House of Assembly: Vol5 - TUESDAY 14 JUNE 1988
TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS— see col 14076.
Order! On behalf of Mr Speaker, I hereby present the First Report of a joint meeting of the Rules Committees, dated 14 June 1988, as follows:
The Rules Committees of the three Houses of Parliament, after considering the letter of the Secretary to Parliament addressed to Mr Speaker, recommend:
- (1) That Mr A J de Villiers, Secretary to Parliament, be permitted to retire on pension from the Parliamentary Service with effect from 1 October 1988.
- (2) That with effect from 1 October 1988—
- (a) the vacancy caused by Mr De Villiers’s retirement be filled by the appointment of Mr G P C de Kock, BA, Deputy Secretary, as Secretary to Parliament;
- (b) the office of Deputy Secretary be filled by the appointment of Mr R C Douglas, BA, Senior Under Secretary;
- (c) Mr C J P Lucas, B Juris, Under Secretary, be appointed as Senior Under Secretary; and
- (d) Mr K Hahndiek, BA, Table Assistant, be appointed as Under Secretary.
LOUIS LE GRANGE, Chairman
Mr Speaker’s Chambers
Parliament
14 June 1988.
Unless notice of objection to the Report is given at the next sitting of one of the Houses, the Report will be considered adopted.
Order! The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid requested leave to make a statement and I now give him the opportunity to do so.
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
I announced yesterday in the House of Assembly that I had requested the Commission for Administration to inquire into or have inquiries made into the acquisition of a system of computer-assisted education by the Department of Education and Training.
In the discussion which followed my announcement, reference was made to the role of the Commission for Administration in the relevant matter. The Commission for Administration has indicated that in the circumstances it would rather withdraw from the inquiry into this matter.
I appreciate the standpoint of the Commission for Administration, and I now announce that a judicial commission of inquiry will be appointed to inquire into this matter and other matters relating to the Department of Education and Training. The report of the judicial commission of inquiry will be submitted to the Government.
The judicial commission of inquiry will be constituted as follows: Judge Van den Heever of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court as chairman and Messr W G M van Zyl, Regional Court President, Durban, and Gerald Barrie, former Auditor-General, as members.
Order! The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid will now make a second statement.
Mr Chairman, I should also like to tell hon members that Dr A B Fourie, the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training, has requested me to approve his early retirement in terms of section 15(5)(a) of the Public Service Act, No 111 of 1984. I have approved this with effect from 15 June 1988.
QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)
Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House we should like to sincerely congratulate the officials who have been appointed to new posts, namely Mr De Kock as Secretary to Parliament, Mr Douglas as Deputy Secretary, Mr Lucas as Senior Under-Secretary and Mr Hahndiek as Under-Secretary. We wish them a long and happy period of service in their new positions.
In his second reading speech, the hon the Minister pointed out that since Union White education had operated on a provincial basis on the preprimary, primary and secondary levels, with the exception of specialised education and education for the mentally retarded. From 1910 each province introduced its own ordinances to control education in its particular region. Since in South Africa today we are saying farewell to that important phase in the history of White education, ie provision and control, we should like to pay tribute to those people who brought education to such a high standard, thereby rendering an invaluable service to our people and our country. The role played by educationists, teachers and even administrative staff over a period of 78 years in the service of education can never really be over-estimated. In particular we should like to express our thanks to the various provincial education departments which have left their stamp on education in the four provinces. I hope that the new phase we are entering with the implementation of this Act will not lead to sterile uniformity, but that each education department will be given the scope to emphasise those aspects.
The CP regards the legislation before us as one of the most important pieces of legislation in many years. It replaces three Acts and 16 ordinances with all the amendments made to these Acts and ordinances over the years. [Interjections.]
Order! The undertones of the discussions are unacceptably strident. Hon members must lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.
This legislation provides for the provision of and control over White education. It is, therefore, own affairs legislation; it affects our people and our future very directly. The CP is convinced of the desirability of such an Act. We are also convinced that it is in the best interests of White education that there should be one Act which will exercise control over and provide education in White schools. However, we cannot wholly support the legislation as embodied in this Bill. We support most of the 114 clauses before us, but we cannot support the principles contained in certain clauses. We shall, therefore, vote against the legislation.
Before coming to the legislation itself, I should like to comment on its background. The Department of Education and Culture spent two years preparing this legislation. It was essential to devote adequate time to it so that the best results could ultimately be obtained. The hon the Minister also mentioned that it had been submitted to numerous interested educational and parental bodies for commentary. The committee was aware of those comments. But right from the beginning, for one reason or another, there was a feverish haste to finalise this legislation. It is understandable that the department wanted it finalised as soon as possible, but in my opinion that does not justify the pressure put on interested bodies during the preparatory stages, something to which other hon members will probably be referring in detail, and the eventual haste with which the House Committee dealt with the Bill.
On several occasions the chairman of the House Committee reported that there was pressure from higher up to finalise the Bill. Everybody appreciated the difficult position he was in and we do not blame him personally for the haste with which the House committee had to complete its work. We must, however, record our displeasure that the House Committee was not given sufficient time to submit the best possible legislation to this House. It is unforgivable that after certain bodies had asked to be allowed to give evidence, this having been proposed by the hon member for Pinetown, this was simply rejected by the committee.
The FTC which later under pressure and on certain conditions withdrew their request, the South African Association for Technical and Professional Education, the Natal Teachers’ Society, the Cape English-speaking Parents’ Association and the South African Teachers’ Association should have been given the opportunity to appear before the committee. The argument that they had previously been given the opportunity to make their contributions does not hold water, because they did not have the ultimate or final formulation of the Bill before them.
The CP appreciates the department’s desire to have the Bill passed, but the impatience displayed by some hon NP members in the House Committee—fortunately not all of them—gave the impression that the quality of the final legislation was not their primary concern. In fact, one member made the pertinent statement that he did not see it as the function of the committee to improve the legislation, but simply to look at it and judge if it was technically in order.
That is not the opinion of the CP. We saw it as our task to negotiate the best possible educational legislation in the committee. I think the NP will concede that with the limited time at our disposal, we also made a responsible contribution and towards improving the legislation there. In many cases—I am just thinking of clauses 14,15, 44 and 81—the CP point of view was acceptable and was accommodated in the amendments.
I also want to refer to a few clauses which the CP cannot agree with. Other hon members of the CP will deal with other clauses in the course of the debate. I want to draw attention to clause 19 which deals with regulations relating to councils. There are numerous other clauses embodying the same principle which confer wide powers on the hon the Minister.
In clause 19 he is empowered inter alia to make regulations relating to the constitution, powers, functions, duties, dissolution and reconstitution of councils. It is our view that one cannot eliminate all regulations. It is, however, also our view that certain basic principles must be embodied in the legislation and that the Minister must then be bound to make regulations within that framework. The ideal situation would be for the principle to be embodied in the legislation and for the Minister to be empowered to determine the procedures for their implementation. Too many powers are being granted to the Minister in the legislation as it is formulated at present.
We are being asked today to approve legislation in a vacuum, as it were. We cannot do that, and that is one of the main reasons we are opposing this legislation. Not only the CP has this objection. This objection runs like a refrain right through the written evidence submitted to the House Committee. I should like to quote a few examples to hon members. On 31 March 1987 the FTC wrote as follows:
On 23 November 1987 the Free State Education Department stated their objection as follows:
The Federation of Management Institutions for Extraordinary Education said on 3 March 1987:
Similar stands were also taken by Rhodes University, the Natal Parents’ Association and the Committee of University Principals. On 18 May this year the FTC made another attempt to have urgent attention given to this matter. I quote:
This refrain throughout the written comments amounts to only one thing: The powers entrusted to the Minister to make regulations are too wide. There can be no meaningful assessment of the legislation unless those regulations are defined.
I have asked myself why this reaction has come from almost every organisation which commented on this legislation. Why, when regulations have been used in the past to spell out certain particulars, was a strong stand not taken against those regulations? I eventually found two answers to this question.
In the first place, too little is said in this legislation. It has caused educationists to feel uneasy, because people do not know what to expect from this legislation. The FTC, for instance, on 1 June this year—less than two weeks ago—had a final, urgent meeting with the hon the Minister to obtain certain assurances from him. On the same day an urgent telex was sent to the Secretary to Parliament to have the undertakings given by the hon the Minister on that occasion confirmed in writing.
It was also confirmed in the House Committee that the hon the Minister had given his word that certain matters about which organised education profession felt strongly would be embodied in the legislation. The assurances given by the hon the Minister dealt with the age of retirement on pension and the dismissal of superfluous teachers. An undertaking was also given that the legislation before the House today would not be implemented before the Government Service Pensions Act of 1973 had been amended.
The CP would be welcome it if the hon the Minister, for the benefit of many teachers, would confirm this agreement with the FTC during the debate.
There is a second reason why the bodies concerned have problems with the powers given to the hon the Minister to make regulations. This concerns the Government’s lack of credibility.
Why is it that almost without exception these institutions are opposed to the powers this legislation gives to the Minister? It is for one simple reason, and that is that in general, and therefore also in regard to White education, the Government no longer enjoys the public’s confidence and no longer has any credibility in the eyes of the public. It is no use looking for the causes in other places and other political parties. The Government itself is responsible for this.
As far as education is concerned—I am not even talking of constitutional matters—the Government has adopted a drastically changing policy in recent years. The quota system for admission of students of colour to White universities has been discarded. In contrast to the Government’s previous policy, White tertiary educational institutions have to a large extent become black.
I recently put a question to the hon the Minister as to how many Coloured students there were at the Cape Technikon, when Coloureds in the Peninsula have their own technikon. His reply was that there were 93 Coloured students there. To a further question as to whether his department had established if the courses available to Coloureds at the Cape Technikon were also offered by the Peninsula Technikon for Coloureds, his reply was:
The Government, therefore, no longer has any interest in who is studying at White tertiary educational institutions. [Interjections.]
Further, the Government recently announced a new sports and cultural policy for schools. In contrast to the Government’s previous policy, the emphasis has now been shifted to mixed training programmes and inter-group liaison because so it is explained, “various peoples in the RSA must live and work together happily”.
The introductory sentence of the Press statement of 29 March this year confirms that the Government has also changed its stand on this matter. I want to read it to hon members:
This, therefore, is a new policy, as opposed to the previous policy. It is a policy of indoctrination for mixing, instead of a policy which regards education as the transmitting of values and norms which must, therefore, take place within the sphere of one’s own culture.
I say again that the opposition to the powers given to the Minister in various clauses to make regulations springs mainly from the lack of confidence in the Government, a Government which has become known for its reckless disregard for the previous standpoints it advocated.
By way of a few examples I should like to show how the say that parents have in management councils and school boards, for instance, will depend on the stand taken by the hon the Minister. In terms of this legislation, the hon the Minister should be able to decide for himself what the powers, duties and functions of management councils are. As this legislation is formulated, he can rescind those powers now allocated to them. He will be able to determine that they have no say in the appointment of teachers at schools. He will be able to reduce their present powers to such an extent that they are meaningless. He will even be able to remove the constitution of management councils from the hands of the parents. He will be able to determine that a management council should be dissolved if it does not give effect to a policy of mixed school sport and mixed training programmes.
Further, in terms of clause 19(c) it appears that the Minister, should he so decide, may himself make nominations to management councils and school boards. I accept that the hon the Minister who is now in control would not do that, but there is nothing in this legislation which forbids him or his successors making regulations in terms of which the parents’ say in education will be reduced to nil. It is this principle to which we object so strongly.
The hon the Minister must not blame us for this. Telling us it will never happen is not good enough. We have often come up against the Government’s broken promises, and that is why we want assurances to be embodied in the legislation, and this also applies to the parental participation. We are not the only people who want this; numerous interested bodies have commented on this. Rev L W Meyer, the chairman of the Gebiedskomitee van die Afrikaanse Ouerve-reniging vir Christelike Opvoeding en Onderwys, says that the only recommendation his association wants to make is, and I quote—
On the same subject, the Transvaal Education Council says the following—
I think it is quite correct to say that parental participation is being prejudiced by the formulation of this legislation. Nothing is certain in this legislation as far as parental participation is concerned. Parents are totally at the mercy of the goodwill of the hon the Minister. What the CP demands in regard to parental participation is not the goodwill of a Minister, but that it should be embodied in the Act itself.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to clause 62. This clause deals with religious instruction in schools. There is a very important difference between the four provincial education departments in regard to this matter. The Transvaal and Free State ordinances each contain a provision in terms of which a teacher cannot be appointed to or retained at a public school unless he is prepared to give religious instruction without conscientious objections, but he can be exempted by the Director from this provision. The Cape ordinance provides that a teacher who has conscientious objections to giving religious instruction may be exempted without prejudicing his position. The Natal ordinance, like clause 62, does not deal with this matter.
The CP asked in the House Committee that the Transvaal and Free State ordinances be included in the legislation. Our standpoint is that one must never force teachers to give religious instruction, and this has never been the view or the practice in the Transvaal or the Free State either.
The principal is the best person to decide which teacher can perform this task in the best interests of the child. Nevertheless, at the same time we believe that there should be strict compliance with the National Education Policy Act, Act No 39 of 1967, which lays down that the Minister, after consultation with certain interested parties, can determine the general policy in regard to education in schools, within the framework of certain principles.
One of those principles is contained in section 2(1)(a) of the said Act, which provides—
The religious beliefs of parents and pupils are protected in the Transvaal and Free State ordinances. Nobody is compelled to attend religious instruction classes. The purpose of the Transvaal and Free State ordinances, however, is to protect Christian pupils and parents who form the majority of the school population. These ordinances will ensure that schools retain their Christian character.
I want to say this afternoon that although it may not be the intention of the other side of the House, Clause 62 detracts from the principle of Christian National education. Education is not merely concerned with the transmission of factual knowledge. It is also concerned with the transmission of values and norms. I maintain that a teacher who has conscientious objection to giving religious instruction cannot uphold the principles of Christian National education in history, mathematics or geography classes. The Christian parent took a baptismal oath that his child would be educated in the Christian way of life. As a parent who has entered into this covenant he wants the unequivocal assurance that his child, who often spends more time with the teacher at school than he does with his parents at home, will receive education with a Christian character.
It has been argued that management councils should ensure that the teachers who are appointed are professing Christians. This argument does not really hold water. Firstly, it is better for teachers to be selected during training or upon commencement of service, and secondly it could happen that a certain community might attach no importance to education with a Christian character, as provided for in the Act. In such an environment the said parent must also be satisfied that Christian values will apply in the school to which he sends his child.
Another argument is that one cannot bring pressure to bear on a teacher in matters of conscience. The Transvaal and Free State Ordinances make provision for this. A teacher can be exempted by the Director of Education. Then, however, it is the exception to the rule, and not the rule itself, as clause 62 of this Bill would have it.
I am convinced that the principle of Christian education is watered down by the formulation of clause 62. This clause prejudices the position which obtained in the Free State and the Transvaal. I regard it as a retrogressive step, and the CP cannot support it.
Mr Chairman, before I react to the hon member for Brits, I should merely like sincerely to congratulate the officials who have been appointed to new positions in Parliament. I hope they will be successful and happy in their new positions.
I also want to associate myself with a second remark the hon member for Brits made, namely that when we finally bid farewell to the decisionmaking right of the provinces by passing the legislation under discussion, we nevertheless have great appreciation for the decisions which the four provinces took over the years to develop education in South Africa, as well as the high standard they set. After all is said and done, the legislation before us today is a consolidation of the decisions taken by the four provincial councils since 1955, which have now been amalgamated in the 114 clauses of the Bill we are dealing with.
When one looks at this pile of ordinances of the four provinces, through which the legal draftsmen had to work, together with the 26 submissions which the hon member for Brits mentioned, all of us have nothing but tremendous appreciation for the comprehensive work which the legal draftsmen in this country perform when it comes to such complex legislation.
I want to express my great appreciation to them for the quality of the written Bill serving before us, and also for the level at which this was done. I think this was a tremendous job. I can understand why the Bill was with the legal draftsmen alone for approximately 10 months. We greatly appreciate this. In this regard I should like to mention the names of Adv Lemmer and Mr Fanie Louw. They made a big contribution to the final product we have in front of us this afternoon.
This is where the hon member for Brits and I part company, but I greatly appreciated his words at the beginning of his speech when he expressed his appreciation for the legislation. In due course we shall talk to one another and see whether we cannot find common ground, but I considered the hon member for Brits’s frantic search in this legislation for something he could dissociate himself from, his scratching around to find a point on which he could attack the NP, tragic.
I really think I must ask the hon member to give serious consideration to consulting a pastoral psychologist at some time or other to see whether he cannot get rid of the hatred in his heart. [Interjections.] If he had not made a frantic search of this legislation to see how he could get at the NP, he would not have said what he did say. Honestly, I have difficulty understanding how the hon member can distort this kind of thing to suit his party, in order to misuse education as a kind of messianic priest that must pave the way for them, owing to their lack of a political direction in which to move. [Interjections.]
Let me honestly tell the CP—bearing in mind that verse from the Bible which the minister has probably preached a sermon on, which reads: “Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of God”—that the little children will not reach their destination and their immortality via membership of the CP or any other party in this world. Of course, the same applies to membership of a specific church to which, if they had a choice, they would give a name.
There is a second matter I should like to mention, namely that once this Bill has been passed there will only be this one piece of legislation for education in South Africa. This is a tremendous moment in education, and we have reached a great milestone in the history of education. When this Bill is piloted through Parliament tomorrow, a start can be made with drafting one set of regulations which will apply to all four provinces.
I do not think the hon the Minister must take the dust which the hon member for Brits kicked up regarding these regulations, very much to heart. We were given considerable certainty by the hon the Minister and weighty evidence from people outside, in the consultations with the department, that the regulations would be handled in the same way as the Bill. If this is the case then we are satisfied that the set of regulations which will eventually apply throughout South Africa will be regulations which education will be proud of and in which will cover all educational activities to the satisfaction of the four provinces and their uniqueness, as has been the case thus far.
I want to dwell for a moment on the tremendous contribution which the Superintendent-General of Education, Mr Terblanche, made in this committee, together with the share which the members of the committee had in this, to arrive at the final point as regards this Bill.
The submission by Mr Terblanche really made a major contribution to an understanding of the development of both the ethos of education and those customs of education which have become part of what is contained in this legislation today. [Interjections.] No, not always.
Dr Henry Stone expressed the following fine sentiment at a graduation ceremony, and one must understand this when one wants to accept this legislation:
This runs like a golden thread through this legislation, and it helps one to understand why this legislation cannot be as defined as we would have liked it to be, and why the regulations will give final effect to this legislation.
In the last part of my speech I should, however, like to refer to the standpoint of the hon member for Brits in respect of clause 62. For that purpose I should like to quote clause 62:
- (1) In every public school there shall daily be a religious ceremony which shall consist of the reading of a portion from the Bible and the saying of a prayer.
- (2)
- (a) Bible instruction shall be offered as a subject on all levels in public schools, and the time to be devoted thereto may be determined by the Head of Education.
- (b) Except with the approval of the Head of Education, no Bible instruction shall be given during ordinary school hours in public schools by a person other than a person in a teaching post on the establishment of the public school concerned.
- (3) No doctrine or dogma which is peculiar to a particular denomination or sect shall be instructed or promoted at a public school during school hours.
- (4) If a parent of a child attending a public school requests the principal in writing that the child be exempted from attending religious ceremonies or Bible instruction, that principle shall exempt the child accordingly.
The only thing which therefore does not appear in this clause, is what the hon member for Brits sought to advance as the reason why we have descended to this level. In respect of this principle, I want to say that I accept this clause for four reasons. Firstly, the principle of religious instruction and of Christian National instruction is embodied in the National Education Policy Act, Act 39 of 1967.
Secondly—I consider this important—it is not what is stated in the legislation, but the selection of the candidate in the principal’s office, which counts. That is where the principal, together with his superintendent of education and the guidance teacher of that school, selects these children on the basis of their articles of faith as well as their Christian standpoint. This is the first instance where a safety valve is built in where it should be built in.
Religious instruction is an integral part of the training of the teacher, and he must pass this training course to receive a teacher’s diploma. When teachers are employed by a school, not just anyone gives religious instruction. In the long run, because it is such a delicate subject to teach, it is the task of the principal to hand pick the teachers who are going to teach this subject, to ensure that justice is done to the teaching of that subject.
Owing to its contents this is one of the subjects which can really give a teacher problems. For this one really needs dedicated teachers, and one consults the teacher, even if he agrees to teach this subject, to make sure that he is equal to the task and, in spirit, would like to do it in this way.
As regards the quality of the teaching of this subject, I consider these four safety valves to be far more important than to be satisfied that certain provisions appear in an Act and to say that every teacher is competent enough to teach this subject. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, we in the PFP would like to add our voices to those of the other parties in extending our congratulations to the officials of Parliament who were appointed and promoted today—Messrs De Kock, Douglas, Lucas and Hahndiek. We obviously extend our congratulations to them and hope they will have a long and relatively peaceful parliamentary career in their offices.
Mr Chairman, this Bill can be approached at several levels. Firstly, it can be approached with a sense of anger that there has been no full public discussion of the measure and that its passage through this House and the House Committee has been brief, racked with dissent and lacking in consensus.
Secondly, it can be approached with a deep sense of despair at the final disappearance of a decentralized education system with provincial or regional autonomy.
Lastly, it can be approached with real concern that this measure breaks faith with the other two partners in the education trilogy—parents and teachers.
The Bill is without doubt the most important piece of legislation affecting White education since 1967. Far from merely consolidating existing ordinances and Acts, it goes far beyond that to create a rigid, authoritarian, bureaucratic system which could allow this hon Minister to say like an autocratic Napoleon: “I know what is happening at this time in every classroom in my empire.”
At the outset I concede that many of the differences we have with this Bill are based on strongly differing educational philosophies. This, unstated in the Bill, centres around the nature of education. There is no right or wrong in this. They are merely different educational philosophies. It centres around whether education should broadly be seen as a transmission of culture, and therefore fairly authoritarian in nature, or whether education is primarily aimed at the stimulation of the individual intellect of the child and is therefore liberal and flexible in intent.
It appears that the former is enshrined in this legislation. This viewpoint finds expression in the overall concept of “centralisation with delegation”, which appears to be fundamental in this measure. The Bill is an attempt to weld together sections of various ordinances, Acts etc with new interpolations. The resulting legislation requires excessive centralisation of power. It reduces the old flexibility which existed between the old departments and so moves further away from a recognition of the diverse needs and values found in White society.
It is interesting that the hon member for Brentwood used the expression "… die besluitneming van die provinsies tot siens sê …”. Yet, later he also talked about ”…die eiesoortigheid van die provinsies …”. One cannot have both. One cannot be happy both with the NP and the CP. One cannot be on both sides. In fact, one has to make a decision as to where one lies.
The PFP has been extremely concerned about the progress of the Bill from its initial draft form. It is now well over two years since the then Minister of Education and Culture indicated in this House that such a measure was pending and that the education legislation sub-committee of the Committee of Heads of Education had worked at this measure consistently with inputs from various sectors. Many of these inputs stem from contact made after the Bill was already in draft form in 1987.
Certain of the “consultation” appears laughable in the extreme. For example, I quote from a letter which we received as written evidence from the Director of Education in the Cape in which he notes the following:
That comment from the Worcester region had attached to it a letter dated 20 February, and I merely wish to read the introductory paragraph of that letter:
Is that consultation? This appears to have been the practice throughout to the extent that even the provincial education councils which are statutory bodies with a right to advise the hon the Minister on matters such as this, were given a limited time to comment in October and November of 1987. Interestingly enough, these councils have had few of their comments incorporated into the legislation, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister directly whether any of the organisations which commented on this Bill have had the courtesy of a reply, or of reasons given why their suggested amendments have not been incorporated.
At all times the discussion on this Bill has been confidential, with the provincial education councils not being able to report back to individual school committee on the measure either to gather their views or take a referendum or anything like that. As far as that is concerned there certainly has not been any public debate prior to the Bill arriving here today. There has been speculation—the hon the Minister knows that full well—but no public debate. In addition, certain problem areas which have been corrected in the final measure, for example, provincially controlled pre-primary schools being included, were done so after representation in this regard had been received many months before. Representations on the question of provincially controlled preprimary schools were in the hon the Minister’s hands nearly eight months before the draft Bill was amended.
The progress of the Bill through the House Committee reflected a similar drive for completion rather than a fully open-ended and detailed discussion of all the ramifications of the Bill. I shall say more about that later.
In our approach to this, the PFP are concerned that the advisory bodies, and in particular the provincial education councils which were set up with such fanfare last year, receive few, if any powers, which could effectively endorse the stated desire of the Government—it is their stated desire, I acknowledge that—to recognise the individual ethos of the provincial education systems. We proposed a series of amendments in the House Committee which would have had the effect of requiring either consultation with or the consent of the provincial education council before certain decisions were made. All these amendments were defeated and the NP seems content with the thought that because the aim of the Bill is to delegate functions to directors etc there is no need to contain the powers of the Minister or of the Superintendent-General. Naturally, we are concerned about the meaning of the phrase, “centralisation with delegation,” and in particular about what powers will be delegated by the hon the Minister or the head of education to the provinces. I shall give an indication as to why we are concerned.
In reply to a question here in Parliament which I put to the hon the Minister earlier this year, his reply was astoundingly vague, namely—
He was referring to details.
Three weeks later, in a letter to the Financial Mail about the Bill, the Chief Information Officer of the department says—
He carries on to say—
I am pleased to receive the information from the Press which the hon the Minister declined to give me in this House, and I hope that if I table another question he will supply me with the details I have requested as to what those delegations are. Did the House Committee know about these delegations? Certainly not!
Again I address the hon the Minister directly. I am interested in what functions have been delegated to the ministerial representatives since these functionaries appear to float outside the education system, yet with a finger in the education pie! As I have indicated, the House Committee was not supplied with any information on delegation beyond the vague promise that it had happened in March and April and would continue to happen. That was what we were told. That seemed satisfactory to the majority of that committee. However, it is not satisfactory to us. We do not believe that that is how one goes about handling legislation.
Concerning the making of regulations, the Bill allows the Minister to have regulations made for a variety of purposes. Among the more significant of these are the establishment and powers of selection boards; the determination of the duties and functions of management councils at schools; and matters affecting tuition fees, and so on.
Despite constant questions in the committee, not one regulation has appeared before it. Despite constant requests—as pointed out by the hon member for Brits—by nearly all the organisations, including the education councils, for a foreknowledge of regulations, no regulations have been forthcoming. In answer the constant refrain was “but you cannot make the regulations before the Bill has been passed”! Yet no one can answer the question of what happens when existing provincial ordinances differ strongly on a matter such as the appointment of teachers; how the regulations will look which are designed to make that matter uniform. Is the Cape system of appointments going to change, or is Natal’s? Because certainly they cannot remain the same if the regulation is designed to make the matter uniform.
Despite the most optimistic aims of bureaucrats and of the hon the Minister I have little doubt that a considerable number of persons are going to be extremely unhappy when the regulations finally appear. How much more preferable it would have been to have accepted that there can be provincial differences and that all White education need not be placed in a straitjacket or a rigidly uniform system.
The PFP wishes to be positive about education. We have proposed consistently that there should be one system of education for all groups in South Africa and under a federal system of control, with individual federal units having authority over their own education departments while certain norms and standards common to the country as a whole will be established through a single nonpolicy-making co-ordinating department based on a geographic federal system. This ideal could even be accepted by this hon Minister in the existing racially segregated system by having a federal department under him. The PFP’s efforts have been directed at gaining the federal dispensation rather than the unitary one that appears in this Bill.
The philosophical underpinning of the federal system is a devolution of decision-making to the lowest reasonable level—whether school, region or province—and a strongly emphasised decentralisation rather than the centralisation fostered by this measure.
I want to turn now to detailed areas. Let us consider initially the position of private preprimary schools. While they appear in Chapter 5, it is clear from comments received from the department by the House Committee that the ultimate intention is to have private pre-primary schools included as institutions falling under the Private Schools Act, No. 104 of 1986.1 would like the hon the Minister to confirm that if he can. The PFP’s proposal that this take place immediately and that they be not included in this measure, was defeated despite the quite clear understanding that private pre-primary schools are private schools and will function at either a per capita subsidy level or with the teachers’ remuneration being funded by the State. A corollary of the fact that they are private is that the Minister makes regulations separately for them. For example, the regulations may allow private pre-primary schools to admit pupils of all races.
As far as their funding is concerned, there appears a strong likelihood that they will be placed on a basis like other private schools of receiving either no subsidy or 15% or 45%, or having their teachers paid by the State. In this connection I would like to ask the hon the Minister to take the House into his confidence and to say whether he is intending to extend the possibility of private schools outside the pre-primary sector, having their staff paid for by the State. He should tell us whether he is intending to extend that principle.
I would say, if that was the case, many State schools that currently wish to be open to all races would choose the private school path. Certainly suggestions made in informed circles indicate that this is the direction in which we are going.
My colleagues will be handling a number of detailed areas and will point out how difficult it was in the House Committee to have a reasonable or detailed examination of these issues. Let me expand on what happened in the House Committee. It was perfectly evident from the start that the hon the Minister, the department and the chairman of the committee were intent on having this measure passed as rapidly as possible and certainly well before the end of the session. Despite protestations from among their own number, the NP came to accept that that had to be the avenue. No logical argument was forthcoming as to why this measure had to be rammed through in three weeks when it had taken two years to draft and with written evidence which required lengthy and involved scrutiny.
In this connection I wish to point out that the hon the Minister and I had correspondence on the question of asking for a clause by clause analysis. The hon the Minister’s reply to me was:
This is what he said in connection with the most important education legislation in 20 years!
The pace in the House Committee was pressing, with the most serious problem being that of the refusal to hear evidence, as hon members have heard from the hon member for Brits. Bodies requested in writing to give oral evidence and were simply spurned. I would be interested to know from the next hon speaker of the NP whether those bodies which were not allowed to give evidence were ever told that they were not allowed to give evidence and whether they were given reasons why they were not allowed to give evidence. It would just have been a simple courtesy. Were they told?
