is not in the estimates and it is going to be spent this year. I would imagine that if one has supplementary estimates and one knows the amounts one is going to spend when one presents the estimates, one should put them in the supplementary estimates. That is their purpose. But no, Sir, it is not here! The reality is, therefore, is that we might as well leave the whole thing alone and leave it until next year when the additional estimates come up and then everybody else will go and put in their items again. That is not the way in which to conduct the finances of the country.

I asked the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development during a speech—and twice in interjections—to explain why he had lost R300 000. He did not find it necessary to explain it. R300 000 means nothing—one can just throw it away and nobody has to worry about it or discuss it! I raised the question as to why there is no flood relief for the House of Delegates. Nobody has taken the trouble to give the slightest indication as to why there is no money for flood relief for the House of Delegates when there is money for the House of Assembly and when there is money for the House of Representatives! Why is there no money for the House of Delegates?

We are dealing with the Orange Free State here!

We are not dealing with the Free State; we are dealing with South Africa!

This supplementary budget is for the Free State. Cannot you understand that?

No, it is not only for the Free State. You yourself said it is also for the Cape Province.

The Orange Free State and the Northern Cape …

To me the Cape is not part of the Free State, not yet!

[Inaudible.]

That is not an explanation, in the same way that it is not an explanation for the R300 000.

[Inaudible.]

What is your problem?

You are not listening to me!

I am listening to you, but you will not give any answers!

The Natal disaster …

Let me spell it out and I will then have a gap in my speech. Will the hon the Minister tell me what has happened to the R300 000 in his Vote?

Where? In my Vote?

Yes! I have now said it four times and I do not get an answer.

Mr Chairman, it would be a great pleasure to tell the hon member what happened to it.

Order! I just have this procedural difficulty …! [Interjections.]

*Order! No, the hon the Minister will have to resume his seat. [Interjections.]

I will give that hon Minister the Rules of this House if he wants them. If he wants to ask me a question, I will give him the time to do so. [Interjections.] No, but there is no such procedure in the Rules! Does that hon Minister not know the Rules? One cannot just get up in the middle of another man’s speech! Has he never heard of that?

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

Yes, you may.

The question I would like to ask the hon member for Yeoville is the following: If I say that R300 000 has been spent on workmen’s compensation because they have to get R60 each, like the social pensioners, would he agree that that is a satisfactory answer? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would say that that is not a correct answer because if one spends money the amount in the supplementary estimates increases, it does not decrease.

Therefore, to say that when one spends more money the amounts decrease, I regret, cannot be true. I cannot believe the hon the Minister. If he has any further questions, I should be quite happy to answer them. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to come back now to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. I should like him to try to explain to me the following. He tried very hard earlier to confuse social pensions with flood relief and the provincial issue. Let him, however, explain one very simple thing to this House. The amount that was going to be spent in respect of supplementary grants was said by the hon the Minister of Finance to be R1 032 000 000. It is now R1 044 000 000. Therefore, Sir, according to my elementary arithmetic, there is an extra R12 million.

Very elementary, my dear Watson!

Right! It is very elementary! Even the hon member for Parow understands it! It must really be very simple then. [Interjections.] Now, will the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance be so kind as to tell the House what this sum of R12 million consists of?

It is R13 million.

No, Sir, to me the difference between R32 million and R44 million is R12 million. If the hon the Deputy Minister says it is R13 million, then there is something wrong with his arithmetic. It is R12 million. Will he now please tell us how that amount is arrived at so that we can know what is going on?

Mr Chairman, I have tried my utmost to explain. It nevertheless seems as though the days when I taught statistics are too far in the past. I have obviously lost my touch.

It is a very simple question!

It is very simple, yes. That is correct. The figure that was allocated amounts to R1 044 000 000. In the meantime, however, the State has made provision for R180 million for the take-over of the municipal police. In the budgets of the provinces provision has, however, also been made for R108 million for the same purpose. This means that we have a degree of overlapping. The provision that was made for this purpose in the provincial budgets—in the Development account—should therefore be decreased by R108 million.

The provinces are nevertheless going to assist financially in regard to flood disaster in the meantime. They are also going to assist as far as social pensions are concerned. Social pensions represent an increasing expenditure of R30,3 billion. As far as financial aid in regard to flood damage is concerned, the provinces’ expenditure increased by R65 million. Consequently if one adds the R30,3 billion by which social pensions have increased to the R65 million in financial aid in respect of flood damage, and then deducts the total from the R108 million, the remaining figure represents the difference which the hon member for Yeoville is seeking.

[Inaudible.]

Well, the figure to which the hon member for Yeoville has referred is R1 044 866 000, and the final figure at which we arrive is R1 031 795 000. That is consequently a negative figure of R13 071 000. Correct?

It is R12 million.

Very well, the hon member says it is R12 million. I maintain that it is not R12 million. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to take it a step further.

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

Yes, the hon member must just not try to stump me!

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Deputy Minister please repeat this calculation for the hon member for Yeoville very slowly?

If he can explain slowly how R12 million suddenly became R13 million, I would certainly appreciate it! [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to the difference between the Additional Appropriation and the Supplementary Appropriation. Someone else also asked about the beach costs. The final costs have not, however, been determined. A figure has been mentioned. It will come from the Additional Appropriation.

Why do we have an Additional Appropriation? We have a Supplementary Appropriation, a Main Budget and a Part Appropriation. Each one has a specific function. If we were to include everything in the Supplementary Appropriation, even amounts which we could spend in three months’ time or so, why do we have an Additional Appropriation? If we did not have an Additional Appropriation, the hon member for Yeoville would have nothing to talk about. [Interjections.]

We shall consequently maintain the Additional Appropriation, which will next year again afford the hon member for Yeoville an opportunity to express criticism. [Interjections.]

With regard to the Supplementary Appropriation, questions were asked about social pensions, as well as financial aid to the TBVC countries out of the Foreign Affairs Vote.

†For the edification of the hon member for Berea I may mention that R9,8 million is being voted for financial aid to Transkei, R5 million for Bophuthatswana, R2,08 million for Venda and R3,45 million for Ciskei. The issue of the control over these moneys, I remember, was covered in extensive detail by the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs during the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote. I recommend that the hon member for Berea read that speech again.

It was said that if R110 million was to be voted for pensions, and each person was to receive R60, that would work out to approximately 1,8 million pensioners. That is statistically correct. Last year we had about 1,4 million pensioners, if I remember correctly. There is a growth factor involved, and therefore I do not think 1,8 million is an unrealistic calculation.

*Mr Chairman, I think I have reacted to most of the issues that deserved my attention.

Debate concluded.

Decision on Votes, supplementary amounts and Schedules postponed.

Order! I have to announce that the following vacancies in the representation in the House of Representatives have been filled with effect from 8 June 1988:

1. (1) Eersterus, by the election of Mr P R E Da Gama;
2. (2) Natal Mid-East, by the election of Mr W L Whyte.

Mr Chairman, I should like to welcome the newly elected hon member for Natal Mid-East. I was, in fact, the first to congratulate him on the morning of his election. In whatever he desires for Natal Mid-East he will have our full support.

I also want to congratulate the new hon member for Eersterus on a fine show. Well done!

Mr Chairman, one does not feel inclined to participate in a debate after a long and exhausting election campaign. One cannot but share in the joy of the newly elected members after their swearing-in, however. I want to express a special word of congratulations to the hon member for Natal Mid-East and the hon member for Eersterus. I have known the hon member for Eersterus for years, but have come to know him better since the Easter recess. I had the pleasant privilege of travelling with him through his extensive constituency. I know that we have definitely elected a person whose heart beats warmly for his people. I also know that he is someone who would lay down his life for that splendid community in the Lowveld and especially in the Eastern Transvaal. I want to wish the hon members a pleasant time in the House.

I want to confine myself to a certain extent to the stayaway action which took place in South Africa last week and I want to link it to the Government’s unwillingness—or should I say inability—to solve the political problems of the country. The economy and politics are inextricably bound together. The two have to be reconciled with each other in order to solve the problems of the country. The stayaway arose in consequence of resistance to the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. What struck me was a survey made by Assocom which pointed out that the stayaway cost the South African economy nothing less than R500 million; the amount includes loss of production. What is of more importance is that this stayaway action resulted in a loss of salary for about 2,5 to 3 million people.

The question arises involuntarily whether South Africa can afford the loss of production and salaries. To me the reply is a definite no. As long as the Government persists in keeping the majority of South Africans out of decision-making processes, instability and even chaos will be the order of the day. The White establishment of South Africa believes that trade unions should keep out of politics and confine themselves to negotiations for better wages and working conditions for their members; that they should leave politics to politicians. Nevertheless, if one investigates the matter, one immediately realises that members of trade unions do not have a political platform which can serve as a safety valve. I believe that trade unions can play a very important political role in South Africa as they are one of the most important forces which can lay the foundation for a democratic system in the country.

I believe that democratic organisations have two essential characteristics. Firstly, people must be able to participate in decisions that affect their lives—which is not the case in South Africa. Secondly—and this flows directly from the first characteristic—it must be possible to call these leaders to account.

It is unfortunately the case that White South Africans have unimpeded access to a system of free enterprise, to good education and a legal system which accords them all the privileges and advantages of a free society. In contrast, Black people have no democratic say in governmental processes and especially not in business processes. As a direct result of this, trade unions have encapsulated the emotional motivating forces of workers and they play upon the conscience of the broad mass of the population. We saw last week what the cost of this was to the business community, South African society and the economy. Last week, during my travels in the Eersterus constituency, I visited Bisonbord at Piet Retief, the largest manufacturer of Bisonbord in the entire southern hemisphere, and they had a 100% stayaway there. We cannot afford this in South Africa.

We could turn South Africa into the “Japan of Africa”—if I may use such an expression—if the Government and the business community on the one hand and the trade unions on the other would settle their differences. These are not specifically differences on the part of the trade unions, because they insist on representation where it matters, hence the resistance to the Labour Relations Amendment Bill which takes away the power of negotiation which the worker had and places it in the hands of those with powerful capital backing. South Africa could become an economic giant, but it is not necessary for the country to destroy itself first. We believe that it would be preferable to build a new South Africa from the ashes of apartheid and not the ruins of our economy.

Hear, hear!

Sir, the Government frequently says that apartheid is outdated. We who stand on the wrong side of apartheid, however, know it is vigorous and kicks very hard. [Interjections.]

Just let us examine the cosmetic changes last week. Some of my hon colleagues waxed lyrical about the removal of certain signboards. That is in the Western Cape, Sir. What about the Transvaal where we generate the income for South Africa? I shall not even mention the Free State; they are not on the map yet. [Interjections.] Sir, after this hotchpotch I shall continue as if nothing has happened.

Order! Can hon members see in what an unenviable position the Chairman finds himself? [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I believe that all trade unions in South Africa are striving inter alia, just like the LP and all liberation movements, for the elimination of apartheid which after centuries has resulted in a pitiful erosion of human endeavour in our national interest. If we in South Africa strive to become a power of world format, it is essential that every individual be granted the opportunity of exercising his democratic rights. We are definitely not a free society and I want to warn that our being separate from one another is leading to destruction. Together, however, we can build a free society in which the interdependence of people can come into its own.

I have said on various occasions in this House that the hon the Minister and his advisers deserve only our praise for the efforts they are making to get the economy well and truly off the ground.

Unfortunately I have to tell the hon the Minister once again that his efforts will be hampered continually while the Government does not wish to move toward positive power-sharing. Our economic problems internally as well as overseas can only be aggravated in the process. The spectre of sanctions is bedevilling us and we know what adverse consequences this holds for the country. We have reached a stage in which it is extremely difficult to build bridges to a safe future unless large-scale political change takes place. Here I want to refer in particular to one of the great fathers of apartheid, the Group Areas Act. It will not benefit us at all in South Africa to establish so-called released areas. We in South Africa insist on freedom of movement so that people can settle where their pockets permit and that there will be no discrimination against them on the basis of the colour of their skin.

†Something more than just talking about sharing political power has to be done. Political and economic power go together and the difficulties we experience in the economic sphere will only get worse unless there is some means by which Black South Africans can have a real means of influencing events, beside the powerful weapon of disrupting our economy.

*I am one of the people who believe that a strong economy is essential in order to ensure that reform takes place successfully in a country like South Africa. The paralysing of our economy will definitely have an adverse effect on the process of reform. In this case I believe that trade union leaders, as well as the Government, have to be addressed and that an urgent appeal must be made to them to act responsibly in granting equal rights to all people in South Africa in the national interest.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the leadership of the LP, as well as all the people who helped with my canvassing. I also want to thank my voters in the Eersterus constituency. I think hon members will agree with me that Eersterus is the biggest constituency in the world.

I pledge my loyalty to the mighty LP of South Africa and its leadership. I am proud to say that in the Eersterus constituency they think the whole world of the hon Leader of the LP, and I agree with them.

Mr Chairman, I rise today to address this House as a very proud member of the mighty LP, a party that is not confined to one or two constituencies, or to constituencies which were won in the name of the LP. The LP is a national party and stretches from the oceans here in Cape Town up to the borders of Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Swaziland. The LP represents the whole spectrum of the South African society. One has merely to look at the voters’ roll of Eersterus to realise the number of White and African people on that roll. When our canvassers went there, they did not only canvass in English or Afrikaans, because this LP is truly the LP of South Africa. While the LP is winning elections, the Government is losing their elections.

Surely, while there is a blatant message to them from us, they should be able to find some hidden message in that for them. That message is that they must listen to the LP. The LP has the answers to this country’s problems.

In both constituencies there was an increase in the support for us. In Natal Mid-East our number of votes went up from 907 to over 2 000. That is a massive increase. In Eersterus our majority also increased. Our number of votes rose from approximately 4 200 to 5 301, which gave us a majority of 3 001.

What makes this so important is the fact that this election campaign was based on three issues: The person and leadership of our leader, Rev Allan Hendrickse …

Hear, Hear!

Furthermore, it was based on the whole issue of conscription and, thirdly, on the whole issue of group areas. It covered the whole spectrum—from our leader’s resignation from the Cabinet to the Skilpadsaal conference and the postponement of White elections. The message for all of us is very clear: The people out there support the LP and they support our leader in our stand against group areas and the Government’s policy of apartheid.

However, Sir, the campaign of the Official Opposition was a very pathetic one—and a very dirty one. [Interjections.] Never before have I seen a whole campaign being based on a cartoon—a false cartoon with the message: “Askies, my Baas!”

*We all know who has to apologise to whom today. As a result of that swimming episode, King’s Beach has been declared open, and it is still open to all races.

†One would think that the Official Opposition, collectively, had a tiny bit of intelligence. One would have expected that they would have learnt a lesson in Northern Transvaal, Gelvandale and the Bokkeveld. Hopefully, with a view to the next elections, they will have learnt something from what has happened in Natal Mid-East and Eersterus. Maybe they will now understand that they cannot take on the LP unless they can offer a viable option.

*The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition boasted here that he was in charge of the Transvaal and that it was due to him that the LP had won in Transvaal. Sir on Wednesday the 8th, however, Jac Rabie was buried in the Transvaal. I want to issue a challenge to him. I am willing to resign in my constituency if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is willing to do the same, because he will not return to this House.

†Sir, they not only had no policy; they tried to run a campaign based on confusion. They persisted in using LP colours instead of red and black. Their posters and car stickers mentioned “Rabie for Eersterus”. The name UDP did not appear anywhere. I have never come across a group of people who are so ashamed of the name of their own party.