I find the handling of this Bill extraordinary. Unlike countries in the Western World where education legislation is publicly debated in the media and the universities, and where academics, teachers and parents get involved in meetings, seminars and conferences, this Bill has sought to hide away, to not want a public debate, and positively feared hearing the views of persons involved. The way in which this Bill has been handled, is a disgrace and it should not have been allowed. To my mind, it is the total negation of what a parliamentary democratic system should be doing.
As we turn to the details, a key area that we sought to have amended, was the definition of “Head of Education”, which we believe should be the Director of Education, and where the Director himself should be responsible for many of the functions which are now placed in the hands of the Superintendent-General. We believe the Minister’s powers should have been confined regarding compilation of regulations.
The committee had a very brief discussion on the age of admission of pupils as found in clause 50. Whilst the current situation is merely retained, this Bill would have provided an ideal opportunity for a public debate on and discussion of the issue of admission of pupils according to schoolreadiness rather than chronological age. However, we had to push ever on with it and so consideration and evidence on that was just not given.
One of the most contentious areas in the Bill is the determination of feeder areas for the purpose of the admission of children to the school. Whilst clause 51 is enabling, clause 52 provides such rigid restrictive possibilities that we must strongly protest against any use of them. These restrictions in clause 52 go against every tenet of parental choice. It removes from the parent the possibility of selecting a school according to whether it be co-educational or single sex, according to a language medium, according to subject packages offered, or simply because the parent believes another school is better. No, the School Board determines that they shall be kept in the school of its determination.
The authoritarian nature of this clause is such that it is possible to prevent any child from outside a demarcated area from attending schools within a particular area, and vice versa. It has been suggested in the media that this clause could be the means for the Government to shift the decision-making on group areas onto the local community and to allow schools within a particular zoned area, for example in one of the new open settlement areas, to be restricted to children from that zone and not open to all races. From a philosophical point of view, it is quite clear that the present practice in the Cape and Natal is being overturned in favour of the practice in Transvaal.
The two sections on the misconduct of teachers and on the restrictions on the political and civil rights of teachers have correctly aroused controversy. The former includes provisions which are so far-reaching as to stifle any criticism by teachers. In this section the bureaucratisation of the mother profession is truly taken to new extremes.
The PFP rejects clause 96 as presently worded. Whilst we acknowledge that some restraint has to be placed on a teacher to prevent him from exploiting his position as a teacher for sectarian or party political purposes, this clause so emasculates teachers politically as to leave them second-class citizens. My colleague the hon member for Durban North will spend more time on this aspect.
Another key area in which we are supplied with no information whatsoever is that of tuition fees. In terms of clause 102 the Minister may determine tuition fees for each pupil in White education. The Superintendent-General mentioned this in an address he gave in the Transvaal on Saturday. However, did the committee get any evidence on how tuition fees are to be collected, on what amount should be levied or whether they should be run in conjunction with school funds or trusts? No, the committee got no evidence at all on tuition fees.
The majority of the committee in their wisdom have given the hon the Minister carte blanche to determine fees without the restriction of the prior consent of the provincial education council.
That is a lot of nonsense and you know it very well!
The Minister may determine fees without the restriction of the prior consent of the provincial education council, or any other restriction.
I want the hon the Minister to listen very carefully to what I am about to point out and to tell me whether it is correct or not. I quote from the report of a headmaster of a school in Durban:
This report was given two weeks ago—
The total budget for 1988 is R250 000.
This is for a school with 750 pupils. He goes on to say:
That school fund requires R0,25 million for existing needs. The hon the Minister knows that it has been suggested that compulsory tuition fees be set at 10%. It is compulsory therefore that those parents will have to find another R180 000 for that school.
Tuition fees are an extremely sensitive matter politically. In addition, after an abortive meeting with parents in the middle of 1987, no attempt appears to have been made to consider this further together with the other partners in education. The hon the Minister is hiding in relation to tuition fees and he knows it!
Finally, I want to ask a detailed question regarding a commitment given to the Teachers’ Federal Council. If this Bill goes through as it is, is it correct that the age at which teachers may go on pension, will rise from 60 to 65? Is that correct? What is the hon the Minister doing to ensure that the retirement age does not change? What is the hon the Minister able to do to ensure that the requisite pension legislation is suitably amended? I am certain that a public statement on this matter will alleviate some concern among teachers.
We find the Bill itself totally unacceptable. It entrenches a philosophy we oppose and contains details we would desire to have amended. The handling of this Bill is a violation of the trust that education should foster, and we believe that the measure will in no way better the situation of children in schools in South Africa.
Mr Chairman, before I return to certain aspects the hon member for Pinetown referred to in his speech, I should first like to express my own thanks and those of the hon members on this side of the House for the opportunity to discuss this important Bill in such depth in the House Committee. [Interjections.]
We could argue for a long time about the time which was available to discuss this Bill. On this issue there could be dispute, and the CP as well as the PFP could argue that the time was very limited. We could of course spend a long while discussing education generally—as is being done in the Second Reading debate here today. I doubt whether any party could complain today that the time allocated to them for the discussion of this legislation during the Second Reading debate was limiting. For this reason I should like to and am able to argue that we have had sufficient time to discuss this measure properly.
It was also necessary to discuss once again the principle embodied in education. We on this side of the House were once again able to emphasise the importance of own education. We were once again able to emphasise the necessity of group orientated education, as embodied in this legislation.
Before I go into more detail, however, I should first like to thank the Superintendent General as well as the other officials who assisted us in the discussion of this Bill. They did a competently and proficient job. In particular, I should like to put on record our appreciation for the assistance of Mr Terblanche. His expertise and practical experience in education was always enlightening in the discussions, and he enabled us to orientate ourselves as regards the legislation and facilitated our decision.
I should also like to welcome an esteemed friend briefly, Prof Gert du Toit, to the officials’ bay., It was he who imbued me with a love for the Afrikaans language years ago—I am not going to say how many years; it was a long time ago—when he taught me Afrikaans in standards 6 and 7 in Coligny. It was indeed a privilege to be taught by him at school, and I should once again also like to express my appreciation to him for being here today. I want to bid him a hearty welcome.
I should also like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to the chairman of this House Committee, the hon member for Brentwood. When we on this side of the House were champing at the bit to make more rapid progress—the hon members of the Official Opposition and the other party involved will be aware that sometimes we were sometimes in a hurry to dispose of this legislation—he, with his sure grasp of the complexity of this measure, ensured that it ran its course smoothly under his sound guidance.
We should also like to give recognition and express our appreciation to the organised teaching profession, and in particular to the members of the FTC who were so readily available to discuss this legislation with the leaders of our caucus group and to make their contributions. We greatly appreciate the fact that they as an organised group have involved themselves in education so intimately that we are able to hold responsible discussions with them in this regard. Initially they did have misgivings about certain clauses in the Bill—I shall refer to these later in my speech—but once again discussion and the recognition of each other’s points of view prevailed, and decisions were eventually taken in the interests of education, and by that I mean for the benefit of education only. I shall return to this matter later.
I should like to turn to the fundamental standpoint of the PFP, namely the retention of the status quo, with a large degree of autonomy for the various provinces. They advocate, therefore, a more extensive application of the decentralisation principle. This was the proposal they submitted to the committee. It is an interesting deviation from a previous standpoint of the PFP, which over the years has advocated the establishment of a single department for all education.
It is therefore clear that they have deviated from their original standpoint of a single department for education. The reason for this deviation is quite evident. The autonomy of Natal in its own matters relating to education must be retained. That is the reason behind this idea of the PFP. The principle of a single department has been dispensed with. It appears to me to be a case of equivocation and a facile change of standpoint whenever it suits them.
We on this side of the House once again welcome the centralisation idea, as expressed in the Bill under discussion.
You welcome it? Thanks for telling us that!
In terms of this principle the four departments remain the executive departments, and to a large extent they can continue to fulfil their function. We believe that education can best be served in this way.
Permit me, Sir, to refer to a few matters contained in the Bill under discussion which were vigorously debated in the committee, and which were referred to us in a memorandum submitted by the FTC.
I want to refer firstly to clause 71(1)(b), which deals with the position of a teacher when he is discharged from his service by the Minister on account of his post becoming redundant. The FTC argued strongly that the teacher’s position should only be terminated after a calendar or school term so as to enable him, with his own permission and after consultation with the school board concerned, to be transferred to any other post. In our negotiations with the FTC we were greatly impressed by the importance of this provision for education, and what it entailed for education.
It is therefore important that it be noted that the hon the Minister gave the assurance that this arrangement is being dealt with thoroughly and in detail in the regulations. The FTC also assented to this process. We should also like to thank the hon the Minister for being able to give us such a positive assurance in connection with this matter.
As regards the retirement age, to which the hon members for Brits and Pinetown also referred, I do not want to elaborate on it very much further. It must simply be accepted that a certain dualism can arise on account of the two retirement ages which will apply to present and future teachers respectively. We would be happy if this matter too could be dealt with in an appropriate way. I believe that the hon the Minister will clear up this matter in his reply.
Clauses 14 to 20—that is chapter 4 of the Bill—deal with the functions and the establishment of separate boards. School management boards are going to receive more and greater responsibilities in the future. These greater responsibilities will entail more care having to be taken in dealing with decisions. At all times—and I should like to emphasise this—these decisions should be solely in the interest of education.
School management boards remain the elected representatives of the parents, and I hope that these boards will at all times carry out the will of the majority of the parents who have appointed them, always taking into consideration the prerequisite I have mentioned, namely that it be in the interests of education.
Accordingly, I should like to refer to clause 76 in which misconduct is defined. It is defined in clear terms. At this point I should like to mention that I originally had difficulties with subsection (1)(f), and to a certain extent undoubtedly still have those difficulties. The sub-section provides that a teacher may be guilty of misconduct if he publicly criticizes the administration of any State department.
Apparently this provision also appears in the Public Service regulations, and therefore, I assume, in this Bill as well. Nevertheless I am seriously concerned that simplistic and negative provisions such as these will limit the exercising of sound judgement on the part of a teacher. We must always bear in mind that a teacher is first and foremost an educator. Consequently it is at all times incumbent upon him to act in a responsible way. His criticism too should be directed in a proper and responsible way.
We must not make the teacher the public mute of the community. The teacher is not the kind of person that can be gagged. He figures prominently in public life, and he makes his presence felt in the community. We must not deprive him of his own opinion.
For this reason I am glad that this legislation enables the teacher, subject to certain conditions, to participate in the activities of the regional councils. I am grateful for having been able to play a small role in the original negotiations in this connection.
The teacher remains an important leader in the community. His potential must not be curtailed by too many restrictive measures. A disciplined teacher will undoubtedly act with greater responsibility in his public capacity as well.
In view of what I have said and seen as a whole, the measure before us is an outstanding one, and I gladly support this Bill.
Mr Chairman, I really have no desire to follow up on the argument of the hon member for Gezina, more so because he tried to curry favour regarding certain worries he had with reference to the formulation of clause 76, whereas he had the opportunity in the committee to discuss it, debate it and suggest alternatives, but he did not in fact do so. [Interjections.] What is more, we only had the opportunity to ask questions regarding clause 76, and after it was ascertained that there were deep-rooted differences regarding the formulation of clause 76, the matter was simply not discussed again; it was assumed that it had been discussed.
In the first place I want to refer to the civil and political rights, as they are called, of teachers and persons employed in terms of the Act. We shall have to look at clause 96, as well as clauses 100 and 76.
In terms of clause 96(1)(a) a member of the profession may be a member of a lawful political party. This sounds quite acceptable. Still in terms of clause 96(1)(a) he may also serve in the management of a lawful political party. This also sounds quite acceptable. In terms of clause 96(1)(e) he may in fact become a member of any institution, council or other body established by or under any law, for example, a White local authority, with certain provisos.
The question is whether this now means that teachers may participate freely in the numerous organisations which to a greater or lesser extent rule, regulate and determine the course of events in our fatherland. Do these provisions constitute those basic civil and political rights we feel teachers are entitled to? We shall have to test this by referring to the prohibitions and provisos embodied in this Bill.
If we consider the prohibitions, we must look in the first place at clause 96(1)(b). In terms of clause 96(1)(b) that person may not—
This is a prohibition. This may not happen at all. [Interjections.]
In the second place there is a prohibition in terms of clause 96(1)(c). He may not “act as chairman at a public political meeting”.
In the third place, in terms of clause 96(1)(d), he may not “publish a document under his name in furtherance or to the prejudice of the interests of a political party or an organisation with political aims”. These are the prohibitions.
We now come to the provisos. Clause 96(1)(e), to which I have already referred, provides that a teacher may “become a member of any institution, council or other body established by or under any other law”, but there are quite a number of provisos in terms of this subsection and in terms of several other clauses.
The first one is the “prior permission of the Head of Education”. In the second place this prior permission of the Head of Education is not general permission within the framework of the legislation. No, the good discretion of the Head of Education is also doubted and that power of his to grant permission is further restricted, because it is stated:
It may not interfere with his work at the departmental institution concerned.
We now come to clause 100. As far as I am concerned clause 100 contains this ridiculous provision, and I am only reading the relevant part of clause 100(1):
(a) a person employed in terms of this Act shall make all his time available to the departmental institution or state-aided school where he is employed …
It says “all his time”, in other words, 24 hours a day. [Interjections.] Now one must take another look at the meaning of clause 96(1)(e). How easy it would be for the principal to decide that clause 100(1) would be jeopardised if he were to give him permission to serve as a city council member, for example, because he must make all his time available to the departmental institution, and clause 96(1)(e) says that the principal may only grant permission if he is sure that the relevant person’s activities will not interfere with his obligations to the departmental institution.
We now come to another proviso. This is not yet the end of the matter. At the end of clause 96(1)(e) there is a further proviso:
It he does not resign, he is contravening a statutory provision, and he is then guilty of misconduct in terms of the misconduct clause.
In other words, he will have to carry out that instruction to resign. What does this mean in practice? In the Transvaal we have unfortunately already had experience—unfortunate experience…
[Inaudible.]
Of course the hon member for Jeppe would not feel very unhappy about that.
We have already had unfortunate experience when it comes to the implementation of this simple rule with regard to the prior permission of the head of education. In terms of the existing Transvaal ordinance this permission was also required. However, until very recently it was applied rarely, if ever—until the CP came into the picture. [Interjections.] This was the case until the game could no longer be played according to the rules of the NP, to suit that party. [Interjections.]
Order!
Now the custom which developed over the years that one simply asked permission of one’s principal, regional head or the head of the regional office or anyone in that hierarchy to stand as a candidate in a city council election, is no longer good enough. Now the provisions are suddenly being applied. Of course we shall keep a very close eye on the situation to see whether it is being applied selectively.
Now people who were elected more than a year ago in a by-election, not on a party political basis but on a so-called independent basis, are simply being instructed by the head of education—this is now the new term—to resign. No problems were caused in the community and there were no problems with the quality of his service to the community in his capacity as a member of the city council. What happened? All that happened was that a member of a certain secret organisation went to a member of the same secret organisation in a position of authority and accused him of having a different political opinion to that of the relevant member who was a supporter of the NP, and suddenly out of the blue the provisions had to be applied! [Interjections.]
He was instructed to resign. He was compelled to resign. His career was at stake. This is not the only case. There are more cases. There are people who say this also happened in the years between 1943 and 1948.
There is a fourth proviso in respect of these so-called civil and political rights, which are a farce in terms of this Bill. One may now become a member of this council or institution or other body established by or under any law subject to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of clause 96(1). What do these paragraphs say? Once one has gone through this mill and one has won the favour of the powers that be, and one has been granted permission to become a member of this council, one may still not express oneself in public, in the public press or at a public meeting on any matter, or in any manner, which may further or prejudice the interests of a political party or an organisation with political aims, or which may embarrass the Department. Although one is a member of that body, one may still not do so. One may not act as chairman at a political meeting either, nor may one publish a document in furtherance or to the prejudice of the interests of a political party or an organisation with political aims. There is a further proviso. Clause 96(1) …
The Bill refers to a “public meeting”.
Oh, the hon member for Jeppe probably understands this Bill less than the representatives of his party on that committee, like the hon member for Gezina, did and he would do himself a favour if he kept quiet. [Interjections.]
There is a fifth proviso in the introduction to clause 96:
- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 76(1)(s), …
Let us see what clause 76(1)(s) says. That clause reads as follows:
This entire clause 96, which concerns the so-called civil or political rights of teachers, is subject to clause 76(1)(s), which I have just read. It is a subsection of the so-called misconduct clause, and clearly serves only to hang like a sword over the head of a teacher who dares to exercise his essential political and civil rights. It is ridiculous. How can one participate in the new dispensation, as created by this Government, in the activities of a local authority, or in the activities of a regional services council to which one can be delegated by the local government, without contravening any of these restrictions.
One must also be careful not to contravene the other provisions of clause 76. Of course I want to refer to clause 76(1)(a), which reads as follows:
If a situation were therefore to arise in which a specific person simply had a difference of opinion with the government regarding one of the Acts which that Government had placed on the Statute Book, and he were to encourage civil disobedience against it, we would have no problems with that being considered misconduct, but we do object to his not being able to express his opposition to it in any way. In terms of clause 96 he may not express his opposition to it in public either. For all practical purposes he has been gagged. He must keep quiet. This Government does not like voices being heard in public, particularly the voices of professional people, if they do not say what the NP wants them to say. [Interjections.]
I want to refer to clause 76(1)(f), as a second example of this. In terms of that provision a person is guilty of misconduct if he—
This amounts to an effective gagging of every teacher who is supposed to be able, like every other citizen of this country, to exercise specific basic civil rights. Under such circumstances what teacher has any real civil or political rights, except the teacher who is under the protection of this autocratic Government, and in spite of the legal position, as in the past, for which there are innumerable witnesses, is allowed by the grace of the NP, which is at present the ruling party, although not for long, to exercise certain political rights with the sanction of the authorities? Examples of this are NP city council members who without prior permission were elected with the sanction of the authorities and are still serving as council members. We are not even talking about CP council members. Even council members who were elected on an independent basis, with the overwhelming support of their community, do not receive the same protection if they adopt conservative political standpoints or if a member of a specific secret organisation feels this is the case, and he reports this person to his friends in high places. They are simply told to resign as council members.
This Government does not like democracy. It does not like government by the people, or to hear what the people are really saying. [Interjections.] The more it can gag and silence these true voices of the people, the better it will be for it, and the longer it thinks it will remain in power. However, this is not all.
We now come to the Broederbond clause, namely clause 96(2). I see the hon the Minister is not even eferring to it, because he knows precisely what clause we are talking about. It is the “oeloe-oeloe” clause, which reads as follows:
This is where it is stated that one may be a member of a party and serve in the management, but can do virtually nothing else except “by the grace of the NP”—
[Interjections.] Now the confidential cultural organisations and the few meetings which the NP still holds in South Africa must also be protected in legislation on education matters.
A secret meeting is in order; a closed NP information meeting is in order; an “oeloe-oeloe” meeting of the NP is in order. [Interjections.] If the CP, which feels free to hold meetings from place to place, puts in an appearance to make its voice heard on every public platform in the country where it is at all physically possible—even where it holds meetings which are aimed specially at the teachers—this is not in order. At these confidential meetings the teachers who are admitted to the circle, the loyal sheep, may speak.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?
No, Sir. At public meetings, teachers may simply not say anything. We have the ridiculous situation that if the hon nominated member Mr Golden wants to hold one of his confidential information meetings for the few friends he still has among the teachers in his constituency, he may do so, and that he may then give those two or three persons all the confidential information which cannot withstand the light of day and pass the test of truth. [Interjections.]
However, if I want to hold a public meeting and invite all the teachers who wish to do so to attend, and an NP supporter who is a teacher, takes the opportunity to attend the meeting as well, he may not even ask me critical questions, because clause 96(1)(b) prohibits him from doing so. The irony of the matter is that if this legislation had been in force during the previous general election, there would have been NP supporters in the ranks of the teachers in Potgietersrus who could have been arraigned in terms of this legislation. [Interjections.] That is how ridiculous this piece of legislation is.
Consequently public exchanges of opinion which can withstand the light of day and pass the test of truth are undesirable in terms of this Bill. We say this is an insult to an educated, balanced, informed teaching profession; it is an insult to our teachers. They, unlike the NP, are quite able to deal with the truth.
That hon member is a “bitter bitterbek”!
The hon member for De Aar must resume his seat. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to refer to another hon member as a “bitter bitterbek”? I do not think that is parliamentary language; I think he should apologise.
Order! The hon member for De Aar must withdraw those words.
Mr Chairman, I withdraw them.
Order! The hon member for Potgietersrus may proceed.
Thank you, Sir. May I quickly, in the limited time at my disposal, refer to clause 76? I have referred to certain subsections of clause 76. Clause 76(1)(g) expressly excludes legal assistance for a teacher who seeks to secure intervention in connection with his official position or conditions of service. This is only permissible through the intercession of the House of Assembly or a recognised staff association or a person in the employ of the State. However, a teacher is deprived of legal assistance in this case.
Initially there were hon members of the NP in the committee who conceded this point. Thereafter they did not adopt any standpoint on this. We objected very strongly to this specific paragraph. We cannot under any circumstances justify a teacher being deprived of legal assistance in such a case. [Interjections.] This is clause 76(1)(g), for the convenience of the hon the Minister.
The second clause I want to refer to is 76(1)(r), in which it is said that a person is guilty of misconduct if he—
If we have reached the stage where teachers are treated like children and where provisions of this kind are inserted in legislation to make teachers susceptible to charges of misconduct, then we have gained a very good indication of the level to which this Government has descended at present.
In clause 55, which concerns the provisions in respect of mother tongue, there are two aspects of importance. I hope other hon members will discuss the first aspect, because I do not have the time to give attention to it. The second aspect deals with the incompatibility and untenability of subsection (5). Here reference is made to a person designated in terms of subsection (4), who may withdraw a determination by a principal in respect of the mother tongue of a child. This is incompatible with the rest of the section and it is simply not tenable and compatible because the person may only be designated when the principal is not able to determine the child’s mother tongue. There can therefore be no suggestion of the withdrawal of his determination, because the person was appointed because the principle was not able to make the determination.
This also cropped up in the committee, and we were disappointed when we saw the amendments published with the final Bill and this was not rectified. We were under the impression that it would be rectified and that is why we abstained from voting in order to look at the final formulation.
The last aspect I want to refer to, before my time expires, is clause 101. It is not enough for us simply to say that the parent community is an important partner in the education of our children. No it must also be inserted in this legislation. It must be there for all to see and the parent community’s rights must, in fact, be safeguarded. Because it is …[Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, whilst I was listening to the hon member for Potgietersrus, I wished at times that this was a wedding so that we could sing the following song to him: “Hy lyk vir my so baie na tant Koek se hoenderhaan”.
Oh, Fanus, you cannot sing!
The fact of the matter is that thereafter he made so many “gobble-gobble” sounds that I think it would have been more appropriate had we sung the following song to him: “Hy lyk vir my so baie na tant Koek se kalkoenhaan”.
Just reply to the questions about one or two little clauses!
A turkey does not have a rooster, my friend!
That is precisely why I am mentioning it, because he knows less about education than he does about a wet “Marie” biscuit.
You are delivering a momentous speech! Keep it up!
I understand why the hon member for Potgietersrus devoted so much of his speech to the fact that he was very concerned that politics should not be practised in schools by teachers on behalf of political parties
Now you are talking rubbish! I did not even mention it.
Linking up with what the former member for Koedoespoort, before he was defeated, said as a CP member, namely that they would abuse education for party political purposes, it is indeed a fact that if one extrapolates from that to what the hon member said this afternoon, it is very clear why he devoted such a great deal of time to this specific point dealing with the political rights of teachers.
You are intellectually dishonest.
The hon members for Brits and Pinetown made a great song and dance about the fact that a set of regulations had not been published together with this Bill, because according to them one cannot evaluate the legislation in the absence of the regulations. It is unheard of for a Bill to be published together with a complete set of regulations, because the regulations are promulgated only after the legislation has been adopted. They are implying that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will wake up with a start one morning and suddenly decide that he feels like promulgating some regulations with regard to certain matters and that he will then promulgate a set of regulations with regard to education matters. That surely is not the case.
There are established procedures in accordance with which liaison and negotiation take place with the organised teaching profession, and when these hon members served on the House Committee they were repeatedly given the assurance that the regulations would be promulgated after consultation, discussion and negotiations with all the various bodies, including the organised teaching profession. The hon members need therefore have no fear that these regulations will summarily be promulgated without the teaching profession being considered and consulted.
Furthermore, this is not brand-new legislation that is now being considered, but it has become essential that this legislation be introduced, because after the hon the Minister had been given the responsibility for education as an own affair, there were no fewer than 15 different sets of ordinances and laws that had to be enforced. Furthermore, these varied to a large extent from one province to the next, and it is surely not possible for these ordinances to continue to exist without being incorporated together in one Act. [Interjections.] For that reason it is important that this legislation be piloted through as quickly as possible.
I briefly want to refer to the accusation that this legislation is being rushed through Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pinetown is nodding his head. Surely this is not true. Negotiations have been taking place with the organised teaching profession for two years now with a view to formulating this legislation. Surely he knows that. What is more, he himself was able to peruse all the proposals that were submitted and he is aware of the various occasions on which liaison took place with the organised teaching profession in order finally, after two years’ work, to formulate the legislation in its present form.
No matter how much time we had, we would never agree, because his party’s philosophy with regard to education and that of this side of the House are totally different. For that reason we could set aside 17 weeks and talk to one another day and night about certain matters in a committee, for example, but we would nevertheless not achieve a meeting of the minds because our points of departure differ.
Political decisions!
In my opinion we have spent sufficient time on this legislation, with the result that the Bill before the House is a sensible one which will make things far easier for the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the department, since there will be only one Act nationwide, which will be conducive to uniformity and which will eliminate confusion regarding various aspects of education which could have been confusing if the ordinances had remained in existence.
The legislation will bring about co-ordination and will result in the uniform management of education, which is such an important own affair to the Government, being administered as effectively as possible.
In conclusion I should like to extend my sincere gratitude to all those who were involved in the preparation and compilation of this Bill, and I want to wish the hon the Minister and his department every success in implementing this legislation. I am convinced that this Bill best serves the cause of education in South Africa.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside spoke about the standpoint that both the PFP and the CP have taken with regard to regulations and the fact that they were not available at the time when we were discussing this Bill. I must say to him briefly at this stage that I refute his arguments completely and I want to warn him that I, too, will be discussing this matter during the course of my speech.
By means of introduction, Mr Chairman, I also want to express some amazement at what the hon member for Gezina had to say with regard to our moving away from a single education department. When he makes comments like that, I wonder whether he was aware of what was happening in the House Committee or whether his mind was always on the various other joint committees on which he sits. It is certainly clear from this Bill that the whole process of centralisation and the establishment of a single education department has now been finalised, and yet this particular hon member says we have moved away from it. I would also like to ask the hon the Minister whether any NP members from Natal are going to participate in this debate today. They have certainly been very vociferous in their criticism of the hon member for Pinetown and myself with regard to our standpoint on education, and yet it seems that they are not even present here today, let alone ready to participate in this debate. It is just an interesting comment I want to make, Mr Chairman.
This Bill and the way it has been handled, is I believe once again an indication of the Government’s scant respect for education or educationists. Having sat through by far the majority of meetings of the House Committee that dealt with this Bill, I have come to the complete acceptance that for the NP—this point was in fact discussed briefly by the hon member for Sunnyside—education is little more than a political tool which they can and will use, and in fact do use, to their own benefit.
It is sheer nonsense you are talking! [Interjections.]
This Bill, as I have said already, has effectively centralised the control of White education firmly in the hands of nominated Government officials and the Minister of Education and Culture with no one, no group or no organisation in a position to challenge them on any point whatsoever.
The provincial education departments, which were formerly responsible to a person elected at the polls, in other words a member of the provincial executive committee, are now totally dependent on the whims and fancies of those nominated Government officials in Pretoria and are, as they are referred to in the Bill itself, nothing more than “executive components” of the National Head Office.
What about you? Are you not an elected representative?
Mr Chairman, I fail to understand what the hon member for Umlazi is even referring to when he makes comments like that. I certainly know that I am an elected representative, but certainly there is nobody in the National Head Office that I am aware of who is an elected representative.
He is in the wrong debate.
I have said that the behaviour of the House Committee indicated scant regard for educationists, and I believe that this, too, has been amply illustrated by the way it handled requests from the various teachers’ societies, including the Teachers’ Federal Council, to give oral evidence. All requests were turned down and no acceptable answer was given—the hon member for Pinetown has dealt with this—but it seems that this decision not to accept oral evidence was on the instruction of the hon the Minister himself.
This Bill has become a political Bill, Mr Chairman, and I believe that education in the long run has played an extremely limited role.
You have made it a political Bill!
Oh, what rubbish! It is literally tongue in cheek!
I believe that education and educational values have been of far less importance than political issues, and then the political issues have been the issues of importance to one party only, namely the NP.
I want to stress that I believe that any really significant input by educationists has been denied, with the exception of those educationists in the National Head Office. Equally, for that matter, has any really significant input by parents been denied. I know the hon the Minister will say that both teachers and parents were given the opportunity of making an input through their provincial education councils, and that the Teachers’ Federal Council has made representations and that documentation has been received from other teacher bodies.
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?
No, Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to take questions now. I have a lot to say this afternoon and I want to try to get through it. [Interjections.]
Order!
Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister knows as well as I do, and as well as every other member of the House Committee knows, that any really meaningful input was denied once oral evidence was refused. Furthermore, the attitude of the committee was such that any recommendations received from interested groups were simply not accepted. It was clear that the instruction had gone out not to waste any time but to get the Bill through as quickly as possible.
I do want to say too, Sir, with regard to my point that the Government has scant respect for educationists, that this is borne out by the Government’s attitude to teachers’ salaries as well, and also by the fact that at this stage of the year the Government has as yet failed to recognise the crisis that has occurred in education as a result of its shocking handling of the salary issue, although we are hearing fresh rumours now, Mr Chairman, that the Government is in fact about to embark on some form of relief in respect of teachers’ salaries.
Apart from this, however, the most recent attempt on the part of the Government to justify its apparent lack of concern for the damage it is doing to education has come from the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works, who recently tried to indicate that teachers were leaving the profession not only because of dissatisfaction over the salary issue but also because they were, among other things, getting married, or they were retiring, or were leaving for medical reasons or to enter other professions. I wish to point out that teachers have been leaving the profession for these reasons for many, many years, but never in the vast numbers in which they are leaving now.
The Government is trying to deny this, and is trying to create a false impression of why teachers are leaving the profession in such vast numbers. They are also trying to create the impression that the salary issue is not really as serious as we believe it is. In doing so, the Government is again indicating that it has very little regard for teachers or for the teaching profession, and that it sees education as little more—I stress this point again—than a tool to obtain its own political ends.
The Government must realise that teachers want proper representation at all levels and in all matters affecting them and, in particular at this stage of their beleaguered careers, they want and need more money. I wish to emphasise, however, that bý refusing teachers the right to give oral evidence on this Bill and by failing to grant teachers proper salary increases, the Government has simply hammered another nail into the coffin of an already beleaguered profession. It will take years for the profession to recover from the setbacks it has suffered recently.
I want to express some ideas and expand briefly on the way in which the House Committee handled this Bill—a point touched on by the hon member for Pinetown, but one which, I believe, needs to be discussed further.
The initial approach of the committee was to discuss the whole Bill clause by clause informally, with the aim of returning to the Bill as a whole and to discuss those clauses in particular which, during the informal discussions, had been identified as problem areas or contentious in any way. This procedure was in fact followed until clause 76 was reached, at which stage much discussion took place as to future procedure. It was clear that the chairman, again probably under instruction from the hon the Minister, was anxious about the pace at which the committee was proceeding, and he wanted to move more quickly. There were in fact several members of the NP on that committee who saw the folly of this. Both the PFP and the CP warned the chairman of the fact that as this was a highly contentious Bill anyway, it needed to be handled with care, and that rushing it through was not in the best interests of either education or even of the NP.
Again there were NP members who agreed with us. It was quite clear that the feeling among them was that the matter should be taken up with the hon the Minister again in an attempt to persuade him to allow the pace to slow down in order to give the Bill its proper hearing.
One week later—no meetings took place during the course of that week—the committee met again. Obviously the chairman had been given a new instruction. It was clear that the Bill now had to be passed by the committee within a matter of days. No oral evidence was to be called for, and opposition parties were requested to draw up their proposed amendments virtually overnight.
Within four more working days this Bill, with all its 114 clauses, had been debated and voted on without a single note of dissent voiced on any matter of importance by any NP member. They too had obviously been told to shut up and to do the job they were paid to do. [Interjections.] That job was simply to pass the legislation so that the Government could get it on the Statute Book as soon as possible.
You know that’s not true. [Interjections.]
The hon member for South Coast says that I know it is not true. I wish I could agree with him, but I have to tell him that it is 100% true, and that I was shocked and horrified by the progress of that particular committee. [Interjections.] It was shocking to witness those proceedings, and I believe that the way this highly contentious piece of legislation has been handled is absolutely scandalous.
What this Bill means in effect is that the Government has been able to sew up its policy of centralisation in such a way that no opposition to it in future need be considered. Once this Bill has been passed by the House, centralisation of education will be on the Statute Book, and yet the important aspects of the devolution of power, of which there is so much talk and which was supposed to accompany the centralisation process, will not be on the Statute Book.
This process of the devolution of power, or of various powers and functions to provincial education departments, will now, according to the hon the Minister, take place through regulation. We have no idea what executive powers are to be handed to the provincial education departments, and yet we are told that it is through these regulations and through this process that these departments will be able to retain their own ethos, their own identity and their own character.
I am concerned at the fact that these regulations were not drawn up at the same time as the Bill. The hon member for Sunnyside referred to this, as did various other speakers in this debate. I wish to stress that these regulations were not drawn up at the same time as the Bill, with the result that the Bill and the regulations could not be discussed simultaneously.
This makes the whole matter highly suspicious. After the way this Bill has been handled, I believe there is every reason to feel suspicious and deeply concerned. As I have said, this matter has been dealt with in this debate, but I want to take it a little further.
Clause 112, entitled “Regulations”, gives the Minister the right to make regulations with regard to a whole host of matters, and those matters not specified are covered by clause 112(A), which reads as follows:
- (h) in general, any matter which the Minister may deem necessary or expedient to prescribe in order to achieve the objects of this Act …
It is clear then that as a result of this Bill, the Minister will have virtually total control of White education. That is what this Bill has set out to achieve, and that is what will have been achieved once it has been passed by Parliament. I believe that this will be a tragedy for education in the provinces, certainly for Natal and, to a large extent, for the Cape, where we have been able to develop a truly fine education, free from the narrow, prescriptive, dogmatic confines of Christian National education which the NP has used as its basic educational philosophy over the years, and which has certainly been practised in the Transvaal and the OFS. [Interjections.]
I have listened to what the Superintendent-General of Education and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture have said over and over again about the intention of this Bill. We have been assured time and again that it is not their intention to alter the education process in the provinces at all, and that the provinces will be allowed to continue to pursue their own philosophies and approaches to education within the broad framework of this Bill, but these are verbal promises.
And they come from this Minister. Wait for the next one!
That is the very point I want to make: Let us wait for the next Minister, as the hon member for Pinetown said. Nowhere in this Bill is it written that this situation will be allowed to continue forever. Are the promises of this hon Minister and this Superintendent-General promises we know will be kept? Are they the same promises future Ministers and future Superintendent-Generals will give? It was only by writing these promises and assurances into the Bill itself and by giving certain powers to certain statutory bodies within the provinces, that we could have been sure the Government was sincere about allowing the provinces to retain their own ethos and identities.
The PFP asked for this. We asked among other things for provincial education councils be given far more authority because we saw that the provincial education councils were the only statutory bodies that could, if given the proper authority, have some control in ensuring that what the provinces hold dear to themselves could in fact be retained.
May I ask a question?
I have already explained to the hon member for South Coast that I intend finishing my speech.
This particular point that I referred to was refused by the House Committee. In fact, it was not even discussed. I am talking about powers for provincial education councils. It was simply voted on and voted down in great haste, as the hon member for Pinetown has already indicated. Thus this Bill has ensured that the provincial education councils remain toothless, without any real authority, certainly with no legislative powers and with little executive authority. They remain purely and simply bodies to advise the hon the Minister, and we all know what this Government tends to do with the advice it is given if that advice is contrary to its own wishes and beliefs. Thus the provincial education councils too pose no threat to the Government as far as opposition to the process of the centralized control of education is concerned.
I want to deal with the functions of directors at the provincial education departments. The hon member for Pinetown has already dealt with this and has quoted from a letter from the chief information officer of the department with regard to the delegation of functions to provincial directors.
Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the functions delegated to directors of education. All it says in this regard is that a director of education—I quote from the Bill—“… shall perform the functions assigned to him by this Act, the Minister or the Head of Education.” In addition it reads: “A Director of Education shall perform his functions under the control of the Head of Education.” Exactly what functions have been delegated to him, or will be in the future, we do not know. I believe, however, that we should know. What is clear, is that he is entirely dependent on those above him for any real authority. He has none in his own right.
The Head of Education himself, on the other hand, is given wide-ranging powers with regard to the control of education in general, but there is no further mention in the Bill of the powers or functions of the provincial education departments. In this regard we have to wait until regulations are drawn up, assigning various functions and powers to these education departments with regard to a whole host of subjects which, again, the hon member for Pinetown has mentioned. He certainly has mentioned only some of them.
I have it on good authority already that many committees are meeting now to discuss various regulations. I want say that the PFP is unhappy about this particular point. First of all, we would like to know who will be responsible for drafting the various sets of regulations which will affect the provinces. We want to know who the chairmen of the various committees involved in drafting regulations will be. Will these chairmen be especially appointed to steamroller the various regulations through the committees in the same way this Bill was steamrollered through the House Committee?
One wonders what the political affiliations are of the members of the various committees. Are they too all good disciples of the philosophy of Christian National education?
We need to know when these regulations will be ready. We need to know who will be responsible for accepting them. Will they be brought before a joint parliamentary committee? Are the provincial education councils involved in any way in the drafting of regulations? We need to be given an answer to all of these questions, but at this stage everything remains a secret, as was the fact—the hon member for Pinetown pointed it out—that the provincial directors of education have already been given their delegated functions. We only heard about that through the Press.
I wish to spend some time on the question concerning the disciplining of teachers. The hon member for Potgietersrus has dealt with it from the CP point of view. I wish to say, though, that this Bill is horrifyingly prescriptive concerning teachers’ rights, both with regard to what is defined as misconduct by teachers, and with what are defined as teachers’ civil and political rights.
It is important to stress from the start that various teachers’ organisations and bodies involved with education have also expressed criticism of the various clauses related to these matters.
As we have already heard from the hon member for Potgietersrus, clause 76 refers to the misconduct of teachers.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? [Interjections.]
No, Mr Chairman.
I wish to draw the attention of this House to the provisions in this clause which I believe are totally unacceptable.
Firstly, clause 76(1)(a) refers to the fact that a teacher shall be guilty of misconduct if he contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any law relating to education, or encourages disobedience or resistance to an Act of Parliament.
To the PFP this is totally unacceptable. This clause effectively stifles any criticism by teachers, and therefore teachers who are effectively professional people become total victims of the whole process of bureaucratisation. I wish to ask hon members of this House: Who will sit in judgment on a teacher as far as the provisions in this clause are concerned? What constitutes “encouraging disobedience or resistance to an Act of Parliament”? Does this now mean that a teacher may not criticise this legislation or any other Act of Parliament, even in private and away from the school setting, and in terms of whose belief? I believe that a teacher’s civil liberties are severely restricted in terms of this clause. This spirit is contained too in clause 76(1)(f) which reads that a teacher shall be guilty of misconduct if he publicly criticises the administration of any State department. It is an amazing clause, Mr Chairman!
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on this particular point the Transvaal Education Council submitted a memorandum indicating that clause 76(1)(f) was against the spirit of the professional code of conduct of teachers as announced in Government Gazette No. 766 of 1986. [Interjections.] It is interesting to note that this came from the Transvaal Education Council.
In addition, the Association of Technical Colleges also submitted a memorandum calling for the scrapping of this paragraph completely because it found “hierdie subparagraaf te kras”. Other organisations, too, have expressed their concern, and the PFP called for the deletion of this paragraph as well. However, it remains in the Bill because the committee was unwilling to vote against it, although at earlier meetings many NP MPs too had expressed their concern in this regard.
In terms of clause 76(1)(h) this Bill also allows for a teacher to be found guilty of misconduct if "… while on duty he is guilty of gross discourteousness …". The PFP called for the deletion of this particular provision as well. Again we ask: Who will sit in judgment on the teacher, and who will decide what is “gross discourtesy”?
Clause 76(1)(n) indicates that a teacher shall be guilty of misconduct if he—
This is the important point—
Clause 76(2) refers to the fact that a teacher may still have a charge of misconduct taken against him even if he is acquitted of an offence by a court of law. One must question the justice of this. One must question whether teachers deserve this kind of treatment.
These last two points are matters for great conjecture, and, as I have said, they assist to make the position of a teacher absolutely untenable. I believe that drastic measures have been taken to ensure that teachers have become nothing more than puppets in the whole bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic process, and this belief ties in very well with the belief that through centralisation the Government has ensured the complete control of education and also of educationists.
This is borne out further by clause 96 of the Bill which deals with the civil and political rights of teachers. This clause, too, has been a cause for great concern among educationists and groups of people involved with education. As the hon member for Pinetown has said, we accept that there has to be some restraint placed on teachers against exploiting their positions as teachers for sectarian or party-political purposes. However, this clause goes way beyond that.
In clause 96(1), paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are of particular concern, and I believe that it is important that I quote them:
- (b) not express himself in public, in the public press or at a public meeting, on any matter, or in any manner, which may further or prejudice the interests of a political party or an organisation with political aims, or which may embarrass the Department;
- (c) not act as chairman at a public political meeting;
- (d) not publish a document under his name in furtherance or to the prejudice of the interests of a political party or an organisation with political aims;
It is interesting to note that the Cape Provincial Education Council has recommended that these three paragraphs of clause 96(1) be deleted completely, while the Natalse Onderwysersunie has referred to this clause as being totally unacceptable and as making teachers nothing more than second-class citizens. The Natalse Onderwysersunie, as well as other teacher organisations, believes that teachers should have full political rights. The PFP has also called for the scrapping of these three paragraphs and replacing them with simply, and I quote:
We believe that teachers’ rights should not be any further restricted than this. I believe, too, that clause 96 is a classic example of how teachers’ rights have been denuded and this will, I believe, add further to the discontent which teachers are feeling at present.
In conclusion, I want to stress that the PFP cannot accept this Bill. While there are many clauses which are innocuous and necessary for the running of education, in general we are against the spirit of the Bill which we find prescriptive and dogmatic, and there are many clauses which we find totally unacceptable. I regret again that the committee which dealt with this Bill was unwilling to accept the spirit in which amendments were offered and that in the end they were obviously forced to toe a party-political line which will prove in the long run to be totally against the interests of education.
Mr Chairman, it is impossible for me to do justice to a Bill such as this in the five minutes at my disposal. However, there are a few aspects to which I should like to give attention.
I think it is a tragedy that we should have to discuss legislation of this nature in 1988, legislation which is not only obsessively White and which denies the reality of a multiracial South Africa but also even militates against the development of greater unity between Afrikaans- and English-speaking children by the further compulsion of mother-tongue education.
I should like to give attention to only certain aspects of this legislation. Firstly, one must ask oneself why this matter is being dealt with with such excessive haste. The profession would like to know what the need is for such haste.
Secondly, I want to point out that the way in which this legislation strengthens centralisation is absolutely unacceptable. I still well remember how as SED students at Stellenbosch in 1965 we argued about papers in favour of decentralisation. Now, however, the arguments have apparently been reversed. [Interjections.] Now, in 1988, at a stage when the Government is placing so much emphasis upon decentralisation, it comes to light with this legislation which destroys the whole system of decentralisation.
Where we had previously to deal with reasonably autonomous education departments within which the peculiar nature of the various provinces could be given recognition, we now have the situation in which the hon the Minister and his Transvaal based ministry is able to come along and force upon the Cape the situation that is peculiar to them and also their autocratic way of life.
The hon the Minister has already heard this before but I am going to tell it to him again. This legislation is a further illustration of the detrimental effect which the abolition of the provincial councils has had on the provinces and is going to continue to have in the future.
While the Cape Director of Education was a crucial figure in the past, he and his department will now become purely executive individuals who will have to carry out all the wishes of Pretoria. [Interjections.]
†To illustrate the way in which this hon Minister is forcing his autocratic ways down the throats of educationists, for example in the Cape Province, I want to refer to a meeting which a delegation from the Cape Town Teachers’ College had with the hon the Minister last year with regard to various issues in connection with the running of that college. Whereas in the past the rector of our college was always an integral part of any such delegation to the Administrator or the MEC in charge of education in the province, this hon Minister last year flatly refused to allow the rector to be part of such a delegation. We considered that to be an insulting attitude to adopt towards the rector of this college, who is a highly educated and respected man. However, while we consider the rector to be a person of high standing and a pivotal member of the college, the college council and therefore of any delegation, the hon the Minister sees him and has treated him as a mere employee at the hon the Minister’s beck and call. In the Cape Province we have had a different attitude towards senior people in education, such as college rectors. I want to object in the strongest possible way to this high-handed, autocratic method of operation by this hon Minister as we also see it in this Bill.
This is why I object to this legislation. It entrenches this new autocratic system where our provinces have lost their relative autonomy and it entrenches the hon the Minister of Education and Culture as a new educational dictator—or maybe we should say a new dictator of education and not a director of education. In doing this, the hon the Minister has undermined the professional standing and status of the teaching profession.
That is not true!
It is true! That hon member has simply to ask the teachers and the members of the Cape education profession how they see the matter. [Interjections.] Thirdly, I also want to point out that the hon the Minister has ignored practically all the advice that he has received, for example, from the education councils. No wonder more and more people laugh when the Government maintains that it really believes in negotiation and consultation. We hear them say continually: “We consult and we negotiate”, but then, when people come along and submit ideas with which the hon the Minister does not agree, he ignores all the advice that he is given.
You must not give any advice!
As this legislation stands it certainly does not represent the opinions of the organised parent-teacher community of this province. I can tell the hon the Minister that quite frankly.
On what grounds do you say that? Prove it!
The hon the Minister knows precisely what I mean. As far as the recommendations of the four provincial education councils are concerned, which were set up by this Government itself, the hon the Minister has not even accepted 0,1% of those recommendations in this legislation. Has he replied to their recommendations yet? Have they yet been told why their recommendations have not been accepted? Or have those recommendations simply been ignored and has the hon the Minister simply not even replied to them? We should like to know. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Claremont has said here this afternoon that this legislation does not represent the opinion of the parent-teacher community in the Cape Province. The hon member for Claremont himself does not basically represent any sector of South African society for whom this House has been established. Unlike other hon members, he is sitting here for purposes of his own, which have little or nothing to do with promoting the interests of the Whites in South Africa. The hon member is not even listening. He puts questions to hon Ministers and does not even take the trouble to come along and listen to their replies. [Interjections.] The hon member is not interested in replies. He is not interested in debating either and I would rather ignore him from now on. [Interjections.]
I just want to touch on two aspects of this Bill which have already been referred to by other hon members. I want to confine myself to clause 76 which contains the definition of the concept of misconduct, and to clause 96, which deals, inter alia, with the civil and political rights of teachers.
Both those clauses are inherently sensitive and contentious. They deal with matters which bring emotions into play and which, of necessity limit to a certain extent the civil liberties of those involved. For that reason this matter must be handled with great circumspection when, as is now the case, this is embodied in legislation, and in particular when it is implemented.
It is significant that the definition of the concept “misconduct” is so comprehensive. The question which is immediately asked is whether it is necessary and justified. I have evaluated it myself in relation to the position of the teacher. A teacher is not just an ordinary member of society, but he is obviously a member of the most important professional group in the community. They are the image-bearers, and young people in their formative years use them as models on which to build their own lives. The quality and example of the teaching community today determines the quality of the generation of tomorrow. Lindley Baxter said:
Henry Adams went even further and said the following:
The last statement in particular is very important. A teacher’s influence is very far-reaching. For that reason greater demands are made on them in regard to integrity and correctness of behaviour than are made on many other professions.
Clause 76, which deals with misconduct, apart from one provision to which I shall return later, is purely a combination of existing measures and is nothing new. Although it is comprehensive, members of the profession have seldom been affected by these provisions in the past. I know of no teacher who feels threatened by this provision. They do not feel threatened because inherently their code is even stronger than that prescribed in these measures. Clause 76 is only intended for the rare deviate, and protects the reputation of the rest of the profession.
I now come to the teacher and politics. In the nature of things, party politics is a divisive factor in society. Looked at from the point of view of an undisturbed process of education, it is not desirable that that division to be taken into the classroom and into the sphere in which the parental community is active in the school context. The only possible cohesive factor is the teacher. Around his image, his example and his leadership co-operation is possible, notwithstanding political divisions. For that reason, the teacher should not have a high public party-political profile. That is all this legislation is trying to prevent.
The teacher is by no means excluded from the country’s politics. I should like to draw the attention of hon members to what the teacher is permitted to do. He can be a member of a political party as long as it is a lawful party. He can serve on the executive of that party. At a meeting where admission is restricted to members of the same party—I am not speaking of the members of the Broederbond or any other “bond”—or group or movement, he may express hismelf in a manner which furthers or prejudices the interests of a political party, or even the interests of an organisation which has certain political aims, but which is not a political party. It goes without saying that that organisation must be a lawful organisation.
A teacher is therefore at liberty to participate in politics to the same extent that 99% of people in the country do. The other 1% are those of us who are actively engaged in politics and accept responsibility for public participation in politics. Most of the country’s citizens do not participate to anything approximating the extent to which teachers are authorised to participate in terms of these measures.
In the interests of education and in the interests of the image and status of the teaching profession, a teacher must not become a public political figure. A public political figure is of necessity contentious because he always has opponents. At election time, for instance, he becomes very contentious. Mr Chairman, teachers should rather stay clear of that.
This brings me to that portion of clause 76 which is new, and to which reference was made earlier. Clause 76(1)(s) relates to the position of teachers and it lays down that a teacher shall not be guilty of misconduct if he—
A teacher may, therefore, promote private or sectional political objectives, and he may also prejudice them—he may participate in politics. What he may not do is to use his position as a teacher for that purpose, and that is an unequivocal standpoint. Using his position as a teacher in that way is in conflict with the essence of his profession; it is tantamount to abuse. It would undoubtedly damage the role, the image and the status of the profession if a teacher abused his position in such a way. We cannot allow the hard-won status of an important profession such as this to be tarnished by the conduct of individuals. Nor will this provision be regarded as a threat by virtually any teacher.
It is clear that on the Government side we differ fundamentally more often than not with the viewpoints of the PFP in particular. I agree with the hon member for Pinetown who has said just that. I really cannot understand what the hon member for Pinetown had in mind when he moved an amendment to clause 76(1)(a), because if we had adopted his amendment in the House Committee, it would have meant that a teacher could advocate disobedience or opposition to any of the country’s laws without being punished.
[Inaudible.]
In this instance the left-wing PFP enjoys the unqualified support of the CP. Is it not strange how people are brought together by opportunism? [Interjections.] Advocating disobedience to the country’s laws bears no relation whatsoever to my image of what a teacher is permitted to be. Let us note, therefore, what South Africa would look like if the left wing ever came to power here. I am reminded of public demonstrations by teachers which I have seen on more than one occasion when abroad, where children stood on the pavements and ridiculed their teachers. That we certainly do not want, Sir.
In the House Committee the hon member for Pinetown proposed the deletion of a provision prohibiting teachers, for example, from taking part in such political demonstrations. For this he wanted to substitute a vague provision which would have given rise to so many interpretational problems in its implementation that it would have been useless. The hon member wanted to delete all the provisions which were opposed to a high political profile for teachers.
No!
I know that hon member, Sir. I know him fairly well, and I know how his mind works. That hon member is more than normally obsessed with the basic civil and political rights of teachers; he over-emphases this aspect and would therefore like to throw all the rules overboard.
No!
Yes!
The unfortunate result would be that a wilful minority could destroy the image of the profession could destroy its image, and we cannot allow that.
[Inaudible.]
Nobody looking calmly and impartially at the provisions of this Bill would ever get the impression that it was an attempt to curb the teachers’ initiative or to restrict them. The whole procedure designed to allow one to take action in cases of misconduct attests to the contrary. In essence it aims at being conciliatory rather than punitive. The process is democratic and fair. It makes provision for a variety of procedures.
In the first place, the head of the Department of Education and Culture has the discretion to decide if a charge of misconduct has any substance whatever Thereafter there is the option of a departmental inquiry and/or a board of inquiry, followed by a board of appeal.
In all cases the relevant teachers’ association is consulted, and in the case of an board of appeal, the Federal Teachers’ Council has the right to attend. In the case of a possible conviction, there are a various possible courses ranging from a mere warning to discharge. No authority which is intent on prosecution would make provision for such a practical, democratic process. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I want to begin by briefly referring to remarks made by a few hon members. Firstly I want to refer to the hon member for Brentwood who told us that the hon member for Brits was looking for points of criticism to level at the NP. His whole speech made it obvious that the hon member for Brentwood could really find no answer to the arguments of the hon member for Brits. It is not strange, therefore, that he made such a senseless remark.
What is more, the hon member for Brentwood said he would advise the hon member for Brits to consult a pastoral psychologist about the hatred in his heart for the NP. I want to tell the hon member for Brentwood that the only hatred the hon member for Brits has in his heart—and that is how I have come to know him—is hatred of political deceit. He hates the sort of political deceit indulged in by people who take photographs or permit the use of a photograph of a bloodstain on a pavement with a certain sign over it, and then ascribe that to members of a rightwing organisation or a right-wing political party, when in actual fact it transpires that that supposed incident was never even reported to the police. This is how people are deceived. [Interjections.] In the time I have come to know the hon member for Brits, I have discovered that he has a hatred of such deceit—not of people but of deceit.
Then, of course, there is the deception by people who say they stand for one thing when all the time they are doing something else. Some people—the hon member for Brentwood will know who I am referring to—say they stand for closed, own residential areas. They say that with an eye to votes at an election. However, when the election is past, as was illustrated in this House at question time this afternoon, those same people nevertheless do not do what they have told the voters they are going to do. They do exactly the opposite. It is political deceit of that sort—this I have found out—that the hon member for Brits is opposed to. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Brentwood also said—I hope I understood him correctly; he was rather muddled when he spoke—that membership of a political party will not pave the way to salvation; neither would membership of a church, as the CP would have it. I think this is a striking example of the flippant attitude of the hon member for Brentwood in this debate. I think it is a blot on his party’s name when a man speaking on education makes such flippant remarks and I hope he will be reprimanded. [Interjections.]
This brings me to the remarks of the hon member for Sunnyside. We just want to tell that hon member, as the hon member for Brits has done previously in this House, that the CP’s view of party-politics in the classroom is very clear. This party is not in favour of it. We are, in fact, against party-politics in schools. [Interjections.] Outside the school context, the teachers who are leaders in South African society, should not be restricted to the extent that they are unable to make use of their normal civil rights in the same way any other ordinary South African citizen does. [Interjections.] There is an unfortunate situation at the moment in South Africa under the present NP Government. [Interjections.]
I should also like to refer to what the hon member for Gezina had to say. If I understood him correctly, he said that the Federal Teachers’ Council had withdrawn its objections to the legislation under discussion. I am informed by hon members of the CP who served on the House Committee which discussed this legislation, that the FTC has not withdrawn any of its objections. In fact, I am in possession of a telex message from the FTC which makes it very clear that it withdrew its request to give oral evidence to the House Committee. However, it is specifically stated that it still has objections and misgivings.
So apparently the hon member is not correct in his assumption that the FTC had withdrawn its objections and now accepted the provisions of this legislation.
In addition I would like to refer to a technical aspect. Clause 19(c) of the Bill originally read as follows:
- (c) the election or designation and powers of chairmen and vice-chairmen of councils;
When one looks at the House Committee amendments, one sees that the words “election or” have been deleted. I have, however, been informed by hon members of the CP who served on the committee that this is a mistake.
It is exactly the reverse!
Precisely the opposite must have happened. The words in the original text which should have been deleted were those relating to designation. The words “or designation” should therefore have been deleted from the relevant subsection, and what should have remained was a reference to “the election and powers of chairmen and vice-chairmen”.
As that subsection now reads, after the incorrect amendment, it still conflicts with the wording of clause 16, where reference is made throughout to the election of chairmen and vice-chairmen. I therefore respectfully submit that this is clearly a mistake which has crept in, and I ask the hon the Minister to try to rectify it during the course of the procedures. [Interjection.]
I then want to refer to the procedures for dealing with inspections and investigations in the proposed provisions of clauses 9, 79 and 80. Clause 9(1) provides that the Head of Education, ie the Superintendent-General, may grant general or specific written authorisation to inspect a school or hostel to a person in the service of the department. Clause 9(2) provides that such authorised person can at any reasonable time and without prior notice enter upon the grounds of the school or hostel concerned. He may question under oath or otherwise any person who in his opinion may be able to furnish information on a matter to which the Bill relates.
Further he can require a person who has in his possession or custody or under his control a register, book or document on a matter to which this Bill relates to submit such a register, book or document to him. He can examine this documentation and make extracts therefrom. He can also require from any person an explanation under oath or otherwise of any entry in the documentation. Lastly, he can attach such register, book or document which in his opinion may provide proof of an offence or irregularity.
The only proviso to these wide powers is that he may not carry out an inspection in terms of this clause unless, when carrying out such inspection, he is in possession of the prescribed written authorisation, which he must produce at the request of any person affected by that inspection.
This provision could possibly be consistent with previous provisions, but the fact of the matter is that here we are dealing with a with new piece of legislation, and we must judge it on its own merits. It is very clear from these provisions that these inspectors are given extremely wide powers of investigation and collection of evidence. There is one aspect in this regard which strikes one, and which also gives cause for concern, and that is that there is no provision which affords protection to any person affected by the authorisation granted to these inspectors. It merely lists the powers of the inspectors. If a specific person is well-acquainted with his normal civil rights—any legal practitioner can tell us how ignorant the average citizen is of his normal civil rights—he can at most rely on these insofar as they are not invalidated by the provisions of clause 105, because clause 105 further restricts his normal civil rights.
It makes it, inter alia, an offence for any person to hinder a clause 9 inspector, if I may call him that, or obstruct him in his work, to refuse or fail to comply with a requirement set or a request by the inspector, and to refuse or fail to answer to the best of his ability a question put by the inspector. The penalty for this is embodied in clause 106, and it is a fine not exceeding R1000 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both. Hon members will agree with me that these are drastic measures. Nowhere are these provisions ameliorated.
As these provisions read at present, if they are applied to children, for instance, the children can be treated in exactly the same way as adults. We cannot associate ourselves with this. We have unfortunately already been informed of incidents in which it is alleged children were treated in a totally unacceptable way in a similar investigation which took place recently. I am going to briefly quote portions of a letter legal representatives of the parents of such children sent to the Superintendent-General. I quote:
Verder wil dit vir die ouers voorkom asof hulle kinders betrek word by ’n politieke heksejag teen sekere onderwysers, aangesien daar aan van hulle kinders gevra is of hulle weet watter onderwysers behoort aan die KP. Daar is volgens een van die ouers aan hulle kind gevra waar werk sy ouers en vir wie stem hulle. Die ouers het ook beswaar dat van hulle kinders sonder hulle toestemming in die verband ondervra is en dat hulle versoek was om ’n vraelys met ’n politieke strekking te voltooi.
It becomes very clear from one aspect of this letter that children are still being questioned by inspectors and that disciplinary investigations are still taking place without the consent of the children’s parents and in the absence of the parents. We cannot accept this behaviour. An adult has, as a matter of course, the right of advice and support from a legal representative when he is questioned on disciplinary matters. This Bill, however, does not give children the right to at least call for their parents’ consent and support as a prerequisite to being questioned.
On this side of the House we are aware that children deserve a special degree of protection against exploitation, especially in a power structure such as the school environment, and we want to insist that specific provision must be made for at least the prior consent of the parents to be given in such a case, and that the parents should be present if they so choose.