*Sir, the caps they wore were printed in our colours—brown on white. It was disgraceful!

Even the helicopter! [Interjections.]

Yes, the helicopter was brown and yellow—our colours. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I address the hon leader of the LP, hon members of Parliament, MECs and ministerial representatives. I feel honoured and privileged to be in such august company today. I also feel quite humble that the LP, in its wisdom, chose me as their candidate. I wish to thank the LP in general for the generous financial assistance which they rendered me. I wish to thank my hon colleagues—if I may now call them that—for their moral support. I knew that, wherever they were, they were with me in their thoughts and in their prayers.

I also wish to thank those people who came to my assistance, in particular the hon members for Hanover Park and Nuweveld, the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development and of course all the others, who are too many to mention. I would also like to convey my gratitude to Mr Cliffie Nasson.

I wish to pledge to carry out my duties and to work my fingers to the bone to fulfil the promises contained in my manifesto. Furthermore I wish to pledge that I will try, with the help of my hon colleagues, to solve the problems in Natal MidEast which are manifold and critical. The specific problems are a critical shortage of housing and of course the high rentals those people are forced to pay. The whole of Pietermaritzburg, particularly the eastern area, needs upgrading. Mr Chairman and the hon the Leader of the Labour Party, I feel confident that with the help of the LP I will be able to alleviate these problems. [Interjections.]

This election has once again given a clear indication, as the ministerial representative of Natal so aptly put it, that the UDP is a political wash-out. [Interjections.] It would be in the interests of the Coloured people in general that they pack their bags and stop being of nuisance value.

Order! Will the hon member for Natal Mid-East please address the Chair and, seeing that this is his maiden speech, also refrain from saying controversial things. [Interjections.] Order! Hon members must afford me the opportunity to teach the hon member the ropes. The hon member may proceed.

I apologise, Sir. To the hon the Leader of the LP I wish to bring a special message from the voters of Natal Mid-East, which is to go ahead with the path of negotiation and reform he has chosen. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am almost inclined to continue at a jogtrot as the hon member for Addo started, but I do not think time will permit me to do so.

At this period, in which reform is propagated in an extensive way and is the order of the day, one realises that the community and various political groupings have ideals and expectations which have to be satisfied. The NP is regarded by many as the political party which has to take the initiative in this reform. What must also be understood, however, is that the NP initiative would not be worth much if it were not for the work which the LP has done in this House.

In future the NP will have to listen and it will have to listen well. In the past, moderates in South Africa were inclined to keep quiet about their standpoints, but the LP’s decision to participate made the moderate voice audible. At present the voice of the LP is audible through its representation of its community. The LP’s decision to participate provided numerous moderates in the country with the opportunity of making themselves heard. The LP is a mouthpiece which may not be ignored; that is why the NP should pay close attention to the arguments and the requests of the LP in this House.

By paying attention to these, the NP will really be able to create a climate conducive to further reform. If the NP does not listen to the moderate voice in South Africa, reform will not bring about the stability which is required at local community level. The NP says that the ideal of its reform is to uplift all as equal citizens within the framework of separate community development. The ideal of equal citizenship links up with the expectations of the majority of parliamentarians as well as extra-parliamentary groupings. The message from both directions is that citizens can only be equal if all population groups are economically equal.

The small business sector has a phenomenal role to play in the process of economic development and reform. This is where we, the so-called other communities, can play an important part. This should be seen as the motive power behind the ideal of economic equality. Small business should receive that emphasis. I want to add immediately that I have the greatest appreciation for the Government’s actions to date and for what it has accomplished in activating the small business sector. Until approximately 1980 the development of small business undertakings was left largely to a variety of ad hoc initiatives. Since the formation of the SBDC in 1981, small business development has progressed excellently in South Africa. To date the SBDC has been the provider of approximately 18 985 loans in the amount of R451,4 million. Making 440 864 m2 of lettable space available for shops, workshops and factories brought progress to less developed communities in particular. The SBDC was responsible for providing about 190 750 job opportunities across the colour bar during a period of only seven years. These are certainly achievements. These are the most comprehensive small business development activities on the continent of Africa and certainly in the southern hemisphere as well. This should be appreciated, because it is an achievement.

In consequence of the lagging economic development of Black and Coloured communities, the development of small business undertakings among these two communities justifies an even greater bite out of the Budget. If Government budgets more for small business development among the Coloured and Black communities, they can be placed on the road to prosperity and progress. Although the IDC envisages playing a part in small business development too, I think the same or even greater generosity should be extended to the SBDC. Economic shackling of the SBDC in this financial year has proved a telling blow to small business development.

The SBDC is dependent upon the hon the Minister’s budget. The IDC is chiefly concerned with the development of the big business sector and prospective Black and Coloured businessmen do not easily come into consideration for assistance in this grouping because they have not yet developed to the level of big businessmen.

Small business is generally accepted as a key element in a national development strategy for South Africa. The President’s Council’s Committee for Economic Affairs confirmed in its 1985 report that the local big business sector, as is the case worldwide, could not provide adequate job opportunities for the annual intake of new entrants to the labour market. The promotion of self-employment in the formal as well as the informal sector is of paramount importance for employment creation in South Africa. The promotion of small business and deregulation plays a crucial role in this. It is also a key element in the expansion of the system of free enterprise and the distribution of interests in the South African economy.

In South Africa small business is promoted chiefly by means of the Small Business Development Corporation. The SBDC was established in 1980 as a partnership between the State and the private sector. The corporation provides loan financing, advice and development services and promotes deregulation in particular in the general interests of the small business sector. Since its establishment the corporation has assisted in creating and maintaining approximately 190 750 job opportunities. Whereas the average cost per job opportunity is estimated at about R30 000 in large manufacturing companies, the average cost made possible by the SBDC was approximately R2 500.

Order! Would hon members speak a little more softly. The hon member may proceed.

That is the amount which the SBDC spent per job opportunity. The Government accepted the recommendation of the 1985 report of the President’s Council as early as 1986. Setting aside the initial considerable Government allocations, it would appear that the financial investment of the State in small business development is stagnating. This is disturbing because it puts communities of colour in this country at a disadvantage. On the announcement of the Government’s privatisation plans earlier this year it was said that the proceeds of privatisation projects could be channelled partly to development work, which includes small business. The realisation of this is still distant, however. Meanwhile the State has referred the SBDC to the capital market with the offer of an interest subsidy included. This disturbs me. In my opinion it is not a practicable alternative because long-term funds cannot be acquired in the capital market today at less than 15% per annum. This is an exceptionally expensive means of borrowing. Even with a 7% interest subsidy, the costs of such funds will still amount to 8%.

Financing granted by the SBDC in general does not generate more than 5% per annum. This is inevitably the case when the operation has to be carried out on the high risk—low return side of the market. Administration costs have to be covered by this 5% too. This makes it difficult for the SBDC to function profitably. Consequently it is obvious that it would be unwise for the SBDC to lend funds at 8% which would generate a return of less than 5%. How can an institution function if it has to be operated at a loss? This would definitely affect the organisation most adversely. It is clear that the financing of the SBDC should be placed far higher on the State’s financial priority list.

As regards the stated need for the promotion of self-employment—as in the case of the IDC—the State should make further capital allocations to the SBDC to enable it to continue its essential development work and its proven success. There is no other organisation with the same infrastructure and expertise which can hold a candle to the SBDC. It has an important part to play. I agree that it would be a tragedy if the SBDC were really to start cutting back as a result of a shortage of funds. This could delay the upliftment activities of other communities in the country, the so-called people of colour—altogether.

Mr Chairman, …

Take him!

Order! What does the hon member for Northern Cape mean by the words “take him”? Take whom? Would the hon member please explain it to me.

[Inaudible.]

I want to call out in triumph today: It is splendid to be a member of the Labour Party! Sir, permit me the opportunity of referring to the recent by-elections. I want to congratulate our two candidates most sincerely once again on their splendid victories and welcome them to the House. If one examines the results, it is very clear that the LP has won and is still winning a great deal of ground. This is especially remarkable when viewed in the light of the poor publicity and media coverage—especially by SATV.

In Natal we also had to take the English-speaking Press, whose reporting was anti-LP, into account. It is unnecessary to say that the LP election machinery was running in top gear and that hard work was done in all spheres, especially by young MPs in the House. We did not regard the voters as voting cattle, but gave them thorough information in an honest way on what the LP had accomplished over almost four years. Further …

The Minister with the money is sitting over there.

The hon the Minister of Finance helped us to win. [Interjections.] I shall spell it out to the hon member.

Spell it out so that I can understand.

In addition we spelt out LP policy and objectives clearly and the voters repeatedly took note of our fight against apartheid and the fact that we were continually involved in the process of dismantling apartheid.

It is with pride and gratitude that I am referring to the progress that has been made as regards the upliftment and improvement of the Coloured component. I want to emphasise that the results which have been achieved are the fruits of hard labour which has been concluded successfully only by continually informing, persuading, convincing and encouraging people and giving them hope for the future. Hon members on the other side did not do this.

You can do better than that.

Sir, it is clear that only the LP is capable of dealing with the function of government regarding the Coloured population component, because it is a party of the people, for the people and by the people.

Hear, hear!

The LP is dynamic; it has kept pace with the times and has also undergone renewal so that it can carry out its governing function to the benefit of its people.

I now want to come to the hon the Minister of Finance. Sir, I want to thank the hon the Minister of Finance, because when we spoke about results provided for our people, we could say that we had started with R235 million in my department and ended with R756 million minus R36,6 million. I can tell hon members that the minus R36,6 million gained us hundreds of votes in those two constituencies.

[Inaudible.]

We are not talking about church stories or swimming stories. Our leader swims in the sea, he does not swim in the bottle. [Interjections.]

Order! Was the hon the Minister referring to a person?

Sir, I was not referring to anybody …

Order! The hon the Minister must give me an opportunity.

Sir, I was merely making a comparison and, if you want me to withdraw it, I shall do so.

Yes, the hon the Minister must withdraw it, please.

Sir, I want to bring something to the attention of the Official Opposition as well as the hon the Minister of Finance this afternoon. An example of how the governing party has kept pace with development may be seen in the effective administration. Hon members of the Official Opposition must listen carefully now. I want to draw the attention of those hon members as well as that of the hon the Minister of Finance to the fact that the administrative expenditure of the Administration: House of Representatives amounts to only 0,2% of its total financing of services, compared with the 2,29% of the Administration: House of Assembly and the 0,98% of the Administration: House of Delegates. I ask hon members: Does that not represent progress? It illustrates the smaller amount of funds spent on management and administration by the Administration: House of Representatives. Viewed in the light of the results which we have achieved, this can serve as an indication of the effective management which is being applied. I shall mention the figure again: 0,2%!

That is nothing.

My participation in this debate arises from a letter which I recently received from the hon the Minister of Finance on the subject of “abuse of social pensions”. Sir, I want to state unequivocally today that my department has reason to be disturbed when allegations of the abuse of pensions and allowances come to our notice.

These are certainly public funds which are at issue here and which are being applied. I therefore want to take the opportunity this afternoon to inform hon members about the administration of pensions, as well as the measures which my department takes to curb abuse. I further wish to indicate to what degree we have succeeded in this so far.

Although a beneficiary may sometimes find himself or herself in circumstances in which he or she cannot withstand exploitation and this indicates a possible inability to administer that pension or allowance personally, the department is involved at the same time in the upliftment and improvement of people’s quality of life. In certain cases it is therefore advisable to appoint suitable administrators. If a beneficiary is incapable of managing a pension or allowance judiciously, the Director-General may give instructions that a person or welfare organisation be appointed to administer that pension or allowance. The administrator may be a relative, a friend, a teacher or clergyman. Administration can take place for one of the following reasons: The abuse of alcohol and mental illness, in which the beneficiary does not realise the value of money, and to prevent possible abuse.

I now want to draw hon members’ attention to two of the reasons mentioned on which the largest number of complaints or alleged abuse of pensions and allowances is based, namely the abuse of alcohol and the prevention of abuse. When I addressed the abuse of alcohol in my budget speech, I said that I had no objections to a person’s taking alcohol, but was definitely against his abuse of alcohol. Today I want to link the “dop” system to the alleged abuse of pensions and allowances. The owners of farms hold out the “dop” system as a type of incentive to farm workers for increased productivity. Workers begin and end the day with a “tot”. If they can no longer be retained in economically active service, however, owing to their age or poor health, they lose their houses as well as their tots. If a farm worker then applies for social assistance and it is granted, he frequently receives more money than when he worked. If such a person now starts to drink, there are many objections and complaints. The hon the Minister and hon members must not think that I am justifying the abuse of liquor or that I am excusing the pensioner who abuses alcohol. The use of alcohol remains a matter which depends entirely on the individual.

The question which crops up in my mind, however, is whether the owner of the farm has not helped to create the farm worker’s dependence on alcohol which later becomes the responsibility of the department. Is that not the start of alcohol abuse? Could the finance attached to the “dop” system not rather be replaced with a cash bonus? The money could then be paid when the worker is no longer able to work. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister today. The hon the Minister is a leading figure in the NP and the farming community. I want to ask him to persuade his voters and especially farmers to stop the “dop” system. Nevertheless I can assure hon members that, in cases in which a pensioner is guilty of abusing alcohol, my department will not permit such persons to draw and spend money themselves.

In the prescribed application form for a social pension district pension officer is pertinently asked whether he is of the opinion that the person is capable of drawing his pension or allowance himself and managing it personally. The district pension officer has to specify this on the application form.

We want to prevent abuse. I may just mention that the pensioner in such cases usually has unemployed persons living with him or her who presumably live on the allowance. This type of application is handled on merit by my department. If an applicant has an unemployed person or a grandchild in his or her care, my department requires that the unemployed person contribute to the housekeeping in some way or other and that the mother of the child cared for by its grandmother contribute to its maintenance.

I should like to inform the hon the Minister and hon members of my department’s control measures for combating abuse in this regard, but I lack the necessary time. Consequently I shall hand my entire speech to the hon the Minister so that he may see what the function of the administrator is, how we clamp down on abuse in this regard and how we exercise control in the long term.

When we entered the tricameral system in 1984, the Ministers’ Council was aware of the evil of abuse as regards pension payments and allowances. That is why the House of Representatives worked to become involved right from the start. To this House it is a matter of the upliftment of communities and the improvement of people’s quality of life. Sir, during my 301 visits to towns to address beneficiaries, I made an appeal to beneficiaries at almost every opportunity to act responsibly. My department’s control measures, to which I have already referred, as well as the consequences of abuse, have been brought pertinently to the attention of people drawing pensions and allowances. For the past almost four years I have had to carry out an educational duty as it were regarding drawers of pensions and allowances with a view to clamping down on abuse.

The results of my department’s control measures and my visits to those 301 towns over the past almost four years have emerged from certain statistics which I want to present to hon members. In 1984,1 501 complaints were received. It appeared that abuse had occurred in 659 cases and that 43,9% of cases were therefore well founded. There were 2 470 complaints in 1985, of which 702 had grounds—that is to say 28,4% of them. In 1986 there were 1 888 complaints, in which allowances or pensions had definitely been misused in 568 or 30% of cases.

Sir, 260 312 pensions and allowances were paid up to December 1987, of which only 17 205—in other words, 6,61%—were under administration.

In the period from 1 January 1987 to 31 December 1987, 3 867 cases were placed under administration. Of these, there were 2 038 complaints of abuse, of which only 361 were identified as confirmed abuse—in other words, 17,7%. I hope the hon the Minister of Finance is following me. In 1984 it was 43,9% and by the end of last year it was only 17,7%. Abuse has therefore declined drastically. Hon members should bear in mind that more than 260 000 people received pensions and allowances.

I want to state it pertinently once more that the allocation of social pensions and allowances takes place strictly according to law and that thorough investigation is conducted into the circumstances of the needy person who applies for State aid in order to ensure that these requirements are satisfied before a pension or allowance is granted. My department continually attempts to guard against the misuse of public funds and keep a close watch on the way in which pensions and allowances are spent by beneficiaries. As proof of this and as a control measure, all regional offices of my department have to report on abuse and alleged abuse every six months.

Effective curbing of the evil of the abuse of pensions and allowances is possible only if the offender can be identified as early as possible. The hon the Minister and hon members should appreciate, however, that it is extremely difficult to keep a watchful eye on the way in which some thousands of beneficiaries spend their money. Consequently one also has to rely on the sense of responsibility and co-operation of the community in general when abuse is discerned. In this respect even MPs, but especially members of regional welfare boards and welfare organisations and even local welfare committees, have an important part to play. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there was a time when insurance was regarded by the middle-income group of this country as an ideal form of saving. The recent new tax measures for the insurance industry have given rise to controversy. It looks as though it is Du Plessis vs Du Plessis now. It will be a dark day if the new taxation measures should influence the insurance industry in such a way that they would also have a detrimental effect on this manner of saving. I believe I am talking on behalf of all hon members when I request the hon the Minister to inform us of his view of the situation this afternoon.

Secondly, I want to repeat something I have said in this House before, viz that the monster of inflation must be combated. I believe that every South African suffers because of price increases, especially those of food products. It is strange that whereas people’s salaries are not improving, and the large chain stores tend not to pay their staff what they deserve, they are normally among the first people to increase their prices. The middle-income group is the group that suffers most because of this. It leads to lowered standards of living and obviously causes dissatisfaction. Wages and salaries in the public sector have not been adjusted, despite the fact that this year’s inflation rate amounts to 13%.

This is impoverishing all South Africans. Inflation can be counteracted only by means of discipline in expenditure on the part of both the private and the public sectors. In addition productivity must be increased. South Africans must become more productive in all spheres, so that production can increase and the market basis be extended.

I also want to talk about the question of holidays. In merely looking at the figures, one would say that 11 public holidays were not many for any country to have. That may be true, but the problems that arise do not concern the holidays themselves, but the fact that workers take off a working day both before and after a public holiday in order to have a long long weekend. That is the problem. We see this often—even with our opposition in this House. [Interjections.]

We must also tell the Government not to encourage inflation. I contend that an increase in fuel prices will have negative inflationary consequences. After all, transport is the artery of the economy, and it affects everyone. All levels of government will have to set an example in not increasing prices which affect the input costs of production. Increases in taxation and the cost of commodities such as electricity, water and services are simply devolved to the consumers and are reflected in the high inflation rate on the one hand and on the other—I think hon members in the House will agree with me—in the suffering of our people. Our people want to pay affordable rentals, taxes and service fees. I want to request that those who have the power to decide on such prices should stop taking advantage of our people and further impoverishing them. They must stop oppressing our people, because when things are really hard, it is the poorest people in the community who suffer most. I think the hon the Minister of Finance will understand that. After all, he told us the other day where he had grown up, and I think he has experience of suffering.

Our people are looking for work, not where they are at present, but close to their homes. One of the most significant problems our people have is the transport costs they have to pay. There is no point in resettling people in areas and building them reasonably good homes, when it costs so much for them to go and work that they can barely make a living. We are seeking work for our people. We are not looking for trained unemployed people. I shall say something about that later, also with reference to sanctions.

We must endeavour to create as many employment opportunities as possible. We shall utilise all employment opportunities. Our people have proved this in the past. We are striving—we have said this often in this House—for a new South Africa. Surely we must prepare ourselves for that day. Our schools must take their rightful place in the community and in the whole of South Africa. We must warn our teachers to remember, in the first place, their primary task, viz the education of our children. If they want to play at politics, they must come here to the kitchen where they can feel the heat. That is all I want to say on that subject today.

We in this House, and we in the LP in particular, have said that we will negotiate for a better future and that we are not going to lapse into our own misery. If we negotiate, it must not be seen as a sign of weakness; on the contrary, it is a sign of our strength. It is the strength we get from our people, and we saw this in the by-elections once again the other day.

I want to appeal to people in the country to end the senseless violence. No fewer than 16 people died unnecessarily in Natal last week.

†This brings the number of deaths in unrest-related incidents in the last 18 months to about 700. I believe liberation is not to be found in killing one’s own brothers merely because they follow a different political road to freedom. One only divides the ranks of those who have suffered over the years. By killing one’s brother, one merely perpetuates one’s own suffering.

It is not only physical killing which is taking place. We also notice that certain leading Blacks in South Africa are calling for sanctions. I believe they are also guilty of taking away the chances of their fellow Blacks to equip themselves for becoming true citizens of a new South Africa. No situation can be so grave that one should call for the systematic and eventual removal of the opportunities and chances of one’s own brethren to live a worthy life.

Mr Chairman, South Africa has been experiencing a difficult phase since 1981. South Africa has experienced things which other countries would not have been able to face up to in such a short period. This country has been placed in a position in which it has had to fight for survival in an economic and financial struggle. It was a struggle to uplift our people and to keep the country going. We can proudly say that the campaign which has been in progress since 1981 to force South Africa to its knees has failed. Just as sanctions have failed for the past 30 years, they will fail again.

Despite the prevailing negativism in the country, I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I believe that sanctions are going to hurt us, but it has been proved that if a country really wants to survive, it will do so. Just as Armscor rose up out of a swamp of misery, South Africa will rise above its problems. I think we entered a better phase last year. I find it ironical that countries such as the USA, which have fought the same fight as South Africa, want to prescribe to us. I think it is high time that American politicians stopped making South Africa a political point of dispute. As a South African, I must ask myself what is most important, the country’s survival or short-lived political objectives.

When we enter the new federal Republic of Azania one day, we must begin with a new economy. That is why I feel it is of cardinal importance that we should not damage the country’s economic relations with overseas countries to the extent that when the country is liberated, we will have to start from the very beginning as Mozambique, Angola and many other African countries have had to.

In other words, you are saying Jesse Jackson must go to the devil (in sy maai gaan)?

Order! What has the hon member for Border just said?

I said the hon member thought that Jesse Jackson should go to the devil.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “maai”.

Mr Chairman, I should like to see you in your office about the ruling you have just given.

The hon member must withdraw what he said.

I shall withdraw it if it bothers you, Sir.

The hon member for Border mentioned Jesse Jackson. The basic liberation struggle of every Black man in the world is concerned with survival. Jesse Jackson is one of the eminent people in the American Negro community, but I do not think he should abuse South African internal politics for his own purposes. In my opinion one should not score political points at the expense of the great liberation struggle. If the hon member for Border says that Jesse Jackson must go to the devil (in sy maai moet gaan), I want to tell him …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member use a word that I had to withdraw?

Order! The hon member must also withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I was merely repeating what the hon member for Border had said. I will withdraw it, however.

My time is valuable, and I should like to proceed with my speech. It is of cardinal importance to us South Africans, and especially the Coloured and Black components, to continue the struggle for liberation. We are involved in a struggle for survival in South Africa. I want to agree with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare about alcohol abuse and the associated upliftment work, and in this connection I want to give the hon the Minister of Finance the assurance that we are counteracting the abuse of State funds. The Free State Regional Welfare Council is involved in a penetrating study in this connection. They are involved in training administrators of pension funds on how they should budget for these people. We are paying attention to this, and I think it is a problem that is really being addressed by the House of Representatives. This is not being done only for the sake of combating the overexpenditure of funds, but also for the sake of the total upliftment of our people.

One relevant problem in upliftment work among our people reminds one of the events of the past six months. The hon the State President appealed to the private sector to pin down or freeze salaries. It does not appear as if the private sector is paying much attention to this appeal. On the other hand, it is true that productivity and an increase in profits are very important in the private sector. Productivity and profits go hand in hand with salary increases. These people usually earn R600 and more. We do upliftment work among people who earn less than R600. Three quarters of the number of people who earn less than R300 per month work in the Public Service. That is where our problem lies. The salary scales of the Public Service are so low that one can hardly believe that someone who has been working for 24 years can earn such a small salary. In this connection I am thinking of the Central Laundry in my constituency.

People who have been working at the Central Laundry in Kroonstad for 25 years still earn only R350. When those people go on pension, they get a pension of R150 per month. People who get a social pension from the State receive more than these people do. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister to enter into this aspect of salaries and payment of pensions to people who earn salaries of less than R350 per month, because in practice these people who are earning R350 per month at the moment earn a mere R150 in pension when they retire. I should like the hon the Minister to investigate this matter.

As someone who comes from the rural areas in the Free State, it is extremely important to me that in his budget next year, if he receives applications from the Development Board, the hon the Minister will consider the funds and the increase in funds. The development of our people goes hand in hand with their upliftment. The development of an area necessarily means that community health service centres have to be built. The Department of Health Services and Welfare builds three health service centres per annum at present. I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister, if the Administration: House of Representatives submits an increased budget for health services and welfare, to ensure that health service centres are built. After all, this is where we are combating the wasting of social pensions. This is where we are trying to keep people away from the bottle, and to ensure that they make good use of their time. This is where we can ensure that our people will lead a better life in their old age. We are trying to help them to uplift themselves. We are encouraging them not only to rely on State funds, but to do something for themselves.

Sir, I have little time left and I should like to ask the hon the Minister to consider this matter, and not to reject an increased budget next year or to stop the payment of increased pensions, as he did this year.

Mr Chairman, I see the former Leader of the Official Opposition is not here. It seems to me he has run away. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, certain accusations were levelled at me by the former leader of the now defunct party that used to be the Official Opposition. I find it disgusting, Sir, that these allegations were made whilst I was not present and I want to state here and now that I not only repudiate the allegations, but also defy the hon member without a party to accuse me outside this House.

The hon member for Ottery is looking for a party to lead, but he cannot find one. It hurts me, Sir, that this accusation has been levelled at me by the hon member for Ottery, who has resigned from his non-existent party. After three years he could not even pay R500 to get his party registered. [Interjections.] Now he wants to join the Freedom Party. In fact, he now wants to hijack the FP by levelling unfounded accusations at me.

I want to make it clear, Sir, that I work very hard. I want to serve my people and I serve them honestly. If any individual or any organisation has anything against me—I include hon members in this House—I appeal to him or her to report me to the proper authorities.

So much mud-slinging is going on that all the good work that is done here means nothing. I feel we are all in the same boat, and we should rather try hard to find ways and means of helping our people than to find fault with one another.

It seems to me that many hon members here cannot do their work in their areas and that people are complaining. They are always looking for something to accuse the FP of, but until now they have not been able to find fault with anything. It seems to me that many hon members here have nothing else to do but accuse me. Why do they not accuse me of these things outside Parliament? They must accuse me in my presence and not when I am not present in this Chamber.

To the previous Leader of Official Opposition I want to say that one never knows whether he is going left or right. He tried to join the LP a couple of months ago, but was told the moment he joined the LP that he would not be able to stand for the management committee election and that is why he did not cross the floor. He approached me to join the FP, but I said I could not accept that. The hon member will have to appear before my executive committee and if we find him to be fit and loyal to the FP, he will be allowed to join the FP.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am not addressing the hon member for Border. It seems to me that that hon member has a lot of problems to deal with. He lost two by-elections and I want to ask him please to keep quiet. [Interjections.]

There have been allegations of certain hon members driving around with the wives of other hon members. The problem, however, is that they cannot keep their own homes in order. Since they became members of Parliament, it seems they often have problems with their own families. They treat their wives like animals. They think that because they are members of Parliament they are on top of the world. I can name them one by one here today. We came here to tell people outside …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The statement by the hon member is a reflection on all of us sitting here, because fingers can be pointed at each and every one of us. If the hon member can identify someone positively, she must do so, or else withdraw what she said.

Order! I think it is in the best interests of this House, as well as the hon member for Tafelberg, not to touch on personal issues.

Sir, it was done earlier by the hon member Mr Douw. It is unparliamentary to do it and he must then also withdraw every word he said today. [Interjections.]

Order! Has the hon member finished her speech? The hon member may continue.

Sir, it seems to me that I have hurt a lot of feelings today and maybe that is why hon members are shivering so much. I wonder why.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Tafelberg must qualify her statement, because it is a reflection on innocent hon members in this House. If the hon member does not do that, she must withdraw what she said.

Order! I will study the Hansard before I give a ruling. The hon member may continue.

Thank you very much, Sir. We fought elections, not only for ourselves, but also for our people. What can we tell our voters outside if we only fight each other across the floor like small children. There are more important things for us to do. It is not only a matter of walking around with one’s card, collecting a salary each month. I want to thank the hon the Minister of Finance. I know that he also has a lot of problems. A lot of things are happening in this House today. We must all concentrate on our important task and try to help our people.

What have you actually said?

It does not matter; read the Hansard.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate in this House today, especially in the light of the LP’s powerful performance during the recent election.

We want to remind the hon members of the Official Opposition who have stayed behind in this House that the LP is involved in a drive. We envisage having only LP members in this House. I want to warn those hon members that the LP is the only party at present which can put our community’s case powerfully—partly because of the number of people it represents. I predict that if a few more by-elections take place—in the constituencies represented by those hon members at present—those hon members will not have the privilege of returning to this Chamber.

I should like to say something about the prevailing anxiety about what is happening on the South West African border. It was with concern that we took cognisance of the advance of alien troops in Southern Angola. It alarms one that this advance of troops is taking place at a stage at which South Africa is prepared to take its place at the negotiation table to talk about Southern Africa’s future.

South Africa is accused time and again of threatening the continued existence of other countries in Southern Africa. My question today, however, is who is really a threat to this part of the world. Who is creating fear among the Black states to the north of our borders? Who is creating fear among the Western countries in regard to stability and peace in Southern Africa? After all, we have often said that South Africa has no interests in Angola. We have no interests in the neighbouring states on our country’s northern border. We are no threat to them. On the contrary, we are creating greater viability, and we are promoting economic growth in those countries.

I want to remind hon members that 40 of the 50 states trade with South Africa. In addition our border posts are being opened to all those countries in order to import to and export from South Africa—for the sake of the continued existence of their own communities. Sir, I want to remind hon members that engines belonging to our railways are used right up to Zaire, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana—to keep the economy of those countries going. A country that threatens the stability of other countries in Southern Africa will simply not offer as much assistance as South Africa does.

It is clear at present, however, not only that South Africa’s borders are being threatened, but that we have to contend with an onslaught against our people and the situation here in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, what has apartheid got to do with the Cubans? Do they have any interest in what happens in South Africa? No, they are interested in taking over Southern Africa. They want to create even more chaos here than there is in the rest of Africa. [Interjections.]

Once again this is an example of the double standards that apply. There is no sign of a call on the part of the Western countries for the alien forces to withdraw from Southern Africa.