I should also like to refer to clause 102 in which subsection (1) provides that the parents of a student admitted to a public school or centre, shall pay the tuition fees as the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of the Budget and Works may determine. The hon member for Pinetown has already referred to this matter. We maintain that parents and teachers would like certainty as to when and to what degree these school fees are to be phased in, how they will be calculated and who will collect them, etc. There is a large measure of uncertainty and at the moment this uncertainty is hanging like a sword over the heads of school-going children. They want certainty.
I have also been informed that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, in reply to a question in this House last year, said it was not the intention to collect tuition fees for Black education from Black parents. These contradictions in the Government’s approach to tuition fees, particularly when viewed in the light of the Governments slogans about equal treatment for the different population groups, are indicative of race discrimination against the Whites.
I should further like to refer to certain discretions granted in this Bill to the hon the Minister and others. Clause 26(3) grants a discretion to the Head of Education to grant or refuse an application in terms of subsection (1) of clause 26. However, he shall not grant an application—
A similar provision is embodied in clauses 35(2) and 37. Our attitude in this instance is that it is totally unnecessary and is not to be recommended. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodepoort went to great lengths to find something in this legislation with which to attack the department and certain inspectors, and on which he could base his conclusion that this was supposedly discrimination against the Whites. I am not going to respond any further on that score.
The practical implementation of the concept of own affairs has necessitated an investigation into the legislation which has governed education in the various provinces in the past. In considering the discussions and the actions of the House Committee which examined the legislation, one must bear in mind that there were basically two choices which had to be made when the legislation was being drawn up. The first choice related to the structure. A choice had to be made between a central system with delegation, and provincial systems with a degree of overlapping administrative functions. The choice was in favour of a single structure with a certain amount of delegation.
I support the view that this is what South African Whites have wanted for a long time, namely that as far as White education in South Africa is concerned, there should be a greater degree of uniformity.
Secondly, a choice of a more material nature had to be made, namely whether one should attempt to bring about a more meaningful synthesis between the four existing models or whether, on the other hand, one should think about a totally new educational administration; in other words, whether one should not de novo formulate a totally new educational administration. In this instance consolidation was the choice.
The first policy which was adopted met with dissatisfaction, from the PFP in particular.
†I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Gezina. It was quite clear to me that the hon member for Pinetown advocated a system which we could perhaps call the Burrows system of education. He was the only person who advanced the particular system which he advocated. I should like to ask him a question which I have asked him on a previous occasion, namely, what are the reasons for the system which he advocated? He himself, apart from an oblique reference to the particular ethos in his province, said that we must make provision for the diverse needs and values in White society. Surely the hon member is not a racist. That means we may just as well delete the word “White” from his comment.
Do you want me to talk again? [Interjections.]
He is therefore on record as having said that he propagates a new policy, the policy of the PFP, according to which they are in favour of an education system in South Africa which will make provision for the diverse needs and values in society.
[Inaudible.]
Please remember that in future when we debate education in South Africa.
Will you give me another ten minutes to answer that?
Order! The hon member for Pinetown must not turn his back upon the Chair and then participate in a dialogue with the hon member for Sundays River.
The other objections mainly concerned the two choices of policy, namely that there should be a meaningful consolidation between the four different models, because the most important objects were all aimed at aspects which already existed in the four provinces. The majority of these objections are those about which the hon member for Potgietersrus in particular waxed so lyrical. He does not seem to be present. His speech was really a hit-and-run affair, or perhaps one should rather speak of a kick-and-run affair. [Interjections.]
Those arguments were all advanced from the point of view that the Government was introducing a new series of measures. The majority of the measures, however, are already embodied in existing legislation. I also want to point out to him that the hon member for Brits said that it was held in the House Committee that it was not our function there to improve the legislation. But it is not quite like that. Our standpoint was that it was not our function to rewrite the education system as such and to improve it, but to attempt to formulate a meaningful system of consolidation.
Speakers from both opposition parties have also objected very strongly to the fact that the legislation has been rushed through. But that is surely not so. We had the benefit of well-considered legislation; of piles of written representations which we could work through. The fact of the matter is surely that the House Committee went through the legislation three times and that there was adequate opportunity to put questions and acquire all the necessary information. The truth of the matter is, however, that when hon members on this side of the House began to insist that amendments be submitted, that we no longer simply go on talking, we suddenly had a lot of supporters of the consensus idea. Then there was an outcry from hon members of the CP in particular because supposedly we wanted to override them. Then they wanted to have recourse to consensus politics. The fact is that one clause after another was put, and each time we asked if there were any amendments. The hon members of the CP, however, did not submit one written amendment to any of the clauses. [Interjections.] They will say they did not have the time. I find that very strange, however, because just a few days later here in the House they waxed so eloquent. Now they are suddenly the absolute authorities on this legislation, but a few days ago they did not have the time to submit a single written amendment. They wanted to keep their options open at the expense of education in South Africa, so that they could make cheap political capital, as the hon member for Potgiertersrus in particular has tried to do.
The hon member for Potgietersrus is really a prince among orators. I think he is earning a second title for himself. I think one can really refer to him in future as the prince of Potgietersrus. [Interjections.] He made a further strong plea for the so-called civil and political rights of teachers. The hon member for Stellenbosch, however, referred to the civil and political rights of teachers which were being protected. The problem, however, with the hon member for Potgietersrus is that he wants everybody to play politics the way he does. But I say Heaven help our education if one single teacher should play politics the way that hon member does. [Interjections.]
We accept that this legislation is not the last word on education and the educational structure in South Africa. Of course, we shall always be improving it; of course we shall always be refining it; of course there will always be on-going discussions between the hon the Minister, the department and all those interested in education in South Africa.
This side of the House will not deliver education, which we hold so dear, into the hands of reckless politicians, so that they can impair it or harm it.
Mr Chairman, the best part of the hon member for Sundays River speech was the last sentence, because that is one of the best jokes we have heard in this House, if one thinks back over the past 40 years. He mentioned during his speech that the legislation was not bulldozed through the House Committee, but he forgets that there were people who wished to give oral evidence, some of whom had not submitted written evidence, and the NP refused to allow that to happen. He probably knows less about legislative procedures and proper consultation and negotiation than he does about education.
I would like to make a prediction today on a major matter relating to education. This NP Government has had to eat its words and do a complete somersault over a period of 24 hours. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid had to stand up here and completely reverse the dogmatic attitude taken by this Government yesterday on a certain matter because, once he had heard the arguments and had given the matter a bit of thought, he realised how embarrassing it was to hold the opinion that he held. I want to predict that—certainly not within 24 hours because I think this own affairs section possibly works a little slower—this Government will rue the day that they shoved this legislation through this Parliament.
I believe there is a fundamental difference in approach between the Government and the PFP in respect of education in general, as well as in many other things, but education being the one we are discussing today. I have an interesting historical document here today. It is a phantom second reading speech of the hon the Minister. Certainly in the six years that I have been in Parliament and the three and a half years that I was in the provincial council it is the first time that I received a second reading speech neatly typed out—I thank the hon the Minister for that—which was never delivered, and the chances are, I presume, that it never will be delivered. Nevertheless there is a part of this speech, or this hand-out phantom speech, that I wish to quote because it highlights the difference between the PFP and the NP. In this speech the hon the Minister says:
That is leading in the need to consolidate the various laws into one Act. I repeat, “to effect co-ordination and uniformity”. That, I think, crystallises the difference between ourselves and the Government. This hon Minister wants coordination and uniformity, while the PFP believes in freedom of choice, recognition of diversity, and co-ordination. Therefore, the difference lies essentially between, on the one hand, the Government’s philosophy of uniformity and therefore no choice, and the PFP’s belief in the recognition of diversity and therefore a maximum freedom of choice, wherever possible.
I wish to address myself briefly to some aspects of PFP education policy in terms of our written policy and the objectives in respect of school education. In the process I want to contrast these with this Bill. I quote from the PFP’s policy in this regard.
- (1) To advance the education of every person in order to promote the potential of the individual and the well-being of society.
I think everybody would have that kind of statement in an education policy. I quote further: - (2) To foster good relationships among all South Africans by promoting an understanding of and thus an appreciation for the diverse cultures, backgrounds, traditions and aspirations of the people of South Africa.
I hope the hon member for Sundays River was listening to that bit, because the essence of that part of this document was, in fact, officially recognised in these words as party policy as far back as 1976. In general terms it has been part of our party’s policy for as long as the PFP has existed—also as the Progressive Party—for 30 years. The essence in recognising that diversity is a freedom of choice.
The third objective is the following:
Here we have the basic difference between our concept of an open society and the Government’s policy of apartheid-education and segregation wherever possible. [Interjections.]
The fourth objective is:
One of my colleagues will be talking further about that later on in this debate.
The fifth objective is:
I think that is vitally important, because I do not believe that any education system can be stronger than the strength of the teaching profession that serves it. In my opinion it deserves the highest priority. I regret to say that too often in the—in the past decade in particular—the Government has paid lip service to these ideals rather than actually doing something for the teaching profession. I shall come to that later in terms of this Bill as well. The prestige, status and economic position of the teaching profession certainly include proper remuneration, but it does not just begin and end there.
The final one of our education objectives I wish to mention, is:
The hon member for Gezina seemed to get rather excited as if the hon member for Pinetown had expressed some new thought. We have always believed in devolution and diversity and freedom of choice and at the same time we have always accepted co-ordination in certain respects.
Indaba style!
I do not know the finer details of the Indaba education policy, so I …
But your party supports it!
If the party of the hon member for South Coast wants it, they have almost endless time in debates and, if he knows something, he should rather ask for a turn to speak.
[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member for South Coast must contain himself.
I think if that hon member were to speak out too loudly on education, he may well bury himself politically.
We would find him out!
The policy points of the PFP that I have just mentioned, spell out the fundamental difference in approach between us and the NP.
This Bill aims at uniformity. What does uniformity in fact mean? In the final analysis it normally means that the majority view is dominant when uniformity prevails. This Bill reflects that perfectly well. It reflects a dominance by the Transvaal which is natural enough, seeing that the Transvaal is the biggest province with the most pupils and the most teachers. It also expresses an Afrikaner, Calvinistic, Nationalist dominance in an attitude to education, which again is not surprising if one only considers White education, seeing that that category of person in terms of religious, cultural and political norms happens to be the majority group. This Bill reflects that dominance and in trying to create uniformity it starts to Impose that dominance and those norms on everybody else.
I wish to deal with certain specifics in this Bill but I accept that this is complicated because there are a wide range of matters that are going to be specified by regulations of the hon the Minister in due course. Without those regulations, many of the provisions of the Bill could be interpreted one way or the other. Nevertheless, I believe there are several pointers in the Bill in respect of the predominant ethos that is going to prevail in our White schools as a result of this Bill. I regret to say that those changes are not for the good.
I speak as someone from the Cape Peninsula and therefore from the Cape Province where the Cape Education Ordinance and the Cape Education Department has governed our education up till now. Looking at this Bill and having spoken particularly to people in the Transvaal over the years, I would suggest that despite weaknesses in that ordinance and that department, the attitude has generally been more flexible, more open-minded and less heavy-handed than it has been in the Transvaal education department and than has been provided for in this Bill.
The first example I would like to mention is the question of the conscience clause. The hon member for Pinetown proposed the following amendment on clause 62 in the House Committee regarding a teacher’s position in regard to Bible instruction:
That was an amendment proposed in the House Committee, and it was clearly voted down by the NP majority within that committee. In this regard the Cape Ordinance says the following, and I quote from section 188(4):
- (4) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsections …
- (b) no teacher shall be required to give, or be present at the giving of, religious instruction if he expresses any conscientious objection thereto, and no teacher shall be penalised in any way by reason of his having expressed such objection.
That is a fundamental educational ethos. We know it has been a matter of controversy at university level and that various universities have had different attitudes to this matter, but certainly in regard to large numbers if not the majority of English-speaking parents, and I am sure many others as well, they believe that this is the right and just way to approach the matter. To say that a teacher, who is not prepared to give Bible instruction either because he does not believe it or he does not want to be a hypocrite, could therefore be prejudiced in his career and his possible appointment and that his rights are not protected in terms of this Bill, even though it has nothing to do with that and may be a purely theoretical matter, I believe is a matter of shame.
The second example I wish to turn to, is the question of misconduct—the differences between this Bill and the Cape Education Ordinance with regard to the pointers given in respect of misconduct. I would just like to look at three matters. Firstly, in section 98 of the Cape Education Ordinance it is provided that a teacher shall be guilty of misconduct if he:
- (vii) uses his position as a teacher to further private or party political aims or to encourage disobedience or resistance to the laws of the State;
I specifically want to refer to the words “uses his position as a teacher to further … resistance to the laws of the State.” In terms of clause 76(1)(a) of the Bill a teacher shall be guilty of misconduct if he:
So, Mr Chairman, it is not a question of asking people to break laws. If he tries to promote any change in an Act of Parliament, not in his capacity as a teacher but just as a citizen of this country, he is potentially guilty of misconduct in terms of this new legislation.
I also want to refer to a second example regarding this matter of misconduct. In terms of section 98(ix) of the Cape Education Ordinance, a teacher may be guilty of misconduct if he “acts in a matter calculated … to impede, obstruct or undermine the activities of the Administration or of any Government Department.” In terms of clause 76(1)(f) of this Bill he only has to “publicly criticize the administration of any State department” in order to be guilty of misconduct. The difference between simply publicly criticising, as stated in the Bill, as opposed to impeding, obstructing or undermining, as stated in the ordinance, is clearly vast. This Bill then puts the shackles on in a way that they are not being put on in the Cape Education Ordinance. I have not checked all the other ordinances and I therefore do not know what they provide. That, however, makes a fundamental difference to the rights of teachers in the Cape Province—the rights to which they are entitled.
The third point I wish to mention regarding misconduct, which is not even mentioned in the previous Ordinance, is that in terms of clause 76(1)(k) of this amended Bill a teacher shall be guilty of misconduct if he “becomes financially embarrassed”.
I am not a lawyer, and even if I were a lawyer, I would still wonder what the legal definition of “financially embarrassed person” was. The hon the Minister of Finance could be guilty of incitement by refusing to grant teachers a decent salary increase when inflation is rising, because by that refusal of his he could well cause thousands of teachers to become financially embarrassed. Again, Sir, not being a lawyer, I do not know exactly where incitement begins or ends. I do believe, however, it is a very strange provision. I really do not know why it should be there at all. I would be interested to hear from the hon the Minister why this provision should be contained in the measure. Perhaps he could give us a definition of a “financially embarrassed person”. Secondly, I should like to learn why that should be construed to be “an act of misconduct”.
That brings me to the next point I want to raise. That is the question of civil and political rights. I am referring now to clause 96. I could not find any exactly comparable stipulation in the Cape Provincial Education Ordinance. Nevertheless, hon members have spoken to this question at some length, so I shall be brief. In terms of clause 96 someone employed as a teacher—teachers are only one category covered by this measure—and I quote:
- (b) not express himself in public, in the public press or at a public meeting, on any matter, or in any manner, which may further or prejudice the interests of a political party or an organization with political aims, or which may embarrass the Department.
Now, Mr Chairman, this, to me, is absolutely extraordinary! What about a teacher who is, for example, an office-bearer or leader of the organised teaching profession? I believe every teacher should be allowed to hold some office of this nature as a matter of course. Surely every time the current chairman of the TFC makes a statement to the effect that teachers are leaving the profession because they are not sufficiently remunerated, or for some other reason, such statement has the potential of embarrassing the department.
[Inaudible.]
Does the hon Minister say it does not embarrass the department? [Interjections.] Well, Sir, if large numbers of well-qualified teachers are in fact leaving the profession, and that does not embarrass the department, then I should like that hon Minister to tell us what is going to embarrass them. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I find this to be an extraordinary provision.
Even taken in another sense it still remains extraordinary. I just want to remind the House of the current financial squeeze on schools. Principals in school after school are having to explain to parents, to parent bodies and to the public why they are having to appeal for more funds, why the parents are going to have to pay for their children’s books, why the schools are going to have to pay for their own water, electricity or whatever, or why certain services are cut back. In that process, surely a principal can embarrass the department. I believe this is an astounding provision. It amounts to an unwarranted interference in the rights of teachers.
Mr Chairman, I wish to move on now to the question of zoning. I believe this to be an important element of freedom of choice. I quote from section 115 of the relevant Cape provincial ordinance in respect of the determination of an area served by a particular school. It states that certain areas are set out in which children have to attend specific schools, and then continues as follows:
To me, Mr Chairman, this is a typical example of the way in which the Cape Provincial Education Department takes a fairly relaxed view, saying by and large children must attend the schools in their own areas, but no hard and fast rules are imposed. In practice that leaves that freedom of choice for the schools—at least in the Cape Peninsula—to decide for themselves. This has promoted an involvement and joint responsibility as well as very many powerful schools with a high degree of parental involvement.
I do not have the time to quote specific passages from the Bill. I do, however, want to mention clauses 51 and 52 in particular. The Bill does make some provision …
[Inaudible.]
Well, if the hon the Minister will give me five minutes extra I will quote with pleasure.
[Inaudible.]
Well, the hon the Minister can do so if he wants to. [Interjections.] I accept that it is not absolute. It is, however, a far more rigorous stipulation than the existing one.
The final point I want to discuss is the question of the appointment and promotion and transfer of teachers. [Time expired.]
Business interrupted.
The House adjourned at
TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS— see col 14076.
Order! On behalf of Mr Speaker I have to announce that a joint meeting of the Rules Committees unanimously agreed to the following recommendations this morning:
- (1) That Mr A J de Villiers, Secretary to Parliament, be permitted to retire on pension from the Parliamentary Service with effect from 1 October 1988.
- (2) That with effect from 1 October 1988—
- (a) the vacancy caused by Mr De Villiers’s retirement be filled by the appointment of Mr G P C de Kock, BA, Deputy Secretary, as Secretary to Parliament;
- (b) the office of Deputy Secretary be filled by the appointment of Mr R C Douglas, BA, Senior Under Secretary;
- (c) Mr C J P Lucas, B Juris, Under Secretary, be appointed as Senior Under Secretary; and
- (d) Mr K Hahndiek, BA, Table Assistant, be appointed as Under Secretary.
Mr Speaker’s Chambers
Parliament
14 June 1988.
Mr Speaker stated that unless notice of objection to the Report was given at the next sitting of one of the Houses, the Report would be considered as adopted.
Order! It has come to my notice that during the debate yesterday the hon member for Tafelberg made certain derogatory personal remarks with reference to the hon member for Ottery and other hon members. The Chair at the time indicated that it would study the Hansard of the hon member for Tafelberg and then give a ruling. The Chairman of Committees was in the Chair.
I have now studied the Hansard and I am of the opinion that the remarks reflect on the dignity of hon members of this House. I therefore rule that the hon member for Tafelberg withdraw the following words. She said, and I quote:
The hon member for Border then said 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.”
I ask the hon member for Tafelberg to withdraw those remarks.
Mr Chairman, I withdraw them.
Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the privilege of being able to take part in this debate. I have a long time to speak today, and since there has been a misunderstanding, I can probably also use the time that was taken up by that.
In implementing the terms of reference given to it by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology in terms of section 4(1)(a)(x) of the Board of Trade and Industries Act, 1986 (Act No 107 of 1986), the Board of Trade and Industry has inquired into and reported on the development potential of the jewellery manufacturing industry, with special reference to the steps which can be taken to develop the said industry to its full economic potential.
This industry has been handicapped for years, since the 1908 Act, because that Act provided that gold could only be traded commercially between the hours of sunrise and sunset. The inquiry ordered by the hon the Minister has resulted in the Board of Trade and Industry recommending wide-ranging measures. [Interjections.]
Order! Hon members must please lower their voices.
Mr Chairman, I cannot hear myself speaking.
Order! The hon member for Springbok may continue.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am sure that not one of these hon members who are making such a noise has a gold ring or a gold watch, and today I want to call upon the hon the Minister to forbid them to wear a gold ring or a gold watch, because they are not interested in the Bill.
I repeat, the inquiry ordered by the hon the Minister resulted in the Board of Trade and Industry recommending wide-ranging measures to remove those restrictions. These measures have led to certain amendments to the Mining Rights Act, 1967 (Act No 20 of 1967) becoming necessary. This amending Bill, the Mining Rights Amendment Bill embodies those amendments.
Briefly, provision is made in this Bill for the removal of the present restrictions in regard to the amount of precious metal which may be used each day by the holder of a jeweller’s permit. Secondly the rights hitherto conferred by a jeweller’s permit upon the holder of such a permit are being extended to include the right to obtain unwrought precious metal from other holders of jewellers’ permits.
Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Springbok for supporting this measure. If one studies the Bill one will find that this is a major effort on the part of the Government to deregulate in order to enable the jewellery manufacturing industry to get on with its work in the most efficient manner. Far fewer constraints will be placed on the industry than it has had to put up with in the past. The industry will now have a greater incentive to expand with a resultant increase in employment. I thank the hon member for describing a number of the relaxations to the existing Mining Rights Act which will result from the provisions of the Bill. These provisions have achieved some of our objectives resulting from deregulation.
I am quite sure that this Bill will be welcomed by the jewellery manufacturing industry, because they have made submissions in the past to not only the department but also the Standing Committee on Finance. In their submissions they clearly identified the effects that these restraints, among others, have on their industry.
I would like to add just one other matter, namely a further restraint on the jewellery manufacturing industry, in the shape of the high ad valorem tax on jewellery. At present it is 35%. I am quite sure that hon members will be pleased to hear that in the House of Assembly last week during our Budget Vote, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology announced that this ad valorem tax was going to be reduced to 20% over a period of time. I hope this will be a further encouragement to the jewellery industry and that more jobs will be created in that industry. With these words I once again want to thank the hon member for his support.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
Mr Chairman, the main object of the Bill is to clarify the rights of both the mining and agricultural industry insofar as the new method of coal mining, namely the longwall and pillar extraction method, as opposed to opencast mining, is concerned.
Section 6 of the present Act enables mining, which renders the surface totally unfit for farming operations, to be undertaken by ensuring that the surface can be bought at a reasonable price. This section provides that if mining prevents, or is likely to prevent, the proper use of land for farming purposes as would be the case with opencast mining, either the owner of the land or the miner may make representations to the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology on the matter. If the hon the Minister is satisfied that such prejudice to farming will ensue, the State will have the right to acquire the land. Should the hon the Minister decide that the land should not be acquired by the State, he may order the miner to purchase the land. If agreement between the landowner and the miner is not reached, the price will be determined by arbitration. The Act does not provide for the landowner to be compensated for damage to his land. Provision is made only for the purchase of the affected land.
The longwall and pillar extraction mining method has the effect that a surface subsides and pans are formed on the surface of the land. The Act, as it stands, does not resolve the conflict between the mineral rights holder and the surface owner in cases where surface subsidence does not damage the land to the extent that it prevents farming, because the Act does not cover such damages. It is therefore in everybody’s interest that the law be clarified by legislation, rather than through a process of extremely costly litigation, the outcome of which is uncertain. In order for the Republic’s coal resources to be utilised most efficiently, it is necessary that the SA mining industry employ mining methods which ensure the highest degree of extraction.
It is estimated that some 16,5 million tons of coal, or approximately 90 years of production of coal at the current rates, would remain under the ground if higher extraction methods were not applied. The Bill therefore provides for the generous compensation of the surface rights holder, while ensuring, for the benefit of the country as a whole, that minerals may be extracted according to the most efficient method.
In the standing committee it appeared that one of the main reservations of the agricultural industry was the fact that, as far as compensation is concerned, provision was made only for a once-off payment. This was resolved after an agreement had been reached between the parties concerned. The Bill was amended so as to provide for compensation to be paid if the land subsided further at a later stage.
Sir, we feel that the Bill provides a fair and reasonable means of balancing the interests of the State, the farming community and the mining community. We therefore support the Bill.
Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Belhar, not only for his support but also for a very good summation of the purpose of this particular Bill. As he said, at the present time the Act makes no provision with regard to these new methods of mining coal. Because of this there is a conflict of interests. As he said at the conclusion of his speech, these provisions now balance the interests of the State and those of the mining and agricultural sectors.
For the benefit of those hon members who are not aware of this, I should like to point out that the new methods of mining coal result in the total extraction of a seam of coal which could lie at a considerable depth beneath the surface of the land. When extracting coal at these depths, the surface tends to subside. The question arises whether this is in the best interests of all concerned. This subject has led to a lot of discussion in South Africa in recent months, particularly in the agricultural community. Of course, it goes without saying that if the surface subsides, one can end up with pans as a result of the altering of the shape of the surface of the earth. This could also result in vlei areas should the pans collect permanent water.
Sir, while I was in Europe recently, I made a point of studying the mineral laws in West Germany, France and Great Britain, specifically in regard to this type of mining. In all three countries the principle has been accepted that if the natural resource—in this case we are dealing with coal—is of such a value that it is in the interest of the state as a whole that it should be mined, that interest should supersede all other economic interests. However, it is accepted that the holder of surface rights to that land should be compensated for any losses he may suffer. In other words, if we in South Africa have a very valuable resource underground and it is in the interest of the State that it should be mined, we should mine it.
However, it follows that the holder of surface rights must be compensated where he suffers damages. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that this will happen, and that there will be clarity in the legislation to the extent that the farmers do not have to enter into long and expensive litigation in trying to protect their rights. Therefore I thank the hon member for his support. I believe it is a good provision and I am sure it is going to make life a lot easier for both farmers and the mining industry.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the same principle will be extended to the inhabitants of Riverlea? Gold mining is now taking place directly underneath that township. I would like to know whether the State will also compensate those people, should any of their homes crack or collapse.
Mr Chairman, the Acts, as they presently stand, particularly the Mining Rights Act, do make provision for any surface damage that might be caused through mining to be investigated by the Government mining engineer and where this is proved, that compensation be paid. This protection already exists, but this Bill concerns a farmer’s entire farm that has been undermined over large areas and where subsidences might occur and the farmer suffer as a result.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
Mr Chairman, what we are dealing with here is legislation which attempts to protect the South African licensee’s rights to a large number of patents against trade boycotts. If a total trade boycott against South Africa were introduced, all South African patent rights could be withdrawn in terms of the Paris Convention and as a result of shortcomings in section 2 of the Patents Act, 1978. This could mean, in terms of the old Act, that many industries would have to stop production immediately. Even in cases of a foreign patent only being used in one corner of a factory, a whole factory’s production might have to stop. What the present legislation must obviate is the free hand which the plaintiff had, possible irregularities and the procedure for appeal which could also be used incorrectly, as well as breach of contract as a result of the granting of the patent rights to the South African licencee should the patent be withdrawn as a result of sanctions.
It goes without saying that this addition to the Act must be dealt with very carefully. The right of the inventor holding a patent, whether he is a South African or a foreigner, must be protected, because if this were not done, it would mean that the patentee would no longer be all that eager to invest in South Africa. The rights of all citizens must remain the same. Otherwise it would result in a total loss of new technology for South Africa. If one takes into account that only one in 300 of the world’s new inventions come from South Africa, one realises how important foreign patents are to South Africa.
South Africa could try to copy Russia. No patents are registered in Russia and they reserve the freedom to copy patents as they wish. Unfortunately we have not yet reached that stage of development. The Paris Convention offers a solution in another connection, namely that compulsory issuing of licences can be applied for. This is a long-drawn-out process which can take approximately four years, and in the meantime it would mean that a factory or industry’s door must remain closed until the compulsory licence has been issued. Therefore it is not an effective solution.
The amendments contained in this legislation should not conflict with section 56 of the Paris Convention, because this would have certain adverse consequences for South Africa at a later stage if it were to mean that other countries could drag us to court. Further, the patentee can still use his rights in terms of the amendments as a remedy.
Sanctions should not interfere with legislation on patents. Therefore I support this legislation.
Mr Chairman, the proposed amendments to the Patents Act indicate that the Government is preparing for steps which will be taken against foreign companies which impose sanctions by terminating licencing agreements with local companies.
One of the aims of the Bill is to withdraw a patentee’s right to an interdict and delivering if he abuses his rights by not meeting, in sufficient quantities and under reasonable conditions, the demands for a patented product in the Republic. If a patentee is not able or willing to meet the demands of the South African market, he should be satisfied with a claim for damages. Provision is further made for damages to be calculated on the basis of a reasonable royalty which would have been payable by the licencee in respect of the patent concerned. The Bill also streamlines the legal process in respect of patent cases. It would make it possible to deal with cases in a relatively short time.
The Bill has elicited mixed reaction from the trade and industry sector. On the positive side it will enable South African manufacturers to continue making profits, even if the foreign licensees terminated their licencing agreements, whether voluntarily or in accordance with foreign sanction laws. On the negative side it will engender fears in companies that their patent rights could be a sensitive issue, even in cases in which sanctions are not applicable. Pharmaceutical companies in particular are concerned. Furthermore it is felt that South Africa, by accepting the amending legislation, could find itself overstepping specific international business norms which would deprive it of any defence against co-ordinated foreign reaction. It would, however, enable foreign companies to come off scot-free if their governments instructed them to withdraw their technology from South Africa. “They can honestly say that they were powerless to do so,” a businessman with experience of Rhodesia’s fate in the Smith era said.
Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.
Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Berg River and Heidedal for their support of the Bill.
The hon member for Heidedal said that there was mixed reaction to the Bill. That is true, but having spoken to many people, I have gained the impression that we enjoy the support of most people who are knowledgeable in this field.
We referred to British patent legislation in particular. Britain is the mother of patent law, and in truth the British have stricter legislation in this area. Their legislation on compulsory licences is, in fact, stricter than ours. During a state of emergency a Minister has the right to intervene in respect of patents. We would not like to have that situation here. We believe that the courts must decide, but we want to make it possible for the courts to grant compulsory licences.