The Western countries are being blackmailed at South Africa’s expense, however. These Western countries which want to force South Africa to negotiate do not want to make any appeal for Cuba to withdraw its forces from Angola at this stage. It is with great pride that we have taken cognisance of the responsible action of our Defence Force and Government. Great responsibility has been displayed in that we will not sacrifice the lives of our people simply to ward off a threat.

We will continue, however, to seek solutions in an honourable way, viz by proceeding with negotiation internally. We shall bring peace and prosperity to Africa, because we put the interests of Africa first. We are from Africa and we belong to Africa. What has happened here, is that the large Western power, America, has been blackmailed. Cuba wants to ensure that America pays the price when those soldiers are withdrawn. Cuba wants America to count heads. Some of those soldiers are being employed to force us into further negotiation, but we shall continue to put our case in this House. [Interjections.] We merely want to tell the Western World that we cannot be blackmailed. [Interjections.] The concert that took place in London this weekend was a further sign of blackmail. [Interjections.] The BBC once again blatantly exploited the freedom of the Press. [Interjections.] They made the film Suffer the Children in an underhand way. [Interjections.] We could not obtain the rights to reply to that film. Nevertheless we permit them in our country. We must throw them out! [Interjections.] We must throw the BBC out, because they are undermining our progress! We must put the interests of South Africa’s people first! [Interjections] We must not allow them to intimidate us.

Throw them out!

Our own leaders are running themselves ragged to proclaim sanctions against us. Our own Bishop Tutu was allowed to go to Moscow. [Interjections] I am pleased the Government let him go to Moscow, because I expect that when Bishop Tutu returns, he will tell us how well things are going in Moscow. I want him to tell us what form human rights take in that country. He must tell us what form religious freedom in Moscow takes. He must tell us whether there is any family life in Moscow. He must tell us about the work colonies and penal colonies in Moscow.

The time has come for those of us who want peace to convey the message of peace, because it is in our own interests that we in South Africa must stand together. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, before I ask the hon the Minister of Finance for more funds, kindly allow me to motivate my case.

Wherever they are, life for the elderly is unsafe. Be it in private or old age homes, they are constantly in danger of attack by those who wish to do them harm. In the Eastern Cape, especially since the recession has set in, we find thousands of would-be workers walking the streets. One can go to certain spots in all areas of Port Elizabeth and one will find large groups of people waiting for someone to hire them to do a day’s work. Not everyone has the patience and endurance to go out job-seeking each day. Those of a criminal nature find it easier to prey on the aged and the infirm.

Attacks on our senior citizens are intensifying and there is no way in which this House, and anyone else for that matter, can stand aloof from the attacks on our aged and infirm. It is common to hear and read about such incidents in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area. Just recently, on 26 May 1988, Mrs Cornelia Senekal, aged 75, of Dune View, a smallholding near Kinkelbos, was attacked in her home. In the Eastern Province Herald of 31 May 1988, under the heading: “Pensioner, 78, Outwits Armed Burglar” Lloyd Kutz reports:

To come nearer home I wish to refer to the Bethelsdorp old age home in my constituency, where inmates are exposed to a reign of terror from outside. For fear of further attacks and intimidation these people are afraid to speak about the indignities they are forced to suffer. So, I will mention only a few of the known cases over the last year. Towards the end of December 1986 the inmate in room 160 of the Bethelsdorp old age home was assaulted. In February 1987 the inmate in room 84 was robbed and in March of that same year the inmate in room 186 was robbed of his television set. Then there was another robbery in March, this time in room 166. In July somebody smashed a window in room 67 and threw rocks at the inmate. In December of that year in room 90 a man and his wife were assaulted. Also in December an old man in room 89 was assaulted and a couple in room 16 were kicked by intruders. All these people were helpless. The most recent attack, in what is supposed to be a secure shelter for the aged, occurred in February this year when an old lady was brutally raped.

To the uninitiated it would appear that the attackers have unbridled access to the homes of the aged. It would appear that society has decided to forget the part played by the aged in forging the fortunes of this country. Therefore, in an era when benevolence towards the aged is slowly dwindling, it would be apt and just to stretch out our hands to them.

*It is encouraging when a chain store such as Checkers, the South African Police and the South African National Council of the Aged try to create a greater awareness of the security problems of the aged by means of seminars and by selling whistles. I want to encourage the aged to attend these seminars, where they will be shown how to discourage thugs with their whistles.

†It worries one, however, to note that the advertised seminars are all scheduled for White areas. The advertisement reads as follows, and I quote from the Eastern Province Herald of 2 June 1988:

These are all White places, Sir.

So there is a different venue every day and each one is in a White area. I hope this is just some breakdown in communications or some slight omission on the part of someone, as I am sure I have proved that our elderly are as unsafe as, if not more unsafe than, the aged elsewhere. Could I at this stage suggest to those in control of the operation—ie the police and the sponsors—that the seminars be taken to all homes for the aged and not only to White ones.

Such schemes have a simple and invincible logic and serve as a basic safety precaution. The efforts of these bodies and others are laudable as it is the duty of all of us to rush to the protection of the aged wherever and whenever they are threatened. However, is this House really taking up the cudgels on their behalf? The answer, unfortunately, is a resounding no. It is disconcerting when one makes demands, when one makes appeals, when one writes, but to no avail. The answer that I will probably get for this lack of reaction will be a lack of finance. I am sure of that. Mr Chairman, we must stop measuring the lives of our people in terms of money. We say that because we do not have money we cannot heed the calls of our fellow man. Money is not important. The life of any person will always be worth more than the greatest fortune one can ever accumulate.

On October 8, 1987 I wrote a letter to a certain department with regard to the security of senior citizens. To date I have received no reply. In that letter I wrote:

I did not get any reply. Do we need more dire consequences to shake us out of our lethargy or are we finally going to get off our butts? It is time that we do that, Sir. Allow me to make a call on the entire community to stand alongside us in our effort to rally to the support, the protection and defence of the defenceless in our midst, viz the aged. We make a call on the hon the Minister to make an exceptional effort in giving assistance so that we can obtain the necessary funds from any source whatsoever so that security can also be brought to the homes of the aged of Brown South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. However, before I get to the main body of my speech I should like to react to the remarks made by the hon member for Tafelberg who accused me of making certain accusations in her absence. I was suffering a lot of pain and was sitting in my office listening to her speech on my speaker. She, however, did the very same thing in this House in my absence. They say that variety is the spice of life. I believe that whenever this hon member gets up to make a speech in this House, she makes a mockery of the English language. She makes a mockery of the organ of speech. She makes a mockery of women’s lib and she makes a mockery of democracy …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to ask the hon the exLeader of the Official Opposition who wrote his speech, because the way in which he is carrying on today …

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Ottery may continue.

Mr Chairman, on one or two occasions I was assisted by very able professors from the University of Stellenbosch and on all other occasions I wrote my own speeches. This one is my own and I cannot say the same with regard to the speeches of the hon member for Tafelberg. She cannot even read her own speech properly. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has made his point and must now return to the discussion.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance and his department are responsible not only for controlling the money of South Africa but also the strings. I am totally convinced, therefore, without any doubt, that

To what strings is the hon member referring?

I am referring to the strings of the money which the hon the Minister controls.

The strings of the money?

The money and the strings. Allow me to enlarge on that. [Interjections.] Someone asked who controls the purse strings. I am referring to strings in that context—the hon the Minister controls the money and the purse strings. I am totally convinced, therefore, that I must knock at the door of this hon Minister and his department when I need money for my constituency.

I must bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister and his department that, despite the large percentage increases in own affairs budgets of the past few years, much more money must be earmarked for the socio-economic upliftment of people of colour in South Africa to bring about greater political stability.

I want to repeat today what I said some weeks ago: One cannot separate politics from the economy of this country; the two are inseparably linked. Nor can one separate the two from the people who are suffering the burden of the present economic downturn. It is their problems which must be addressed in South Africa as a matter of urgency.

Despite appeals to the private sector by the hon the Minister of Finance, by leading economists in the country and by the hon the State President, I am convinced that the private sector, the business community, is not doing enough in the present economic climate to bring about a greater upturn in the economy and a downturn in the inflation. The almost daily price increases, at the food marketplace in particular, make it extremely difficult for the average consumer of colour to exist in South Africa. It is a nightmare for the poor or Third World sector of this country, especially our poor pensioners, even to go to the supermarkets. I want the hon the Minister and his department to hear this again. It is a nightmare for the average non-White pensioner even to consider going to the local supermarket or hypermarket in today’s economic climate.

I have been to a few of these monopolistic hypermarkets around the country, from Cape Town to Durban, and I can say that despite the few marked down items—I believe these are called loss-leaders—which they have on their shelves, they are not the cheapest places at which to shop. They have the monopoly in the food industry in South Africa, and they are not the cheapest places at which to shop. I really believe, Sir, that in order to give the small man, the small entrepreneur who wants to start a business, a chance, we have to get hold of these supermarket and hypermarket barons. I appeal to the hon the Minister and his department to investigate the situation and determine whether it will not be possible to limit these hypermarkets and other huge food chains to selling only groceries. They monopolise almost every consumer item under the sun, and they have killed off the small man, the businessman around the corner—the butcher, the grocer, the greengrocer and the candlestick-maker. These hypermarkets have killed off these small businessmen.

I read once in the newspaper that one of our big hypermarkets and supermarket chains has an annual turnover of R3 billion. That is a lot of money in any industry! The company’s after-tax profit was R112 million. That is big money, Sir. It is big business. I do not believe, however, that these hypermarkets are operating in the interests of the small man, especially if the holding company is listed on the stock exchange. We have to try to break their monopoly on every consumer item. We have to do it in the interests of the struggling consumer and especially in the interests of so-called Black and other pensioners who, because of the colour of their skins, are the victims of disparity in that they have to accept a smaller pension than their White counterparts.

This situation in which Black and Coloured pensioners, because of the colour of their skins, are discriminated against is ridiculous. In 1988 and the fourth year of this tricameral Parliament, this ideology of separateness that is still being adhered to is absolutely unbelievable. Can any hon member in this House give me one good reason why people of colour in this country should get a different and lesser pension than Whites? It is beyond my understanding and comprehension. I can find no reason to justify that. The hon the Minister must please listen to what I am saying and he must use every means available to him to remove this disparity immediately.

Order! Does the hon member for Fish River want to put a question?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With regard to what the hon member for Tafelberg said, I just want to know how I should address the hon member for Ottery. Should I call him the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition?

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

Sir, hon members must realise that we are members of Parliament and in our interests, the hon the Minister must take note of the disparities in education and pensions, to name but two. These disparities minimize the credibility of hon members outside Parliament. If one considers very briefly, for argument’s sake, the vast sum spent on defence, the amount needed to bring about parity in social pensions for which we have been fighting for so long, can also surely be found. I am not saying we must not spend money on defence or in any other State department. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape makes a different noise each time. He must please refrain from doing so. The hon member for Ottery may proceed.

Sir, if we are co-workers in this Parliament, which we are and which we ought to be, and if we are co-workers in this process of negotiation, as I believe we are, then for how long will we be hammering each other before disparities and restrictions based on race will be lifted? Why must we hammer each other like we do? The Press notices this. The Press and the media outside and inside South Africa gloat at these opportunities when we fight across the floor to remove the restrictions and disparities which exist because of the ideology of apartheid. We must not be afraid to remove the brake of reform in South Africa. I want to tell the hon the Minister, his department and the Government that the majority of South Africans are ready and willing to accept change. We must cash in on this. The time is now.

*The Bible says the time for reflection and repentance is now. The Government must repent—and the time to do so is now! [Interjections.]

†Sir, I will admit that many wonderful changes have taken place in South Africa. I have said this both inside and outside this country. However, every time the impact of change is lost because of bad timing. Last week only, after terrible fights with the previous Minister of Transport Affairs—I hammered that hon Minister, Mr Schoeman, about the removal of the signs—the signs were removed.

Some of the signs! [Interjections.]

Some of the signs were removed from trains in the Cape Peninsula. [Interjections.] There has been a tremendous start, but the timing was wrong and therefore the impact was lost. Initially things looked promising. Someone phoned me and said: “Mr D, we can now see the light at the other side of the tunnel.” I told him that one swallow did not make a summer.

Sir, when the “Whites only” signs on some of the trains in the Western Cape were removed, it was a tremendous breakthrough for this Parliament and for the tricameral system. South Africa’s transport system did not collapse. This again underlines the fact that people in South Africa are ready for change. I believe it is nonsense to maintain that we cannot go too fast with reform. No, Sir, we must go all the way—and that cannot be done soon enough. The way is clear and the people are ready for reform. Therefore, how can the Government possibly say that they cannot go too fast with reform? If those who have the power in their hands drag out the reform process, they are going to lose the support of the people in South Africa and any reform measure will lose its impact.

A colleague of mine said some months ago, when we were building million-dollar schools for Blacks: “Mr D, in some parts of South Africa the Blacks are past the call for equal education and equal schools. In certain sectors they no longer want equal education, equal pensions and equal group areas; they want the country.” [Interjections.] There was a time when people were willing to accept bits and pieces. However, we are now heading for a time when they want the whole thing. It is a dangerous situation which affects every South African, regardless of his colour.

Sir, the fight against apartheid, especially against the Group Areas Act, will continue. However, what a tremendous opportunity are we not letting pass by in South Africa today—one month before this Parliament goes into its annual recess! We now have the opportunity to scrap the Group Areas Act. I believe that millions of words have already been spoken and written in favour of the repeal of this unacceptable, unchristian and ungodly Act. However, it remains the sacred cow of a few. [Interjections.]

The time is now ripe for the Group Areas Act to go, but we are allowing that chance to pass us by. I predict that the time will come when the Group Areas and all other discriminatory Acts of apartheid in South Africa will go. [Interjections.] Then it will have no impact.

*However, it will be too late then. All this unacceptable legislation will be removed, but I hope it will not be too late. The time is ripe for change.

†These things must be removed now. I must reiterate that the time is now ripe for reform. In this regard we certainly do not need another mandate from our people. We do not need a mandate to call for the abolition of the remaining Acts.

Lastly I want say—and I am speaking as an independent member of Parliament—… [Interjections] … that as the first five years of the tricameral system draw to a close, much still needs to be done before we can go to the polls. [Interjections.] Let us not bluff ourselves with this. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the extent to which economic affairs have received attention in political circles so far should be an encouraging sign to businessmen. They have been asking for attention for years, and in addition the economic policies that they have been advocating countrywide are now being tackled decisively. This approach will have to be developed if South Africa wants to retain its position in the world economy. South Africa will also have to change in the new international economic milieu of the past decades in which new industrial countries have originated and services in the developed economies have begun to take the place of the traditional chimney factories as employers, and modern technology has caused a reduction in distance and time. Although we have been able to retain our position on the list of world economies over the past decades simply by being an exporter of raw materials and agricultural products, we cannot rely on that to the same extent when we take part in modern international economies anymore. Although the export of raw materials will continue to play a dominant part in our international business relations for some time, we shall have to work positively at increasing the export of other manufactured goods. The extent to which this is already happening, as initiated by the Board of Trade and Industry and the IDC, is welcomed. The new definite spirit of control over State finance and the reduction of the part played in the economy by the public sector can also serve as a breeding ground for entrepreneurship and a proactive economy. In addition this will mean that political policies cannot deny the economic realities.

If businessmen are satisfied that economic matters are higher on the national list of priorities, they should be even more satisfied about the part economic realities have played in the sphere of political reform during the past few years. In this connection I think inter alia of the organised labour sphere, the granting of business rights and right of ownership and people’s mobility. Economic policies can be seriously affected by a government, however, as Mrs Thatcher proved to her advantage, and as earlier French governments, with their tendency towards socialism, realised to their detriment.

In this connection I quote from Die Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig of 13 May:

I want to ask the hon the Minister today for more funds to be made available for housing for our people. The hon the Minister must also think of our elderly people.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity of taking part in the debate once again.

†Plenty of time has been allocated to me and I normally use half of the time allocated. What I want to say today, I have already said last week, but seeing that the opposition has a representative here, I want to repeat what I said last week. I hope that the lesson that was learned in the by-elections has finally come through to them—that those who oppose this mighty Labour Party will only be steamrollered out of the way.

However, first of all I want to wish the newly elected hon members for Eersterus and Natal Mid-East well. I congratulate them and want to tell them that their victory has inspired most of us in this Chamber to a greater effort. It has also finally spelt out to the opposition that there is no need for an opposition in this Chamber. As I have said in meetings, the only people who are laughing all the way to the bank because of the division they have created are the White people, because these people are doing the White man’s job of creating division within the liberation movement better than the White man can. We must be quite clear about the fact that this Chamber and the politics in which we are engaged are part of a liberation movement. We are using this platform to liberate our people, people who are not White.

We cannot afford the luxury of division in the struggle. I want to tell hon members of the Official Opposition that they have now chosen to play that particular role and if they wish to continue and be destroyed completely, they must do so. However, I must then ask a few questions. What inspires them to play that role, the White man’s role? Perhaps I should ask the question differently. Who pays the price? Where does the money come from? I know where the money comes from on my side, because I pay my pledges every month. I know what my party’s income is and where the income is derived from.

*I should like to know who is paying for the helicopters which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is flying around in. He is never in this House. [Interjections.] The hon member who is sitting over there cannot convince me that his leader has the interests of the people at heart, because someone who is promoting the interests of his people should be here in this House where the people’s case can be put. However, he is never here to do so.

†However, it would be interesting to know where the money comes from. [Interjections.] I have my suspicions, of course. Maybe it is good that we are now busy with a piece of legislation whereby we will be able to keep a finger on the pulse of the funds coming into this country.

If ever there was political interference then it must be the kind of funding which I suspect the Official Opposition is guilty of receiving. I am making these allegations in an attempt to make them come out and talk about it. The hon members of the Official Opposition had time allocated to them in this debate, but whether they were too ashamed or whether they had no contribution to make, they did not take the opportunity.

A lot has been said about the cost of keeping apartheid alive. It is a luxury that South Africa can no longer afford and on that the hon the Minister is in agreement with us. There is agreement between us that apartheid has served its purpose. Whether it was a useful purpose is debatable. We cannot go on with apartheid and the hon the Minister’s department certainly does not have the funds needed to perpetuate the whole system. We claim to be a country which upholds the free enterprise system, but we must really begin to set that system free. The free enterprise system is not free in this country. If we look at where the control of the economy of this country lies, we see that it is in the hands of a small privileged section of the population. To me that can never be compatible with the free enterprise system. I am talking about absolute freedom.

The economy of a country is very important. We must admit that the greater majority of South Africans are capitalist orientated. May be it is the result of years of indoctrination or maybe it is because of the success the system has had in the Western World. However, it has not brought about the desired conditions in this country. Therefore, since the majority of people in this country would like to see the free enterprise system really functioning properly in this country, we in the Government have the responsibility to ensure that the system is really free. Every person in this country must be able to make use of the free enterprise system. The capitalist system has many advantages, but unfortunately those advantages over the years—and certainly since Union—have been confined to White people. Now that we are here we are in a position to take the message to those who are responsible for the executive government and for the implementation of policy to give credence to the capitalist free enterprise system. Until every citizen of this country has full access to economic development opportunities we will always have problems. One can satisfy people’s franchise needs, but until their economic needs are met there will always be problems. My passionate appeal to this young dynamic Minister of Finance is to take the bull by the horns and set an example by making the system free. He should make it possible for every South African to enjoy the benefits of the free enterprise system.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their participation in this debate. It was a short, powerful debate. Many positive and interesting things emerged in the debate and I should like to refer to them during the course of my reply to specific hon members’ speeches.

I want to begin immediately with the hon member Mr Douw. The hon member Mr Douw wrote me a note—this was very courteous of him and in the best parliamentary tradition—in which he informed me that he had an appointment with the Auditor-General, and that therefore he would quite probably not be here for the whole of my reply. Consequently I shall withhold my reply to his speech in case he comes back in time. I shall not refer to him, therefore, until such time as he returns.

†I want to congratulate the hon member for Eersterus on his election to Parliament. I still have to get to know him, Sir. I am not exactly sure where he is sitting. I want to welcome the hon member to this House and wish him a productive and satisfying stay in this Parliament and express the hope that he will find his work meaningful and that he will make a meaningful contribution. [Interjections.] This Parliament, despite all its shortcomings, is making history not only in South Africa, but also in the rest of Africa. Many people were highly critical of us in the past and expressed doubts about this system. In fact, they predicted the complete disintegration of Parliament because of what they called fatal imperfections. The reality, Sir, is that this Parliament, with its three Chambers, has now made a few hundred laws and these laws have contributed to making South Africa a country that is different from so many other countries. That is something we can build on. We have our shortcomings; there is no doubt about that. In saying this, I am also addressing the other new hon member, the hon member for Natal Mid-East.

If I may interrupt my train of thought for a moment, Sir, it has been said that somebody once sat in the gallery of a parliament and watched the proceedings. Then, when he walked out, he said tongue in cheek that he no longer believed in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. [Interjections.] We all suffer from our human failures, but if we want to make a constitution work, we can do it. Like the institution of Parliament, a constitution embodies so much more than one can express in words. The two new hon members will find out in Parliament, once they start familiarising themselves with Parliament’s rules, that the best things in Parliament are not written in the rules. The best things in Parliament are those things which bind a lot of people together despite all their differences, because they serve one common purpose and that is to build their country and to make a contribution.

We all have a responsibility towards our voters. The two new hon members impressed us today. Their speeches were very short, but the contents reflected a total dedication to the needs and interests of their voters. In making that pledge they have underwritten and fully committed themselves to the system of democracy, and that is what is important. Today is a red letter day for them with their having been sworn in as members of Parliament.

However, Sir, it is also significant in the history of this country that the process of Parliamentary democracy took a further step today by filling those vacancies in the way in which this was done. I listened with great interest to the inter-party political debate that went on. As a politician I am not only interested in it, but am quite often fascinated by it. This is something else that we share. All of us, as we are sitting here, are political animals. Our responsibility is to use our own efforts, talents and attributes not only for party-political actions, but it will be demanded of us to rise above party-political considerations on occasion. That happens. It is a challenge that we are facing, more particularly in the executive, but also as MPs.

I referred to the hon member for Natal Mid-East who addressed a particular issue. I see the hon member is not here and I will therefore refer to his remarks at a later stage.

*I now come to the hon member for Berg River. He made an idealistic statement by saying that all population groups should be economically equal. That is something to which we should dedicate ourselves. I want to submit a variation in support of that statement. All population groups—what is more, every individual—should have equal opportunities to develop their talents to the maximum, and then that development they are undergoing and the knowledge they have acquired must be translated into the highest possible standard of living. I think that is a reasonable point of view of what the hon member said, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

The hon member also made a few very important points in connection with the SBDC. He really made an excellent contribution in this connection. I am indebted to him for what he put on record today. The hon member is correct. The SBDC is a unique body. It has its shortcomings, because it is a partnership between the State and the private sector, which is a difficult partnership to handle. The hon member gave us a series of excellent statistics in respect of the successes that have been attained over a relatively short period. I am very grateful to him for having done so.

There is a restriction in the State’s ability to finance the SBDC, however, because the corporation functions in a very high risk environment. It recently had to write off enormous losses. Since we do not have all the capital which can be made available to the SBDC at a low rate, we accepted the approach of our subsidising part of the interest burden. At least this helps the SBDC to function on the basis of a low interest rate. In fact, the rate at which the SBDC is functioning at the moment is completely negative when viewed in general, because it is below the inflation rate. That is why we take things as far as we possibly can. What the hon member said is true. This is certainly the most impressive achievement of this kind in Africa. We should like it to be successful.

The hon member will remember that the hon the State President gave us guidelines in this connection. The moment the IDC is capable of doing so, and the hon the State President’s guidelines, viz that the IDC should get a redefined role in respect of this, have been complied with, we can effect a better dispensation for the SBDC without—and this is the crux of the matter—the taxpayer’s necessarily having to pay more. The matter is being investigated and I think the moment we have got our things in order, it will be possible to effect such a better dispensation.

The reutilisation of capital resources is a matter of cardinal importance. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution, although it was not without criticism—I took cognisance of that—but nevertheless I want to thank him.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is not here, and therefore I shall refer only briefly to something he said. I was very grateful to hear about the low administration costs in the specific department. This is definitely a very fine testimonial, not that that department needs to account to me as the Minister of Finance. I share the joy of hon members sitting here, however. The hon the Minister referred to the “dop” system and asked me to come out against this system. To the best of my knowledge, the Government has come out against the “dop” system often in the past. My department and Ministry are basically opposed to one’s receiving part of one’s remuneration—if it is remuneration—in any way other than in money. We are opposed to this system on both the moral and practical levels, and surely we cannot be opposed to it any more strongly than that.

The hon member for Diamant made a few very interesting statements. I tried to write down some of these statements here and there. At the end of his speech the hon member made a statement which was formulated exceptionally well. I shall definitely check up on it in Hansard. The hon member appealed to people inter alia to put an end to senseless violence.

Order! The hon members for Riversdale, Bonteheuwel and Ravensmead must please help me by lowering their voices. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I am no advocate, but I think I would have had a good case in defending the hon member for Bonteheuwel, since he is looking me in the eye and listening very attentively.

That is a very good Minister!

Order! As it happens I have known the hon member much longer than the hon the Minister has. Hon members look with their eyes, but they talk with their mouths. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, as they say in the classics, “I bow to your superior knowledge.”

The hon member for Diamant said: “Liberation is not killing your brother merely because he holds a different political view from your own.” Those are very true words. I think one should learn such tolerance, not only for the sake of mutual relations, but also so that we can build the democratic system upon this. The hon member spoke out against sanctions. The whole question of sanctions is beginning to assume the dimension which I think such a serious subject should have. The direct as well as indirect detrimental effects of sanctions are being drawn to the attention of our people. Many people will definitely have to adopt a standpoint on the matter. I say directly, because if a transaction is directly affected by sanctions, the country has lost its revenue. Indirectly, because—I have said this previously—the greatest problem caused for us by sanctions is that we have to utilise large sums of money to protect ourselves against the effect of sanctions now and in future. This means that the limited available sources in the country are being misused. I want to thank the hon member for assuming this position in this connection.

The hon member mentioned the importance of insurance as a method of saving. I quite agree with him. This is extremely important. As far as saving over the whole spectrum in South Africa is concerned, however, it is important to maintain a balance between saving by means of policies, which naturally holds a great tax advantage, saving by way of investments with building societies, which also holds a tax benefit to a certain extent, and savings at banks, which hold no tax benefit. The generation of capital also has to take place via the banks, and go to risk capital, because we need new businesses. Via the building societies, capital must go to building society bonds, because we have a terrible shortage of housing in this country and we should like to encourage home ownership. That is why one has to maintain a certain balance between all these methods of saving.

The Margo Commission found—I do not want to go into this in detail now; the report is available to all of us—that there is no neutrality in respect of saving in South Africa, and that this leads to certain distortions and may have other detrimental effects on our economy. The Margo Commission said there should be a different tax dispensation, or a more fixed way of accounting. The Commission did not give a fixed formula in terms of which this should take place, but recommended that urgent attention be given to this by a standing advisory committee on taxation.

The only thing I want to say about the controversy which the hon member referred to, is that in my opinion this is not an appropriate time to have a detailed public debate or assume a standpoint about this matter. The standing advisory committee on taxation will give attention to this matter shortly, and deal with it as their highest priority. At that time everyone who can make a contribution to our reaching a better solution than the one we have at present will have an opportunity to put his standpoint at the correct place, viz to the standing advisory committee on taxation. For that reason I want to leave things at that—in anticipation of the findings of this committee, which will be supported by a knowledgeable research group. I therefore feel that public debating will not be useful or desirable at this stage.

The hon member, as well the hon member for Heideveld, if I remember correctly, also spoke about inflation. The hon member expressed the opinion that the inflation rate may increase again towards the end of the year. I hope and trust that that will not be the case. We have implemented our measures very carefully in order to get the inflation rate down, and in the process to give the downward trend momentum in order to get it as far down as possible. There are numerous structural problems in our economy, however, which make it very difficult for us to make a large dent in inflation overnight. We have had a detailed discussion about this matter in this House. I thank the hon member for putting his standpoint, however. The hon member for Ottery, who unfortunately is not here now, also referred to that.

The hon member for Diamant broached the question of food prices. With reference to inflation, that is the one big problem we have at the moment. Whereas the inflation rate is dropping in certain spheres, the increase in food prices is making the inflation rate difficult to deal with. This is preventing the rate from dropping more quickly.

The hon member raised the valid point that the inflation rate is higher than the increase in salaries in the public sector. I want to say something in this respect which I think hon members will find important. When we look at what has happened with regard to remuneration in the public sector in the past four or five years, it appears, when salaries are measured in terms of the inflation rate, that we are definitely lagging behind.

What has happened in the private sector, however? The unemployment rate of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians has increased within a few years from 15 000 to a maximum of, I think, 85 000 in a particular month. People have lost their jobs in the private sector, and those who have stayed behind have often continued their service without receiving any increase in salary. Not one person in the public sector has lost his job for that reason, viz that there was no money to pay him. Consequently the security provided by the public sector is an important matter and something which we should take thoroughly into account.

I now come to the hon member for Western Free State. I thank him for his contribution, viz to bring about better understanding of the real situation, in that we are going through a very difficult time and are struggling to uplift the people in this country. In view of the onslaught from abroad in respect of boycotts and sanctions and, if I may the other factors such as the detrimental conditions internally, including droughts and other disasters, we have had a significant struggle in keeping our country going economically. I thank the hon member for his insight in that connection.

My advisers and I share his conviction that sanctions will fail. The only problem is that what he said afterwards is also true, viz that it will hurt us. We shall rise above this, however—the hon member is correct—as we did with regard to the provision of armament. I have already replied in part to the statement made by the hon member that the private sector has not paid much attention to the question of wage discipline. We must keep in mind that these matters have a cyclical nature, and that one has to have a comprehensive view of this kind of thing. In the short term one might be able to say that certain people have granted salary increases, and that they should not have done so. One must also see, however, when last they granted salary increases, and one must look at the company’s set-up. I think there are signs that the private sector has great appreciation for the Government’s serious attempt and the State President’s appeal, and that most of them would like to comply with this.