The principle of compulsory licences is a very old one in our patent law, but not one compulsory licence has been granted throughout our legal history. Hon members argued here about the circumstances under which one must be able to grant such a licence, but basically it boils down to this: If somebody does not meet South African requirements in sufficient quantities and on reasonable conditions, the Commissioner of Patents must be in a position to grant a compulsory licence to someone else to use that patent right in South Africa. Yet if I am not mistaken, not one compulsory licence has been granted in South Africa in all this time. This is as a result of the procedures laid down in the Act. It is simply impossible for people to apply for a compulsory licence with any success. One stumbling block has been the appeal procedure. If someone applied successfully for a compulsory licence and his application was opposed—often by people acting on behalf of a foreign potentate—a period of three months was granted for an appeal to be lodged. After three months they could approach the judge and ask for an extension of a further few months; there is automatic right of appeal, as has previously been the case in our ordinary courts. First it went from the Commissioner to a full bench of three judges, and after that to the Appeal Court and five judges. Therefore nine judges in total had to settle a case which possibly did not stand a reasonable chance of being successful from the beginning.
Now we are changing the procedure by removing the right of automatic appeal. In terms of the Government’s decision arising from the Hoexter report, automatic appeals in the case of civil cases have been done away with and the trial judge must hear the application to appeal within 21 court days. According to my information the judge will only grant leave to appeal if the prospective appellant has a reasonable chance of succeeding. Otherwise one can apply directly to the Chief Justice for leave to appeal. Automatic right of appeal will fall away in terms of this amendment. This and the other amendments will now make it possible to acquire compulsory patent licences.
The Bill also deals with cases resulting from infringement. We have specified in clause 2 of the Bill that except in special circumstances, the court shall not prohibit a person by interdict from infringing a patent.
It is not the main aim of this Bill to take action against sanctions, but one can read that into the Bill if one wishes to. The main idea is to promote economic development, subject to the protection of the rights of the individual and his intellectual assets and also subject to our commitments in terms of the Paris Convention.
It is completely incorrect to say that compulsory patent licences are, in effect, not possible in our country and that one can never, under any circumstances, infringe on someone’s patent rights.
I should like to thank hon members for their support.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
Mr Chairman, this legislation is aimed chiefly at protecting the consumer against exploitation. Although comparable legislation exists in other countries, South Africa did not previously have such legislation and the consumer does not have any legal protection against exploitation yet. Consequently this legislation will be able to protect the consumer very effectively against harmful business practices such as the milk culture episode of a few years ago.
I am convinced that this Bill may be applied to the benefit of South African society and that is why I support it.
Mr Chairman, I support the hon member who spoke before me. This Bill is a very good measure.
Yes, yes!
Hon members are all saying “yes” and it therefore looks as if they have all been subjected to irregular practices already. I regard this legislation as a good measure because there are many smugglers who do business and act irregularly; they handle matters wrongly. The hon member for Berg River referred to the milk culture in this regard. That particular gentleman is selling stamps at present. This Bill provides the means of clamping down on people who carry out harmful practices.
The Bill further provides for the appointment of a committee to investigate such practices. It empowers the hon the Minister to clamp down on persons guilty of such practices. A very good provision of the Bill is that a person who is wronged as a result of harmful business practices has the right of appeal. Such a person receives protection in this way. We support this Bill for these reasons.
Mr Chairman, in spite of negative comment which this Bill elicited from certain businessmen in its early stages, it is not as horrendous as they wished to suggest.
The decent business fraternity in this country will not be affected by the legislation. After all, this Bill is aimed at ensuring that the rules are complied with and that the man in the street is protected. We must guard against having the cornerstone on which we are helping to build our future in this beautiful country, namely the free market system, entirely discredited by selfish and dishonest people of business. These are people who do not give a damn for the general interests of this country and its people.
I believe that this legislation should help us to regain our confidence in the free market system. It must help in counteracting the great lack of confidence which currently prevails in our immediate community as well as in the South African community in general. I believe that this legislation will definitely achieve its objective if it restores the imbalance which exists in the free market economy of South Africa at present. This is an imbalance which has caused the economically stronger business sector always to triumph over the less affluent buyers in our courts and other places.
Hon members will recall our having had “Star Line” over the years as well as campaigns by the Argus group. Other newspaper groups also became involved. I believe that the basic reason for their involvement was to help protect the small man.
It is strange that in this imbalance in which the economically stronger business sector nearly always triumphed, it was almost always people of colour who came off second best. Perhaps this is merely a consequence of the system in this country. Perhaps we did not come across many White people, but we always believed that it was only our people who came off second best. Perhaps this was a misconception, but it was attributable to our position in the country. It is a fact that there are millions of South Africans who are not highly educated and in consequence do not fully understand the complex contracts which they enter into. One may say that it is their duty to understand what is contained in the contract that they sign. Nevertheless one cannot deny the basic need of people to buy articles or have services provided, even with contracts which they do not understand. Just as the Official Opposition is sometimes Greek to ordinary people, many of these contracts of purchase and sale are also Greek. [Interjections.] All they agree to is the basic need to buy an article or obtain a service and in the process of acquisition they are exploited.
How does one sell an economic system to people who are supposed to benefit by the system in the first place, but are always running into trouble? How does one succeed in restoring people’s confidence in the system? As with a naughty child, one sometimes has to discipline these people to protect them from themselves. I believe this legislation envisages this.
According to the latest figures which I could obtain, no fewer than 3 000 complaints about unsatisfactory business practices were received by the SA Consumer Council during April of this year. When we bear in mind that the SA Consumer Council has only four offices nationwide, we see what enormous hidden potential remains. In addition, how many people do not know where the offices of the SA Consumer Council are? [Interjections] We should make the offices of the SA Consumer Council more accessible; we should make these things easier for the public. I think the SA Consumer Council should play a large part in making the economic system work. It will also be their task to channel complaints from the public to the relevant committees. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister today—I realise this is not directly relevant to this Bill—to expand the SA Consumer Council. [Interjections.]
Order! Would hon members please lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.
Sir, perhaps my hon colleagues would listen to me if I told a few jokes.
Proceed with your jokes.
Order! The hon member may proceed.
No, Sir, I would rather not tell the joke.
Order! I meant that the hon member could proceed with his speech. [Interjections.]
Sir, I believe the activities of the SA Consumer Council should be extended into the rural areas. Apart from the normal problems that people encounter, these people also encounter an attitudinal problem in their areas. It is often a question of tolerance with the business houses which, nine out of ten times, happen to be controlled by people from a different race group.
Secondly, there are fewer business outlets in those areas, stocking the same products.
*According to my information, the offices of the SA Consumer Council are being inundated with complaints and requests, especially after recent TV programmes on the part they play. Even if we were to find the ideal constitutional dispensation for ourselves in this country, if our economy does not come into its own we shall be heading for chaos. I support the Bill.
Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their support of the Bill. I was privileged to introduce no fewer than 10 Bills in this House this year; this is an exceptional number for a Ministry in one year. Quite a number of the Bills are very technical and complex and I wish to thank hon members for the contributions they made, especially in the standing committee with their thorough assessment of the Bills.
The hon member for Berg River rightly argued that we were not dealing with an attack on the business world here. We are not dealing with “business bashing”, as it was initially argued in certain publications. There was an unjustified attack on this Bill by the Press. The Bill which is before hon members today is fundamentally the same as that which was negotiated with certain organisations a few months ago. It is customary, if organisations are affected by new legislation, that the draft legislation is submitted to such organisations for possible debate between them and us before it is introduced in Parliament so that we can ultimately come up with a good Bill and accommodate possible amendments in good time. In that process somebody leaked the Bill to the Press and an erroneous image arose.
In essence the Bill replaces the Trade Practices Act of 1976 which replaced the old Control of Monopolistic Conditions Act. The 1976 Bill is being replaced because it became apparent that it lacked certain powers which provided for action against harmful business practices. The 1976 Act does not permit action against a specific person who exploits the economic system. The hon member referred to the milk culture case; that was a specific case of abuse. The 1976 Act permits one only to issue a regulation which applies generally to the country and in terms of which that specific case may be prohibited, but which may also affect numerous other businesses which have nothing to do with exploitation but would fall within the definition. As an example, the Department of Agriculture has a seed multiplication scheme under which they give farmers seed and then buy back the seedlings which, just like the milk culture industry, could also have been prohibited. We want the power to be able to take quick action in the case of a specific person who is exploiting the economic system. We have now come forward with a Bill which is modelled on the very successful Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act. The structure is basically the same. We did this after a thorough study of consumer legislation in all comparable countries. The Bill before us contains elements from American, Canadian, Israeli and Swedish legislation. We think we have chosen what is best from all the various systems.
In essence, it therefore comes down to the formation of a committee of experts who are not subject to political influence. This is not a committee which represents the interests of any group in the country.
The idea is that the Consumer Council should go through complaints which it receives—as hon members said, it receives thousands of complaints—to establish whether a general pattern is discernible as regards a certain case. Last night, for instance, there was a television programme on motor vehicle repairs. From information supplied during the programme, it appeared that more than 900 complaints out of a total of approximately 1400 which were received by the Consumer Council offices in Pretoria during a certain month dealt with motor vehicle repairs. I therefore calculated that about two out of every three complaints are on the subject of motor vehicle repairs. If one were to analyse this profile further, one would obviously try to determine what deserved specific attention as regards motor vehicle repairs. The Consumer Council may refer such a matter to the Business Practices Committee which may investigate it. This could lead to a set of consumer codes regarding motor vehicle repairs which would then apply nationwide.
As far as specific people are concerned, there was the case in Pretoria for instance of a certain Lodewijks who cheated people, especially old people, in repairing television sets. He took their television sets in and simply left them somewhere in a store. When they started making inquiries about them weeks later, his story was that they had to pay R800 or R900 to get a set back. They usually abandoned the matter. Sir, this was a specific person who exploited the economic system. If the Consumer Council receives many complaints, it may also pass them on in such a case to the committee of experts. The latter may institute a rapid investigation and submit a report to the Minister. We can then enforce a standstill arrangement—this was taken over from American competition law—and prohibit such a person from pursuing his activities until such time as the results of a further investigation are known. The latter report must be available within three months, however.
Sir, what we have here is a committee of experts who have to advise the Minister in the first place. In the second place, it must submit a written report to the Minister. This report, whether accepted or rejected by the Minister, is a public document and it must be tabled in Parliament. The Minister is responsible to Parliament.
Furthermore, if any individual is instructed to discontinue an activity, or if he has to conduct it in accordance with rules which are set out in the report of the committee of experts, he may appeal against this in court, so this avenue is open to him. A similar court also exists in terms of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act and, since 1955, also in terms of legislation on the control of monopolistic conditions which existed. This court has not sat in 33 years.
I think this court has a great deal of symbolic value; one has the right of appeal. If a good committee of experts judges a person’s case on the basis of pure legal principles, however, he does not really stand a chance of having his appeal succeed. In the case of the Competition Board it is actually a feather in its cap that this court has never been in sitting. Four appeals were lodged and all four were withdrawn after consideration. Sir, I hope that it will never be necessary for this court to sit. Nevertheless the very fact of its existence has symbolic value.
The hon member for Diamant raised a very important matter. I am referring to the economic system according to which we operate, namely the free market system—the capitalistic system.
It is essential that our people have confidence in it, because a great deal of political debate actually deals with a choice between economic systems. Somebody has cause to be aggrieved if he has fallen prey to serious exploitation such as the loss of his savings or if he makes lifelong payments for a funeral benefit for a dependant and there is no action on the death of that dependant. Such a person could feel that he is the victim of the system. When an individual is affected personally, he can lose his perspective entirely and feel that he no longer has confidence in the economic system. That is the importance underlying what the hon member for Diamant said. In our country in particular, where there is a point of contact on the one hand between highly developed businessmen and illiterate and undeveloped people on the other, we should go out of our way to create mechanisms to enable us to act in the interests of people who are exploited. I am not implying by this that businessmen in the country are a bunch of exploiters; the hon member for Diamant expressed similar sentiments. In general, the business fraternity are not exploiters. Businessmen in general need not fear this legislation.
The hon member also referred to the Consumer Council, its role and the offices of the council. We want to accord new significance and content to consumerism in South Africa. We feel that consumerism will only now come into its own. We are creating a legal framework within which representative bodies and the consumer representative—there are 25 representative bodies in the country altogether—may take action. Because they will be able to take effective action in terms of this legislation, they will grow in stature. The Consumer Council will grow in stature if a number of consumers approach the council with a fair complaint and action can be taken within days or even weeks to remove the cause of their grievance through the powers vested in the Minister in terms of this legislation. One of the consumer bodies recently approached me in connection with a complaint about pyramid sales schemes. I told the group that it was interesting to talk to them, but that I could not help them at all as the Commercial Branch of the Witwatersrand Police had been engaged in attempting to put together a case against pyramid sales schemes for two years without success. I told them that it would be of no avail to go to any further trouble. We would be better advised to wait for new legislation so that we could refer this matter to the Business Practices Committee.
We are very busy looking for people to serve on the Business Practices Committee. We are interested in balanced people—people with a good knowledge of business and a legal background; people who have made a success, with a clean public image, and people who will command the respect of society. Fortunately there are numerous such people in the country, but unfortunately we can choose only seven of them. I hope that the people who are ultimately chosen by us and recommended to the Cabinet—which has the power to make those appointments—will inspire confidence.
I hope that we shall really succeed in infusing new significance into consumerism. I also hope that this legislation will contribute to accommodating or solving people’s grievances.
There is a further facet of the legislation which I want to illustrate and this was mentioned in the Second Reading speech. This legislation has nothing to do with wages and salaries. It does not function in the same sphere at all and, if the impression has been created that we are involved in a possible freeze on salaries and wages, it is totally untrue.
This Bill also makes provision for the investigation of complaints about possible excessive price increases. That is all. Then certain recommendations may also be made to the Minister. The Price Control Act has been on the Statute Book for a quarter of a century and a new system of price control is not being created now. We are opposed to price control in general and we have moved away from it. Price control is applied in only a few cases. The price of empty mineral water bottles, the retail price of petrol and the wholesale price of diesel are controlled. There are four cases in which price control is applied. We do not wish to apply price control, but if unjustified price rises should occur, they may be investigated and the Minister may order the business concerned, on the recommendation of the Business Practices Committee, to place an advertisement and furnish his reasons before raising prices again in future. Then one actually focuses the national spotlight on his activities.
We should very much like our people to feel that there is a mechanism for the investigation of their complaints about unfair price increases. If somebody writes to me because I am responsible as a representative of the Government for consumerism in the country, and complains to me about a certain price rise, I can actually do nothing about it. At the moment I can do absolutely nothing. I have no power to go to a business and ask why the proprietor has raised his price so sharply. Here is an opportunity, however—one will not abuse it because one does not wish to institute a witchhunt—in which isolated cases may be investigated in future to expose reasons for price increases about which people feel aggrieved.
With these few words I wish to thank hon members for their support and for all the support which I have received from them during the past session.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at
TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS— see col 14076.
Order! On behalf of Mr Speaker, as Chairman, I have to present the First Report of a joint meeting of the Rules Committees, dated 14 June 1988, as follows:
- (1) That Mr A J de Villiers, Secretary to Parliament, be permitted to retire on pension from the Parliamentary Service with effect from 1 October 1988.
- (2) That with effect from 1 October 1988—
- (a) the vacancy caused by Mr De Villiers’s retirement be filled by the appointment of Mr G P C de Kock, BA, Deputy Secretary, as Secretary to Parliament;
- (b) the office of Deputy Secretary be filled by the appointment of Mr R C Douglas, BA, Senior Under Secretary;
- (c) Mr C J P Lucas, B Juris, Under Secretary, be appointed as Senior Under Secretary; and
- (d) Mr K Hahndiek, BA, Table Assistant, be appointed as Under Secretary.
Unless notice of objection to the Report is given at the next sitting of one of the Houses, the Report will be considered as adopted.
Mr Chairman, I move:
Mr Chairman, I have no objection, but I just want to express the point of view that it might not be possible for us to have a positive debate on this without the members who want to make a contribution having a record of the evidence. However, I have no objection to precedence being given to this item.
I did not quite understand what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said. Would he repeat it for our information?
I have no objections to that request, but it would have been better for members who are making a contribution in this debate to have a record of the evidence that was placed before the committee.
Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has no objection to the report being debated before the House this afternoon. With respect, however, I have to tell him that as far as we are concerned we are debating the report itself which has been signed by the committee that sat to deliberate on the contents of the report.
Order! I do not think there is any necessity for any further discussion. Is the House agreed that we give precedence to Order No 10?
Yes!
Draft resolution agreed to.
Mr Chairman, I move:
All hon members are now in possession of this report. The first comment that I wish to make is the submission contained in paragraph 9 which reads as follows:
This report therefore exonerates the hon member for Stanger, Mr Yunus Moolla.
After this matter was debated in the House, a motion was moved for this enquiry. At the time the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was recorded as saying the following, and I quote from Hansard, 24 February 1988, col 2114:
The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council continued, and I quote:
He also said:
He also said the following:
I thought that I should just refer to these statements recorded in Hansard before proceeding to discuss the report itself.
The question at issue here is whether a cheque or cheques were handed to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I want to quote from paragraph 6.4.1 on page 7 of the report:
Mr Pillay is further recorded as having admitted that he had drawn plans for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and that he had submitted an account for R600 in respect of his services, which had been paid by the State.
I would think that somebody who gives evidence under oath, somebody whose credentials were found to be worthy enough to allocate land to this person …
He was insolvent.
Yes, he was insolvent, but he was considered worthy enough to be given the right to purchase land. I must believe that what he said here under oath must be the facts of the situation. However, that is something that will have to be examined by the department concerned. I wish to read further from page vii, paragraph 6.5, and I quote:
All I want to say at this point in time is that the findings of the committee recorded in this document, completely disprove what was stated by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I referred to these matters earlier when I quoted his own words as recorded in Hansard.
I believe that this report contains submissions and admissions made by Mr Pillay, who obviously is known to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as a result of some form of association. He, in fact, procured or canvassed for donations and passed them on for the benefit of the NPP as an inducement to be considered sympathetically when the allocation of work from the Department of Housing was considered. That in itself represents the crux of this report. The only conclusion I can come to is that Mr Pillay got work from the House of Delegates. In order to get that, he greased somebody’s palm in order to be enriched in the process.
Grease for peace!
Fortunately for us, an inquiry had been instituted to determine whether the hon member for Stanger had committed a breach of privilege. In fact, it has turned out to reveal a whole new situation which is even graver than the indictment he has directed at the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his capacity as the hon the Minister of Housing.
I take it that when this committee sat, opportunity would have been given to everybody to state their case and to prove or disprove whatever was included in this report in the form of answers and questions. In the absence of anything to the contrary, or any qualifications, I must take it that the findings of the report are, in fact, the outcome of a very incisive investigation. All matters pertaining to this report were adequately canvassed. This document contains the final view of the committee.
I want to say to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that on the basis of what this report finds, the most honourable thing anybody in that position could do, would be to vacate the official position that they hold. If the person feels aggrieved about this and feels that there is more information which should be disclosed which may exonerate him, he should allow this enquiry to go further. However, until such further developments which may flow from this report, I believe—and I say this with much pain—that the only honourable thing that can be done, on the basis of this report which has been widely publicised and of which people everywhere are aware, is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should, for the present, step down.
Mr Chairman, I want to support the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in his request that we unanimously support the report before us. I say this because this report has been adopted by representatives of all the parties which are represented in this Chamber. I would merely like to state that this report was adopted on 3 June 1988 by all those who were present at the meeting. Hon members who were present were: The hon member Mr Thaver, as chairman, the hon member for Cavendish, the hon member for Actonville, the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Lenasia Central.
The hon member for Lenasia Central is a representative of the National Peoples Party on this committee. It is significant that he saw absolutely nothing wrong with this report, save one minor point, which does not relate to any finding of the report. It merely relates to a question of an interpretation of rules.
I want to say that we adopted this report unanimously. While saying that, I want to take this opportunity of complimenting the members of the committee who considered the subject matter of the report, because if one views this report against the background which gave rise to allegations of bribery, maladministration and the allocation and alienation of land and service station sites, one finds that it is the natural culmination of a theme which has consistently been heard in this House.
Reading through this report, I want to make so bold as to say that the credibility of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is most certainly on the line. I want to take up the point made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who said that the only honourable thing for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do, would be to resign from his position as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Thereby, I believe, he would in some small measure contribute to the uplifting of the image of this House. I also call upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do just that.
What worries me in this report is that in paragraph 8 the credibility of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been assailed in no uncertain terms. I quote from the report:
This statement was accepted by a representative of the National Peoples Party, who endorses this report fully. In a sense, what this report says is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has misled this House.
I want to quote from Hansard of 24 February 1988, when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said, and I quote:
When pressed further, he said on 9 March 1988:
I would like to quote the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s statement to this House on 24 February 1988 (Hansard: Delegates, Col 2114):
I want to say to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council this afternoon that the ball is fairly and squarely thrown back into his court and it is about time he did something about it.
The last time Parliament was misled was at the time of the Information Scandal. I do not have to remind hon members of this House about the consequences thereof.
You cannot compare the two.
The hon member for Moorcross says that we cannot compare the two. I am now talking about a matter of principle and not about the amount of money that was involved. I am talking about a matter of principle. If one talks about principle … [Interjections.] We are aware that the hon the State President has assured the South African community that he stands for clean administration.
So do we.
I am glad to hear the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council say that he also stands for clean administration. If that is so, then I would say he should put his money where his mouth is and resign.
I do not have foot and mouth disease.
Let us look at the findings of this report. The guts of this report is really a statement made by Mrs Pillay, who says in paragraph 6.5:
That was the reaction of an honest individual; a reasonable person. I say that that is something we should consider when we talk about clean administration and I would commend that to the hon the State President as well.
Another thing that concerns me is that an amount of R600 was paid to Procor Realtors for a plan that was submitted to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for a private residence. I am aware that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said that that is a personal matter.
If that was done it was irregular, but it was not done.
Now he says that that was irregular. No, Sir, that was not irregular, it was worse than that. I believe that that was theft under false pretences.
Ask the hon the Minister of the Budget …
No, Sir, I say it was theft under false pretences, because I would like to know who paid that cheque.
Where is the cheque?
Did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council pay that cheque? If he did so, he should prove payment of that. I call upon him to tell us who paid that cheque. Was it the department?
I will answer you.
I am pleased that he says that he will answer me, because I submit that if the department paid that cheque, it was certainly fraud and theft under false pretences because that was for a private residence. It was not for a Ministerial home and therefore the department should not have paid.
I agree with you.
I am pleased that he agrees with me, because if he fails to prove to this House that he himself paid for that cheque, then he agrees with me that he was responsible and he is guilty of theft under false pretences. [Interjections.]
This, I believe, is the tip of the iceberg. This House has heard of many instances where irregularities have taken place. We are aware that large donations have been made to the NPP. When one looks at the evidence it appears that booksellers also contributed to the National Peoples Party funds. I now call upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to tell us what amount of money his party received from booksellers and what contracts those booksellers were allocated. [Interjections.] In terms of the definition in the Oxford dictionary, I believe that that, too, would be bribery.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has already drawn the attention of the House to a statement made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House on 24 February 1988, namely:
Yes, I did not give an order to Citiplan.
Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council tells me that he did not give instructions to Citiplan. I believe that the evidence before the House Committee proves otherwise. Moreover, this is not the only matter in respect of which the committee is at variance with what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has told this House. We know from this report what the credibility of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is.
As strong as ever!
As strong as ever. We shall find that cheque. Ask the hon the Minister of the Budget where the cheque is.
I also want to take this opportunity to compliment the hon member for North Coast, because according to this report, pressure was brought to bear on him by two hon members of the NPP, namely the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon member for Moorcross, not to present documents to the committee after he had been subpoenaed to do so. Only after he had been informed that Mr S Pachai, who is the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, and Mr M Thaver, the National Chairman of the NPP, had no objection to the relevant papers being produced, did Mr N Jumuna, the hon member for North Coast, in fact …
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he would agree that it was the party’s decision that the Treasurer should not surrender the books, and whether he would also agree that in terms of Mr Speaker’s ruling it was not necessary for the committee to have access to the deposit and cash books of the NPP? [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I should respectfully like to tell the hon member for Moorcross that that is not a point of order. [Interjections.] He will have ample time to speak during this debate and I would suggest that he raise that matter immediately after I have finished. [Interjections.]
I should like to refer to paragraph 6.2 on page (V) in which it is stated that the hon member for North Coast said under oath that—
I want to ask the hon member for Moorcross what gave him that right. Did he have something to hide? Why did he bring pressure to bear on the hon member for North Coast? He must tell this House that, and I expect him to do so.
Mr Chairman, I think the time is ripe for some straight talk without beating about the bush. During the past three sessions there have been allegations of maladministration, bribery and corruption, which allegations were vehemently opposed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his supporters on the other side of the House. [Interjections.]
With regard to this report, I must first of all commend the members of this committee who, I can imagine, underwent tremendous pressure but who nevertheless displayed tremendous care and diligence in extracting evidence and preparing this report, which is a concise report.
What I should also like to highlight today is that the time is ripe to introduce an absolute degree of honesty and stability into this House. In so doing, I should like to refer to section 6.4.1 on page 7 of the report. Mr D G Pillay’s evidence proves that there is maladministration in the Administration: House of Delegates. I quote from the report:
What does this prove? It proves that there is absolute maladministration in the Administration: House of Delegates which was so strongly denied and defended in this House.
Many hon members on that side of the House in defence of their maladministration continually asked for proof and I should now like them to reply to this report which emanates from sworn statements made under oath. No one could have thought of committing perjury here. If this report contains any statement which is untrue, the person who made it is liable to be prosecuted for perjury. I therefore advise hon members on that side of the House who do not believe this report that if they want to contest it they should charge the people who gave evidence, with perjury. What is even more simple is that it is really bad when a bad man claims to be a saint. My tongue recoils from using the word “honourable” with regard to certain members of this House who deliberately deceived hon members of this House by dealing in mendacity.
Order! Did the hon member say “deliberately misleading”?
Yes, Sir.
Order! The hon member will have to withdraw that.
Mr Chairman, I abide by your wise ruling and I withdraw it. I should like to prove something here. Unfortunately I am compelled to refer to Hansard, No 3,22-25 February 1988, col 2114, and I quote:
If that is not misleading evidence then this report is misleading. However, I have to go by this report as it was drawn up by hon members and the evidence was given by people who were under oath. If we accept this report then the statement of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council contained in Hansard is an absolute untruth which was deliberately contrived to mislead this House. Here I want to refer—and I am deliberately provoked to go to extremes …
Order! I should like to call upon the hon member for Camperdown to choose his words more carefully. I think that “deliberately contrived to mislead the House” is not acceptable. The hon member will have to withdraw that.
I shall withdraw that, Sir.
Order! The hon member may proceed.
In paragraph 6.4.2 this report states as follows:
And yet the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that he did not know of any such company. Therefore if there is any suggestion of untruth, it flows from the report, not from my words. I am merely interpreting what the report says. They are not my words, but I shall abide by your ruling, Mr Chairman.
I want to place a lot of credibility on the statement by Mrs Pillay quoted in paragraph 6.5 of the report. Having been startled, she described the cheques paid by her husband as being tantamount to bribery.
She lives on them.
What a simple person! I do not think you should allow that remark from my learned friend over there, Mr Chairman. He does not make any valuable contribution in this House; he simply sits there making futile interjections. That is all he is fit for and that is all he is in this House for. That is why he was nominated.
Score your point, man!
My point is that as from today I have no confidence in—my intention was to use the word “dishonourable”; I will not be allowed to say that—in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I consider that he should do the honourable thing, as we in this House are concerned with efforts to dispel the dark clouds of maladministration that are casting a deep pall over this hon House, and resign forthwith. That would be the honourable thing to do. If he is to retain that title “honourable” before his name then he should resign straight away.
Again, what I am concerned about here is the R600 paid by the State for a private plan that was drawn. It is common knowledge that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was endeavouring to buy a certain public property from the Durban City Council. It was a public place converted into a mansion—a bullet-proof house. For this purpose he drew up plans according to Mr Pillay’s report … [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I think we have had a healthy debate and I take it in the spirit in which it was done.
I do not wish to be technical and deal with the matters relating to that committee and its terms of reference. I want to place on record that I very seriously objected to a statement made by the hon member for Stanger—let us examine his statement—that “the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council received a cheque from a building contractor”.
Now, my fears when I objected—and I moved for the appointment of that select committee which is now referred to a house committee—concerned headlines like these: “Rajbansi got R10 000 cheque”. I was concerned that the general public would misconstrue that as meaning that I had received a cheque for my own pocket. That was my objection.
As far as this report is concerned I want to make it very clear that the party took a decision to write to the chairman asking him not to ask officials to get books, but that the chairman of that committee must make the necessary request officially to the party, and that the party would produce the books. That was the decision of the party’s caucus and it was conveyed in writing. I received a letter of acknowledgement in return. I want to place that on record.
As far as the investigations are concerned, I have obtained a copy of the evidence as the hon member for Springfield may have obtained a copy of the evidence. I cannot fault quite a few of the findings but I want to place on record that Mr M S Shah was the only NPP member. Whether he was misunderstood or not, he reported back to us that he did not support the report. He can clarify that when he returns from his leave. He officially reported to the party that he did not support the report.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In the light of what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has just said, will the hon the Chairman of the House advise the House whether it was competent for any member of the select committee to report back to his caucus on the work of that committee?
Order! That is not a point of order.
I want to place on record that I had previously said that I did not deal with Procor. The hon member for Camperdown says that I misled the House, but I stated that the House of Delegates did not deal with Procor and that I was not aware of certain things. That is a factual statement and the truth.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a question?
Please, no questions. I only have limited time. I want to deal with my house plan.
What about Isipingo?
As far as Isipingo is concerned, it is a contract with the Isipingo Municipality itself—it has nothing to do with the House of Delegates. The evidence produced in the committee was that an hon member of Solidarity introduced Procor to the Isipingo Municipality. That is recorded in the evidence.
What about the waiver?
There was no waiver. If somebody boasted about a waiver it is not true—there was no waiver. I want to place on record what I had said before in February this year, namely that our administration does not allocate any contracts on the basis of donations to anybody. I stand by that statement today.
I also want to place on record that Clarion Homes had made submissions which came to my desk. The one was the Isipingo Municipality which I rejected and I recommended to the Housing Development Board that it must be rejected. Then Clarion Homes applied for some construction in Chatsworth. It was neither the best nor the second best and I supported the rejection. I want to say that right up to today our administration does not award any contracts on the basis of donations to anyone. I want to place on record today that Clarion Homes has not made any donation to the NPP. Let us look at the findings of the committee. I objected to a statement that I had received a cheque. I quote from paragraph 6.2 of the report:
This refers to the hon member for North Coast—
He is a fund-raiser. The report continues:
Paragraph 7 further clears me in that it says:
This newspaper report with the heading “Rajbansi got R10 000 cheque” is therefore wrong.