The hon member put his finger on a very sore point, because what he said is absolutely true, viz that certain salaries in the public sector, and specifically in the Public Service, are very small. I concede that, and I can give him the assurance that we are all aware of it. He will probably remember that when the Budget was debated I also referred to the fact that we had put aside millions of rand to resolve specific problems. I do not know what the results of those investigations are, but I know that we all know that labourers in particular have enormous problems. To them it is often not even a case of maintaining a standard of living; it is really a bread and butter issue. Their goal is often simply not to live under the breadline. The Commission for Administration is aware of their problem, and I trust that we shall be able to pay attention to this if matters take the right course.

The hon member requested more health services. The hon member for Bethelsdorp made the same request. He apologized for his absence. He is dealing with an urgent matter in his office. He said that nevertheless he would listen to my reply in his office. I am reacting to him too now. I want to bring the following point home to hon members. We budget in a specific way these days, because we are in a position of financial pressure. One budgets generically. One budgets and says that this country cannot spend a larger amount on education, for example, or on health and welfare services or security services, and so on. One can then fit this in according to priorities and according to what one can afford.

One cannot spend more than one can afford. That is why I want to explain to the hon members and other hon members who adopted a standpoint on pensions—the hon member for Heideveld referred to this as well—that if one has an amount which one can earmark for a specific group of functions and services, it is fixed and one has to offset relative priorities within that group against one another. Unfortunately that is the only way in which we can go about things. When we cut the large economic cake into large pieces, we cannot give own affairs administrations a specific instruction about the micro-distribution of the piece they are getting for a specific function. That is why clear priorities must also emerge in own affairs and own affairs debates. That is the harsh reality. Unfortunately it works just like one’s personal houskeeping. [Interjections.]

I see that the hon member Mr Douw has returned. I once again thank him in his presence for his courtesy in writing me a note. I appreciate that; it is in the best parliamentary tradition. The hon member is completely correct. South Africa can never recover the losses incurred as a result of stayaway actions. We cannot afford to. There is one thing which is not subject to inflation or recovery, and that is time. We have lost time, production time, and we cannot catch it up. I do want to differ with the hon member, however. It is extremely important that everyone should have political participation. That is why I have no dispute with him, although we shall probably argue the method until the cows come home because there is no specific formula which we can simply transfer to South Africa.

And if the cows never come home?

Mr Chairman, then I propose that we take the discussion further in the agricultural debate.

Although political participation is very important, it is not the only answer. There are many countries in Africa which do not have as difficult a composition of their population as we do, and which have not ended up with the kind of democracy we should like to have. One only has to fly over South Africa. We are experiencing a cloudy period in the Cape at the moment, but when last did hon members take the trouble to look out of an aeroplane window when flying over our country? I wonder how many of us have had an opportunity to fly over other countries in Africa and elsewhere. Something has happened here in the southern part of Africa. One can see this from the air or when one looks at maps. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am doing my best to give the hon member Mr Douw a fair reply to a well-prepared speech, the kind of speech he has accustomed us to. Look at a map of Africa. Where are the roads, the railway lines and the telephone lines? When one flies over this country, one sees that this country has had something that has played a part in making it look as it does today. Despite all its mistakes, things which have not happened elsewhere have happened in South Africa under the NP’s reign during the past 40 years. After all, we are not the only country with minerals. There are minerals in other countries too. Why have they not been exploited on the same basis there? Why has what has come into being here, not come into being there?

I am talking about countries which, assessed in terms of international criteria, ostensibly have better political systems than we do. We are constantly governing ourselves into new dispensations, to use the words of the hon the State President. Although we are experiencing unrest in the country in the process, we are making dramatic progress. Where are we heading? The objective we are striving for is a proper say for everyone in this country on matters that affect them. This is not a problem that one can resolve all of a sudden, however. That is why we are constantly growing, and are constantly governing ourselves into new circumstances. At the same time, however, we have to strive for law and order and maximal economic growth.

The hon member is quite correct in saying that we can make South Africa into the Japan of Africa. I shall send the hon member very interesting literature about the Japanese economy. Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting Japan will know that an exceptional work ethic exists in that country. It is a centuries old civilisation in which people have learnt that they have to work in order to live. There are so many people in the country that they have had to make very special plans in order to make such progress. Before we can achieve that, we shall have to undergo enormous development. We shall have to increase our level of training and expertise and even retrain many people.

I want to differ with the hon member about the last point. He said—these may not be his exact words—“the Government does not want to proceed to real power-sharing”. I have often sat in this House listening to hon members. I should very much like to attend a debate in which hon members spell out in the finest detail what they mean by real power-sharing, for example. I should really like to know what the hon members of this House are prepared to accept in terms of what they regard as real power-sharing. [Interjections.] I look forward to such a debate. The concept of power-sharing has very wide implications. Hon members must not forget that on 6 May last year the NP received a mandate, or actually an instruction from its electorate, to share power with Blacks right up to the highest level. The hon the State President, as the leader of the NP, has said repeatedly that if drastic things have to be done, he will test the voters’ support once again. It would contribute to the meaningfulness of the debate if we could get a standpoint here on what these hon members are prepared to accept in order to comply with their demand for real power-sharing and to reflect on what the potential consequences of that will be.

The hon member for Tafelberg is not here, and consequently I shall now reply to the hon member for Mamre. The hon member made a speech which in my opinion would be worthy of any rally. I intend this as a compliment. It is necessary in a political debate such as this one to discuss matters—as the hon member did—which extend further than our political differences, but which affect all of us directly.

I thank the hon member for the way in which he did this and for his enthusiasm and dedication. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I am hearing all kinds of strange noises …

Order! The hon the Minister is replying to hon members’ speeches, and I think they are all eager to hear what the hon the Minister has to say.

On previous occasions when I have been in the House, the hon member has launched attacks on the Government and has distinguished himself as a harsh critic. I therefore request that I now be given a chance, since I can agree with him today, to do so without noises that sound as if they are being made by people who are really experiencing great pain and suffering. I have no desire to give the hon member a kiss of death. The contrary is true, because the hon member dealt with an extremely serious matter, viz the integrity of our borders and the threat to our country. He justifiably asked, “Who is the threat?” and “What do the Cubans want to do in Southern Africa?” The hon member expressed concern about the fact that this is happening precisely at this stage of negotiations. The implication of the hon member’s words was very clear. I agree with him that the answer does not reside in that kind of threat, but in trade. He was justified in quoting the figures.

I now come to the hon member for Bethelsdorp. I spoke about the negotiation of priorities, and we would do well to discuss this with one another. In connection with the hon member’s appeal in respect of the protection of the homes of elderly people, I want to tell him with all due respect that neither the House of Assembly nor the House of Delegates requested additional funds for this purpose, but a reallocation of funds has made it possible to help the aged. As a result I cannot reflect on the matter once again at this stage without setting a whole chain reaction in motion.

†The hon member for Ottery made an impassioned plea for very rapid and dramatic change. While I cannot fault his desire to remove the obstacles to greater nationhood and greater harmony and the contribution which that will make towards greater economic development, it is not as easy from a political point of view to take such a decision and implement it tomorrow. That is the complexity of the situation of the various communities in South Africa. I agree with the hon member that disparities minimise the credibility of this House, but we cannot achieve parity overnight.

Please, Mr Minister.

We have …

There is parity. Keep quiet.

Order! Each hon member has a democratic right to speak and think as he wishes. The hon member for Ottery must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to say what he thinks is right. The hon member also had a chance to say what he thought was right.

Mr Chairman, all I want to say is that we have an over-exploited tax base, particularly as far as individuals are concerned. I cannot for the life of me recommend that we increase our taxes. I also cannot recommend that we increase our borrowing. In other words we have to make do with what we have. Within that very difficult equation a solution must be found for the narrowing of the gaps and the eradication of disparities. As I have often said, it may also be necessary to redefine and analyse what is meant by disparities.

What concerns me is the comparison made by the hon member. I do not want to overemphasise the importance of that comparison, but I must point out that as soon as one starts comparing, for instance, pensions with defence one finds oneself in a difficult position, because such a comparison is not really valid when it comes to budgeting and to the reality of the division of money. As I explained earlier—I do not know whether the hon member was here when I explained it—when one does generic budgeting, as we are doing now, the competition is not between pensions, which is a detail of social services, and defence. It is when the decision has been reached as to what allocation should be made as far as social services are concerned, that pensions, schools and hospitals compete with one another. There the priorities will differ very greatly among the various communities in South Africa.

*I also thank the hon member for Heideveld. He pointed out the positive effect of the new economic policy on business confidence. I thank him for that. I have already referred to other important points that I stated.

In conclusion, Sir, I want to reply to the hon member for Toekomsrus. The hon member made a statement which I really want to differ with. The hon member said: “The job of the White man is to create division in … ”, The hon member spoke about a “‘liberatory’ movement”. He must have meant the “liberation movement”, or perhaps he wanted to use some other word. I do not quite understand the hon member. I just wanted to say this to the hon member, however.

†It is not the job of the White man to create division in South Africa. When we deal with the realities of South Africa, we recognise that there certainly are certain basic divisions. Certainly, when it comes to the wellbeing of one’s country, an overemphasis, an overaccentuation, of those divisions is not in the interests of one’s country. If, however, one ignores the fundamental divisions that exist in South Africa, one can only do so at one’s own peril. I repeat, one can only do that at one’s own peril. That is why I want to give the hon member the assurance that it is not on the agenda of the Cabinet or the NP to promote divisions in the movement of people to liberate themselves, if I may put it that way.

The hon member also said that I am in agreement with him that we cannot afford apartheid. I say once again, Sir, that we can argue for a long time about exactly what we mean by apartheid. All I can say is that I am in complete agreement …

One is either for apartheid or one is against it; one cannot be in between the two.

Order! If the hon member for Toekomsrus wants to put a question or a point of order, he must please do so in the correct way. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to say that, with the exception of an elucidation, I did not interrupt hon members when they were addressing me.

It was your right to do so.

Order! No, it is not the hon the Minister’s right. This is determined by the Standing Rules of Parliament. The hon the Minister was merely complying with the requirement in the Standing Rules of Parliament not to interrupt another hon member. That is what is provided in the Standing Rules of Parliament. The Rules provide that a speaker should not be interrupted, especially when giving his reply. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I fully support what the hon the State President said, inter alia that the concept of apartheid is “outdated”. I fully support what the hon the State President said. The hon the State President also has my full support when it comes to moving away from a situation we had before.

†The hon member made some very interesting comments about capitalism. I am in full agreement with him when it comes to freeing the system. We have to set the system free. However, we find ourselves in a difficult position when it comes to deregulation, because the central government is not always in a position to be fully aware of the regulations that hamper economic development at third-tier or second-tier level of government—and, for that matter, certain first-tier government regulations. Therefore, it is extremely important that people who feel they have encountered regulations that hamper their economic progress bring these regulations to the attention of the authorities.

Hon members must remember that we have made what some people term Draconian laws, giving the hon the State President sweeping powers to shift aside anything that stands in the way of the economic development of our people. At least on that point I can agree with the hon member for Toekomsrus that the capitalist or free enterprise system is a commitment contained in our Constitution that we must free it so that the advantages can permeate right through to all layers of our community. The hon member said everybody must have access and I agree with him. ‘This brings me to the end of my reply to hon members’ speeches. I referred earlier to certain points made by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. The hon the Minister referred to a letter which I had written to him. If I receive a letter from the public which is addressed to me and in which reference is made to a matter which is the responsibility of a colleague, I send the relevant paragraph to the functionary in question and request that he comment on it. The hon the Minister surprised me by replying here today and giving me a relatively long speech. I want to ask the hon the Minister to make a summary of the speech and give it to me in order to enable me to comment on it properly.

I have given it to you already.

Order! The hon the Minister must not address the Minister as “you”, but as “the hon the Minister”.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Border must please keep quiet when I am speaking.

I replied to the hon the Minister that same day.

Order! The hon the Minister must rise when he speaks to me. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, before I was interrupted, I wanted to say that it was my opinion, judging by the comments made to me personally, as well as the very critical letter I received, that the details contained in this speech could be repeated very positively in various places. The details contained here are important in allaying questions in the minds of certain people and at the same time proving the very pointed criticism to be wrong. I want to suggest curteously that the hon the Minister should not regard the speech he made today as concluded. What the hon the Minister sent me has not been brought to my attention as yet, but I shall definitely use it. Nevertheless I want to suggest that the hon the Minister make it his business to distribute this information. I think it is worthwhile to make this information known among the public. It will definitely provide comprehensive answers to many nagging questions.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, are we discussing the Supplementary Estimate?

Order! Yes, we are.

Thank you, Sir. I just want to know for clarification. I presume we are speaking on the Supplementary Estimate only and not on the Appropriation Bill which will come before us tomorrow. We are only discussing the additional amount for which the hon the Minister has now budgeted and which he could not include in his original budget. I just wanted a clarification on this point.

Mr Chairman, here we see that there is an additional amount of money that has been set aside for the various provinces. I want to speak about the Transvaal in particular. We did not have any objections to the Schedule that was put. However, that has now been nullified. I just want to say that the amount of money that was originally appropriated for hospital services in the Transvaal, was not the amount that we had all agreed to.

Order! The hon member for Laudium may only speak on the Supplementary Budget.

Sir, that puts me in a difficult position. We were not informed of the new rules and regulations.

Order! The hon member is on his feet and he must therefore proceed.

Sir, speaking on the supplementary estimates, I hope the hon the Minister of Constitutional Affairs and Planning will give us an indication of what this amount in Schedule 1 is required for, as well as all the others that appear here, namely Development Aid, Public Works and Land Affairs and all the others. We know that an additional amount is also required by the Administration: House of Delegates.

Schedule 2 consists of different schedules, namely 3,4,5 and 6. I hope the persons in charge can issue us with a proper statement to explain what these additional supplementary amounts that were originally budgeted for, were intended for. They now have to be legalised. What are they going to be spent on? We have no documents before us from the Bill itself.

Mr Chairman, I also want to speak on the supplementary account. When the supplementary Vote for the House of Delegates comes before us, we want it to show an improvement on social pensions and allowances, as far as item 25 in Schedule 1 is concerned. We also want to reiterate our concern as far as the Natal Provincial Administration is concerned, because the supplementary amount here only reflects item 6, which deals with community services.

The Provincial Administration made the point at a meeting that we attended that the Treasury approved many of their requests. Unless they get the required amounts that are necessary, they will not be able to execute all the backlog as far as certain developments in Natal are concerned. There are other community services in provinces which fall under the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. From what I understand, he also deals with the Black communities.

I am only the chairman.

These provinces need extra money. Unfortunately, I see that the Treasury was unable to allocate these extra amounts to them. However, I hope that when they require assistance during the year, the Treasury may be in a position to assist them.

As far as the House of Delegates is concerned, we have made the point that we wish to see an improvement as far as the whole question of social pensions in respect of the aged and other beneficiaries are concerned. We have heard that the fiscal position in this country did not make it possible for social pensions to be increased.

With these comments, we wish to state that we hope that the Treasury will be in a position to assist the provinces and even the own affairs Administrations when they may require money during the year.

Mr Chairman, we are dealing with the Supplementary Estimates and I think these Estimates were discussed fully in the provincial standing committees. We from this side of the House really see no difficulty in supporting the Supplementary Estimates as they appear in the Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, there are many things which I would like to say to the hon the Minister, but he wears two hats when he comes to this House.

Only two?

Only two. The one relates to planning and the other relates to constitutional development. It seems that I am perforce obliged to defer my remarks about constitutional development until he asks for money for that particular department.

Regarding the provinces that fall under the Department of Planning, I want to tell the hon the Minister about a very illustrious gentleman who used to be a professor of constitutional development at Stellenbosch University, and with whom I had the pleasure of spending one month—together with others like Vuka Tshabalala—touring the United States in 1977. At that time he was demonstrably arguing the case in support of the Group Areas Act and the Government policy of apartheid, supporting the NP, and he was then known as Prof Ben Vosloo. He is now the managing director of the Small Business Development Corporation, trying to stimulate small business activity among Black people. He has said that the Group Areas Act must be repealed. I hope that the hon the Minister of Planning takes into account …

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills to confine his speech to the reasons as to why he is unhappy about the additional amounts being appropriated.

That is what I am doing, Mr Chairman, because it is Prof Ben Vosloo who says that the Group Areas Act must be repealed. The hon the Minister allows the provinces to administer the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order: I would gladly discuss the Group Areas Act with the hon member. I have no problem with that. However, we cannot discuss it under the Supplementary Vote. The hon member, in terms of the Rules, is only entitled to discuss the amounts which are sought to be approved by the House.

Order! I would once again like to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills rather to come up with reasons as to why he is unhappy about the additional amounts being appropriated.

Mr Chairman, that is what I am endeavouring to explain. The provinces administer this wicked Group Areas Act. The provinces are wanting money. The hon the Minister wants money for the provinces, to administer the Group Areas Act amongst other things. I imagine that the administration of the Group Areas Act is camouflaged under Community Services. It is the provinces which are refusing to issue permits in terms of that Act and that Act must go. It is wrong that the hon the Minister should seek to shelter behind the provincial administrations for which money is required in terms of the Supplementary Estimates.

I want to move to the Supplementary Estimates dealing with the Department of Development Aid. I think if more money was required for that department, this House would be only too happy to support even a request for additional money.

I happened to obtain figures this morning. During the period 1984 to 1988 the school enrolment for Black children in primary schools under the overall control of this department, including the RSA and national states, rose by approximately 320 000. That is progress. The enrolment for secondary schools during the same period rose by something like 311 000. That is also progress.

It is interesting that the rise in secondary school enrolment seems to mirror that of the primary schools. That department is doing very good work within the limitations imposed upon it by the policies of the Government. The faster our Black people get educated the better it will be for everybody in this country and the more revenue will be generated which will make it possible to vote more money.

Order! I think I must once again try and guide the hon member who must, in the course of his speech, try and elicit from the hon the Minister reasons as to why additional funds are required.

Well, Mr Chairman, I will put two direct questions; the first one to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Will the hon the Minister agree that the provinces should be instructed to issue permits in terms of the Group Areas Act to every applicant who makes such an application? Secondly, will the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development explain to this House why, after 15 years of so-called planning by the various departments of health, the hospital in Phoenix which has been promised from time to time, has not even got off the ground at this stage? What on earth are his department and the associate departments doing about this?

Mr Chairman, I have deep sympathy with you in your effort to apply the Rules of the House—especially when it comes to the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

The only issues that are in fact under discussion, are contained in the Schedules. I am not seeking money for the provinces to administer the Group Areas Act or any planning function.

That is what they are doing!

Well, that is not what is at issue. The hon member normally purports to understand rules, laws and regulations. Let us now deal with this matter, Mr Chairman.

The total supplementary amount required for the provinces is R95,74 million. This total amount is explained in detail in the Schedules. Therefore let us have a look at them. Let us take the Orange Free State on page 6. One will find that the bulk of the amounts voted for now relate to two items only; the one being social pensions and the other in relation to the restoration of damage caused by the floods. If the hon member were to refer to the Transvaal, he would find the same position. In connection with the Cape he would find the same, as well as Natal, the amounts having been clearly indicated in the Schedules. Transvaal social benefits amount to R13,967 million. As there has been no flood damage there, no provision has been made in that regard in that particular schedule. In relation to the Cape Province social pensions the amount is R7,408 million and the flood damage R17 million. In the case of Natal the social pensions and bonusses etc amount to R3,826 million. There is no provision for flood damage, for a reason I will explain in a moment. When one then looks at the Free State, the amounts are R5,173 million in relation to bonuses and pensions and social benefits and R48 million in relation to the floods.

In the Schedules the full details of the amounts which I have now indicated, may be found. In relation to social benefits the figure is R30,374 million and for flood damage it is about R65 million for the provinces involved. In the case of Natal R141 million has already been allocated in our Main Estimate for this year and should there be any deficit in this regard it will be dealt with in the Additional Estimates which we will discuss at a later stage. Therefore, the issues raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills are completely inappropriate to what we are discussing this afternoon.

As regards the question of whether sufficient money has been allocated for hospital services, that is a matter for discussion at Second Reading, as well as under the various Votes. Hon members had the opportunity to discuss the Votes in the Extended Provincial Committees, which I would presume hon members used for that particular purpose. That is what I am trying to suggest.

He had an unsuccessful meeting in Phoenix on Saturday.

When it comes to improvements, which the hon member for Red Hill mentioned, the bulk of the amount, quite apart from flood damage, is intended to improve the position of the Black communities for which my department is responsible. Therefore, I shall conclude by saying that all the details which hon members require for an appropriate discussion of the Supplementary Estimates are, in fact, reflected in the Schedules as they relate to the provinces.

Votes and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the objective of the Patents Amendment Bill is to remedy certain shortcomings in the Patents Act, 1978. These shortcomings have a detrimental effect on the South African economy as a whole and on the manufacturing sector in particular. The amendments which I am proposing today concern four sections of the Patents Act, namely sections 1, 56, 65 and 76.

Clause 1 merely contains an amendment to a definition in section 1 of the Act. Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 56 of the Patents Act, which regulates applications for compulsory licences in cases of abuse of patent rights. The present situation is that even though the holder of a patent does not meet the general demand for the particular patented article, he may nevertheless obtain an interdict against any other person who infringes on his rights in relation to that patent. This is seriously impeding the manufacture of patented articles. Consequently two new sections are being inserted in section 56 as per clause 2 of the Bill.

The first of these is a new subsection (1A). This amendment will have the effect that in the event of a patent holder not being able to meet the general demand, a court would not grant him an interdict against an infringement of that patent by another person except under special circumstances. This stipulation will be valid pending an application for a compulsory licence. This means that the applicant may immediately proceed with the manufacture of the patented article. The patent holder will, however, be entitled to damages suffered as a result of the intermediate infringement as long as the application for a compulsory licence is pending.

A further insertion in section 56, namely subsection (7A), stipulates that in the event of a compulsory licence being granted, the Commissioner of Patents may order that the licence shall be deemed to have been granted on the date of the submission of the application concerned to the Registrar of Patents. This means that the applicant’s conduct in the meantime in respect of the manufacture of the patented article will be regarded as lawful.

As regards section 65, the existing subsection (3) allows a plaintiff, in the event of an infringement of his patent, apart from the right to apply for an interdict, also the right to demand and I quote “The delivery up of anything involving infringement”. This phrase proved to be vague and caused considerable practical problems. The particular problems related mainly to uncertainty as to exactly what a plaintiff was entitled to demand in regard to “delivery up”. For example, the existing subsection (3) makes it possible for a plaintiff who holds a patent on a minor subassembly of a motor gearbox, to demand the delivery up of the whole gearbox instead of the infringing parts only.

This intolerable situation necessitated an amendment of subsection (3). Due to the proposed amendment the plaintiff will henceforth be entitled to claim delivery up of only that part or article of which the infringing product forms an inseparable part, in addition to the infringing product or article itself. Referring to the example which I have quoted, it will mean that a plaintiff will only be entitled to the delivery up of the specific infringing parts in the gearbox as well as those parts which are inseparable from the infringing parts. This amendment is contained in clause 3(a) of the Bill.

Subsection (5) of section 65, which is referred to in clause 3(b) of the Bill, obliges a plaintiff who institutes legal proceedings, as a result of an infringement of his patent, to give notice of such proceedings to every licencee under the patent concerned and whose name is recorded in the patent register. This enables a licencee to intervene and to join that particular action as a co-plaintiff. Subsection (5), however, does not stipulate when or at what stage of the proceedings such notice should be given. The amendment will have the effect that a plaintiff will be compelled to give such notice before he institutes any legal action. It was found in practice that where such notice was given after the institution of action, the proceedings were often delayed due to the time taken in respect of the application by licencees to be joined as co-plaintiffs. Prior notice affords licencees the opportunity to apply timeously.

Furthermore, clause 3(b) of the Bill deletes the reference, in subsection (5), to the recovery of any damages the plaintiff may have suffered as a result of infringement of his patent right. The intention with this amendment is to eliminate the restrictions currently imposed by the reference to the recovery of damages as the only remedy in the case of an infringement of the plaintiff’s patent right. A plaintiff would henceforth also be entitled to apply for an interdict as well as for delivery up of an infringing article.

The proposed subsection (6) of section 65 is a new subsection which will facilitate the task of a plaintiff in proving the amount of the damages concerned. At present, a plaintiff has to prove that the goods sold by the defendant would have been sold by him. Furthermore, he must prove what his profit margin on those goods would have been and what his resultant loss is. Due to the difficulties that are usually encountered in proving these facts, many a plaintiff has ended up without any compensation whatsoever. In terms of the proposed system a plaintiff would be allowed to prove the loss he suffered on the basis of reasonable royalties. This means that where a holder of a patent normally grants a licence to a licencee at a rate of say 10%, the plaintiffs loss would be 10% of the price charged for the relevant article by the defendant. This amendment brings the Patents Act into line with a method of fixing the amount of damages which the courts have been applying for quite some time.

The next point I wish to raise concerns clause 4 which contains an amendment to section 76. Section 76 deals with the procedure relating to an appeal against a ruling of the Commissioner of Patents, who is a judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division. The present procedure entails that a party who fails to prove his case before the Commissioner of Patents has an automatic right of appeal to the full bench of the provincial division of the Supreme Court. Should the appeal to the particular full bench fail, the appellant has a further automatic right of appeal to the Appellate Division. The practical implications are that a total of nine judges sometimes have to adjudicate upon cases which have no prospect at all of succeeding on appeal.

On the other hand, the right to appeal from a single judge in a supreme court is not automatic, but is subject to the approval of that single judge or of the Chief Justice. Appellants often abuse the present system by delaying the proceedings intentionally by appealing, knowing full well that the chances of success are virtually nil. The proposed amendment brings the procedure into line with the procedure of an appeal from a single judge in a civil matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has dealt with this Bill at great length and I do not wish to repeat what he said. I do wish to point out that the Patents Amendment Bill, in its original form, was referred back to the law advisers by the standing committee for further amendment on 7 February 1988. The amended version came before the House and was approved by the standing committee. We on this side of the House have no objection to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we as the Official Opposition have no problem with this Bill. It is my party’s view that this Bill be accepted. We support it.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House, and I as a member of the standing committee, must say this is a highly technical Bill embodying many legal requirements. However, I am satisfied because the people who have been consulted in the course of drafting the amending legislation, were the following: L T C Harms, Judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa; Prof E du Plessis, professor in Patent and Copyright Law in the Department of Mercantile Law of Unisa; the late Dr Jan Steyn, previously senior partner in the firm of patent and trademark attorneys, Adams and Adams, and internationally known as an expert on patent law, and also former chairman of the South African Patent Institute’s Patent Committee; and Dr C J Rattray, consultant in the firm D M Kisch, patent attorney and expert on patent law. These people were very much responsible for effecting the necessary amendments and other requirements of this Bill. It is a highly technical Bill and we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their support. I merely want to explain that the Copyright Act provides for a statutory advisory committee with regard to the Copyright Act. There are seven other incidental Acts which all deal with immaterial property for which there is no statutory advisory committee. Shortly after my appointment, I became aware of the fact that there were serious shortcomings in these Acts and consequently I appointed an informal or ad hoc committee to advise me on improvements to these Acts.

†The first Act that was amended was the Copyright Act. This Bill was unanimously supported by all the parties. The second one is this very important Patents Amendment Bill. As I have said, there are severe shortcomings in these Acts and we are rectifying these. After this first round of improvements of the Acts we will look at them in finer detail again. I think this task will be completed in a year’s time.

*The hon member for Marianhill referred to the people whom I had consulted. We consult much more widely than that, but I felt that a small committee would be of great use to us.

†I have asked the judges of the Supreme Court to assist me. They have a certain view from their high positions. I have also asked professors who do research in this field to assist me, as well as practising patent attorneys.

*There are three groups, therefore, and each one has an important contribution to make. I believe that this amending Bill will be to the benefit of the manufacturing industry because it will contribute to limiting the abuse of patent rights in the country.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this is a very important Bill and for the sake of future reference we have drawn up a comprehensive Second Reading speech and hon members must please bear with me while I read it.

†When the Trade Practices Act was considered by Parliament during 1975 and 1976, the main objective was to give adequate protection to consumers against trade practices considered to be undesirable. When my colleague, the present hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, introduced the Trade Practices Act during 1975, he gave a comprehensive exposition of the undesirable trade practices Government intended to remove. Parliament confirmed at the time that a mechanism should be created to enable Government to act against any such undesirable trade practices which did not fall within any existing legislation.

During 1985, however, when the Trade Practices Act was amended mainly to deal with the problems which had arisen around the kubus affair, it became apparent that the Trade Practices Act had become outdated and an inadequate instrument to act against all harmful business practices effectively and expeditiously. The result of the various amendments was that extraordinary powers were inevitably conferred upon the responsible Minister, which created a situation that could not be tolerated in the long run.

In view of these developments, the then Minister of Trade and Industry undertook to have the Trade Practices Act, 1976, reviewed and, if necessary, substituted by new legislation. The Bill before the House is the result of such a review and was drafted after conducting an intensive study of comparable foreign legislation. It contains elements of legislation of the United States of America, Canada, Israel and Sweden.

The Bill was also drafted in accordance with the sound principles accepted by Parliament during 1976, which are still valid. Furthermore, it was modelled on the highly successful Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, 1979, which allows for swift and effective action, for example, in the field of restrictive practices.

The proposed legislation represents a new and dynamic strategy aimed at effective consumer protection at all levels of South African society. The Bill also aims at executing the recommendations of the Economic Advisory Council of the State President, ie to strengthen the position of the consumer by bringing about effective competition by means of codes pertaining to trade practices. As such it is expected that as the various codes to be promulgated in terms of the proposed legislation are implemented, certain existing legislation can be repealed.

I should now like to direct hon members’ attention to the essential provisions of the Bill. Briefly, the Bill provides for the establishment of an independent statutory body of experts, the Business Practices Committee, which is being given certain powers. The Bill also gives the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, acting on the advice of the Business Practices Committee, certain powers to take steps, among others, to control or stop a harmful business practice. In the third place the Bill provides for the establishment of a special court of appeal.

In clause 8 of the Bill, which should be read in conjunction with clause 12, the investigations are set out that may be undertaken by the said committee. Clause 12 contains the remedies which the hon the Minister may, after receipt of an appropriate recommendation by the committee, apply in the various circumstances.

Three types of investigations may be conducted by this committee in terms of clause 8 of the Bill. Firstly, they may conduct an investigation into a specific harmful practice as provided for in subclause (1)(a). This concerns a scheme by a specific person, such as the kubus affair; or the fraudulent activities of a firm which, for instance, receives television sets for repair but simply keeps them or returns them unrepaired; or the business of someone who dishonestly operates a burial aid society scheme or uses deceptive advertising.