What about your Hansard reports?
The hon member should read in totality what I said on 23 February of this year. I did not give Citiplan Realtors or Citiplan Architects any contracts. We should make a distinction between the two firms of Citiplan Realtors and Citiplan Architects.
I want to place on record that as soon as this report was presented, I asked the Director-General and the Chief Director of the Department of the Budget to investigate the matter of the so-called R600 that was supposed to have been paid to me. This report, however, is very cleverly worded.
Are you denying that you signed it?
There was an attempt on the part of this House Committee not to hurt me on matters relating to the terms of reference. The committee then went out of its way to ensure that the person who made this statement was cleared. It is contradictory. It states that the cheque was not given to me. This is officially contained in paragraph 6.2. The cheque was not given to me.
I say let us find the cheque for R600. I ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and the Chief Director of his department to investigate this matter thoroughly. I ask the Director-General to investigate this matter thoroughly. I am even prepared to refer the matter to the Auditor-General. They will not find that cheque, because no such payment was made. I am placing on record what was reported to the Director-General.
If that is the finding, certain parts of the findings are suspect; that it is very clear. When the hon member for Stanger made a statement that I received a cheque, it was immediately understood that he was saying that the cheque was for my personal account. The committee has cleared me. I did not personally receive the cheque. It was a question of semantics. It was a question of being technical and splitting hairs as far as the word “receive” was concerned. That is why I objected and moved for the appointment of the House Committee.
The House Committee has found that the cheque was, in fact, a donation to the NPP. According to the treasurer it was deposited in the bank account of the NPP. Proof of this was produced before the committee by means of a copy of the deposit slip. From the report it is clear that the money did not go into my personal account, something which I understood the hon member for Stanger had implied when he said that I had received a cheque. I am now quite satisfied with the statement made by the treasurer that the money did not go into my personal account.
Unfortunately there is quibbling in the report with regard to the word “receive”. The report leaves the impression that I did receive a cheque physically. However, the evidence before the committee is very clear that the cheque was given to Mr Naidoo, the fund-raiser of the NPP. He brought it to my office during a meeting. After I had looked at it, the cheque was given to the treasurer who was with me.
I want to substantiate this. I want to compliment the hon member for North Coast. I think he gave excellent evidence before the House Committee. I want to read something from the report, but I wish to state first of all that there are contradictions. In one part of the report it confirmed that I did not receive the cheque. In another part of the report it says that they could not find clear evidence about this. The report in itself is therefore contradictory. I want to quote from the evidence:
Chairman]: Please continue. [Mr N Jumuna]: Mr Rajbansi had a look at those cheques and told me to have them deposited. It was passed over to me.
Chairman]: By Mr A J V Naidoo? [Mr N Jumuna]: Yes.
It is therefore clear from the evidence of the Treasurer that the cheque was passed by Mr A J V Naidoo to the treasurer. I only had a look at the cheque. Then Mr A E Lambat, the hon member for Actonville, asked a question, and I quote:
On page 32, paragraph 3.7 of the evidence, Mr D G Pillay confirms that the cheque was given to Mr Naidoo. The valuable information given to me when I appeared before the committee, was by the chairman of the committee. I want to quote from page 11 of paragraph 14 of the evidence
The chairman officially informed me that according to the evidence of Mr D J Pillay and the treasurer the cheque was handed to Mr N Jumuna by Mr A G V Naidoo. On two occasions I was informed that according to their evidence I only had a look at the cheque. What is this? In one breath the committee clears me.
There were two fears. The first was as to whether I physically received the cheque. In paragraph 6.2 the committee clears me. I denied that I received a cheque. That is correct. When a man makes a statement that the hon member for Phoenix received a cheque, these are the headlines hon members are concerned about. Even today this headline is incorrect, because in paragraph 7 this report clearly states that the cheque was not for my personal account. The chairman of the committee informed me, when I appeared before the committee, that evidence was given before the committee that this cheque was handed to Mr N Jumuna, the treasurer, by Mr A G V Naidoo. I was officially informed of this by the chairman of this committee, who is the most important man in the committee. I received this official notification. This proves that physically the cheque was not given to me. I am not manufacturing these things; this is the record of evidence.
The other matter is in connection with the R600. I hope the evidence is read. The evidence referred to professional services. Why does one question a person? It is very clear that one member of this committee went out of his way to investigate something which was outside the terms of reference. I want to place on record that our Administration does not give any contracts on the basis of donations. I also want to place on record that Clarion Homes has not given any donation and Procor has not given any donation. Let us not confuse Procor as having anything to do with the House of Delegates. One might have persons who are in common, but I want to place on record that everything in our Administration is done on the basis of clean administration and merit.
I just want to use as an example the R600 that is supposed to have been paid for the drawing of plans. I ask anyone to confirm with the Director-General that I called in both him and the Chief Director of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services and asked them to produce details of that payment. The whole of this morning they checked with the buying section and with the architects and both say that no cheque was given to Mr D G Pillay or Citiplan Architects. That is ample proof of the fact that when I look at the evidence, I find the conclusion not to be consistent with the evidence.
I want to ask this House that we examine this in the name of truth. The treasurer said to the chairman, in response to a question, that the cheque was passed directly to him by Mr A G V Naidoo and that I had a look at it. The chairman informed me and confirmed that evidence was produced before this committee. Evidence was given to this committee that this cheque was handed by Mr A G V Naidoo to Mr N Jumuna, the treasurer, as it appears on p 11 of the evidence. It is very clear that this committee could not find that I had misled this House. There is no evidence of this in the entire record of evidence. No one placed on record that the cheque was given to me by a building contractor or even to the party. There is no proof in all the evidence. I hope that The Citizen will look at this.
I accept that if anyone draws up plans and the department pays for these plans, it is fraud. I accept that. I was shocked to read that. It is theft. It is the highest theft, and if anybody does that, they should resign. However, I was surprised when I read the evidence. I felt that the last sentence of paragraph 6.4.2 should not be in the report. Paragraph 6.4.1 also deals with Mr Pillay.
I want to request all hon members of this House to obtain a copy of the evidence and to read it over the weekend. Hon members will find that leading questions were put which were irrelevant and outside the terms of reference of this investigation. Leading questions were put, so that the evidence was not given voluntarily. I want to say that this report clears me and I must compliment the hon member for North Coast. He spoke the truth and so the report clears me and proves that I did not mislead the House. As far as the R600 cheque is concerned, when I look at the evidence, paragraph 6 to the last sentence, this is not inconsistent with the evidence. I ask myself where in the evidence was it mentioned that I personally received a cheque? The treasurer of the party and the Chairman of the Committee both owe me an explanation. That chairman informed me that the cheque had been passed on to Mr N Jumuna by Mr A G V Naidoo. Therefore according to the evidence it was very clear …
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The terms of reference of this particular committee were not that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was given a cheque by a building contractor. [Interjections.] The terms of reference were that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council received a cheque from a building contractor. Furthermore …
All right, he is wasting my time, Mr Chairman.
Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.
Mr Chairman, the terms of reference are by and large, and I quote:
However, nobody gave me a cheque. I want to be critical of this committee that produced this report. It is very clear from the grammar who wrote this report. [Interjections.] First they obviously cleared me. Then it is also clear that they wanted to help the hon member for Stanger. Select committees have a tradition in Parliament, similar to House committees. Anything is possible in the House of Delegates.
You have proved that.
Firstly the committee cleared me on two aspects. Let us look at the findings in paragraph 6.4.1 and 6.4.2. [Interjections.] I am not inconsistent. Even if one examines D G Pillay’s evidence one will find that this was brought in here just to cloud the whole issue:
However, if one looks at the evidence, this evidence referred to other services. Therefore, Mr Chairman, I move:
I do this because nothing in the evidence can clear the hon member for Stanger. Therefore, while the committee clears me it also clears the hon member for Stanger. As regards the findings of the report in certain areas, I cannot reject it in its totality. However, the best thing I can do now, is to ask the hon the State President to refer this report to a judge of the Supreme Court so that the evidence can be examined to find out whether certain findings are inconsistent with the evidence. One should also find out if value was attached to the evidence of the hon the member for North Coast, which the hon member for Springfield indicated.
I want to compliment the hon member for North Coast, because he cleared me beyond all reasonable doubt. However, there is no evidence—not a single sentence in the entire evidence—to say that I physically received a cheque. If I looked at a cheque while it was passed, does that mean that I received that cheque? I hope that newspapers like The Citizen will correct this misleading headline. [Interjections.]
The important thing is that I stood up in this House on the following day and moved for the appointment of a house committee on a question of privilege. This is unprecedented in Parliament, namely the suggestion that a report of a house committee be referred to a Judge of the Supreme Court because, as I have said, anything is possible in the House of Delegates. [Interjections.] Anything is possible in the House of Delegates, and we must now have an independent, impartial investigation. It is very clear that they knew that we would take this matter to a higher authority and that is why this committee cleared me and simultaneously attempted to clear the hon member for Stanger.
[Inaudible.]
The hon member for Camperdown referred to the R600. I say it is fraud; it is theft; it stinks to high heaven, but I want to know why my administration cannot find any details of such a payment. [Interjections.] I want to say that there is no evidence whatsoever. [Interjections]
Order!
In connection with paragraph 6.4.1, concerning Mr D G Pillay and his contracts, I want to say that I have, in fact, stated with regard to Clarion’s application that they were not happy. It was rejected by me. [Interjections.] We had nothing to do with Procor. Let us not play with words. We did not deal with Procor and at that stage I was not aware of this, and still the House of Delegates does not deal with Procor.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe the hon member Mr Nowbath has been knocked out. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.
With regard to those who came to this House today in jubilation, I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to accept my bona fides when I say that there are certain findings that are not inconsistent with the evidence.
As far as paragraph 6.4.2 is concerned—my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance is here, too—if anyone uses departmental money for his own use, he should be put in prison. [Interjections.] However, there is nothing of that nature. We do not know about it. I therefore believe that certain conclusions have been manufactured. On the one hand they concede that I did not receive the cheque—they concede that Mr A G V Naidoo received the cheque—and then in another section of the report they contradict this and say that evidence to the contrary has been proved. However, the hon member for Springfield should have stood up and said: “Here is the evidence that proves the contrary.”
I cannot reject the report because I have to accept a major part of the report, but I cannot accept certain parts of the report which are not inconsistent with the evidence. Therefore, let us reexamine whether this House should have any more house committees. [Interjections.] Let us re-examine that because select committees and house committees have a proud tradition in South African Parliamentary history. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, one can imagine how the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council feels. He seems to be in hot water and we all know what happens when a person is drowning—he will clutch at straws.
In regard to the submissions made by other hon members in connection with the House Committee’s report, I do not think we can sit back here and deny the fact that this is the true finding of the House Committee, otherwise we would be insulting the House Committee. [Interjections.] The NPP had their say. They also made their submissions insofar as the House Committee was concerned and there is no question of their coming forward now and denying that any submissions were made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I indicated that a submission was made by me. I appeared before the House Committee.
Mr Chairman, I only have a few minutes and at this time I should like to respect the report of the House Committee. It is obvious that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will dispute the facts.
I want to state at this hour that the most honourable thing for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do is to resign honourably. Much has been said and there has been criticism; right now criticism is being levelled in the media. The Citizen is carrying an article which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council claims is distorted and this unfortunately is the situation. He has been very inconsistent not only with regard to aspects of this nature, but on many other occasions.
I think that to sit here and blame other people is the worst line of action one can take. I want to say that in view of all the inconsistencies in this House and the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on several occasions has misled this House …
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Havenside said that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has misled the House on several occasions. That is unparliamentary.
Order! Did the hon member for Havenside say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council misled the House?
Yes, Sir.
Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.
I withdraw that remark. [Time expired.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.
Division demanded.
Ayes—20: Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Dasoo, I C; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Kathrada, I; Lambat, A E; Moodliar, C N; Padayachy, M S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Ramduth, K; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.
Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Jumuna, N.
Noes—15: Abramjee, E; Baig, M Y; Collakoppen, S; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Manikkam, E J; Nadasen, P C; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Pillay, C; Rajbansi, A; Rampersadh, H.
Tellers: Akoob, A S; Govender, M.
Question agreed to and amendment dropped.
Mr Chairman, now that the various Votes have been passed by Parliament it is imperative that the various hon Ministers must ensure that spending is limited to the amounts budgeted. With the present state of the economy there is no room for overspending at all. In fact, the various hon Ministers would do the country a great deal of good if the actual expenditure was reduced to below the budgeted amounts. Every Government department should place its emphasis on improved productivity. Money should be spent to improve and maintain productivity.
The time has come for the Government to ensure that people are employed on merit and merit alone. The days of employing people merely to provide employment and also as a boost for the NP has passed. The Government is requested to employ experienced people at senior level from the private sector, if necessary, to run the various departments in a more professional and businesslike manner.
Improved productivity should be encouraged by providing staff with incentives for the completion of various jobs or activities. I believe privatisation and deregulation will go a long way in improving productivity but at this stage they are only words used by the Government. Nothing concrete has been done at this stage to privatise any of the so-called semi-Government institutions.
The single most important stumbling block facing the economy is the apartheid policy of the present Government. The lack of adequate reform has resulted in two major problems facing the economy today. Firstly, there is the increase in the call for sanctions. We believe that sanctions are extremely harmful to the country as a whole, including the people that they purport to help, namely the Black people of this country. Instead of sending delegates overseas to explain to business people that sanctions are harmful, it is time that the Government took action against the root cause of sanctions. It should attack the root cause of the problem and not the symptoms thereof. The only way to avoid sanctions is for the Government to take sincere steps in the reform process. A good starting point would be to scrap the Group Areas Act.
Another major problem is uncertainty. Due to uncertainty, several leading businessmen and professional people have emigrated from the country. Those that remain are cautious in their investment strategies. It is found that money which could assist in improving the economy, is left lying in the bank.
The only solution to these problems is to hold a national convention of all interested parties to dissolve the political crisis faced by this country. This country can only survive if all its people—both Blacks and Whites—realise that the one cannot work without the other. The country’s wealth depends entirely on consensus between all the population groups.
According to Mr Jan Steyn of the Urban Foundation the country requires a growth rate of at least 5% every year. Every year that the economy grows less than 5%, the number of unemployed increases. According to him, what is needed is a wide-spread analysis of ways in which to promote growth. He also urged that this should be treated as a crisis. We do indeed have a growth crisis. The present indications are that the growth rate will be between 2% and 3% every year. This is hardly sufficient if the population is to increase by approximately 8% per year. The situation is critical and the only way to reverse this is by creating stability in the economy and by means of sincere reform. Reform will always help to curb sanctions and the withdrawal of foreign capital.
One of the major problems faced by the private sector at present is to do advance tax planning. Several amendments to the tax systems have in recent years been effected retroactively. Even though some of the amendments relate to the closure of existing loopholes, the private sector should not be blamed for discovering loopholes created by the Government. It is the prerogative of the taxpayer to plan his tax liability and to avoid tax as far as possible. This is perfectly legal.
What is illegal, though, is to avoid tax by contravening the Income Tax Act. The Government should employ the calibre of staff or consultants employed by the private sector to go through all the legislation before it is passed in Parliament. They will hopefully identify all loopholes before legislation is passed. One of the worst examples of retroactive legislation is the minimum tax on companies, the MTC, which the hon the Minister has already announced.
The hon the Minister has admitted that this is a temporary measure to reduce tax flow shortfalls. Why should the private sector be penalised for the lack of cash flow of management on the part of the public sector? What should have been done instead, is that the Government should have amended its cash flow in respect of non-critical areas to adapt it to its cash flow resources.
We have discussed the Budget several times this year. We have already discussed the shortfalls in yesterday’s debate on the supplementary Budget. We were surprised that there was no announcement by the hon the Minister to increase old age pensions for our people.
I now come to the economic activities which are slowing down, according to the latest Press reports. I want to quote what Volkskas says:
However, other economists disagree, saying interest rates should have been increased by more than 1% last month. They said last month’s rise was by no means the last this year.
Volkskas further believes South Africans have become sensitive to interest rate movements and that individuals and businesses have already cut down on expenditures in the wake of this year’s rate rises.
It says the underlying financial position of the consumer is not strong and, as far as risk and liquidity are concerned, financial institutions will probably not allow another strong increase in loans for consumption expenditure.
This shows that the whole economy of the country is still not at its end. I also want to quote what one of our leading parastatal companies says in this morning’s paper. The headline reads: Maree: SA needs Black managers. I wish to read from the article, and I quote:
Sir, this is very true. We need to train Black management in this country. The Government has done nothing about this. Before I conclude my speech, I wish to touch on another point. [Time expired]
Mr Chairman, we have discussed the Budget thoroughly. Those who wanted to support it, supported it. Those who wanted to criticise it, criticised it. However, I want to comment briefly on the Appropriation Bill.
Most important of all, what I want to say is that: The higher the taxation, the lower the economic growth. The hon the Minister should know that. All of us in Parliament, not only the hon the Minister, should endeavour to try and broaden the tax base as far as possible, so that the tax level can be lower, which will be an incentive for the growth of the economy.
My second piece of advice to the Government is to reduce the bureaucracy which exists in this country. Thereby Government expenditure will be curtailed. After all, what is a budget? A budget is the money required for running the country, ie Government expenditure. The private sector looks after itself.
I am concerned about motor car insurance. The comprehensive insurance premiums are going up every year. I know that a brand new car used to be insured for R600 five years ago. Today one has to pay more than R1 000 for it. The reason for that is that there are several motor cars which are not insured at all, because this is not compulsory, but optional. Particularly cars from the Black states are not insured. If they have an accident in this country, they go back to their country and the damage has to be repaired by the victim in this country. I suggest to the hon the Minister that, like the compulsory MVA insurance, complete third party accident insurance should be introduced for all vehicles. This would be easy to control. It should be made compulsory for every motorist to have his vehicle insured before he enters the Republic.
I think it was last year, in a private discussion with the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs, that he asked how we would control this. It is simple. One could introduce a system like the one we had before the fuel levy included MVA insurance. Every motorist had to pay third party insurance and display a disk on his windshield. I think the hon the Minister should consider this. This will reduce the running cost of motorists.
Even within our country, everybody does not pay full-cover insurance. If one is involved in an accident with such a person, one is not covered. I have experience of cases where, when a man was not insured and damaged an insured vehicle, he would just disappear. However, if an insured vehicle damages an uninsured vehicle, they are first in the insurance office to claim damages. They do not contribute anything, but they are there first. Therefore, we should consider some steps to eliminate this situation.
Another point concerns our exchange rates and our foreign debt. We import motor vehicles into this country with a certain percentage of local content. This country is capable of building fighter planes and ships, and in Atlantis just around the corner we are producing diesel engines. Those in the Government must now also put their heads together and devise a plan so that we can build our own motor vehicles in this country and will not need to import. Our raw materials which are exported to overseas countries are brought back in the form of finished products. It will also help to improve the growth of the economy.
I would like to come to the Group Areas Act. I see the hon the Minister is looking up. This Group Areas Act was tossed around, torn to pieces, denigrated, castigated, call it what you will. I am given to understand that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is drafting amendments to the Group Areas Act which he will bring to Parliament shortly. I would like him to consider excising the CBDs and the industrial areas from the Group Areas Act. That is what the Government should consider. I am not referring to the residential areas, but I do refer also to the agricultural land which is also of vital importance to the economy of the country. It is on record that year by year the farming community is being eroded. Thirty years ago we had about 135 000 farmers operating in this country. Four years ago this number had dwindled to 66 000 and today it stands at 59 000. Whilst there are people with expertise who are well prepared to step into the farming industry, they are precluded by the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I would ask the Government seriously and sincerely to consider, as a matter of national urgency and in the national interest, excising all farming land utilised for agricultural purposes and the farming industry from the Group Areas Act.
Mr Chairman, I am an optimistic person, because when I look at a glass filled halfway with water, I would say that it is half full. A pessimist would say that that glass is half empty. [Interjections.] The pessimist will also say that the Lord giveth and Barend taketh. [Interjections.] However, as a pragmatist I say that the Lord bestoweth and Barend distributeth. [Interjections.]
*I should now like to put a request to the hon the Minister to do an allocation on a broad basis. I want to mention that we need a lot of money and the hon the Minister must allocate this where the need is greatest. We need a lot of money and the only source is our dear uncle Barend.
In Benoni we need money for houses, where unfortunate people out of frustration and because they do not have a roof over their heads, are occupying premises in Benoni which lie outside the Indian area of Actonville. Although there have been no objections from the Whites and others, the Government has seen fit to prosecute the owners of those premises. The net result of this is that the Indian occupants have now received notice to vacate those premises.
†I now want to tell the hon the Minister present that one of his problems is inflation. This is caused by not managing affairs properly in the Government structures. I want to place on record that this hon Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet are not helping him, but that they are in fact retarding the situation.
Look at the East Rand, where in the 1960s the Government felt that that little place Actonville was sufficient as far as the whole area was concerned. Now it is found that that is not the case and over-congestion has caused a lack of space. The new area which has been proclaimed is definitely not sufficient for our people and so we are back to the 1960s situation. This is part of the problem which is causing inflation.
It does not help to pacify some of the Nationalist MPs who oppose the areas which are required by the Indian community on political grounds. Let us face reality in its proper perspective. This country of ours has enough land. [Interjections.] Villa Lisa is not enough; we need more.
I ask the hon the Minister to take up this matter with his hon colleagues and to tell them that in order to solve his problems, they should look at the needs and requirements of the people in the proper perspective. Let us give the people what we can give them in order to provide shelter for everyone in this country.
We need money for a community hall in Acton-ville. There is a dire need for this hall in a community comprising over 30 000 people who have been deprived of this facility for such a long time. None of our schools has any halls, which are so urgently required. These halls are required for the sake of our pupils who are going to be the leaders of tomorrow. If they do not have the proper facilities to take up their education, how can we expect them to become leaders?
A hospital in Lenasia, erected at a huge cost, stands vacant and unoccupied due to a lack of funds. Let us be pragmatic. As I have said, I am not a pessimist. Let us not be pessimistic about the lack of funds. Let the hon the Minister execute the distribution from his treasury so that the hospital can commence functioning. Worst of all, in Palm Ridge we cannot find money to acquire land for a cemetery and as a result of this people find it difficult to die in peace.
The Orange Free State, which does not have oranges, which is not free, and which is not a state as such, has finally, after more than half a century since the demise of good old Pres Paul Kruger and Pres Brandt, changed its attitude with regard to the original decision not to allow Indians in the province. Indians could not live there. They could only pass through there in transit. They did not even have the right to urinate there.
However, the Free State has now finally decided to take the Indians in and to welcome them with open arms. Those members of the Indian community who have decided to establish themselves in the Free State have been welcomed by the majority of the people in the Free State, and I have seen for myself the good relations built up between the communities there. However, now that these Indian people are in the Free State, they must not be left out in the cold. They must not be left in the lurch. They must be assisted.
Schooling is a very big problem in the Free State because we do not have a school for the Indian community. There are some White schools that are prepared to take our children but because of the Group Areas Act and the implementation of this abhorrent monster which prevails in our country, we cannot obtain permits for those children to attend those White schools. However, if one had to build a new school for the Indian community there, would that not present a problem to the present hon Minister? Can we not save money? Can we not solve these problems?
Now that the Indian community is in the Free State, we need houses for them. We need money for those houses, and I think it is up to this hon Minister to say to his colleagues: “Let us try to save money in the best possible manner for the good of everyone, for the whole community, and for the country as such, because we cannot afford the luxury of spending extravagantly.”
The Group Areas Act is costing this country an enormous amount of money and is draining the Treasury of this country. I think that when the hon the Minister of Finance sees the Treasury running empty he despairs. Let us therefore try to get the Group Areas Act off the Statute Book. We shall then be able to save a great deal of money. The Group Areas Act must be scrapped.
Apartheid has made headlines all over the world as it is so much alive. We call it apartheid, the Afrikaans word for separation, but the people overseas call it apart-hate. This apartheid or apart-hate—one can call it whatever one likes—is very much alive and it shall remain alive while the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Book. Also, while the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Book I can say that the task of the hon the Minister will not be easy and his problems will not be solved. If he wants to solve his problems let him convince his colleagues that this Act must go.
The deathknell of apartheid will in effect only be sounded when the Group Areas Act goes. It is the Indian community who have suffered extremely and mainly because of the Group Areas Act. It has ruined so many of our families and has caused our people to be uprooted. With all the hue and cry that has gone up in this country it has not been seen fit to allow us the rights which the Indian community should have in this country.
When the hon the State President was the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs he was the person who established the fact that the Indian community had to be regarded as an integral part of South Africa and had to become South African citizens. However, after becoming South African citizens it is appalling to think that we cannot live in this place, we cannot occupy that building and we cannot move about.
When I was on the SAIC, a friend of mine who was a member of the President’s Council and who went to the Executive Committee of the Transvaal and is now retired, Mr IF Ismail Mayet, one day at a reception at the Maharani Hotel took out his passport and said to the then Deputy State President, Mr A Schlebusch: “Mr Deputy State President, do you see that this passport states here that in the name of the State President of the Republic of South Africa allow the bearer of this passport to pass freely without hindrance through all the countries he wishes. The people of the outside world look at it and they want to honour it, but when I come to South Africa and go to the Free State they tell me I am not allowed there. Therefore this passport of mine holds no water in the Free State and people abroad say if your country does not want you to be in your own country, how can you expect us to accept you in our country?” That really happened, and because the matter was brought to a head the OFS is now open to us. However, that does not mean the abolition of the Group Areas Act. I say that the sooner we bring an end to the Group Areas Act the better it will be, particularly for the eastern area. I think that we can solve a lot of problems if the Cabinet takes the right decision.
The White community is frustrated, the Indian community is frustrated and all want a solution. They all want one kind of solution. However some of the NP MPs are standing in the way and are causing inhibitions to the communities as such, separately and jointly. The White community’s frustration is mounting, as is that of the Indian community. The sooner we can solve this the sooner it will be to the good of everyone in this country. This country of ours, which is a country of milk and honey, is one that we can all share together, but only if we can all work together and can all get together to solve the problems. However, when hate brings about separation and we cannot find land on which to house our people, our people are without roofs over their heads. Those who try and get roofs over their heads, as I have just mentioned—people who have moved into the Benoni area—have been served with notices. The authorities have prosecuted the owners of the buildings so that they in turn give notice to our people to vacate the premises they are occupying. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, how wonderful is God’s creation! When he created man, he put his face very near him; and yet he cannot see it! Nevertheless one can see somebody else’s face.
If hon members want a pound of flesh they will make sure they get the pound of flesh, but they should not fall into the trap, as Shylock the Jew, the Merchant of Venice, did; it is one pound or nothing, and no blood must be shed. As far as coming to hurt the hon the Minister in this House is concerned, I do not think that is his department, namely National Health! I made this speech in Pietermaritzburg and I shall repeat it here today. We have the clinic in Beatrice Street which is in a very bad condition. It treats 500 patients every day, and there is one toilet. This is a problematic situation. I hope that the hon the Minister of Finance will see to it that money is contributed for this purpose; this is very important. People are assembled there from three to five hours, but how long does it take for the patient to consult the doctor? For the doctor to examine the patient takes two to four minutes, and all he or she does is to test the blood pressure and prescribe tablets.
Change your doctor.
No, one does not need to change one’s doctor; one needs money. Money is the criterion.
No competent doctor can perform an examination in four minutes.
I have been a patient there; I sat for three hours and I can tell you, Mr Chairman, that a lady doctor sat on a chair and examined me. It did not take five minutes. All she did was to prescribe tablets and to say that my blood pressure was good.
You are still living.
I am still living, and I shall continue to do so. When God wishes, he will take me. The hon the Minister will say that we do not have the money; although we have our own mint, we do not have the money. This is unfortunate.
The Group Areas Act has been mentioned here; it must go, no doubt. Unfortunately, however, we are working within the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. All we have to do is change the Constitution. Let us get the three Houses of Parliament together and change the Constitution to suit everybody. First of all, we need one House and one Parliament; not three separate Houses. That must go. If that goes, the Group Areas Act will go. As long as this remains here, the hon the Minister will tell us that the Group Areas Act will not go.
I must also ask the hon the Minister please to increase pensions. How can people live on a couple of hundred rands a month? Things are going up and the poor people cannot live, although a rich man can live on R4 000 to R5 000. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and say that a pension of R167 is inadequate. I know that at the moment the hon the Minister cannot bring it up to parity but I appeal to him to increase the pension so that at least the old people, the disabled people and the pensioners can live on the amount given to them.
Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance unfortunately has a colleague on the Cabinet whose peers, constituting a select committee appointed by this House, considered the evidence on oath given by that hon Cabinet Minister and found that evidence wanting. His peers rejected that evidence as being inconsistent with the facts, and his peers said that the assurances that the hon the Cabinet Minister gave the select committee were unacceptable. That is the parlous state into which this country has been brought by the tricameral Parliament.
If this kind of thing had happened in the House of Assembly in the old days, that hon Cabinet Minister would have resigned forthwith or he would at least have resigned his seat and offered himself for re-election. The tricameral Parliament has now become synonymous with all kinds of jumping jacks and all kinds of abuse of parliamentary traditions and parliamentary conventions. I do not blame the hon the Minister of Finance or consider him to be personally liable for this but of course he is a member of the Cabinet and there is collective responsibility. This is notwithstanding the fact that we have a curious kind of Cabinet these days where a member of the Cabinet, provided that he does not belong to the White race group, has the right, upon getting clearance from the hon the State President, to disagree with the Cabinet. It is definitely an odd kind of situation that we have.
I am sorry that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not here. Unfortunately the select committee did not clear him. There was never any allegation made at any time that he personally received a cheque for R10 000 for his personal account. Indeed, the contrary was the case. The hon member concerned said in this House that no hon member of his party, whether for personal or party funds, had received any money from a building contractor. It turned out that the truth was otherwise. The truth is painful, and it is painful to every hon member of this House as it ought to be painful to every hon member of this House. Of course the hon the Minister of Finance himself knows of attempts to manipulate the Tender Board in order to favour a particular tenderer for a school-building contract. Why did the hon the Minister not speak out in the Cabinet about this? These are the things that cause us a great deal of concern.