Secondly, the committee may conduct an investigation into any particular type of agreement, scheme or business practice of general occurrence which is harmful in terms of subclause (1)(b). Thirdly, the committee may conduct an investigation into any price increase as contemplated in subclause (1)(c).

I must emphasise that a person’s right to conduct any business practice in accordance with the principle of the free market system should not be interfered with, unless that business practice has been thoroughly investigated by the Business Practices Committee. Circumstances may, however, occur which necessitate immediate action. This necessity has led to the introduction of clause 8(5), which empowers the Minister to promulgate, on the recommendation of the committee, a standstill order for a maximum period of three months in the case of any alleged specific harmful business practice.

This brings me to a discussion of clause 12. This clause is really the sharp end of the Bill. I must emphasise beforehand that the Minister would only be able to act in terms of clause 12 after receipt of a recommendation by the committee and once the Minister is satisfied that the business practice concerned is not justified in the public interest.

Clause 12(1) pertains to the Minister’s actions in regard to a specific business practice which is referred to in clause 8(1)(a). By virtue of clause 12(1), the Minister may request the Price Controller to fix a maximum price or maximum charge, as the case may be, in terms of the Price Control Act, 1964. Alternatively, the Minister may declare that specific business practice to be unlawful or he may require any person who is, for example, a party to any agreement, to cease to be a party to such an agreement or to refrain from becoming a party to such an agreement. Any person who feels aggrieved by these actions of the Minister may appeal to a special court, the details of which are set out in clause 13 of the Bill, to which I will refer again later.

I will now refer to clause 12(2) of the Bill, which in essence relates to price increases contemplated in clause 8(1)(c). If the Minister is satisfied that a price increase is not justified in the public interest, he may, on the recommendation of the committee, take any of the following steps.

In the first place the Minister may, as in the case of clause 12(1), request the Price Controller to fix the maximum price of a particular commodity under the Price Control Act of 1964. I must emphasise that the Bill contains no power whatsoever to fix prices. It simply refers to the existing Price Control Act which is almost a quarter of a century old. This reference in the Bill to the Price Control Act is no innovation; it was taken over verbatim from section 14(1)(a) of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act of 1979, which has never been used yet.

The Bill is quite incapable of being used for a “price freeze” in a general sense; at most it can lead to an investigation of particular price increases. For this reason and because any investigation is in the hands of an independent body, it is impossible to infer from the Bill itself any intention to impose widespread price controls. Price control under the Price Control Act was phased out several years ago, but the passing or not of the Bill will not in any way affect the independent existence of the Price Control Act. It must also be emphasised that the Bill has no application at all to wages or salaries. Hence it is impossible to base a fear of a “salary and price freeze” rationally on the Bill.

Secondly, the Minister may also, in terms of clause 12(2), require a specific person to give prior notice in a prescribed manner of an intended price increase. This is simply publicity given to a price increase in, say, a newspaper, and has nothing to do with price control.

My final reference to clause 12 concerns subclause (6) which regulates the Minister’s actions in regard to harmful business practices of general occurrence in terms of clause 8(1)(b). In this instance the Minister may prohibit or regulate such a practice by notice in the Gazette, to which there will not be any right of appeal because these measures would be subordinate legislation of general application on a countrywide basis.

The appeal to a special court to which I have referred as well as related matters are regulated by clause 13 of the Bill. Provision is made for the establishment by the State President of a special court of appeal as well as for the appointment of a judge or acting judge, as president of the court. The State President also appoints two other persons to assist the president of the court. These two persons have to satisfy certain requirements. One person should be the holder of a university degree in economics and should in the opinion of the State President have wide experience of industrial, commercial or financial matters. Furthermore, the Bill empowers the Minister, among others, to promulgate regulations and it repeals the Trade Practices Act, 1976.

In general I wish to state that consumer protection has to be effective, but balanced. If the measures do not provide teeth to act where necessary, there is no point in having them. But for balance it is fundamentally important to build in safeguards against the possible abuse of those powers. In this Bill care has been taken to create all the practical safeguards appropriate to the system. These safeguards are the following:

1. (a) The Minister can take no action unless it has been recommended by an independent statutory committee;
2. (b) that committee must report in writing to the Minister;
3. (c) that report has to be tabled in Parliament, to which the Minister is accountable; and
4. (d) there is a right of appeal to a special court.

At this juncture I want to refer briefly to the existing consumer organisations. These consumer bodies, of which there are approximately 25, are unselfishly rendering an invaluable service to the consumers of the country and I wish to express my sincere appreciation for what they are doing. By introducing this legislation Government intends creating a framework within which all these consumer bodies could operate.

Various codes pertaining to different fields of consumer protection could in future be promulgated under clause 12(6). This clause will therefore enable Government to provide all the consumer bodies in the Republic with a legal basis from which to operate effectively and to the benefit of those consumers whose interests these bodies strive to protect. This process fits into the Government’s policy of deregulation.

It is envisaged that in practice all complaints received by the various consumer bodies should be sifted and evaluated by them. Should it be found that a harmful business practice exists or is emerging, details thereof should be channelled through the South African Co-ordinating Consumer Council to the Business Practices Committee.

From what I have said hon members will gather that this Bill is an excellent example of enabling legislation and I am convinced that what we have here is an effective instrument by means of which Government could meet the challenges of our time in the sphere of adequate consumer protection.

Mr Chairman, this Bill serves merely to protect the consumer. This Bill will supersede the Trade Practices Act of 1976. The Trade Practices Advisory Committee, on which various interest groups are currently represented, will in turn be superseded by a committee of experts, the proposed Business Practices Committee.

Businesses which have not co-operated to improve the economic welfare of the country and which are set on exploiting consumers, may expect strict measures to be taken against them. The new draft Bill will enforce control over unscrupulous business ventures and fly-by-night businesses.

I wish to quote what the Director of the Consumer Council, Mr Cronjé, said:

He went on to say:

He continued as follows:

1. (1) standard contracts where people did not know what they were signing;
2. (2) home improvements where there were often no contracts;
3. (3) repairs to electrical appliances and motor vehicles, including prices paid for spares and/or the failure to fit spares when they were charged for; and
4. (4) mail order schemes that have no guarantees.

He also said the following:

This is what Mr Cronjé, the Director of the Consumer Council, had to say about the matter. Therefore, I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, as stated by the hon the Minister and the previous speaker, when we had the milk culture problem in South Africa during 1984, certain extraordinary powers were given to the Minister at the time to ensure that recourse could be had in regard to that problem. It was decided at that time that the Trade Practices Act of 1976 should be re-examined.

Today we see before us a Bill which does exactly what it was intended to do. It tightens up control and also ensures that exploitation does not take place by small businesses, in view of the large amount of money that was lost by individuals in South Africa.

It is regrettable to note that we have to pass certain Bills in Parliament. In fact, last week we passed a Bill here dealing with housing development for the aged, and in that area, too, we found that exploitation was beginning to take place in a society in which we need everyone to understand the problems of his fellow man.

We cannot allow this state of affairs to continue in this country and therefore these harsh measures and a reconsideration of certain Bills which are already on the Statute Books, have to take place. It is no reflection on the Government but rather, I think, a reflection on society, that people take others for granted and that exploitation takes place. It is sad that we have to reconsider and reformulate Bills that are already on the Statute Book. However, there are various different types of people and I believe that in this particular instance this Bill will to a large extent—in fact, in all cases—be able to afford legislative protection to the man in the street and to the interests of this country as a whole in so far as trade is concerned.

I also wish to say that I think that one of the heartening features of this Bill is the fact that a committee of experts will now be formed to look into this issue. I think this will be of great assistance to the hon the Minister himself. I therefore want to say that in view of this good measure and in order to put a stop to future exploitation, we on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, following the previous speakers, particularly the hon the Minister who gave us a very in-depth and comprehensive report on the necessity for this Bill, I want to say that the crux of the matter is that the Trade Practices Act, No 76 of 1976, was an Act that contained substantial loopholes. People were able to get through those loopholes and I think this Bill represents a finer net, as a result of which many of these undesirable practices can be brought to a halt.

I want to emphasise that this is the beginning. As hon members know, trade and business practices and so forth will continue in this country and from time to time there will be a need to address the various problems that will arise in this direction. I think in this regard this Bill certainly reflects that and commits itself to that.

The Bill constitutes enabling legislation and the hon the Minister will only be entitled to act after receiving a recommendation from the committee of experts. I believe that this is the state of affairs at present and we on the standing committee found this Bill necessary as a result of the practices that were being perpetrated by various milk-culture-related schemes, which I think the whole country was aware of. Therefore, we on this side of the House, with the full support of the standing committee, wish to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that we do not oppose the Government simply for the sake of opposing them, we support this Bill. When this Bill was originally published it gave rise to certain concern on the part of business. I understand that certain matters were clarified for business by Government officials and the sensitivity that arose, was put right.

There is a need for legislation of the kind introduced by this Bill. While from time immemorial a certain amount of puffery was permitted in advertising, the kind of misleading information which is now advertised in regard to goods certainly was never contemplated in the old days. The kind of advertising opportunities which are now available were not available in the old days when puffery was permitted. There is a difference between a little puffery and gross misrepresentation. The housewife is told that the large size is the economy pack and that she will therefore be able to save by buying the large size. However, when she takes it home she finds that inside the huge box, the outer container, there is a much smaller plastic packet containing the contents and that that packet possibly constitutes only about three quarters of the large packaging. Now that is not puffery, that is being directly misleading.

In this country we have—and I am going to use the cliché—a First World and Third World situation. We have a rural community which is largely uneducated and when they see these misleading advertisements they get taken in by them. That does the community a grave disservice and this Bill is seeking to put that right. It will also make it impossible for purveyors of commodities to make false claims for their commodities.

Recently there was a great deal of hullabaloo in the Press about a certain cheese. Whereas the cheese was supposed to weigh 500 grams it was found that some of the packaged cheese weighed as little as 428 grams. The explanation given by the merchandiser was the rather glib one that mistakes do happen. If mistakes like that happen, after this Bill becomes law, that merchandiser or producer will find himself in serious trouble and the public will be protected.

I want to deal with a particular product called McKenzie’s Veinoids, which is advertised for all kinds of things. Unsuspecting people who have taken that particular tablet have frequently ended up in hospital with cardiac complaints, since that medicine has a direct adverse effect on their hearts. This then causes a great deal of harm to unsuspecting members of the public. That, too, will be dealt with by this committee that is envisaged by the Bill. I can see this committee working in tandem with the Consumer Council in order to try and prevent unfair and undue exploitation of the public by businessmen. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support.

*This year I had the privilege of dealing with 10 Bills in Parliament. Today I am presenting the tenth and last Bill in this House. I am privileged to be able to say that thus far I have enjoyed the unanimous support of all the parties in all the Houses for all the Bills. They are all very important Bills. With regard to this Bill, hon members undertook to support various matters which needed to be dealt with.

We have an economic system—the capitalistic system—which unfortunately makes it possible for people to be exploited. We have a particular responsibility in this country to take care of that. It is a fact that a great deal of propaganda is made in this country with reference to a choice between various economic systems.

†It is our duty, believing as we do in our economic system, to make it possible for people to support our economic system.

*This is a fact, because when poor, uninformed and underprivileged people are exploited in a shameful manner under this system, one cannot expect them to support the economic system.

Unfortunately we have presented this Bill at a fairly late stage. The previous Act of 1976 had good intentions, but it also had serious shortcomings of which I want to mention only two. In terms of that Act one cannot take steps against a particular person. Let me once again mention the often quoted milk-culture case. In terms of that Act one could not take action against a specific person and say to him: “You may no longer proceed with this practice.” One could only take steps against nationwide phenomena.

When the milk-culture situation—which is a good example—arose, a provision had to be built into the Act—in other words Parliament had to convene so that the Act could be amended—and in terms of regulations a general regulation was promulgated which dealt inter alia with the milkculture situation. This may have caused some harm, since there were other schemes in the country which were not harmful and which were also prohibited since it was necessary to word the regulations very comprehensively in order to prohibit one particular matter. It therefore held the risk of doing more harm than good in prohibiting a particular practice.

+A second shortcoming of the Trade Practices Act as it now stands is that the Trade Practices Advisory Committee is a representative body. When dealing with matters of this nature one should not have a representative body; one should have an independent body of specialists, knowledgeable people with experience in trade and industrial matters to advise the Minister. Those shortcomings led to the drafting of this Bill.

Since my appointment I have had many discussions with various groups representing consumers. I have often spoken to the Consumer Council. I have asked them now to submit a list of their priorities to the to be appointed committee of specialists. I think there are many matters to which they want to give their attention but we must compile a list of priorities and then submit it to this new committee.

The Housewives League visited me a while ago. They were very troubled about a certain matter which I think I can raise here. It concerns pyramidal selling schemes or “piramide-verkoopskemas” in Afrikaans. I told them that I was not in a position to give them any assistance. Under the present Harmful Business Practices Act I could not give them any assistance.

*The Commercial Branch of the Police Fore on the Witwatersrand has been trying for two years to build a case in connection with pyramidal selling schemes. I told the women that I was very sorry and that I had sympathy with them, but that I could not give them any assistance. I told them that we were going to pass a Bill in terms of which I might be able to help them later in the year.

†The hon the State President also took an interest in this Bill. He asked that it should be completed and brought before Parliament during this session.

’We should like to see this Bill signed by the hon the State President as soon as possible. I am doing my best to make it effective as from 1 July, because there are urgent matters on my desk which have to be addressed.

†The hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to initial causes for concern that were mentioned in the Press.

*I may add that in the beginning there was a great deal of disinformation. No fundamental amendment was made to the Bill. The Bill before the House today is basically the same as the one which was negotiated with organised trade and industry in the course of a few months. There were no fundamental amendments. There were people who tried to destroy the good relationship between the hon the State President and organised trade and industry, and there were people who conducted an incomprehensible vendetta. I want to repeat that there are no fundamental amendments. This is the Bill as it was presented to the various bodies in its draft stage.

†I want to emphasise that this Bill was not written overnight. We had people investigating consumer legislation in all the comparable countries. As I said in my Second Reading speech, this Bill contains elements of American law, Canadian law, Israeli law and also Swedish law. I think we have really taken the best. We also had the privilege of Dr Van Eeden’s doctoral thesis on this subject and I must say that we made good use of it. Dr Van Eeden is one of the senior officials working for the Competition Board.

Several hon members referred to the different abuses taking place at the moment, such as misleading advertisements. I must say that I look forward to being in a position where I have a committee of specialists to advise me on these issues. We can then tackle the different problems in order of importance.

*I want to thank hon members for their understanding and support during the past year. We have really dealt with difficult legislation. The Patents Amendment Bill, which we have just dealt with, is a very complicated matter. The issue of copyright which I brought before the House earlier this year, was another very complex matter. These are important and delicate Bills.

†I want to thank hon members. It is always a pleasure to come to this House. I want to thank hon members for their support and understanding. I am always impressed to observe how quickly and easily hon members of this House grasp the principles underlying legislation pertaining to trade and industry.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

General Affairs:

1. 1. National States Constitution Amendment Bill [B 88—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).
2. 2. Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill [B 89—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).
3. 3. Finance Bill [B 90—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Finance).

Committee Report:

Own Affairs:

House of Delegates

1. Report of House Committee on a Question of Privilege (House of Delegates), dated 3 June 1988.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.