We are here in order to promote the cause of reform and we are fully aware of the personal sacrifices that many hon members of the hon the Minister of Finance’s party are making for the cause of reform. I am referring to my friend Mr Willem Cuyler who espoused the cause of reform and lost his parliamentary seat as a consequence. I honour that man although he is a Nationalist. He paid a price for his convictions and for his wanting to promote the common weal of all people in South Africa. Willem Cuyler could have tried to line his pockets by doing all kinds of things if he was that way inclined, but he was not. He was an honourable man. Regrettably, there are other people in this country who do not have one tenth of the honour of this Afrikaner Nationalist. The hon the Minister knows who I am talking about in the respect.
I want to deal now with financial matters. Inflation is the bugbear and I have not reconsidered my previous statement that I made to the hon the Minister that inflation is not caused wholly and solely by his actions or the actions of his department. Inflation in this country is largely caused by a process of financial transition. For centuries Black and Brown people were exploited financially.
In recent years equal pay for equal work has been increasing to the extent that parity is near. I give credit to the hon the Minister and his colleagues for this. It may be argued by some hon members in the House of Assembly that insofar as Parliament is concerned, there is no equal pay for equal work in Parliament, because hon members of the House of Delegates do far less work collectively than hon members of the House of Assembly. They work shorter hours. It could therefore be argued that in one respect the reverse is true. However, generally the country is moving in the right direction. We do, however, have more money chasing fewer goods and that is due to the policy of apartheid. If the Black people in this country—and they are now earning much higher salaries—were allowed to live where their money enabled them to live, they would then be able to spend a great deal of their money on buying nice houses, furniture and other things that would improve their quality of life. However, they are now using that money to chase away other goods which are scarce. This then pushes up the prices of those scarce goods, many of which are imported. That is undesirable.
The Government itself is responsible in certain respects. The entire system of own affairs is responsible for that. The hon the Minister’s colleague, Mr Piet Clase, apparently told his own congress in the Cape during October last year that the multiplication of certain institutions was costing money. I do not know the word for “fourteen times over”, but ten times over is called tintuplication. We have tintuplication of Parliamentary situations with all the homelands, national states and the tricameral Parliament. Now the Governments wants to create racially separated local authorities. This is going to cause an even greater waste of public money. It will add to inflation.
It is the policy of the Government of this country which made it necessary for Sasol I and Sasol II to be established. Had it not been for the horrendous policy of apartheid, South Africa need not have feared an oil boycott. The hon the Minister himself has pointed out that billions of rands were spent to buy oil to store in disused coal mines. The oil is now lying there, not earning any additional money. In fact, it is only a burden to the taxpayers of South Africa. The policy of apartheid is responsible for this. The policy of apartheid has been responsible for our spending at a time when we could not afford it. As I said, large sums of money have been injected into Sasol and Soekor.
What about the money wasted in the 1970’s on building strategic roads? South Africa, for its size and economic stage of development, probably has some of the best roads in the world. These roads were built largely for military and strategic reasons, so that military forces could be moved rapidly from one point to the other in times of unrest. That was money wasted! It was wasted because of the policy of apartheid.
I now want to deal with the question of the triplication that we have in Parliament. We have three Ministers of Education. This is a waste of money, because the infrastructure is tripled right down to the chaffeur and the teagirl or teaboy. That is a terrible waste!
There are four Ministers of Education.
The hon the Minister says there are four Ministers of Education. I thank him for the correction. Indeed, we have four Ministers of Education. There are four Ministers of Health. In this House we have the hon the Minister of Local Government who only has four local authorities under his purview. He cannot and dare not go to the Durban or Pietermaritzburg City Council and put any questions to them, because they do not fall under his authority. In Durban 47% of the residential rates are paid by members of the Indian community. Notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of the population in Durban is non-White, the hon the Minister has no say in these matters. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I want to begin by commenting on the contribution made by my colleague, the hon member for Laudium. He spoke about the Budget and the productivity and expertise required to bring about a balance in the financial implications of South Africa. He touched on sincere reforms, advance tax and private sector involvement, but what concerns me here this afternoon is one important factor. I want to make an appeal to my colleague in this regard, because this legislation is vitally important for the survival of a country. The very fact that this legislation has come before this House at such a late stage might not augur exceptionally well, and therefore in the future such important legislation should come at an earlier stage to give hon members of this House sufficient time to concentrate on this and apply their minds to the needs.
The hon member for Actonville spoke about passports and free movement. Being pragmatic, I want to concede at all times any progress we have made since we came to Parliament. Apart from other aspects, there are two important aspects regarding free movement, namely the opening of the Orange Free State and the removal of the restrictions on the free movement of Indians in the Northern Natal district, which is a result of our presence in this House. Side by side with this, there are various other aspects of reform which we must acknowledge, but at the same time we must also negotiate our requirements for the future.
My colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, understandably has to move on a knife edge to fulfil the demands, particularly of the underdeveloped communities, in an age of non-White aspirations towards reform. At one time he debated and took decisions in one House, but during the last few years he has had the responsibility for three Houses. The manifestations from the three Houses today signals the backlog, the trials and the hardships to which we have been subjected for many years in this country.
In this period of interesting changes we have to remove the deep-rooted distrust by balancing the finances of the State towards uplifting those who are more in need. Stability in South Africa is dependent on its economic levels. Unemployment and the housing shortage are indeed elements of the poverty culture that presently has a large part of the South African population caught in its grip. I believe that it is within our ability to transform this despondency and create prosperity and hope.
Of course the House of Delegates, to my mind, has to give serious consideration to parochial issues which have been overlooked over the years. With the abolition of the divisional council of the Cape, the administrative organisation was taken over by the Western Cape Regional Services Council, which continues to perform the function of the divisional council. Owing to the disappearance of the divisional council rates, the regional services council has no source of income for performing its agency function and is thus faced with a cash-flow problem. To meet this problem, the House of Delegates will have to reimburse the regional services council for a shortfall of about R250 000 per annum for the expenditure being incurred. It is my humble request to my colleague that the shortfall should be met from the Exchequer amount and not from the House of Delegates.
Also on the subject of local government, to highlight this for record purposes, I want to refer to the unification of areas. As regards the unification of Lenasia South and East, the hon the Administrator has advertised his intention to include Lenasia South and East under the jurisdiction of the City of Johannesburg at the end of September 1988. The City of Johannesburg has objected to the proposal on two grounds. Certain services were being run at a loss of approximately R1 million. Included in Lenasia South are two outlying undeveloped areas where squatters problems exist. It is not logical for us to develop areas contiguous to a developed area. Neither is it logical and economical for areas to have different local authorities. Therefore, with the development of Lenasia West and East consideration must be given to the fact that Lenasia East and South should be incorporated with Lenasia, so that the financial burden with which it is faced, will be overcome.
Another aspect which I would like to mention here this afternoon is that we unfortunately do not have, within the provisos of any legislation, funds for the provision of crematoriums. Crematoriums are an absolute necessity. In some areas in South Africa the Indian community are still using the old, antiquated system of fire. I would like to appeal to my hon colleague that when these motivations reach him, he will give serious consideration to these inadequacies within our society being met. It is understandable that this falls within the purview of the regional services council, but Natal has its problems and I feel that we do not have sufficient time. There is an urgent need to establish these crematoriums.
Coming back to agriculture, so much has been said …
He is in a hurry, we are not.
The hon member for Reservoir Hills wants to know who is in a hurry.
Nobody on this side.
You never know.
Well, coming back to agriculture, I believe my hon colleague is fully aware of the cry of the Indian people for the improvement of the quality of agriculture in this country. We had the flood disasters during last year, where the Government played its role in every way possible to help all of those who were devastated. Notwithstanding the Cabinet committee, there is the question of the short and the long term measures. I wish to appeal to my colleague that these are the issues—leaving aside theoretical politics and political ideals. These day-to-day bread-and-butter issues such as agriculture, on which our survival depends, must be given consideration. Therefore the need in the short term is of absolute importance, notwithstanding the flood relief in respect of the long-term.
With this I would like to compliment my colleague for his efforts, particularly during the last few years, and his co-operation and consideration. I am in full sympathy with him for the responsibility that rests on his shoulders. However, I am satisfied that during all the negotiations that were held he was one person in his capacity as Minister of Finance, who realised the implications and the difficulties within the Indian community. He has always been sympathetic and considerate. Notwithstanding the political rumblings and the turmoil that goes on here, let us not forget the needs of the people. We must develop our community and build a new country.
Mr Chairman, I think it is common knowledge that the hon the Minister is one person who is very much imbued with realism and who has a very profound sense of responsibility. This afternoon I want to take the opportunity of reasoning with him on a few important issues.
The NP has a rare record of having been in government continuously for the past 40 years. It has had opportunities to find a constitutional solution in which all race groups would be participants. These opportunities were unfortunately not utilised to advantage. Today the South African Government has, of dire necessity, to act dynamically. The Government has to act very boldly and very courageously, and make the changes that are so necessary in this country. These changes are necessary and urgently required to save this beautiful country from self-destruction.
This self-destruction will come sooner than one can imagine if the NP leadership is more concerned about the party than about the country. This is a significant statement because if the Government is not prepared to sacrifice the party, if need be, for the country, then dangerous problems will develop.
There is the possibility of the CP taking power. This is not just day-dreaming; it is more than that. If this happens, it will hasten Black majority rule with one man, one vote. [Interjections.] It will be interesting if someone makes a survey of the thinking of Black people in this regard. The NP has this wonderful record and the fact is that it has attained maturity with regard to accommodating all the people. I think they should go ahead and do it rather than appeasing groups either to the left or to the right, and in recent times I think it has been more to the right. Future economic demands will force changes in the political sphere, and I think the hon the Minister of Finance would certainly accept this point of view.
Let us examine the situation prevailing in the White areas. Large numbers of Blacks and Coloureds live in White areas. They reside there, they eat there, they bathe there and they work there. Their services make their presence there necessary. Many of them are in the middle and some are in the upper economic category in respect of wages. Many of them are educated, many of them are experienced, and many of them earn an income of R2 000 or R3 000. The big question is what difference it would make if they could have residential security there and if they had schooling facilities for their children in close proximity to their place of residence.
I am tired of hearing the statement: “Repeal the Group Areas Act”. I think this Government is looking at a long-term policy. I do not want to say to the Government: “Repeal the Group Areas Act tomorrow”, because they would not do it. However, I think it is high time the Government looked at certain things and formulated a sort of vision of the future in terms of which the people of this country, according to their numbers and so on, could make a declaration of intent that the Group Areas Act must go. [Interjections.] I think that the thorn, as it were, that is pricking the people of this country will remain for a long time to come unless such methods are adopted.
It is legislation that is hindering progress in this country. There are no two ways about it. In recent times there have been changes. We have welcomed these changes, and I think the fact that more and more people in this country are accepting these changes and are supporting them should only encourage the Government to go ahead and accept the de facto situation and recognise the situation for the betterment of this country.
I want to refer to one or two matters that have to a large extent disillusioned the Indian community. This is our fourth session in this House. When we had certain problems at the local authority level and at the provincial level we thought that if we came into Parliament we would really succeed in overcoming those problems.
One of the bugbears is the failure of this House to date, or the failure of the Government of this country, to construct a second access road in Chatsworth which is required by over a quarter of a million people and concerning which there has been so many memorandums and agitation for over a quarter of a century. The construction of the second access road has been unduly delayed. I can only come to the conclusion that this route has not been developed because the White electorate has the final say.
I am convinced that although we are participating in Government today the kind of justice we would like to see prevailing in this country does not exist. There are no two ways about it, there are nine Chatsworth constituencies represented in the House of Delegates, and yet one constituency through which this road has to go is holding the entire nine electorates and the House of Delegates at gunpoint, as it were. I think that things like this must change. I want to cite another example which has already been brought up and I should like to read this letter to the editor headed “Transferred Indian policeman defended", and I quote:
This lady should consider her husband’s position in Scottburgh as the headmaster of the primary school and behave as befits the wife of an educationist.
I would like to assure Lieut Naidoo that the majority of Whites in Scottburgh regret that the Minister has seen fit to transfer him to Umzinto.
This is not a minor thing, and things like this can flash all over the country and even overseas and then what will become of all the millions of rand we spend overseas to improve the image of South Africa.
I am one of those who strongly feels that we in this country must solve our own problems. However, if things like this are allowed, where do we go? I hope I am not barking up the wrong tree, but I know the important role that this hon Minister is playing in the Government of this country and I think that when the opportunity comes he can make his contribution so that things in this country will change at a faster rate and for the better.
Mr Chairman, a document arrived in the mail the other day. It is the Anti-Apartheid Act amendments of 1988 now being considered by Congress in the USA. The reasons advanced for the present moves out there to bring about total sanctions in South Africa are contained in this document, and I just want to refer briefly to some aspects of this. I think it is important that we should all know about them. It states, and I quote:
This represents some of the most important considerations which have motivated these legislators on Capital Hill to proceed at a pace with the draft legislation which is now going through the corridors of Washington. The people from whom these legislators take their instructions are two major trade unions, the UDF, the Azanian People’s Organisation, the ANC, the Pan African Congress, the SACC, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Rev Alan Boesak.
When one reads this document and gains some indication of who the people are whose submissions make a deep impression on the legislators in America, the question that has to be answered is how soon we can find the alternative to choose democratically elected Black leaders who can speak their hearts and minds, and can be seen doing so in the councils of South Africa, so that we can bring an end to the recognition that has been meted out to the people whose names I have read out.
However, each day—and more so in recent weeks—we have seen demonstrations on the part of many organisations about what the feelings and thinking of trade unions in regard to sanctions and disinvestment are. We have also seen on a number of occasions the demonstrations and the placards that have been exhibited when Archbishop Tutu boards or alights from a plane. No reference is made to those people—the silent majority in South Africa—who are totally opposed to these manoeuvres and who have demonstrated in no uncertain terms what their feelings in this matter are. What I want to say to the hon the Minister, through you, Mr Chairman, is that it is very clear that unless and until we have a positive alternative which involves the Black people participating in a democratic forum—the third tier, the second tier and the central legislature—I believe our task is going to be immensely difficult.
What is envisaged here is that the United States is virtually drawing the curtains against South Africa. This is something we can ill afford. I also want to mention that earlier this morning we were privileged to meet with the Commissioner of the South African Police and some of his officials in order to get an appraisal of developments in the larger Indian dormitory suburbs in regard to the provision of police stations and police personnel. It became abundantly clear that a shortage of funds was certainly inhibiting the need to provide police services very urgently in these areas, where it is absolute necessary in the light of reports emanating from residents there. I want to make a special appeal, through you, to the hon the Minister of Finance to see to it that the police are provided with funds which will enable them to provide police stations and the men to man these stations, particularly in these very large dormitory suburbs where the police forces are totally inadequate to serve the communities resident there.
The other point I want to make to the hon the Minister of Finance is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, during the Vote on housing, spoke out very strongly on the question of the high prices that we have to pay for land which is proclaimed for Indian housing or Indian ownership. My submission is that I do not see why, once an area has been proclaimed for the Indian community after much fanfare and publicity, the prices should rise out of all proportion, as they certainly do. I believe some machinery should be introduced in terms of which the market value obtaining for the three years prior to the commencement of the investigation should be an important factor in determining the price that the House of Delegates is called upon to pay for this land.
I would go further and say that some allowance must be made for an increase in that price, but not to the extent that any piece of land today is worth R50 000 per ha. That is going to limit the extent to which housing can be provided with the funds at the disposal of the House of Delegates. I do not think that the Indian community should be penalised by way of high prices, since it is the group areas legislation which creates the untenable conditions with which we have to contend when acquiring land.
As regards the question of housing, we know that we have a housing boom and an effort on the Government’s part to get organisations and authorities to concentrate their energies on providing housing has become a reality. However, this has created new challenges in its wake, for example the enormous increases that are being recorded on a month-by-month basis in the cost of building homes. I believe that is another matter that has to be addressed, since providing money will just not satisfy the challenge. We must provide money and we must execute those housing programmes on the basis that we will be able to build more homes at a reasonable cost; that is the real challenge, not the money. I submitted in this House in an earlier debate that the two organisations that could be called upon to play a positive role in making a tangible contribution in this direction are the CSIR and the SABS.
I believe that we should tap the resources that are available outside private enterprise such as the research facilities and the information available in the data bank of these two institutions with a view to making a positive contribution to lowering costs by adaptations. We should accept the challenge to review materials and to establish how materials can best be used without in any way reducing the standards but at the same time reducing costs. I have said this before, but I want to commend it again to the hon the Minister of Finance.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to wish Mr De Villiers well on his retirement. Unfortunately he is not here at the moment but I hope that these words will be conveyed to him. I also want to welcome Mr De Kock in the new office that he will be assuming shortly. I also wish our friends Mr Lucas and Mr Douglas well in their new positions and promotions that they justly deserve.
Mr Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity to join the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in wishing our secretary to Parliament well when he retires. We also want to express our kind sentiments towards his successor.
I also want to take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation to our colleague the hon the Minister of Finance and to all the officials of his department and his hon Deputy Minister for the tremendous amount of sympathy and understanding which they always show—not only for the problems of South Africa but also for the problems of our own administration.
When we were not in Parliament but serving in statutory bodies we always received the standard letter with the phrase “when funds are available”. Now we are in the situation where we also have to write to people and say to them that we agree that a matter has to be afforded a fair measure of priority but that we unfortunately cannot accede to their request at the moment and that we can only do so when funds become available. Previously the hon the Minister of Finance indicated in this House that he had to look at certain requests of our administration sympathetically. I want to thank him publicly for that today.
I want to say that one attaches a tremendous measure of importance to affording priority to underdeveloped regions and communities. One also tries to encourage the location or relocation of industries in areas where job opportunities can be created. Quite correctly, tremendous emphasis is placed on Black development.
I want to place on record today that we have a massive concentration of members of the Indian population group in the urban areas. In the process of encouraging the relocation of industries our own constituencies appear to be overlooked. We have the same problems as the Black community but perhaps not to the same extent. I know that this does not fall directly under the hon the Minister of Finance but rather the Ministry and Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. However, I feel that these facts must be expressed in this debate because there is tremendous concern among Indian industrialists and among employer organisations in Durban, especially the Garment Union where, as a result of the resiting of industries, there is massive unemployment in the Indian sector.
As many hon members have stated, the success achieved by the Indian community is not mainly due to the efforts of the Government but to a large extent it is due to the fact that culturally we look at life differently. We want to secure a good future. That is why our forefathers built a foundation on which the success of the Indian community in this country stands. Sometimes, as a result of the process of self-initiative, the Indian community appears to be groundless. I want to say to the Treasury and to the hon the Minister of Finance that the success of this dispensation is not only dependent on the progress of reform movements—it is also dependent on the extent to which we can serve our constituencies.
Sometimes when one makes a submission, one refers to financial and personal implications. There also is another factor, namely political or constitutional implications. We are on the eve of a municipal election. We are scheduled to have a Parliamentary election next year. It is therefore important that we present certain figures to our constituencies.
I also want to mention something that was raised yesterday in a provincial debate. I had a discussion with the hon the Minister of Finance this morning. As a result of this discussion, we are in a position to make a very big announcement in respect of certain developments in Natal. For this I would like to thank my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately I am not allowed to divulge any details. There is always a phrase: “Subject to the approval of the hon the Minister of Finance”. If one does not get the approval, one cannot announce anything.
I believe that the small business sector has to be encouraged, because it can play a major role in respect of development in South Africa. During the course of this week we dealt with a Bill dealing with deregulation. Here I want to echo the sentiments expressed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I personally believe that bigger and greater use should be made of the Small Business Development Corporation in this country. The Small Business Development Corporation is playing an important role to establish and encourage small business. Unfortunately their efforts are being thwarted by certain local authorities that are unwilling to sell land at low prices.
Let us look, for example, at the Durban metropolitan area. The only success that the Small Business Development Corporation has had, has been on the fringes of the Durban municipality. In Phoenix and Chatsworth there are hardly any worthwhile projects of the Small Business Development Corporation. It is not their fault. The fault is the high prices that are charged for premises or land.
I want to touch very briefly on an important point that was raised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He asked in what direction we are now moving to satisfy housing needs. Previously the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning indicated in this House that with members of the Black community, his administration was required to pay R50 000 per hectare for land in Natal. Our administration is finding it difficult to pay R25 000 per hectare for land in Natal. Throughout the country this is a major problem. If one looks at the allocation from the Treasury for the years that lie ahead, one can expect the allocations to decline—not only for the Indian community, but for all race groups.
What we require in our Administration is a genius to manage our housing books, so that our money can generate itself and grow. I am afraid, however, that this will not only be a problem for members of the Indian community, but for other communities as well. The unrealistically high prices we are now required to pay for land will drain our financial reserves to such an extent—and this is unavoidable—that I pity Ministers of Housing who assume office in the next three or four years. They will never be able to satisfy our housing requirements.
When the hon the Minister of Finance was here previously, I dealt with the question of underutilised facilities, the sharing of facilities, etc. In our own affairs debate, concern was expressed about certain institutions we have which are underutilised and which could be utilised for other purposes as well. I think, in terms of the Constitution—which empowers a Minister, subject to the approval of the hon the State President, to render service to another population group—that this should be seriously contemplated. We must avoid the construction of buildings where we can use underutilised facilities or facilities which may not be required by a particular race group. In respect of our own Administration also, we have been examining ways and means of making use of underutilised facilities or facilities which could be taken over completely by other administrations.
I want to reiterate my appreciation to the hon the Minister of Finance. I know he has a heavy task, and on his shoulders rests the responsibility to make the economy of this country tick and grow. I think every hon member of this House will agree with me when I say that the efforts which the hon the Minister of Finance makes to ensure that there is economic recovery, and that this is not merely words but actual reality, and to put this country on the road to economic progress and prosperity, are much appreciated. I can say that one very rarely see cartoons about the hon the Minister of Finance these days and very rarely do we hear negative criticism. Whatever criticism we hear is positive.
Do not challenge them!
He has his regular fans who have a habit of criticising him for anything. I want to say that as far as our Administration is concerned, I want to thank the hon the Minister of Finance publicly for coming to an agreement with me this morning on something which I will not divulge now and which I am sure my colleague will not divulge either. However, when we make the announcement, we will be able to walk tall, in Natal in particular.
Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members and in particular hon Ministers who took part in this debate for the way in which we could conduct this discussion here today. We have come to the end of the Budget discussion for this year, a very eventful year in more than one respect, and also in the field of fiscal and monetary policy. We have certainly had no shortage of excitement and challenges, and these still continue.
I wish to start with the last speaker and thank my hon colleague for his kind words addressed to myself, my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, and the Department of Finance. I can give hon members the assurance that this is one department, particularly among the top officials and our advisors, where there is no such thing as even medium levels of productivity. Any hon member of this House is free to come and check which floor has lights burning until very late at night, not only here in Cape Town but also in Pretoria. That is the task we have, and we carry it out with great gratitude for the opportunity. I wish to record my own personal appreciation also to my advisors and my colleague here for their support, and I again thank my colleague for his kind words.
I wish to support my colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his plea for the small man and in his tackling of the problem of the high price of land. This also coincides with what the hon the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the high price of land inhibiting the adequate provision of housing. That is a fact and we shall have to do something about it. I know that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has certain ideas about land prices, leading up to the proclamation of certain areas. I would respectfully submit that my hon colleague here and his Ministers’ Council should take up that matter with that hon Minister as it lies within his purview.
Today we are at least very happy—despite all the constraints under which we have to operate—that the economy is showing a positive growth rate. It could have been different and it certainly was not easy to get it going. We are also severely inhibited by the provisions we have to make in dealing with sanctions of a financial nature, etc. These are things that we will have to face and sweat out. There is no way that we are going to accept being forced into accepting certain so-called political solutions just for the sake of avoiding sanctions.
I would like to address the hon member for Laudium and I have mixed feelings when I look at him. He is very much like a sine curve, which is either plus one or minus one and continually moves between the two. My debating relationship with that hon member is a sine curve. [Interjections.] Even in his speech today, he oscillated between plus one and minus one. Therefore I do not know how to make a general comment with regard to his speech, but he did say some things which I fully endorse.
He said, for instance, that now is the time to stick to the Budget, which is absolutely essential for a variety of reasons. Why I believe the hon member to be right in that regard may be best illustrated—even when it comes to, I might add, minute amounts in the overall perspective—by the fact that we are not merely dealing with figures. When one deals with public finance, deeds are eventually translated into figures. Perceptions are also translated into figures, but in one’s policy adjustments—while dealing to a certain extent with figures—one deals very much with perceptions. A little while ago there was some misunderstanding in the media with regard to the Government’s policy on interest rates. Within a few minutes as a result of certain perceptions the rand fluctuated and capital market movements and money market movements appeared to manifest themselves, only to be adjusted afterwards when calm was restored to the markets. Therefore, when it comes to public finance in a budget, it is absolutely essential that we strive towards discipline even when it comes to the smallest possible amount.
The hon member also spoke about higher productivity. Unfortunately we in this country are notorious for relatively low productivity and our productivity growth is not in the least what it should and, in fact, could be. That is certainly something that enjoys a very high priority in Government spending, at general affairs as well as at own affairs level, so as to get our children to acquire the skills and aptitudes that will be necessary for the kind of economy that we have in our country.
I think the hon member had a slip of the tongue when he spoke about productivity because he spoke about a population growth of 8%. I do not think that is the correct figure. Certainly we are a highly productive country but when it comes to our reproductive ability it is certainly not to the extent of 8%. If my memory serves me correctly, it is below 3%.
That is exactly the crux of the matter, namely that our economy right now is growing at a rate of below 3% whilst the population growth figure is just under 3%. Unless we can grow at a rate considerably higher, we will not only be unable to cope with the increase in numbers every year but we will also not be able to catch up on the vast backlog that has developed.
The hon member said that we must grow at a rate of at least 5%. We shall have to do everything in our power internally to do just that. That is why it is so upsetting that some people have a completely distorted view of the role of privatisation, for instance, because in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, where we do not have access to foreign capital, it is certainly necessary to generate as much capital as we possibly can inside South Africa. When it comes to privatisation, we should like to view this first of all as a reapplication of existing capital in other directions, which will address not only developmental needs but also certain sociological needs that we have at this moment in time.
Where I want to do battle with the hon member, is in regard to what he said about taxation. I want to reiterate something today. When it comes to minimum tax on companies, we did not tax retroactively in the classic sense of the word. Yes, we immediately agree that it is a difficult tax to administer, and my hon colleague here has developed a few extra grey hairs, having gone through the whole process of trying to get this concept of taxation onto the legislative programme. However, the fact is that if we had not used last year’s figures we would not have derived a single rand’s worth of revenue from that particular tax. That is not retroactive taxation in the true sense of the word, and I want to submit to the hon member with great respect that that term is not to be used with reference to the minimum tax on companies.
The hon member said that we must employ people who are sufficiently qualified to ensure that we do not have tax loopholes. My advisers must listen carefully and they must just indicate to me what the actual figures are in this regard, but I want to give the hon member an idea of the kind of salaries that are paid. I immediately want to say to him that if he argues that we must have fewer but better paid public servants, I agree. However, one person can only do so much when it comes to tax assessment. In other words, if we were to pay a large number of people private sector salaries, this would definitely ultimately reflect very severely on the tax situation.
The other day we lost a staff member whose salary was in the vicinity of R40 000. However, what was the package? It was over R100 000. That is the kind of salary that is paid.
Do not be so mean with the salaries, then. [Interjections.]
I did not hear the hon member properly, Sir. He can ask that by way of a question if he would like to because I am pretty sure that it was rather funny.
We certainly do everything in our power to recruit properly qualified people and pay them a reasonable salary. We have all sorts of newly designed schemes in operation to upgrade the level of tax expertise available to the Receiver of Revenue to the extent that we can start winning the battle again. It is a fact that tax morality in South Africa had reached a very low ebb. If that situation is not still prevailing, then I think we are at least starting to move out of it. Admittedly part of the problem was too high rates. That is also a great incentive to start using all sorts of fancy footwork to avoid and even to evade tax.
However, right now we also have an improvement in quality which did not exist before which, I believe, also contributed in no small measure to a very low tax morality. The hon member said—these are his words—it is a person’s right to avoid tax as far as possible. I shall not put it as crudely as that, but if there are prohibitive tax rates and one has the idea in one’s mind that one can get away with tax evasion schemes on account of the fact that the staff on the other side of the table are not sufficiently qualified to counter one’s fancy schemes then we have a difficult situation. This pertains not only to low revenue, but also ultimately to the tax morality prevailing in the country.
We are determined to safeguard the integrity of our tax system. In designing a new tax system in this country we not only want to simplify it, but we want to make sure that this fresh beginning will prevail and that we will be able to get the fair share of the fiscus from every taxable activity. That will minimise the burden on each of the various sectors in the tax spectrum and it will ultimately minimise the tax borne by individuals.
The hon member asked why the private sector should help with regard to the cash flow. What else must we do? We had by that time already cut Government expenditure to the bone and there are certain things that one can only phase out over a certain period of time. All my hon colleagues who are involved in the executive as far as this is concerned, can testify that there are very few places left where we could have cut out more expenditure at that stage.
Therefore—and I want to repeat what I said earlier—when one is in a period of tax reform one must not take a snapshot view of one year; one must accept the fundamental point that tax reform takes a number of years to be concluded. Tax reform is not the designing of a new table. It is a fundamental change where certain shifts in the tax burden take place; in other words, some people will pay more and others will pay less. We have had many representations from people who are upset about the new tax that they have to pay.
I want to make the point—I believe it is an important point—that we cannot shield any sector of the economy, or any interested party. We cannot shield them from the effects of tax reforms because that would negate the whole thing. The best we can do is to try to make it as easy as possible for them to cope and to adjust to a new tax system. Also, as far as cash flow is concerned, certain rather ad hoc measures are absolutely necessary and we had to take certain steps to generate only a few hundred million rand in some cases—which was a necessary step at that stage—in order to try to keep a balance in the budget.
The hon member is still arguing about old-age pensions and other hon members also mentioned this. I want to place it on record that emotionally I am in absolute agreement with the hon members. Let us look at next year and see if we can do something for them then. However, next year will see the introduction of VAT. We are doing our best to implement it as soon as possible in the new tax year. However, I again want to reiterate what I have said before in this House to hon members. Let us, from the word go, refrain from asking for exceptions because with value-added tax being levied on every commodity, and even services, the tax burden will be spread very widely. However, this will be accompanied by a stepping-up of certain welfare-type expenditure in order to help people adjust to a new tax system. We must have a tax system that suits us as a developing country.
We must remember that we have a massive informal sector, and already there are economists pinning figures to it which are quite enormous. We do not believe that it is already 40% of GDP, but it is certainly very substantial. If one has that kind of situation—and if that informal sector is to be the largest employer between now and the end of the century—one needs a tax system that will help to get that sector, too, to make a fair contribution—I repeat, a fair contribution—to the fiscus. If not, the small body of taxpayers in South Africa will become completely overburdened, and part of our objective to grow at a higher economic rate involves lowering the tax rate. The hon member for Camperdown mentioned that today. He said: “High taxes, low economic growth". I am happy to have found an ally in him when I argue that we should get the tax burden as low as possible and spread it as wide as possible.
In order to spread it as widely as possible the informal sector must also make its contribution, and there is no way that one can get the informal sector to make its contribution by any means other than the value-added tax. We all know the problems of GST; I need not elaborate on them. However, if anyone wants to collect it for us on a commission basis, we can talk business afterwards outside! Of course, I mean that very facetiously; let us not talk business in the real sense of the word!
We need a tax system that suits the economy of this country. What I am trying to drive home is that hon members must please not prepare speeches during this recess on the basis of asking for exemptions from the word go, because it is as simple as this: If one reduces the tax base, then automatically one is asking by implication for a rise in the rate. If one wants the rate down or at a reasonable level, then one must have a broad tax base. If one wants the informal sector and general trade to contribute, and if one wants a good indirect tax like value-added tax to make its fair contribution, then it must retain its integrity from the beginning. If, then, we want to alleviate the plight of the poor—this is another point I want to stress again today—let us not attempt to use the tax system to do so, but rather budget for it so that we may know exactly how much it costs, and so that one can control where it goes.
All hon members in this House will remember what the Margo Commission said. I quote the figures from memory, and I do not know if I am absolutely correct to the nearest R100 million, but they quoted a figure in the vicinity of R1 800 million revenue lost as a result of exemptions in GST. Only R300 million of that had really reached the poor. We could rather have collected that R1 800 million and spent as much as R600 million on the poor. It would have been a much better deal; we could have saved another R1200 million tax elsewhere. Thus we must please orientate ourselves towards the adjustments that are necessary in order to cope with a new tax system which will give our country an opportunity to have a tax system which will grow and generate the necessary revenue as we grow.
The hon member is correct when he says that economic activity will slow down. However, in the end we still are quite hopeful that in this calendar year we will achieve the growth rate for which we made provision. No Minister of Finance can guarantee a growth rate; there is no such thing. All one can do is to provide in one’s fiscal and monetary policy for the ability of the economy to grow at a certain rate.
The hon member quoted Dr John Maree saying that we need more Black managers. That is absolutely true. We need a larger percentage of South African citizens taking the responsibility as executives, managers and leaders. The bottom line is that productivity is not a function of legislation or anything else. It is a function of management. Cultural and work ethic aspects also play a role but to my mind productivity is primarily dependent on management. A manager knows if one is not doing the job properly—nobody else. Nobody can legislate for it. The manager knows whether one is doing one’s job or not and his manager will know whether he is doing his job or not.
I disagree rather strongly with the hon member when he says that the Government is doing nothing to promote the training of managers. I do not think that is a fair comment. We are spending massive amounts in this country on training. Where the hon member is correct—but he must address this argument to the right people—is to say that we perhaps train too many political scientists at certain universities and not enough people with commercial and technical qualifications. If the hon member takes that line of argument I think we can find consensus. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution. Even though we may have disagreed, it stimulated the debate.
I now come to the hon member for Camperdown. I have already referred to some of the things that he said. He wants the bureaucracy to be reduced. It all depends on what the hon member calls a bureaucrat. Does he call a nurse a bureaucrat?
No.
Thank you. Does he call a teacher a bureaucrat?
No.
Neither a policeman, nor a soldier.
An MP. [Interjections.]
In many instances I think that will be an elevated status. If we analyse the growth of the overall personnel last year, we will find …
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for the hon the Minister to refer to members of Parliament in a denigratory way in comparison with bureaucrats?
I will invite the hon member to a dinner one evening and introduce him to some bureaucrats who will really make him envious. [Interjections.]
I want to say to the hon member for Camperdown that one should look at the records. Unfortunately I do not have them here at hand because this is not my direct responsibility. However, the hon member can certainly make a telephone call to my colleague the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation and obtain the information from the commission. The hon member will see that the categories of employment that I mentioned to him were the ones that really grew last year. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the number of real bureaucrats, in terms of the popular perception of penpushers, was reduced in the past financial year. The hon member can check the figures for himself. I think he will find it quite revealing.
The hon member made a useful point as far as insurance on motor cars is concerned. I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on it but I want to suggest that the hon member should take it up with the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works. The hon the Minister can then bring a paper to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs stating that this issue must be investigated. If this should then lead to a proper discussion on the issue I will certainly support the idea.
I cannot fault the hon member’s plea that more farmland should be made available because as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said—I think it was he who referred to it—if one has so little land available the prices really skyrocket. This also applies to agricultural land. The problem is that if one pays too high a price one either goes bankrupt or if that is the general situation, there will be so much pressure eventually that food prices will rise. We all are painfully aware that right now the inflation rate remains stubbornly high despite its downward trend. It remain stubbornly high as a result of a very strong push coming from food prices. This is a great pity, because we could have done with a lower inflation rate and much lower food prices.
The hon member for Actonville used an expression I have never heard before. He said: “The Lord bestoweth and Barend distributeth”. [Interjections.] I thank him for that rather kind expression. I have a whole stack of other nasty bumper stickers in my office. Unfortunately that expression is not nasty enough for a bumper sticker, but even so, it is still interesting. The hon member for Actonville also pleaded for more housing.
*I thank the hon member for that part of his speech that was delivered in beautiful Afrikaans. I personally greatly appreciate that. It is always a very pleasant experience when a surprising number of hon members of this House deliver speeches in flawless Afrikaans. I once went overseas with an hon member of this House. Unfortunately he is now sitting in a place where I cannot speak to him directly. I am sure he will remember the occasion well. I told him I wished I could use him to arrange a party rally in my constituency. I am sure we would have collected lots of funds.
†The hon member for Actonville referred to State expenditure as an important factor in the inflation equation. He said my colleagues were not helping me. However, in all fairness to my colleagues, apart from myself and the hon the Minister of the Budget, all the rest of the Executive have one brief and that is to spend money. There are Ministers who have to see to it that houses or roads are built. Some have to see to it that factories and schools are built. Some have to see to it that there are properly qualified teachers available. When this is translated into financial terms, it all boils down to spending money. We cannot blame them for pursuing that as vigourously as they possibly can.
However, the hon member is right. If State expenditure is out of control, this will unfortunately translate into a high inflation rate. This is one of the very important factors in this country which initiates the whole process of inflation. The hon member addressed particular points, but I am not in a position to respond to them right now. I respectfully want to submit that he take that up during the discussion on the next Vote. The hon member also made the point that the Government could save money by using empty facilities. I cannot fault that basic principle. However, we still have certain practical problems to iron out. Fortunately there is a lively discussion going on about this very issue.
The hon member for Actonville, as well as other hon members, referred to the Group Areas Act. We will have ample opportunity in August to discuss it. I therefore think I will wait until August before I take part in the debate on the Group Areas Act.
The hon member for Brickfield asked for more money for health services. This is a laudable desire of the hon member. However, I just want to indicate very briefly that the way in which the Budget is structured, is like this: We have to allocate a certain amount to social services which the whole country can afford. Social services include health, pensions and education. In other words, there is competition between them. When a certain community experiences a drop in its demands as far as education is concerned, much of that money can go into health. There is, however, a certain ceiling to which we must adhere.
I have already referred to some of the other issues that the hon member raised. Allow me one further remark in regard to his speech: He said as long as we have three Houses, the Group Areas Act will stay. This House is part of Parliament, and this tricameral Parliament, with all its faults and all its shortcomings, is setting new standards in Africa. I do not know whether hon members always realise that. We are proving the statistics of Africa wrong. Where else in Africa have three different population groups shared power successfully—for four years now—and made a few hundred laws of Parliament in order to help the country govern itself properly? The laws that we are making this year will enable this Parliament, in the words of the hon the State President, to govern itself into a new dispensation with the involvement of Black people up to the highest level. That is the brief the White electorate received during its election last year. Despite all its shortcomings therefore, it provides us with a vehicle to govern ourselves into new dispensations. I think it is incumbent upon all of us that we should build confidence in this Parliament.
One hon member—I think it was the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture—spoke about changes. He mentioned that many changes had taken place. Yes, Sir, it is true, but the changes that have taken place must be proven outside, among our various electorates, to have been for the better and to have contributed towards a better South Africa. That is terribly important. That is why we must build confidence into the system and the processes of democracy.
The hon member for Reservoir Hills also blamed many things on the tricameral system. I do not agree with him. I recalled a little story the other day in one of the other Houses, and I want to repeat it here. Somebody once sat on a gallery in a particular parliament and he looked down at the proceedings for a long time. When he came out, he said to himself that he no longer believed in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. He was very cynical about Parliament, but at least he also had his tongue in his cheek. The fact is that we are all human beings and even collectively we can do nothing perfect.
The most important aspects of parliamentary culture are those things which are not written in the law books or the rule books. Those are the things that are invisible. That is the culture that binds a collection of individuals together to do the best for their country. That is why my plea is not to destroy confidence in the tricameral system, but to build it; to overcome its shortcomings and not to distort the perspective completely, as if the entire system is to be seen in the light of its shortcomings. Quite the opposite, I believe, obtains.
I have great appreciation for one observation of the hon member, namely that many Nationalists paid the price for the case of reform. It is very true. I want to put it to the hon member and other hon members who are very critical of the system: What is the alternative? What is the achievable and practical alternative? Unless we collectively build confidence in this system, we shall pay an even dearer price than the price the National Party has paid so far for its courage to reform.
The hon member said we have an odd kind of Cabinet. Yes, we have. A certain author saw fit to write a book on South Africa and called it A Very Strange Society. I will not call it an odd society, but we are indeed a very strange society and we need new and innovative instruments to govern ourselves properly. Our Cabinet is one of those instruments. It is true what the hon member said, namely that this is not the cheapest system of democracy. However, what is the cost of the American system of democracy? They are continuously in a state of elections and, on the bottom line, can one therefore measure proper democratic government in terms of cost? I do not imply that we should go overboard, but I think that in difficult circumstances we are not doing too badly.
I have already referred with appreciation to what he said to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. The hon the Minister mentioned two specific cases involving certain amounts with regard to RSCs. I have great sympathy with the hon the Minister and I would appreciate it if he would supply me with the details so that I can evaluate this with my advisers and so that we can take this up interdepartmentally. I also thank him for his other kind remarks addressed to myself and my advisers.
The hon member for Cavendish referred to the Group Areas Act, to which I have already responded. He made the point that future economic demands would force certain political changes. I believe that we are in a process of interaction between politics and economics, which is not only unique but which is at the same time also very exciting. I want to reiterate, in the light of his speech, a point I made earlier for the people outside to support the changes that are under way. These changes must work and be seen to work not only for a better present situation, but also for a better future in the long term.
I share the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s concern about the sanctions legislation and also his desire that Black leaders should speak from councils in order to counter actions from overseas. This is not only to counter sanctions per se, but I also believe that once we have, in terms of our mandate which we received in the House of Assembly last year, Black leaders making their contribution from these councils, we will also see many more viable opportunities to improve South Africa’s image abroad. I think that concludes my reply to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.
At the end of this debate, may I again thank the hon members, not only for this debate. From my point of view it is a privilege to have been involved in many a debate in this House this year, which were of an exceptionally high level. I want to reiterate what I said earlier, that I appreciate the great care that hon members took during our budget debates to prepare themselves to participate. I sincerely appreciate this.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
Mr Chairman, before I proceed with the legislation in question, I would like all those present to take note of what the hon the Minister of Finance said in his closing remarks. I believe what he has said does credit to what is done in this House most of the time. Unfortunately we have had a few lapses, yet I do not believe we should be judged by those, but rather by the compliments that have been paid to us by one of the senior hon Ministers in the Cabinet. I think that those remarks about this House are true. [Interjections.]
I would like to call upon the hon members to refer the Land Bank Amendment Bill that is before us back to the select committee so that some of the concerns that have been expressed by our colleagues may be taken up there and hopefully the Bill will be returned to this House after an amendment.
The standing committee.
I am sorry, I mean the standing committee. [Interjections.]
Order! I think hon members must get the terminology right. There are no more standing committees according to the Order Paper before us.
Yes, Mr Chairman; the joint committee then.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If I understood the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition correctly, he wishes the Bill to be recommitted to the Joint Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs without debate. We would support that.
Order! Did the hon member for Moorcross say Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs? [Interjections.]
I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman. I meant Finance. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, we support the proposal.
Mr Chairman, I support the proposal that this Bill be recommitted to the joint committee.
Debate concluded.
Bill recommitted.
Mr Chairman, I should like to act on behalf of my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance in presenting this report because the Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts deals exclusively with matters affecting my department, namely the Department of Education and Training.
I am going to move that the report be adopted, and if the procedure is the same as in the other Houses I shall in due course propose an amendment to the motion of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, proposing the acceptance of this report but amending his suggestion that it be referred to a joint committee for further investigation.
Let me say at the outset that this report has a twofold importance. In the first place it is important because it deals with the necessity to ensure regular and accountable spending of public money. We are grateful both for the contribution that has been made in this matter by the Advocate-General in his report dealing with alleged irregularities in respect of the purchase of a computer-assisted training system in the Department of Education and Training, as well as for the contribution made by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts in this respect.
Secondly, the report is also important because it deals with the education of a very large part of our population. It deals with the massive numbers of pupils in Black schools and it also affects the large backlogs in education for Black children and the efforts to apply computer-assisted education systems as an instrument to increase the effectiveness of Black education, for instance by improving the subject knowledge of teachers, particularly by emphasising the need for better training in mathematics and science, and especially by addressing the present unacceptably high failure rate of Std 10 candidates.
The system of computer-assisted education which is at issue in this report affects all three of these areas and so, if it is successfully applied, it will have a very significant effect on the cost-effectiveness of education. Also, by emphasising the importance of mathematics and effective training in the senior secondary schools, it will contribute towards a higher degree of applicability and of relevance in the subject contents which children are taught at school.
I should now like to turn to the contents of the Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, with reference to the purchase of computer-assisted education systems in the Department of Education and Training. The report, which was tabled in this House on 6 June, has three paragraphs and I shall briefly deal with all three of them. Firstly, I fully agree with the concluding part of paragraph (a) of the report where it emphasises the need for the strict adherence to instructions laid down with regard to the purchasing of such instrumentation by government departments. I myself also emphasised this point when I issued a statement on 29 March of this year at the time of the tabling of the Advocate-General’s report on this matter. In that statement I emphasised that I gave instructions to my department to adhere carefully to the financial and Treasury instructions with regard to the proper procedures to be followed in purchasing property for government purposes. I therefore fully agree with the point which is raised in the final part of paragraph (a) of the report of the joint committee.
Secondly I also endorse the view taken in paragraph (b) of the joint committee’s report where it expresses concern that there has not been sufficient follow-up of procedures followed for the purchase of this computer-assisted education system in order to ensure that all requirements had been complied with. I believe that this is a matter that calls for further investigation and consideration.
I should also like to point out that there is a very important recommendation in the first part of paragraph (a) of the report of the joint committee where it requests that an evaluation of the application, the effectiveness and the potential role of computer-assisted education systems should take place before further purchases are made. This evaluation should be carried out by a committee consisting of the four executive education departments and should be initiated by the Minister of National Education.
In this part of the report the words used are “the application, effectiveness and potential role” of computer-assisted education “should first be evaluated fully”. I understand these words “evaluated fully” as not meaning everything should now be studied and evaluated from the beginning, but that this evaluation will be a continuation of the work that has already been done in terms of large masses of investigations and evaluations done by the HSRC, in particular, and which have already led to important guidelines being accepted by the different education departments for the introduction of computer-assisted education systems.
This House should therefore realise that this evaluation recommended here is not something new which has been neglected and now has to be done for the first time, but it must accept that a massive job has already been completed by—as I have said—the HSRC. In fact, no fewer than five reports dealing with the computer in education and training were completed, presented and published by the HSRC in 1983 at the request of the then Minister of National Education. Those reports were also considered by the then committee of education ministers at its meeting in August 1984, and a Press statement was released with regard to the guidelines accepted from those reports. Therefore, the evaluation to be done here should be seen as a matter of updating and bringing the whole matter up to the latest state of the art. The work has mostly already been done before.
Finally—and this is the important thing—in the concluding paragraph (c) of the report the joint committee decides that the whole matter, ie the whole matter of the purchase of computer-assisted education systems by the Department of Education and Training with which the committee dealt, should be referred back to Parliament on an urgent basis for further investigation. I agree that this further investigation is needed.
I fully agree that the investigation of several aspects with regard to the purchase of these computer-assisted education systems by the Department of Education and Training is necessary. I have serious doubts, however, about the advisability of the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ motion that a Parliamentary joint committee should be appointed to investigate this whole matter. My objection is based on the fact that a Parliamentary joint committee investigating a matter of this nature would probably take a very long time. It will be a matter of months and it will probably only report back to Parliament at the beginning of next year.
I think this matter needs urgent investigation. It should be speedily dealt with so that, if necessary, further steps can be taken in the very near future. Therefore, as I reported on this matter to the House of Assembly yesterday, I have seen fit to refer this whole matter for further urgent investigation to the Commission for Administration, which one could call the overall watchdog over standards of administration in the public service. I requested the chairman of the Commission for Administration, in terms of sections 7 and 8 of its Act, to further investigate these matters and to report back and make recommendations to me. I then undertook to the House of Assembly that I would report back to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts the result of such an investigation by the Commission for Administration and on any further steps that have been taken.
In this way we will not be circumventing the responsibility of Parliament to follow up this matter but Parliament will then have the advantage of the completed investigation of the Commission for Administration. Parliament or its Joint Committee on Public Accounts can then consider any further steps or investigations necessary. I think everybody will realise and agree with me that the Commission for Administration being a statutory body of high repute—as I said, it is the watchdog over standards of public administration in South Africa—also has a reputation for integrity and strictness, and it is well-known to maintain high standards and norms of administration.
Certain events took place in the meantime and I would like to report on them here. After the debate yesterday, the Commission for Administration found that it would like to be recused from further investigation of this whole matter. As I said, I announced in the House of Assembly yesterday that I had requested the Commission for Administration to conduct an investigation, or to have such an investigation done, into the acquisition of a computer-supported system of instruction by the Department of Education and Training.
In the discussion that followed in the House of Assembly upon my announcement, critical reference was made by several speakers to the Commission for Administration’s proposed role in the matter. Under those circumstances the Commission indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from the investigation into the matter. I appreciate the Commission for Administration’s point of view. In view of that, I would now like to announce that it has been decided that a judicial commission of enquiry be appointed by the hon the State President to look into the whole matter in question as well as other matters concerning the Department of Education and Training. Such a commission of enquiry appointed by the hon the State President will submit its findings to the Government and its report, as in the normal course of affairs, will of course ultimately be tabled in Parliament. A complete statement will be issued by the State President’s Office defining the terms of reference of this commission of enquiry more precisely.
Having said this, I still believe that it would not be appropriate now for Parliament to appoint a standing committee to investigate the matter of the purchase mentioned in the report of the joint committee until such a commission of enquiry as I have now mentioned, has completed its report on the whole matter. I do not think there can be any doubt about the standing, the reliability and the influence of the work to be done by a commission of enquiry appointed by the hon the State President. I would like to mention here that this commission of inquiry will be chaired by Mr Justice Leo van den Heever from the Cape Division of the Supreme Court, together with Mr W J M van Zyl of the regional court in Durban and Mr Gerald Barry, a well-known former Auditor-General.
Whereas the hon member for Reservoir Hills has placed a Draft Resolution on the Order Paper, I move as follows:
The Government, having undertaken this commission of enquiry, will in due course submit the report of that commission of enquiry to Parliament.
I also have to announce that Dr A B Fourie, Director-General of the Department of Education and Training, who has been directly implicated in the whole matter, has requested me today, in terms of section 15(5)(a) of the Public Service Act, Act 111 of 1984, to approve his early retirement. I have approved this early retirement with effect from 15 June 1988.
Mr Chairman, I have a high personal regard for the hon the Minister.
The whole House has a high regard for him.
The whole House has a high regard for him.
Do not forget the hon the Deputy Minister.
The House also knows that I have a high regard for the hon the Deputy Minister! [Interjections.] We recognise that in a large department—to use an old Indian expression—all five fingers are not of equal length. Deviation could therefore occur from time to time. I also want to acknowledge that it stands to the credit of the hon the Minister that as soon as it came to his knowledge that there was an element of maladministration in his department, he promptly referred the matter to the Advocate-General, who duly and as a matter or urgency conducted an inquiry. They submitted the report which we have before us today.
We have a firm undertaking that a judicial commission of inquiry will be appointed. I do not think we need to discuss the terms of reference of that committee here. With all due respect, the terms of reference need not be wider than to look into measures to prevent a recurrence of the defalcation which, in fact, occurred.
I am not going to make a long speech. In view of the assurance regarding the judicial commission, my attitude is going to be something like this: My motion was like a lovely silk tie. The judicial commission ate up my silk tie. I therefore have no difficulty in subordinating my motion to the amendment moved by the hon the Minister, and I withdraw it.
Mr Chairman, we have listened to the hon the Minister, as well as the hon member for Reservoir Hills. We on this side fully support the hon the Minister by accepting the report. We support him on the appointment of this judicial commission. It is with regret that we note that a man of the standing of the Director-General has to retire after all the wonderful work that he has done in this particular department. Be that as it may, there will certainly be a reason for his early retirement. We wish him all the best. We support the motion as proposed by the hon the Minister.
Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Laudium for their support of the attitude I have adapted. I am not sure what to do as far as procedures are concerned. With the permission of the House I would like to move the acceptance of the report and that the matter be referred to the Government, as I proposed, with the assurance I have given here about the appointment.
Mr Chairman, with respect, once I have withdrawn my motion, the amendment falls away, and we simply adopt the report.
Order! I think that the spirit of the hon the Minister’s submission has been that the report be adopted and that in addition to that the matter be referred to the Government. I now put the question.
Question agreed to.
Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support this Bill. It deals with two major sectors in this country, namely the farming community and the mining industry. Apparently the Bill addresses the rights of the mining people in areas where both these activities, agriculture and mining, are conducted.
Amongst the things we tried to address was to bring these two sectors together to reach some sort of consensus, because there have been many instances where the farmers have not been satisfied with certain problems which the miners were creating as far as open-cast mining and very deep coal mining are concerned. The farmers believed this caused a certain measure of disturbance and subsiding and obstructed farming. There have been trials regarding this, so we decided to look at this Bill and introduce certain relief measures which would address the problems of these people and help them to understand one another.
The farmers feel that they have a common law and they have the right of usage of the land and can therefore go to court. They had many difficult court cases which resulted in a great deal of money being spent, the net result being that an agreement has still not been reached between these two groups. This Bill therefore addresses that problem. It now gives the farmer a right to claim, and if there are further disturbances, he can then claim for a second time. If all that fails, he will still be able to go to court if he is not satisfied with the arrangement provided in this Bill.
I believe that we have gone quite far to resolve this. As a matter of fact, the mining people came along and gave evidence and told their side of the story and the farming community also gave their side of the story. The standing committee put all this together and has produced this Bill before us which is an amending Bill to the principal Act. We on this side of the House support the Bill.
Mr Chairman, this Bill is of benefit to the farming community. It ensures that the farmer is not taken for a ride by the small-time fly-by-night operator. The hon the Minister says he is having a problem at the moment determining whether the surface damage is being caused by the new high-extraction mining method. This Bill will now rectify the problem and will give greater clarity on some of the aspects which hindered the hon the Minister to act in the past. The hon the Minister can now force a mining house to pay compensation in terms of this Bill.
This is a welcome Bill to those farmers who have suffered in the past without this provision. I think the provision now contained in the Bill will afford much joy and relief to farmers in general. We support the Bill.
Mr Chairman, in supporting this Bill I just want to make the observation that in a country like South Africa, mining enterprises are competing with agriculture and an increasing number of mining companies will be identifying land, which invariably will be agricultural land beneath the surface of which mineral deposits are to be found.
When I was in Germany, not very far from Bonn, I came across what seemed to me one of the deepest open-cast mining enterprises taking place. It was very deep down into the ground, and yet it was open-cast. All the soil that was being taken out there was being stored away, dressed and used for the time being for agricultural and other pursuits, but with the objective of filling in those mines once the mining came to an end. At Richards Bay we have mining of that nature and this Bill addresses the situation where farmers give mining rights to mining companies in respect of land that has potential resources beneath it. But it is important that wherever land is disturbed for any purpose—irrespective of whose land it is—if at all possible that land should be brought back to its original shape and form. We must encourage that and I would like to commend that not only in respect of farming land, but any land for that matter. If it is to be used for mining because there are minerals beneath the surface, that land should be rehabilitated and returned to its natural state, whether it was open grassland, a forest or whatever.
In the future I can see us increasingly encroaching on reserves and one should not deny mining companies the right to use those resources if they are in the greater interests of the country and its people. The understanding should be clear, however, that these places will be returned to the form and shape in which they were originally found. That is the point I would like to make.
Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the three hon members who have spoken in support of this measure.
As the hon members for Mariannhill and Havenside have said, these measures have been designed to ensure that the interests of both the agricultural landholder and the mineral rights holder are taken into consideration so that both are catered for under the Act. At the present time there are certain, let us call them flaws, in the Act, in that the Act does not provide for the total extraction method of coal mining. In the past the mining of coal was done by the pillar method, where one left sometimes in excess of 55% or 60% of the coal underground in the form of pillars, because the surface had to be supported. This has resulted in a large wastage of a very valuable resource. I believe it has been said that if we can extract all our coal by the long-wall type of mining, we will be able to extract an additional 16 500 million tons of coal, which is equivalent to 90 years of production in South Africa. This is an asset we cannot afford to waste. There is also a danger, I might add, inherent in the present pillar system, namely underground fires starting in old coal mines, as is presently happening at Witbank where one finds that the surface starts collapsing …
Caving in.
… and caving in, doing far more damage to the surface, because one finds that the fire burns out the surface organic matter thereby making the land unfit for agricultural use. I have visited Witbank to observe this problem and I believe, therefore, that it is in the interests of the State that this Bill should be approved, not only because of the financial benefits inherent in long-wall mining, but also because it is also beneficial to the farmer in the long run.
At the present time there are conflicts and uncertainties about the Act and this Bill is designed to resolve these conflicts and uncertainties. Of course, it provides for a high extraction rate of our coal. But it also enables the farmer to enter into agreements with the mining company ahead of time as to exactly how much he is going to be paid in the form of compensation as his land will be undermined, and how much he would be paid should the land subside as a result. Such agreements have already been drawn up in so far as the mining of coal for Sasol was concerned.
I believe that these amendments are necessary in order to make provision for this type of mining as well as to protect the farmer’s interest and to remove the present uncertainties. I might also say that some mining companies are now also going into old mines and starting to extract the old pillars, collapsing the mine behind them as the coal is mined out. These amendments are therefore necessary to enable this form of mining to take place as well as to compensate the farmer to remove any doubts regarding the farmer’s legal position in this regard. I am therefore very pleased that hon members have supported this measure.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned open-cast mining. We are already mining coal by this method in South Africa. We have large open-cast mines which mine coal for export and we do exactly what is being done in West Germany, where the land is rehabilitated as the mining proceeds across the surface of the earth. I am glad the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised the matter of West Germany as I believe that they serve as a model for all mining companies when it comes to rehabilitating the land. In fact I have been told that in some instances they have actually improved on what the land used to look like. They have created lakes and have, in fact, landscaped the earth. I agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we must give our full attention to this matter.
I can assure him that our existing Acts do provide for the rehabilitation, not only of mines, but also of old quarry sites. The provisions already exist which ensure that after the quarries or the mines have been worked out, there must be a degree of rehabilitation. Of course, one cannot completely rehabilitate a huge quarry that may have been in existence for 50 years. However, every effort is certainly made to ensure that our landscape is not unnecessarily damaged.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at
Petitions:
General Affairs:
- 1. Petition from P G J Meiring of Pretoria, formerly Director of State Information, praying for a pension or for other relief—(Presented by Mr C L Fismer).
- 2. Petition from P J Warner of Delmas, formerly in the employ of the former Department of Bantu Administration and Development, praying for consideration of his case and for relief—(Presented by Dr W J Snyman).
Referred to the Joint Committee on Pensions.
Own Affairs:
- 3. Petition from M P Rabie, in his capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Agterkliphoogte Irrigation Board, praying that the balance of the Board’s irrigation loan be reduced by half, the arrear interest thereon be written off, and the rate of interest on the remaining half of the loan be reduced—(Presented by Mr J Rabie).
- 4. Petition from H Bruwer, in his capacity as Chairman of the Klaasvoogds Irrigation Board, praying that a portion of the Board’s irrigation loan be written off, the balance of the loan be reduced by half, the arrear interest thereon be written off, and the rate of interest on the remaining half of the loan be reduced—(Presented by Mr N J J van R Koornhof).
Bills:
General Affairs:
- 1. Local Government Training Amendment Bill [B 91—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Constitutional Development).
- 2. Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society Amendment Bill [B 92—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Finance).
Committee Report:
General Affairs:
1. Report of the Joint Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals on the proposed Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust Amendment Bill, submitted by Mr D J N Malcomess, and the proposed Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society Amendment Bill, submitted by Messrs J H Heyns, J Douw and E Abramjee, dated 13 June 1988, as follows: