Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, this Vote deals with the Bureau for Information, and also with broadcasting services and the film industry. We are opposed to the activities of the Bureau for Information. We have made that absolutely clear during the discussion of this Vote from year to year.

We believe that the bureau was set up purely to deal with the task of promoting the NP …

Are you asking a question or making a speech?

I am making a speech in terms of the Rules. That hon member should try to get to know what is going on here! [Interjections.]

We believe that the Bureau for Information was set up purely to deal with the …[Interjections.]

Order! I should like to point out to hon members that the hon member for Johannesburg North has limited time. Hon members must therefore give him the opportunity to declare his vote.

I say, Sir, that we believe that the bureau is there purely to promote the interests of the NP. That was proved again 10 days or so ago when the advertising campaign was launched to promote interest in the municipal elections on 26 October. The amount involved in that regard is not reflected on these estimates and will no doubt come up at some later stage. Therefore, I shall not at this stage refer to that particular advertising campaign. However, it is a very clear indication of what the bureau is up to. All the pamphlets, books, newspapers and advertising campaigns that are promoted are purely in the interests of the NP. [Interjections.] We believe that to be corrupt and unacceptable, and therefore we are opposed to the activities of the bureau.

Secondly, this hon Minister is responsible for broadcasting services. The performance of the SABC leaves an enormous amount to be desired. During the course of the general election last year they promoted the interests of the NP to the detriment of all other parties taking part in that election. [Interjections.] We are therefore opposed to any hon Minister of the NP being involved in the affairs of the SABC. That is the second reason why we are opposed to this Vote.

Thirdly, the hon the Minister is responsible for the film industry, which is a new addition to his portfolio. We regard this as a sinister move indeed and as a move on the part of the Government to extend its influence into that industry. Although the hon the Minister has only had this portfolio for a short time we are concerned about what he has done and about what the bureau has done in regard to these other two departments. This is the third reason why we will oppose this Vote.

The House divided:

AYES—82: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Marais, P G; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Walt, A T; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Welgemoed, P J.

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

NOES—37: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Ville, J R; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

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

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 12—“Defence Force”:

Division demanded.

Declaration of vote:

Mr Chairman, in the debate on this Vote on 17 and 18 May one would have expected them, in view of the fact that the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister had then already been fully informed of what was happening in Angola, to have wanted to engender the utmost degree of mutual goodwill and unity with regard to Defence Force matters among the hon members here in the House.

Yet the hon the Deputy Minister came forward with the objectionable insinuation of misconduct by CP members, in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was included. Furthermore, that hon Deputy Minister said in his speech that he would suggest to the hon the Minister that troops of the Defence Force be deterred from exposure to CP members. In his reply, the hon the Minister fully agreed with the hon the Deputy Minister. What did this so-called misconduct consist of? Can one believe it! What the NP was once so proud of, namely that the NP opposed integration, became misconduct for that party when the CP stated that it was opposed to integration. That is the crux of the matter.

The CP—I want to emphasise it—are the greatest supporters of the Defence Force. There must be no doubt about that among hon members in this House. However, the actions of the political heads of the Defence Force are to the detriment of the Defence Force and of our country, South Africa. For this reason, if we were able to move such an amendment, I would want to move that the amount of R232 998 be reduced by an amount of R136 999 under the item “Minister” and by an amount of R95 999 under the item “Deputy Minister”.

Vote put again and agreed to.

Vote No 25—“Administration: House of Delegates”:

Division demanded.

Declaration of vote:

Mr Chairman, were it possible in terms of the Rules of this House we would delete from this Vote the salary of Mr Rajbansi as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, either to zero, or to the amount of R2,48, which would be the price of the proverbial bunch of carrots which he dangles before his members. [Interjections.]

Be that as it may, on the 20th of last month a motion was passed by 24 votes to 17 in the other House which declared that Mr Rajbansi no longer enjoyed the support of the majority of the members of the House of Delegates, and the House called upon him to resign forthwith.

He did not resign, neither did the hon the State President take action to cause him to resign. That is why on 2 June I said in this House that every established convention and every democratic principle cried out for Mr Rajbansi to be dismissed as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. However, instead of upholding democratic tradition the hon the State President resorted to presidential threats and to party-political manoeuvring.

Since then a House Committee of the House of Delegates has sat and come to certain conclusions relating to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates, inter alia, that he did receive in his capacity as chairman of the National Peoples Party a cheque for R10 000, and that it was admitted that Mr Pillay regarded these donations as investments with a view to obtaining possible benefits, which evidently did happen, according to his own evidence. The committee concluded by saying:

Corruption!

We are shocked, not only that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates did not resign, but we are now indeed even more shocked that the hon the State President has not dismissed this man from his Cabinet.

Corruption! [Interjections.]

Here is a government which says that it believes in clean administration, and yet in the face of the finding of a select committee of the House of Delegates, Mr Rajbansi not only remains Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but also a member of the hon the State President’s Cabinet. We say this is an absolute disgrace.

Corruption! [Interjections.]

Rubbish, man!

We are shocked that in the light of the finding of a House Committee of that House that the hon the State President, who is the head of Government and the leader of the NP, has not dismissed Mr Rajbansi from his Cabinet,

Corruption!

You are corrupt!

In the light of this, if it were possible to do so, we would totally expunge the salary of Mr Rajbansi from this Vote and from Parliament.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: the hon the Chief Whip of the NP, in referring to an hon member on this side of the House, said: “Jy is korrup.”

Order! Did the hon member do so?

Mr Chairman, that hon member said “corruption” repeatedly, and I said: “You are corrupt!”

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In regard to the speech of the hon leader of the PFP the hon member for Sandton said that it amounted to corruption. By that he was implying …

Order! No, I heard what the hon member said. He used the word “corruption”. He did not specify the connection in which he used it. I am not going to take the matter any further.

He is a stranger to the truth!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Uitenhage has just said across the floor of the House to the hon member on this side that he is a stranger to the truth. [Interjections.]

And he is sitting in a ministerial bench whilst saying it!

Order! I just want to say that I will not take that matter any further.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member for Uitenhage has interjected from a Minister’s bench. I believe that that is not parliamentary practice, and that nobody but a Minister is allowed to interject from a ministerial bench.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it and offer an apology, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I understand that there will now be no voting in respect of this Vote. I therefore put the Vote. No objection? Agreed to.

*I now put Vote No 27, as amended.

[Inaudible.]

No objection? Agreed to.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I do not want to threaten the hon member for Yeoville, but if he keeps on interjecting I shall ask him to take the Chair! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I sat and listened to the debate here yesterday and came to a few conclusions. In the first instance I came to the conclusion that the hon members of the PFP and we on this side of the House have nothing to say to each other as far as education is concerned. The hon member for Pinetown himself gave us the reason for this when he said that there was a difference of approach between them and us in regard to the overall philosophical and political principle. He is correct; there is a difference. It plays a part, and I do not believe that it is wrong. Even the HSRC accepts it as such. In its report on page 88 it has this to say:

The yardsticks which exercise an influence are, inter alia, political philosophy. The report goes on to say:

I think this is perhaps the most important difference between ourselves and the PFP. We are responsible for the government of this country. No matter what we may have said and done, at the end of the day we still have to ensure that this country is governed in such a way that education can continue. [Interjections.] All those hon members need to do is to say—as happened to them recently: “We shall now just become Independent and then we will have no responsibility”.

The second conclusion I came to—and I experienced this again here this afternoon—was that one could not neglect to express one’s disappointment. I did not ever think that I would hear the Official Opposition say in this House that they cared so little for the true interests of South Africa that they were prepared to vote against the defence budget; that they were not prepared to vote the money necessary for defence.

I think it is necessary for the general public of South Africa to know that these people who represent them in this House, who say that they represent the Whites, do not care whether or not this country is defended.

I have always respected the hon member for Brits, perhaps because he was a minister of religion, and I grew up in a home where one placed a minister of religion on something of a pedestal and believed that he was to some extent inviolate. The hon member really disappointed me yesterday. He referred to clause 62 which deals with religious instruction and said that he was a Christian-national protagonist—this is something in regard to which I do not disagree with him—but then argued that what was contained in the ordinances of the Transvaal and the Free State, namely that a teacher cannot be appointed or retained in a public school unless he is prepared to give religious instruction without any conscientious objection, was also written into this legislation with which we are now dealing.

I was trained as a teacher in the Cape and I taught there. I should now like to ask that hon member whether he is insinuating that because this is not written into those ordinances, I who was trained and taught in the Cape, as well as the other teachers of the Cape and Natal, are perhaps not as good Christians as the teachers in the Free State and the Transvaal. I want to tell him that if that is, in fact, what he is insinuating, I must place a big question mark over his judgement. [Interjections.]

We say that the principal knows his staff, and he knows who of them are best suited to give religious instruction. I am concerned about who it is who gives my child religious instruction. Even though it may perhaps make no difference to that hon member who it is who gives his child religious instruction, it does matter to me.

During this debate I had the doubtful privilege of having to listen to 12 speeches on this Bill. Furthermore, I read 30 papers and also the comments of, inter alia, the FTC, the Provincial Education Councils, parent associations and also the Committee of University Principals which commented on behalf of 11 universities. Furthermore, the House Committee was also able to consider the Bill in detail, many questions being asked and explanations given.

I think it would be presumptuous of me to think that I could still say something new about this Bill. However, I do believe that the many hours of listening and deliberating were worthwhile if the attitude or approach of those of us involved in those deliberations was, in the first instance, that the interests of the person to be taught, the child, should be paramount; in the second instance, that only the very best was acceptable for our children, our school and our community; that the pupils must receive education of quality; that the teacher had to set an example worth following—the hon member for Stellenbosch set this out for us so well yesterday; that the teacher was educator, but as a person also had his rights; and that the parents and the community, but also the State, had a great responsibility.

When one analyses this legislation further one comes to the conclusion that the Bill does not simply consist of existing ordinances and laws that have been rewritten. The reason for this is that some ordinances in the various provinces contain divergent provisions. In such cases an effort has been made to retain the most effective ones.

The objection is now forthcoming from some quarters that the Bill does not make sufficient provision for the retention of the particular character peculiar to the various provincial education departments. I do not think it is possible to establish the ethos or spirit in legislation. I think the ethos or the spirit is something which becomes apparent over the years through the approach and the attitude of those implementing the law.

Although history is wonderful—and I am particularly loyal to the past—we may certainly not misuse our loyalty as an excuse for stagnation. It is for that reason that I see this legislation simply as a vehicle to achieve my goal, namely the education of my child.

Another objection that was lodged was that in contrast to its policy of the devolution of authority, the Government was now engaged in a process of centralisation. I contend that that is not correct. We heard yesterday and also earlier on that more than 200 functions which actually vest with the Head of Education or the Minister have been transferred to the Director of Education of the various executive provincial departments. I want to make the statement that the parents and the community, as well as the professional teachers’ organisations, have never had as much say in regard to the education of the child as precisely now. From the lowest level the parent now has a say in his management committee, his school board, his regional board and his provincial education council. He also has a say in regard to who will be elected to be his political representative here, and who a Minister will be as an elected person. In my opinion we must again appeal to parents and the community to become very much more closely involved with education.

The next general objection which is heard from time to time is that the Bill cannot be discussed meaningfully because the concomitant regulations are not available too. It is true that it would probably have been easier had the regulations already been available, but if it has to be accepted as a general rule that a Bill can only be discussed once the regulations are available, most probably very few laws would be on the Statute Book today.

The draft Bill was under discussion for about two years and was continually being moulded and changed. We are still changing it today. The question is how regulations can be written for something that is still in the process of change. It seems logical to me that a Bill first has to be accepted finally as law before the necessary regulations can be completed. The education department and the hon the Minister have undertaken to recognise certain bodies, including the FTC, in the final framing of the regulations. That undertaking has been given to them in writing, and the department also gave them that verbal assurance when they held discussions with them.

With that I may also perhaps be answering the question of the hon member for Durban North. He asked yesterday whether these people had ever been given a reply. They were given a reply. There were discussions with them and they also received written replies. In many cases they were satisfied, but in other cases they were not satisfied. Among themselves they were in agreement in regard to many things, but also differed in regard to others.

I am grateful that this legislation has now become a reality and want to express the hope that the introduction of uniform measures will now, as a result of that uniformity, lead to the elimination of the misunderstanding that existed on the part of teachers. This ought to lead to teachers having the liberty to move freely from province to province without there being any negative effect upon their conditions of service. This interaction of teachers among provinces can have a very favourable effect upon education as a whole.

I want today to express my gratitude for the fact that the four provincial executive education departments are being retained. I also want to make a strong appeal that the particular character to which I have referred will be retained as far as possible.

I want to refer particularly to the Cape and express the hope that the Cape, specifically of its sparse population distribution and vastness which gives rise to smaller schools, will be dealt with with particular circumspection so that as far as possible schools will continue to be as close as possible to the homes of the children and that the system of hostels and the transport of pupils to schools will be maintained. The retention of smaller schools in the sparsely populated areas of the country is important in that pedagogical education is promoted and pupils have the opportunity to stay in or near their own homes for as long as possible.

In passing I should also like to refer briefly to the question of mother-tongue education. A little old rhyme summed it up very well in the following words: “Jou moedertaal is dié taal waarin jy droom.” It is a scientifically proven fact that pupils learn best when they are taught in the language which they understand the best and with which they are most conversant. For that reason I am grateful that mother-tongue education is receiving high priority.

Education is a partnership activity but no single other factor is as important a determinant in the quality of education as the quality of the teaching corps. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there is one thing where I can agree with the words of the hon member for Kimberley North who has just sat down, and that is that we in this party and the NP are poles apart philosophically and politically on education matters.

We are now coming to the end of a debate which is of tremendous significance for the future of our country because it has to do with the education of our youth, and how they are educated is going to determine the future of South Africa and what sort of South Africa we are going to live in.

I can only say how disappointing it has been to listen to this debate and to examine the legislation before us. This was an opportunity for that hon Minister to rewrite the Statute Book in an imaginative and progressive way; an opportunity to get away from a past where division and separation has been the ruling philosophy and where South Africans of different language groups and different races have been kept apart. This hon Minister has been given this golden opportunity to bring about a new deal in South Africa where we could perhaps begin to live up to the words on our national emblem: Ex unitate vires—Unity is Strength. We are a divided nation and one of the bastions of that division, one of the bastions of apartheid, has been our education systems, particularly the sort of Christian National education system that has prevailed in the Transvaal.

We could have had a new deal, but what we have got, is an entrenchment of the status quo. There is no way that anyone can say that apartheid is dead or even that apartheid is being phased out when apartheid legislation of this kind comes before us. This hon Minister has failed to follow the path of reform which could have given us this new deal in education.

The Bill before us fails in almost every respect. The divisions entrenched in the Constitution are mirrored in the education system and the school structure, and the Bill has failed to bridge these divisions. It has failed, for example, to upgrade the status of teachers. It has ensured a regimentation of the products of our schools and allows no room for individuality and imagination. It creates a sort of monstrous sausage machine to make certain that uniformity prevails. All sausages have to come out at the end as a stereotype which fits the so-called Christian National mould. I actually believe that in the long run this hon Minister and his Government will find out that the human spirit will rise above this and that their attempts to produce a nation of sheep will not succeed.

The manner in which the four provincial ordinances have been consolidated has in fact consolidated the major shortcomings of the past. Firstly, one must look at the whole concept of own affairs in education and state for the record that we are not prepared to support this stupid and nonsensical philosophy. The PFP believes that there should be one system of education for all groups in South Africa. In this way we can build a nation.

We cannot agree with the degree of uniformity which is enforced by this Bill. We believe in freedom of association and we believe in a much greater degree of parental choice. The Bill’s shortcomings in this respect cannot be better illustrated than by looking at clause 55 headed “Determination of mother tongue”, which the hon member for Kimberley North spoke about. Instead of it being the choice of a parent as to which medium of instruction will be used in the education of his child, it is up to the principal of the school to ascertain “in which official language the child is more proficient” and to determine “that that language shall be the mother tongue of the child.” There is no room for a parent to decide which language they would prefer for the child’s education. We believe that this provision is divisive. A child who could be given a broader understanding of how people who speak a different language think, and a broader understanding of their culture, is being denied this opportunity. The whole philosophy of keeping Afrikaans-speaking children away from English-speaking children, let alone children of different races, is perpetuated. If ever we are to build a united nation we should be getting away from this philosophy, and this Bill fails absolutely in this respect.

Let us look at other aspects of this Bill in respect of which it has failed to bring about a new deal. We believe there should be greater flexibility with regard to the possibility of attendance at a school of the parents’ choice. Schools are built on tradition. Many families in South Africa can say with pride that sons and daughters attend the same schools which their parents did. Successful education, I believe, depends on pupils having a pride in the institution which is teaching them. There is no doubt at all that the building of tradition helps to build standards, and the education process is helped thereby. This Bill allows for no such flexibility. For these reasons, and for others advanced by my hon colleagues, there is no real parental choice in the choice of a school.

Let us take another provision. Let us look at the provision relating to the age at which a child may first be admitted to a primary school. Why should there be such inflexibility? There is no doubt at all that the development of children and their readiness for school varies tremendously. Many brilliant scholars of the past were able to start school at an earlier age and were not held back by rigid adherence to an age limit, the correctness of which is arguable.

You should know better!

It is an arguable case, Sir. All I am asking for is flexibility. In many countries in the world children are allowed to go to school from 18 months to two years younger than the age at which we allow them in South Africa.

You do not know what you are talking about!

When one comes to the situation of teachers in terms of this legislation, again it becomes obvious that Government policy demands a rigid adherence to rules and that inevitably imaginative methods and individuality are discouraged. Teachers just have to conform and initiative is not welcomed. Looking at their record, I believe this Government has never had the interests of teachers at heart. They regard them as bureaucratic ciphers, and this Bill perpetuates this.

The Government’s shameful record on teachers’ salaries shows that they have little regard for the vital importance of a dedicated profession. The strength of a good teacher lies in an individuality of approach which enables them to project something of themselves into the teaching process. The Bill makes sure that they become just working parts of this monstrous sausage machine.

Let us look at the political emasculation of teachers enforced by clause 96, which deprives them of their full civil and political rights. Teachers should, by their very position, be respected in the communities which they serve, and gagging them so that they may not express themselves in public or 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, is iniquitous, to say the least.

You are talking utter nonsense!

Teachers, by their very make-up, are people of convictions and beliefs, and the community at large will be poorer if they are not allowed to express these convictions and beliefs and become leaders in their own communities.

By and large, teachers are people who can be trusted to exercise discretion, but the Government just does not trust the profession. They do not trust teachers. Teachers have to conform. They have to be turned into political eunuchs. [Interjections.] The Government does not trust teachers to separate their professional lives from their private lives. They are contemptuous of the profession as a whole.

In summing up our attitudes, we in our party will continue to fight for one system of education for all groups in South Africa. We believe that education at primary and secondary school level should be free and compulsory for all children, irrespective of race. We will fight for the fundamental rights of parents to ensure that their children are educated in the language of their choice, and we will fight to boost the professional status of teachers in South Africa to their rightful place in the South African society.

For all these reasons, and for many others which I have not been able to mention, we condemn and oppose this Bill because it fails to bring about the new deal for education which is so desperately needed in education in South Africa at the present time.

Mr Chairman, now that we have come to the end of this debate allow me right at the outset to express my particular gratitude to all the parties involved who made it possible for us to have this Bill before us today.

As some hon members have already indicated, the work in this regard began more or less two years ago. It went through a process of in-depth enquiry, of scientific investigation and of in-depth discussion by various bodies and organisations, and today I want to record my particular gratitude and appreciation to those bodies involved.

I should briefly like to mention them. In the first instance there is my department, some officials of which are present here this afternoon. I have the utmost appreciation for the devotion with which they, and also others who are not present here today, have put the interests of education first. I appreciate the excellent work that they have done and, as far as I am concerned, they are really a great team.

I also want to express my gratitude to the education departments and the Committee of Heads of Education for the important work which they are doing under the chairmanship of the Superintendent-General. Then there is also the Federal Teachers’ Council and the various teachers’ associations, the parent associations, etc.

I should also like to express my particular gratitude to the MPs, particularly those on this side of the House. They were involved to a greater or lesser extent. I want to single out the representatives of Natal on my side of the House in particular.

I am singling out the MPs representing constituencies in Natal because of the fact that they made it their task to enter into discussions with the two teachers’ associations in Natal, namely the NOU—this is the Afrikaans teachers’ association—and the NTS. After the MPs had held in-depth discussions with them, they submitted a joint memorandum in which they recorded their comments, to which we gave particular attention.

It would therefore simply not be true if it were alleged that the representatives from Natal on this side of the House were not actively involved with this legislation. I want to thank these hon colleagues of mine particularly for the way in which they have involved themselves with this extremely important legislation. With this I do not want to say that there are no other hon members on this side of the House who have not done the same thing, but I specifically want to mention my hon colleagues from Natal.

I should also specifically like to thank the House Committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Brentwood. I am aware of the fact that in a particularly short space of time all the hon members who served on this House Committee had to evaluate and make contributions in respect of the work which various bodies had taken two years to bring to where it was. That was no easy task.

In regard to what I understand took place on the House Committee, this afternoon I want to express my gratitude for the particularly devoted way in which hon members of the House Committee did, in fact, try to undertake this enormous task. I am aware of the fact that all the members of the House Committee had to adapt their programmes in order to attend sittings of the committee. I thank the hon member for Brentwood, as chairman of the committee, for the guidance he gave. I appreciate his ability to take the members along with him as well.

I also thank hon members of the opposition parties for having been prepared to co-operate in this connection, because we want to have this legislation passed by this House this year. Why? For no sinister reason, but simply because we deem it to be in the best interests of education. Every hon member who served on that House Committee knows that what I am saying now is the truth. The sooner we pass this legislation, the better it will be for education as a whole.

As the hon member for Pinetown said, this is in fact probably one of the most important pieces of educational legislation that we have ever had to deal with. For that reason I thank hon members for having given us their co-operation in this connection.

I should also particularly like to thank the secretariat of the House of Assembly who assisted on the House Committee. I understand from the chairman of the House Committee that the secretariat also went out of its way to make it easier for this House Committee to dispose of its business.

I also want to express my thanks to hon members of this House for their participation in this debate. In this I include the hon members of the opposition—the hon members of both the Official Opposition and the PFP. We can all agree with much that has been said by hon members. Even the hon member for Bryanston who was so verbose this afternoon and who put the case of his party so strongly—actually, he made a policy speech—said some things about teachers with which we can all agree.

Although the hon members of the PFP agree with us in regard to specific matters, they have simply rejected this Bill from the point of view of their policy, and I do not begrudge them having done so. The hon member for Pinetown as well as the hon member for Brentwood said that in regard to specific aspects the members of the House Committee came to the point where they realised that there were deep philosophical differences between the policies of two or three parties, and that there was no sense in taking up the time of the House Committee in discussing these matters any further.

In fact, this was not a function of this consolidation legislation in which we are not addressing policy matters but simply combining the various provisions of the ordinances of the various provinces. Therefore, I also thank hon members of the PFP and of the Official Opposition for their contributions.

The Official Opposition do, of course, differ with us in respect of policy, but in specific respects they are closer to this side of the House than the PFP. They differ in respect of certain matters and they have also said that they would vote against the Bill because they differed in regard to specific matters, but they also agreed with us in regard to many aspects of the legislation. I do not begrudge them that, and I should also like to thank them for their co-operation in this connection. Generally speaking, I think that this debate has taken place on a fairly high level, and I want to thank hon members for this fact.

I want to express my thanks to the hon member for Roodepoort who indicated to the House that there was an administrative error in respect of clause 19 (c) as it appeared in the final version of the Bill. I have taken this matter up. It is correct that the House Committee recommended that the words “or designation” be omitted, and that the word “election” should have remained, also in conformity with clause 16. That is an administrative error and we have arranged that it be rectified administratively and that the Bill be submitted to the hon the State President for signature as it ought to read. [Interjections.]

The CP have put you right again! [Interjections.]

It is an administrative error, as I have said, and I am grateful that it was pointed out to me.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether it is legal and in order to make this change other than by way of an amendment?

That is precisely why I cleared up the matter administratively and spoke to the persons involved to find out whether it could be done in this way. I have been assured that because it is an administrative error—something like a printing error—it can be rectified in this way.

I have decided that I would prefer to try to reply comprehensively to arguments that have been advanced throughout in the speeches of hon members. If there is any time over I shall then reply further to individual hon members, although I think that I shall be replying to most of the objections in the course of dealing with the Bill.

Firstly, I just want to make a brief marginal comment in respect of the legislation itself. The main aim of this Bill is to have one Act in terms of which education at pre-primary, primary and secondary level, including special education, but excluding private primary and secondary schools—they have a specific Act—will be conducted. Everyone accepts the fact that the present situation, in which this takes place through the medium of three Acts and 16 ordinances, is not in the interests of education. Everyone in this House who has participated in this debate has also acknowledged that fact.

With the advent of the new constitutional dispensation—this is a fact and a reality—education has been identified as an own affair, and all the Acts having a bearing on White education were transferred to me in my capacity as Minister of Education and Culture. The result of the transfer of all of those Acts and ordinances is that the department now administers various legal provisions which deal with the same subject but which do not hold good throughout the Republic and which therefore are in conflict with each other in specific respects. Everyone will agree that we cannot continue in that way, and that is also the reason for the urgency with which we want to place this legislation on the Statute Book.

†By this time it should be clear that the Bill does not consist of a mere repetition of all the provisions of the relevant Acts and ordinances. As some of the ordinances which apply in the various provinces contain contradictory provisions regarding certain matters, an endeavour was made to retain the most effective provisions. Furthermore, certain adjustments have, of necessity, to be made in order to provide for the effective functioning of the new dispensation in education, and to accommodate current educational practice.

It is true that this Bill brings about a degree of uniformity. For that I offer no apology, as it is in the interests of education and sound administration.

*Everyone who knows anything about education will agree with this.

†Allegations have been made that the Bill, without which we cannot function effectively, has been bulldozed through Parliament with unseemly haste. However, what are the facts in this regard?

*This legislation had a long run-up and knowledgeable partners made expert contributions in regard to various points. After a thorough study of the existing ordinances the draft legislation was originally drawn up by educationists and legal people. After this the draft legislation was referred to the Advisory Committee on Education Legislation on which the provincial education departments and the organised profession, as represented by the FTC, were represented. They looked at it. After the draft legislation had been thoroughly investigated and considered by this advisory committee, and recommendations had been made, specific amendments were effected and they then accepted the legislation.

After this the draft legislation we sent to the Committee of Heads of Education. This committee, on which the directors of the various education departments are also represented, made an in-depth study of the draft Bill. After discussion and amendment, this senior advisory committee accepted the draft legislation and recommended it to me as a unanimous decision of the Committee of Heads of Education on which the directors of education in all the provinces have a seat. After personally studying this draft legislation I accepted the recommendation of the Committee of Heads of Education and approved the principles contained in the Bill.

Then I went further. The draft legislation was submitted to the legal representatives and the provincial education councils for comment and advice. As hon members know, these councils are representative of the education departments, the tertiary educational institutions, the organised education profession, the organised parents’ body, the statutory parent representative bodies, the management bodies of private schools, the councils of technical colleges and also the private sector. It was therefore an absolutely broad and representative body which had the opportunity of considering this draft legislation.

There was therefore wide consultation. To contend now that the comments and recommendations of education councils were not considered is by no means correct. The fact is that the comments and recommendations of the various bodies were unfortunately not always reconcilable with one another. Of course not! There was, however, consultation over a very wide spectrum and, where possible, I did in fact accommodate the recommendations.

Nor is it fair to say that the provincial education councils were not given sufficient time to consider the legislation. They were given time for discussion. The question is: How much time should we have given? It would have varied from place to place. It would have depended upon what people wanted to discuss. However, where policy aspects were involved, those fell outside the terms of reference of this specific legislation. I am happy and satisfied that the provincial education councils were, in fact, given sufficient time to consider the legislation.

In the meantime the FTC, one of the most important partners in the education profession in this country, had further discussions in regard to the draft legislation—this was after they had made their contributions—in order to deal with certain facets of the draft legislation. Consensus could be reached on most of the points. At a later stage I personally discussed the individual problematical aspects with the FTC. In my opinion we solved them satisfactorily. With that I am not saying that everything contained in this legislation is what the FTC would have liked to have. The fact is that we did have discussions with one another, and I do not think that the FTC had sleepless nights because this legislation was going to be passed today. We acknowledged them, and I want to thank them particularly for their contribution in this connection. When the time came to introduce the Bill, I was able to make a choice in regard to the method of introduction. A clever member of the PFP … [Interjections] … referred to the fact that all of a sudden no Second Reading speech was made. Hon members will know why this was not done. The fact of the matter is that, as usual, I could have had the legislation debated in the House and followed the normal procedure, including making a Second Reading speech, or else I could have followed the new policy in terms of the new Rules of Parliament. I felt that it would give hon members too little time if we were to discuss it in the old stereotyped way in this House, and for that reason I referred it to the first House Committee on Education.

We would have had a Committee Stage.

Notwithstanding that fact, hon members did, after all, have more opportunity to discuss the matter in the House Committee than they would have had here, and the hon member knows that. [Interjections.] As I understand the situation, that hon member nearly drove the members of the House Committee mad because of all the contributions he made. [Interjections.]

I want to inform hon members that the House Committee had eight long sittings—some were shorter than others—during which every clause could be discussed. I went even further and made all the evidence and comments in regard to the draft legislation available to each hon member. They had a thick pack of material to work through. Not one single member of the House Committee can say that he was uninformed in regard to any comment that had been received from the various bodies. [Interjections.] I therefore want to state unequivocally today that on various occasions I had discussions on this legislation with the organised profession through the medium of its statutory body, the FTC. Because I regard them as being a very important partner I am grateful that the FTC have testified that they were given a particularly ample opportunity to make their contribution.

Various speakers have indicated that it is not possible for them to consider the legislation if the regulations are not available at the same time. Hon members are aware of the fact that regulations are subject to the legislation and may not exceed the bounds of that legislation. Hon members are also aware of the fact that there is scarcely a law which does not give the Ministers involved extensive authority to make regulations. A large number of matters in regard to which regulations can be made are usually specified. So, too, in the past all the education ordinances have given the Administrator wide authority to make regulations. This is no new concept. It is necessary for the matters controlling the daily conduct of education to be contained in regulations so that if it appears necessary in practice to do so, amendments can easily be effected to the regulations and it is not necessary to go through the long-drawn-out process of bringing them back to the House. The regulations are drawn up by experts, as is the case with the legislation. I want hon members who were so concerned about the regulations to listen to me.

Speakers have said that they cannot trust me or my successor. However, regulations in connection with education are drawn up by lawyers in pursuance of inputs by educationists, and not by politicians. Draft regulations are dealt with by the Advisory Committee on Education Legislation, just as is the legislation, and changes are made where necessary. The FTC and the four education departments in the provinces will therefore have an insight into the draft regulations when they are discussed on that advisory committee. Thereafter, the draft regulations will also be submitted to the provincial education councils, with their wide representation, for comment and recommendation. We will not just force the regulations upon them. It is therefore not fair to say that I will make just any regulation.

If the Federation of Parents’ Associations is recognised officially before that time, I should also like to submit the regulations to them. However, it is self-evident that it is not possible to accept and incorporate every individual comment that might be forthcoming. I am sure hon members will appreciate that fact. However, I want to reiterate that every word will be looked at very carefully indeed. That is, in actual fact, the practice of my department in regard to everything we do. Nobody can accuse us of not consulting as widely as possible.

†I wish to say once more that there is ample opportunity for our partners to contribute towards effective legislation. I have been listening carefully to what speakers have been saying. The fear has been expressed, inter alia, that there is not enough protection for a pupil when it is deemed necessary for him to be questioned by the school or the school inspector.

Although this matter is being handled with circumspection by the department, I undertake to have a provision to this effect written into the regulations currently being drawn up.

*In this connection clause 9(2)(b) of the Bill reads as follows:

From the nature of the case this also includes pupils. It should further be noted that the Head of Education may “… authorise in writing a person employed by the Department …” Naturally he will authorise an educationist to do the questioning so that, because of the wide experience that this person has had, he can make sure that the questioning will take place in such a way that not only the teacher but also the child will be protected. In specific circumstances children will, in fact, have to be questioned. By the appointment of a person with an educational background we are trying to do this as well as we can while also taking the circumstances of the pupil into consideration.

The parents can, in fact, be asked to agree to such questioning, but we do have a problem in this connection. If the parents to not give their permission for the pupil to be questioned, what do we do? The question that arises, on the one hand is how the rights of the child are to be protected if the parent does not wish to grant permission for his being questioned and, on the other, how the cause of education is to be served. I want to accept the fact that hon members will agree with me that we have to find a middle path, namely to protect the child during a questioning session, but also to give him the opportunity to come to light with facts which are necessary for such an enquiry.

It is nothing out of the ordinary that details in regard to councils can be provided for in a regulation. This was also a problem that was raised by some hon members. There was, for example, reference to the Natal Education Ordinance in regard to which hon members from Natal waxed rather verbose. The Natal Education Ordinance contains only one provision in regard to school committees, and that is that the Minister—previously it was the Administrator—can make regulations in that regard. Everything that has a bearing on those school committees is controlled through the medium of regulations. Under the old dispensation this was done by the Administrator and can now be done by the Minister. An improvement in this regard is that we now submit these regulations to specific bodies to advise us in this connection.

You have to do it!

Very well, but we do in fact do so. That is still the modus operandi of this side of the House which has rectified the matter statutorily. [Interjections.]

Precisely the same thing holds good for school boards in terms of the Free State Education Ordinance. In 1984 the Transvaal removed a large section with regard to school boards from its ordinances and embodied those provisions in regulations.

There are seven boards at issue in this Bill. If all the details in regard to these seven boards were to have been contained in this Bill, it would have made it impossibly voluminous. Because of the above, therefore, it was decided only to make provision in the Bill for the establishment of these boards, and to arrange all the other matters by way of regulation.

†Doubts have been expressed about the wisdom of a certain amount of centralisation of power. However, it should be clearly understood that no functions and powers previously in the hands of the provincial education departments have been transferred to a centralised head office in Pretoria.

’Hon members must take note of that fact. I repeat, they must take note of the fact that not one of those functions and powers of the Directors of Education has been referred to the head office in Pretoria or Cape Town or wherever. It is wrong to say that.

In terms of the National Education Policy Act of 1967, the education policy has still to be implemented by the four provincial education departments on a co-ordinated basis. That was also the case in the past.

It is not the same.

I shall come back to the hon member if I have the time because he told a great untruth here in this House.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I shall come back to that. I just hope I have the time to do so.

The Committee of Heads of Education, together with its advisory committees, advise the Minister in this connection.

This means that every education department has a say in the planning of the implementation of the educational policy. In terms of the provincial ordinances the education department …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister has just said that I told an untruth in this House.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed. That is not unparliamentary.

In terms of the provincial ordinances the education departments were subdepartments of provincial administrations. I want the hon member for Claremont to listen to me. In terms of the Natal Education Ordinance, the Natal Education Department, for example, was only a branch of the provincial administration. The hon member for Pinetown knows that. The Executive Committee was therefore the highest authority, and as such decided on many aspects of the provision of education. It was not the education departments that decided about that. The position was the same here in the Cape. The hon member for Claremont now comes along and tells us very wisely that the education departments have been stripped of all their autonomy. The hon member does not know what he is talking about.

[Inaudible.]

Under the new constitutional dispensation these powers are transferred to the Minister of Education and Culture by proclamation by the State President. Just as members of the Executive Committee are elected members, so is the Minister an elected member who is, in fact, responsible to the House of Assembly. It is therefore untrue to say that authority is now being transferred to an appointed official. That is not true. Neither has this in any way affected the functions of education departments and more specifically the authority of the Directors of Education. In fact, the opposite is true. I have delegated many of the functions to these directors. I have also placed the institutions for special education under the control of the provincial education departments. That was not previously the case.

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

No, I am not prepared to answer a question now. [Interjections.] If I were afraid of such a man, I would really not be here at all!

The functions and decision-making powers of the provincial education departments are far more comprehensive than was the case under the previous educational dispensation. The hon member for Claremont must simply do his homework. He was supposed to have served on the provincial council and so ought to know about educational matters. However, that does not appear to be the case. He was probably absent from the provincial council just as often as he has been absent during this debate. [Interjections.]

Surely it ought to be understood that there must be one education department for Whites in terms of the new dispensation. Hon members may differ in this regard—that is their right—but that is what the Constitution provides for at present. As far as the Whites are concerned, there are also four executive education departments, each with its own head office and its own educational institution and infrastructure.

Furthermore, it must also be kept in mind that one of the results of the new Constitution was the establishment of the Department of Education and Culture. This department, with its Minister and its head of department, is now responsible for White education in the Republic. This is no longer, as under the previous dispensation, the function of the various Administrators and Directors of Education. The sooner we realise this the better we will understand the new dispensation. This is a reality, and it serves no purpose to try to restore a dispensation that belongs to the past. The provincial councils have been phased out. There is no longer an MEC responsible for education. We are in a new dispensation now.

Further proof that every authority is not centralised, either in myself or the Head of Education, lies in the fact that I have delegated more than 200 functions to the Directors of Education. They did not previously perform those functions. It is rather unrealistic of the hon member for Pinetown to expect a detailed list of them to be made available to him. It is just not possible to do so because the list of delegations is very long.

[Inaudible.]

Perhaps I should give the hon member a few examples. There are, for example, 55 functions which, in terms of the various Natal ordinances, previously vested in the Executive Committee and, at a later stage, in me, functions which I have now delegated to the Director of Education in Natal. These did not vest in him previously. This denotes a striving to try to retain the ethos of Natal as well. As a teacher, the hon member must grant me that. Allow me to mention some of the functions. There is the appointment and promotion of educational staff to post level 5 and for certain posts to post level 6. This did not vest in the Director of Education previously.

There is also the appointment of officers to assist the director, the arranging of medical and dental services, permission go become a member of a local management body, the reappointment of persons after dismissal, the rendering of profitable outside services, and so forth. These have all now been delegated to the Director of Education in Natal, as well as to all the other directors. Furthermore, this also holds good for the functions contained in the other provincial ordinances, together with the more than 200 functions which have, in addition, been delegated to the provincial education departments from the head office, functions which previously they did not have. The various education departments therefore have a great deal more say and much more authority in regard to running education.

Besides this, every director is now a programme manager in the handling of finance allocated to the provincial education departments in terms of the subsidy formula.

†The facts speak for themselves. Instead of experiencing a decrease in power, provincial directors of education find themselves in a position of enhanced responsibility. Their status could be even further enhanced if the hon members of the opposition would support a system in which the directors play such a key role.

For the first time provincial directors of education occupy the senior positions of deputy director general of a Government department, which means that they have direct access to the policy decisions of the umbrella Department of Education and Culture. This is a very far cry indeed from their supposed devalued status, as some detractors would have it.

*In deciding on the allocation of functions, my personal point of departure under all circumstances is: What will best serve the cause of education? If that is one’s point of departure, it is easy to come to a decision, for one is then following pedagogical norms and not becoming enmeshed in petty considerations which will not be to the credit of the main cause. That is my point of departure. That is also the spirit and attitude prevailing today among the various directors of education, and once again today I want to express my particular gratitude and appreciation to all four of the directors of education who, at this level, are also giving their all in the interests of education in their specific provinces.

In the allocation of functions to the ministerial representatives as well, I also had to consider through the medium of which functions these valuable partners of the department could best serve the interests of education. For that reason I allocated to them, inter alia, the designation of members of boards and committees. They move within the community and are best able to determine the needs of that community. Today I should also like to express my appreciation to the ministerial representatives for the valuable work they are doing in respect of their liaison with the people in their respective provinces and also in the protection of the ethos within the particular broad policy guidelines laid down.

Some speakers spoke contemptuously of the provincial education councils. However, I want to make it very clear today that the provincial education councils are among the department’s most important advisory councils and are growing in stature all the time. They are, of course, new councils, but they are doing excellent work.

From the nature of things the education councils are not mentioned in this legislation, precisely because they had their origins in the National Education Policy Act of 1967. The legislation we are dealing with now particularly has to do with the implementation of the policy and the practical conduct of education as such. The stature of these provincial education councils lies specifically in the fact that both at my behest, and also on their own initiative, they can advise in regard to policy matters. Furthermore, these councils are also empowered to advise the education departments in regard to the implementation of education policy.

These bodies are therefore central to the question of advice and have already made valuable contributions during their short life-span—for example, their comments on this draft legislation and the guidelines that have been issued in regard to the rationalisation and standardisation of school wear, as well as the sports and culture policy of my department.

I want to deal briefly with another very important matter, namely school fees. I want to state categorically today that the provincial education councils will most certainly be given every recognition before a final decision is made in regard to the levying of school fees.

We shall seek their advice. As I have already stated in the House of Assembly, the question of school fees is the theme of an in-depth investigation by my department, and we are not prepared to act ove rhastily in this regard. I am not prepared to take a decision until the investigation has been completed and all the bodies involved have been consulted. I want to tell parents today that they can rest assured; I do not intend to make a shock announcement overnight and to say that we are going to introduce this next month. Particulars in regard to the amounts, the methods of collection and the possible phasing in of the fees will be negotiated with all interested parties after careful research. I really want to make an appeal to everyone today not to resort to reckless speculation in regard to these school fees and also, as far as possible, to keep this matter out of party politics so that we can study the matter calmly and quietly, and so that we can negotiate it in conjunction with the parties involved, eventually to emerge at what is in the best interests of education.

The Constitution makes it possible for fees to be levied for services rendered with a view to improved standards for services to a specific population group. I should like to say this to the hon member for Roodepoort. Reference was made to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, who said that he was not considering introducing it into his department. Sir, he has every right to act that way! We have a system of own education, but what is important is that if we were to decide to introduce compulsory school fees into White education, those White school fees would be used in the White community for Whites only. They would not go to any central exchequer. This the argument that is directed at the general public is that we are going to do this so that we can obtain more money for the education of the other population groups. Sir, that is just not true. These are deliberate arguments which are directed at the general public.

If compulsory school fees were instituted, they would of course not take the place of the voluntary school fees. The management body of a school would be free, over and above the compulsory fees, also to levy voluntary school fees if they so wished. However, I think we shall have to look at our priorities very carefully, and particularly at luxuries, and I believe too that management boards and principals will also take very careful note of this fact.

Compulsory school fees will, of course, not prejudice a child whose parents are financially unable to contribute. That certainly cannot be. Once a decision is arrived at it will naturally take the financial situation of parents into consideration. I also understand the fact that educational staff should not be overloaded with further administrative tasks. This is a difficult matter which we will consider and discuss thoroughly.

I also want to raise another matter. I want to refer to the civil and political rights of teachers as well as to the definition of the concept of “misconduct”. Some hon members suggested that irrespective of the teacher’s being given the authority to participate in the political process, he will be inhibited by the provisions of clause 76, and that because of the provisions of clause 76 all the positive aspects that have been defined will be eliminated.

I want to say immediately that the contributions that emanated from this side of the House in regard to many of the arguments and objections of the opposition were really excellent. All I am doing is making certain supplementary remarks. I could probably even have resumed my seat because various hon members referred to these matters and put them into perspective. Therefore, I shall be very brief.

I want hon members clearly to understand that irrespective of what has been said by individual opposition members, these clauses were inserted precisely to protect the teacher in his profession against individuals abusing their privileges. If the teacher offends, he loses respect in the community and can no longer, from the nature of things, carry out his educational function properly.

We know education as an esteemed profession, as various hon members have also said here. Teachers are men and women who are a credit to the education profession. We must, of course, admit that bearing in mind the tens of thousands of teachers in the service of my department, the small number of them who are accused annually of misconduct is quite negligible. It is really a negligible figure. I also want to pay tribute to the large mass of teachers who act honourably and do their duty each and every day. This legislation will not change that positive image. The clauses concerned have only been inserted to further enhance the prestige of education and to give every law-abiding citizen or teacher the security and manoeuvrability worthy of his professional status.

For that reason I now want to appeal to everyone in this House, as well as to the public generally and, of course, to the hon member for Witbank who is sitting there muttering, to give the teachers the opportunity to do this. Let us acknowledge their contribution. Let us protect them, specifically by way of these particular clauses.

It is ironic that the Natal members on the other side of the House also attacked the so-called diminution of the political rights of teachers. The clauses incorporated in this Bill were taken, practically word for word, from the Natal Education Ordinance. Nevertheless, they are fighting about this. These are provisions which for years have governed the political activities of teachers in Natal. Does the hon member for Pinetown feel unhappy about this? He came into this House under those regulations.

He did not know it then!

I ask the hon member whether he feels unhappy about that. [Interjections.]

The teacher finds himself in a particular relationship with the parent community at the school, and no parent community consists of people who all hold precisely the same political views. If, therefore, a teacher propounds specific political views in public, this can cause a split in the parent community and among the pupils. There is no doubt about that. It could cause detrimental relationships which would prejudice the education of the pupils. At the few schools where there were political repercussions, the general feeling was that the school should once again be allowed to proceed quietly with its educative and teaching task. That then is also my appeal in this connection.

I also want to say a word or two in regard to religious instruction. The National Education Policy Act still provides that education must have a broad Christian character. In the Bill now before the House—in pursuance of that same principle—it is provided that in each public school there should be daily a religious ceremony consisting of a reading from the Bible and prayers. Moreover Bible instruction is a compulsory subject at all levels in public schools. Besides this, Bible study is offered as an academic examination subject at many schools. Therefore, to attack these provisions now simply means that we are telling the schools that they cannot implement the prescribed curriculum. That is all that it means.

What is contained in this specific legislation does not, in the least, detract from our principle of Christian education.

As far as mother-tongue instruction is concerned, I want to make the following brief remark. This matter is dealt with in clause 55(4) and (5). Subsection (4) deals only with a practical situation regarding the determination of the mother tongue of a pupil. If a principal does not find it possible to determine the mother tongue of a child—so the subsection provides—he can appoint someone to assist him. Surely nobody can have any objection to that.

Subsection (5) provides that if that second person’s view differs from that of the principal, the provision can be withdrawn. The provisions are aimed only at ensuring the efficient and functional handling of this important principle of instruction.

With regard to the retirement age of teachers, which is of course very important, I wish to make the following brief remarks. I understand that the Government Service Pensions Act is still to be amended during the present session of Parliament to make provision for the laws governing the conditions of service of teachers in the service of the Department of Education and Culture to determine the retirement age of teachers. These provisions with regard to the retirement age will then be dealt with in the regulations governing the conditions of service in terms of this Bill.

My time has almost expired. However, I should like to point out the following.

†Fears were expressed about the stipulations regarding adherence to the feeder area of a school. It should be understood that it is merely stipulated that a school board may insist on the child’s attending school in a particular feeder area if it is deemed to be in the interests of the education of the child. The parent has the right of appeal to the Head of Education, and parents may rest assured that this stipulation will only apply if it is in the general interest. This stipulation is not new to all provinces and has always been applied with circumspection.

*I want to conclude. In the framing of this Bill, those involved had only one single goal in mind. They wanted to ensure that the legislation would serve education. It has already been stated repeatedly that in most cases the clauses are simply a consolidation of provincial ordinances, but this was not the chief motivating factor.

My department and I adopted, as a point of departure, the possibility of a meaningful educational structure on the road ahead, with many challenges which we shall also have to meet in the educational sphere. I believe that this Bill makes ample provision for this. May I express the hope that this Bill will help to make education functional in the best interests of the children of our country.

Debate concluded.

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

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Chairman, although the CP supports the desirability of the legislation as well as most of the 114 clauses we have before us, we shall vote against it.

Of course, I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that have already been raised by this side of the House in the course of the debate. I shall, however, merely refer briefly to a few of the most important objections.

1. (1) The CP cannot support a measure that confers so many powers on the Minister as this legislation does. As it is formulated at present, the Minister has complete say through regulations, not only with regard to certain procedures, but also in the determining of the functions, duties, business, dissolution and re-constitution of management councils and school boards. It is our standpoint that the functions and powers of such councils, and therefore the say of parents, ought to be incorporated in the legislation.
2. (2) The basic civil rights and political rights of teachers are being fundamentally encroached upon. The right of the teacher to exercise his civil rights in a responsible way in his free time outside the school context, is being drastically encroached upon.
3. (3) The legislation attenuates the principle of Christian national education, despite the arguments that have come from the opposite side of the House.
4. (4) The authorisation that is being granted to the Minister to levy tuition fees is unacceptable to us. It is going to place a further unbearable burden on the White parent. It is unfair towards the White parent because, while he must to a large extent accept financial responsibility for the basic education facilities of all population groups, he will also have to make an additional compulsory contribution towards the education of the White child, while the same is not being expected of the Coloured, Indian and Black parent.

There are many other objections to the measure that have been raised, but I will content myself with these few comments as to why we are opposing this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we too will be opposing this measure, though obviously not for the same reasons as the CP. Allow me very briefly to repeat our reasons. The hon the Minister and I have agreed—this has been made clear in his speech and in the contributions from this side of the House—that we have differing educational philosophies. We on this side do not support the concept of centralisation with delegation, and that is what is enshrined in this Bill overall.

Secondly, we are opposed to the concept of own affairs, which is also an aspect of this Bill as a racial affair.

Thirdly, we have objections regarding the question of regulations. Although the hon the Minister has touched on the broad principle, I believe that neither he nor the House Committee dealt in detail with the question of how one will be able to reconcile the contradictory provisions of the ordinances as they are at the moment, particularly with regard to the appointment and promotion of teachers, and how these will be handled by regulation.

In connection with the regulations, I wish to refer to the whole concept of tuition fees. Although we are pleased that the hon the Minister has indicated publicly that these matters will be discussed with the provincial education councils, we believe that they should have been decided upon publicly before this measure came before the House.

The last of our detailed objections relates to the concept of zoning. Although the hon the Minister indicated that he would deal with this in a specific way, we believe that the overall difficulty with this legislation lies not with this particular Minister or with a particular Superintendent-General. We are concerned about the fact that legislation is being placed on the Statute Book which can be used by other Ministers of this Government or of another Government in a way different to that intended by the present Government. [Interjections.] We will therefore be opposing this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I am rising to express full support from this side of the House for the adoption of this legislation. Over the course of the years, with the foundations of education having been firmly laid, I think South Africa has reached a point of maturity at which education can be co-ordinated in the manner specified in this Bill.

Furthermore, I greatly appreciate the openness and earnestness with which the hon Minister gave explanations with regard to certain aspects that were unclear in this Bill, and for the assurance that he gave with regard to the manner in which they will be dealt with. I have sufficient faith in my heart to accept his sincerity, as well as the integrity of the advisory bodies throughout the country, and also that of the four education councils. I also appreciate the fact that the FTC, without further ado accepts co-responsibility as senior co-ordinating body.

By means of this Bill we have a co-ordinated service and a re-development, renewal and refurbishing of education. This legislation will from the basis of the new education. [Interjections.] We should like to support this legislation.

The House divided:

AYES—84: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Baden-horst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, M H; Marais, P G; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Walt, A T; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Welgemoed, P J.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Kritzinger, W T; Ligth-elm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—37: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, after all the beatings the Government and certain hon Ministers have suffered in this House this week, my caucus and my Chief Whip asked me to agree with them this afternoon. They said that when a man was a down one should not keep on kicking him. One should be a little lenient.

Particularly this afternoon, when we are discussing patents, they recommended that we tell the Government that they must think up some or other invention to get them going again and to get this policy of theirs, which has failed abysmally, out of the quagmire.

This afternoon I should like to speak about the Patents Amendment Bill. It is an uninteresting subject, but a very important amendment is being effected by this legislation this afternoon. I want to ask hon members to be patient, because I should like to bring a few important aspects of the legislation on patents to their attention.

The legislation on patents has come a long way, and English law, in particular, has had a major effect on our legislation on patents. The writer Gerrit Holtz said the following in his book South African Patent Law:

These are very important aspects. This was the first time that Afrikaans was used in the Appeal Court in a verdict in connection with patents.

I was also privileged to have a discussion with the Registrar of Patents, Mr Geyser. I should like to tell the hon members of this House that this department, which falls under Mr Geyser, renders a very valuable service to this country. I obtained some statistics from him and others. I should like to point out to hon members that at present 450 000 patents are registered. In the past between 60% and 70% of the applications came from abroad, and 30% to 40% were local applications. Last year there was a shift in the position and 50% of the applications came from abroad and 50% from inside the country. In spite of this there were 10 000 applications, which means that the number of applications in no way declined owing to the fact that there were fewer overseas applications for the registration of patents.

Another interesting fact is that approximately 95% of all the applications submitted were in English, and that only approximately 5% of the patents were submitted in Afrikaans. I think in this regard our legal friends could perhaps give a little attention to drafting more of the applications in Afrikaans.

What is very important and outstanding, however, is the fact that Mr Geyser and only 40 White members of staff handle 10 000 applications per year, whereas approximately a year ago the English division had 202 members of staff. I hear that only 29 people in actual fact handle these 10 000 applications. This just shows how effective this department really is, how effectively the people work and what good work the people in that division do. I think today we should thank Mr Geyser and his staff for the valuable work they do. Of course it is highly specialised, and I hear, inter alia, that attorneys firms in Pretoria have more staff than the Registrar of Patents. We thank them very much for the work they do.

According to a newsletter of the S A Institute of Patent Agents of November 1987, when the 1887-Oktrooiwet came into effect there were 50 applications in the first year, which were written into a register by a certain D M Kisch. The register was four inches thick, and he over-optimistically thought that the register would soon be full. However, it took him more than two years to fill one page. Taking this into account one gains more of a perspective on the work of these people.

I want to refer to only one very important amendment in the amending Bill. With regard to the work of the standing committee, on behalf of the CP I want to express our thanks to Mr Justice Harms, who is really an expert in the field of patents. It was because of his contribution in the standing committee that so significant an amendment was effected, and in my opinion it will create very few problems in practice. However, I should like to point out to hon members the present provisions of section 76 of the Act in connection with persons who resort to delaying tactics which make the granting of compulsory licences virtually impossible. The objective of the amendments is to bring the appeal procedure more into line with the procedure in the Supreme Court. Leave to appeal must therefore remain a prerequisite, whereas there may no longer be a direct appeal to the Appellate Division with the consent of the parties. The CP takes pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Jeppe to speak, I should merely like to mention, for the information of the hon member for Standerton, that the Mr Geyser to whom he referred, received particularly good legal training from me. The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the support of the hon member for Standerton. With reference to his brief introduction concerning the situation in which the NP finds itself, I should nevertheless like to add that had he not supported the Bill, it would have been a hit-and-run affair.

Now what is that supposed to mean?

In brief it means that I understood that he was the patent attorney for the “turbo-charged” ox-wagon which the hon members on the opposite side have built. I wish them every success with it. [Interjections.]

The object of the Patents Amendment Bill is to rectify certain deficiencies in the Patents Act of 1978. These deficiencies had a detrimental effect on the South African economy as a whole and on the manufacturing sector in particular. For this reason it was necessary for this matter to receive urgent attention.

Notwithstanding the unanimity on the joint committee and in the study groups concerning the essential amendments with regard to this Bill, criticism has been levelled at the new proposed legislation. A few patent attorneys have also made use of this opportunity to attack this Bill in the Press. It is a pity that the standpoints of these patent attorneys are somewhat confused—perhaps on account of their own interest in the matter. The well-known expression “Justice becomes and is in the interest of my client” may perhaps be apposite.

The information, as reflected in Finansies en Techniek of 10 June 1988, is clearly based on the legislation as it appeared before being amended by the joint committee, that is to say before the insertion of the present clauses 2(1A) and 2(7A) to amend section 56 of the principal Act. I believe that the critical questions posed in the article have now been obviated by these amendments.

Our legislation with regard to compulsory licences is not at all as drastic as is being made out, and is comparable with that of other countries in which an emergency situation or war prevails. The measures in this legislation are mainly of an administrative nature. If we do not pass this legislation, the question will arise as to what would happen in the event of existing licence agreements being cancelled. A standard clause in all patent agreements stipulates that an agreement may be terminated by “vis major”. Legislation such as that which is at present before the American Senate can be regarded as “vis major”. Apparently, according to our critics, we should not defend ourselves against foreign intervention or “vis major”. With regard to “vis major” and compulsory licences it is important to examine the British patents legislation to see how the British protect themselves.

†Section 59 of the British Patents Act states that:

1. (a) for the efficient prosecution of any war in which Her Majesty may be engaged
2. (b) for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community
3. (c) for securing a sufficiency of supplies and services essential to the well-being of the community
4. (d) for promoting the productivity of industry …

*And so they continue. The provisions of the British patents legislation therefore go much further than the South African legislation envisages. Each country must include a safety-valve in its legislation in order to curtail foreign excussion. However our legislation is aimed primarily at stimulating and developing the economy, at eliminating red-tape and delays, and at preparing ourselves for the challenges of the year 2000. As far as we are concerned, the secondary aspect, i.e. the protection against excussion, is therefore not the main aim of these amendments in all cases.

I should also like to point out that the legislation on patents is closely related to the legislation on copyright. Including the Patents Act there are, in fact, eight acts which are known jointly as the law of immaterial property. Of all these disciplines, only that of copyright has a statutory advisory committee. Instead of advocating an advisory committee for each of the eight immaterial property disciplines, I should like to request the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to a single statutory advisory committee for all eight.

I should like to refer briefly to the Bill itself. Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 56 of the Patents Act, which deals with application for compulsory licences in the event of abuse of patent rights. The effect of this amendment will be that, in the event of a patentee failing to satisfy the general requirement, a court, except under special circumstances, will not grant him an interdict prohibiting any other person from infringing that patent. This provision will remain in force while an application for a compulsory licence is pending, which means that the applicant can commence manufacturing the patented product immediately. The patentee will, however, not be entitled to compensation for damages suffered as a result of the interim infringement while the application for a compulsory licence was pending.

When a compulsory licence is in fact granted, it may be ordered that the licence be deemed to have been granted on the date on which the application was received by the Registrar of Patents. This means that the applicant’s interim manufacturing of the patented product will be regarded as regular.

Subsection 65(3) is also being amended. The proposed amendment provides that, over and above the infringing product or article itself, the plaintiff in proceedings for infringement will, in future, only be entitled to claim surrender of that product or article of which the infringing product forms an inseparable part.

Subsection (5) of section 65 requires the plaintiff in proceedings for infringement to give notice of such proceedings to every licencee whose name is recorded in the patents register. The amendment will have the effect that a plaintiff will be compelled to give such notice before he institutes the proceedings. Preliminary notice affords the licencees the opportunity to make the necessary applications in time and to become a co-plaintiff. Therefore a considerable amount of time is saved when proceedings are instituted.

In future a plaintiff will also be entitled to apply for both an interdict and to have the infringing article delivered up. The proposed subsection (6) of section 65 will facilitate the plaintif’s task of proving the amount of damages suffered. Henceforth a plaintiff will be entitled to prove damages suffered on the basis of the amount of a reasonable royalty. This amendment brings the Patents Act into line with the method of determining damages which has been applied by the courts for a considerable time.

This is therefore a brief summary of the legislation, and I gladly support the amendments. I should also like to convey our sincere thanks to everyone who made a contribution.

Mr Chairman, as has been said before, this Bill has been introduced for strategic reasons and, in the interests of all South Africans, the PFP supported it in the standing committee and we again do so now.

Clearly, the whole issue of foreign trade is one of great sensitivity and so are any laws dealing with patents, such as the one that we are dealing with today. I have in fact received a very late representation concerning the Bill and which has raised a point which, in my opinion, certainly needs to be carefully considered. Realising that the legislation is now already well into the pipeline and will in fact go through today, I nevertheless would like to highlight the queries that have been raised in the belief that they need to be considered. Possibly amending legislation can be brought forward in due course.

This relates specifically to section 56 of the principal Act. I quote the introductory paragraph:

It goes on to deal with five ways in which this abuse could take place, one of which is that the demand for the patented article in the Republic is not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms.

One of the clauses in the Bill before us today deals with the proposed new subsection (1A) to section 56, and states that unless special circumstances exist an applicant for a compulsory licence shall not be precluded by interdict from infringing the patent in respect of which an application for a compulsory licence has been submitted. The effect of this is clear in that the applicant for the compulsory licence may continue to produce the article for such time as it takes before the licence is granted and that an interdict may not be granted preventing him from doing that. It is submitted that this aspect might materially overstep the clear and definitive intention of ensuring the continued availability of patented articles in South Africa, and basically the key-point is that it is now open to any person who applies on any of the grounds for obtaining a compulsory licence listed in section 56(2) of the Patents Act, of which there are five, to proceed with the infringement of a patent with the full assurance that unless the patentee establishes the existence of special circumstances, he may not be prohibited from infringing that patent. The issue here is that it is now the obligation of the patentee actually to prove that special circumstances did in fact apply.

Not only will the facility to commit patent infringement be available to an extent that is greatly disturbing, but the onus will also rest upon the patentee to show that special circumstances exist which entitle him to a form of relief which has always been enshrined as a fundamental right in patent law. I believe that this is something that needs to be considered. The alternative would be to reverse the onus of proof, and an amendment might read as follows:

We are therefore merely saying that it is the applicant who should actually establish the special circumstances. I believe this is something that does need to be considered and I would suggest that, if need be, amending legislation can be prepared. Mr Chairman, with that one proviso, we have pleasure in supporting the Bill as tabled.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their support for this important amending Bill.

The hon member for Standerton said that patents, perhaps, was a very dry subject to talk about, but for me this is anything but a dry subject. I think it is fairly important. Informed people such as the hon member will agree that a good patent law is a prerequisite for the development of a sound manufacturing industry in a country. The hon member for Standerton also referred to the fact that last year our patent law was actually 100 years old. I have possibly come across the same reference he used. In 1887 Paul Kruger pushed through the first patent Act—the Patents Act of 1887—and in the Minutes there is a very interesting quotation of what the president said. He said:

That is just as true today. At that time it related to the separation of gold and other minerals from quartz, as they put it, and to the relevant apparatus which was patented.

At that time they had already realised the importance of patent legislation, how important it was to protect one’s intellectual assets and how important it was to protect the rights of people who had put money into research and development so that they could, in the course of time, earn a fair return on their risk capital.

Amongst the first to register patents in our country were people like Dr Siemens, Edison and Marconi. Since then numerous patents have been registered in South Africa.

The hon member for Jeppe has argued that sanctions have, to a certain extent, led to the formulation of this legislation. I just want to tell him that the amending Bill might give that impression. Nevertheless, we did not have that in mind at all. When, shortly after coming into office, I gave instructions that the legislation relating to immaterial property should be reviewed, we requested the committee appointed for this purpose to review the relevant Acts with a view to promotion the economic development of the country, with specific reference to the manufacturing industry.

I notice today that in its latest economic survey, Standard Bank said that in the first quarter of this year, in terms of annual growth, the manufacturing industry had grown by 9%. It is possible for our manufacturing industry to grow at the rate of 10% per year. We are doing everything in our power to remove possible restrictive factors which could hamper this growth. The amending Bill before us is a measure aimed at the promotion of the country’s economic development.

The hon member for Standerton thanked our officials and referred to our efficient patents office. On behalf of our officials I want to thank him. We are also looking into the further modernisation of the office, as well as the possibility of computerisation. The hon member also referred to Appeal Judge Beyers who gave the first appeal judgment on patent law in Afrikaans.

The hon member also thanked those who had worked on the Bill—specifically Mr Justice Harms. I should also like to thank the whole committee which worked very long hours—these people were not paid; they did it for love—for their labours in the preparation of the various pieces of legislation we have dealt with this year. I refer to the measure under discussion, and to the copyright legislation which we dealt with earlier this year. I also thank the many people who wrote to us and submitted comments, although we could not accommodate all the proposals and comments in the amendments to the Act.

The hon member for Jeppe referred to the British Act. That is, in fact, the basis of the patent legislation. The patent law idea came into being after the industrial revolution in England. Some of the amendments we are introducing today bring our patent law nearer to the formulation of the British legislation. I think it is important that this be done.

I should briefly like to make a few comments about the principle of compulsory licences. This principle is embodied in the Patent Act of 1978—that was ten years ago. It was also embodied in the legislation which preceded that Act. It is, however, strange that no compulsory licences have yet been granted. In terms of section 56 of the Act a compulsory licence can be granted in the case of abuse of patent law. In the British system it is possible to adopt administrative measures in such cases. The Minister can take certain decisions in regard to the granting of compulsory licences. In our system only the judiciary can intervene. We do not intend changing this at present. We want to leave the choices, the decisions, in this connection in the hands of the judiciary. We do, however, want to make compulsory licences possible and to remove the restrictive factors which exist—they exist in the legislation—so that it is possible to grant such licences.

Section 56(2) of the Act defines the grounds on which an application relating to the abuse of patent laws can be based. We are not changing those provisions in any way. Section 56(2) reads as follows, for example:

(c) the demand for the patented article in the Republic is not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms …

Basically, it is expected that a patent-right holder, enjoying as he does a certain protection, will, on the other hand, put his patent at the disposal of society in our country where it is registered, and will do this on reasonable conditions and to an adequate extent.

The fundamental reason why a compulsory patent licence has never been granted is that there is both a right of interdict and the present appeal procedure provided in the Act. There have already been various applications and attempts to appeal. For instance the firm, Lennon’s, applied for leave to appeal, but ultimately they did not proceed. Patent cases are renowned, firstly, for the long time involved in dealing with them and, secondly, for the large amounts of money involved in the litigation. People throw in the towel very early and abandon the case. For that reason no compulsory patent licences have been granted, although I believe there have already been grounds, because there have been people who have abused our patent privileges.

We are now amending section 56 to restrict the right of interdict in the case of an application for a compulsory patent licence. Only in special circumstances will the court, by way of interdict, forbid the applicant to infringe the patent. One can well understand the expression “special circumstances” with reference to the Patents Act, which is a very good Act. “Special circumstances”, for instance, relate to people who have spent a great deal of money on research and development to produce the patented product. Research and development is a highrisk enterprise, and should anyone succeed in a research project and furnish a patent—I must say, however, that he does not often succeed and then loses all his money—he would expect society to grant him the right to earn a fairly high return on his risk capital. That, then, is an example of special circumstances, and the judiciary is authorised to come to a decision on those circumstances.

Our economic system is based to a large extent on principles such as reasonableness, fairness, the public interest, etc. The judiciary has already interpreted those concepts in the economic context, and we leave it in their capable hands. I do not, therefore, intend to interfere administratively and to take decisions at a Ministerial level in regard to compulsory patents, as is done in the British system.

I also want to refer to the amendment to section 65. The intention is to remove the existing legal uncertainty, especially in regard to two matters, namely “delivering up” and compensation. In regard to “delivering up” I could mention cases in which problems have been encountered in the present formulation of the Act. For instance, it has already been argued, in a court case involving an aeroplane being used to spray a maize field with insecticide, that everything constituting infringement, including the aeroplane, the maize on the land and the land itself, should be delivered up, while the only alleged infringement of patent right related to the insecticide.

In another case it was claimed that Iscor should hand over an entire production line with a total length of 8 kilometres—there was only a very small infringement element in the entire production line. Iscor was forced to settle that matter, in very unfavourable circumstances for Iscor.

I should now like to give an example of something which, according to our new definition of a product, is an inseparable part of it. If one manufactures a pill consisting of three powders which are inseparably mixed, and there is an infringement of patent right in respect of only one of those powders, they form an inseparable part of the manufactured product and all the pills must be delivered up if such an interdict is granted. One can understand that.

In conclusion I should just like to refer to the request of the hon member for Pinelands regarding the representations made to him. We have also received a copy of those representations and I just want to say that the onus, which in future will be placed on the patent-right holder to prove special circumstances, is similar to the onus placed on a patent-right holder to obtain an interdict. There is no more difficult onus at issue here. The onus has always been on the patent-right holder. He will have to advance a similar argument. In both instances, namely an interdict or special circumstances, the onus is similar. The amendment to the Act does not obstruct the onus in any way, but in addition gives the court a wider discretion.

In granting a temporary interdict, one of the most important considerations is the weight of convenience. If a patent-right holder has abused his rights in terms of section 56, the weight of convenience demands that an interdict should not be granted. If an interdict is relied on, there is an onus on the patent-right holder to convince the court that the weight of convenience does not justify the granting of an interdict.

When a final interdict is granted, the applicant must show that he has no other legal remedy. In such a case, compensation is another adequate legal remedy.

I have given a technical explanation of this, but we feel happy with the formulation now before us. I should now like to thank hon members and tell them that next year there will be further amendments in connection with immaterial goods. Consideration will also be given to the suggestion made by the hon member for Jeppe in regard to one statutory committee for all the legislation.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, when various milk culture-related schemes appeared during 1984, it became clear that such schemes could not be properly controlled in terms of the Trade Practices Act, Act 76 of 1976. Consequently this legislation was drawn up to replace Act 76 of 1976.

The CP is always in favour of measures designed to protect the consumer. We shall always support such legislation and should like to accord this Bill our support. This Bill represents a new, dynamic strategy which is aimed at effective consumer protection at all levels. It strengthens the consumer’s position because it will bring about effective competition by means of various trade practice codes.

Provision is made for the institution of the Business Practices Committee—an independent statutory body of experts. The Minister is empowered to take steps on the advice of the committee to control or to terminate harmful business practices. I should like to return to this committee in a while.

This committee will be able to investigate harmful business practices dealing with schemes such as the kubus affair, the affairs of somebody who dishonestly operates a burial aid society scheme or who uses misleading advertisements and perhaps even advertisements like the “bloodstain” advertisements which are sometimes used during elections. Investigation may also be conducted into the fraudulent activities of companies which do not repair goods handed in for that purpose or merely keep them. The other evening we saw examples of this type of malpractice on television.

This committee can also investigate any price rise referred to in the measures as well as any specific type of agreement, scheme or business practice which is a common occurrence and is harmful.

Where immediate action is required, the hon the Minister, on the recommendation of the committee, may issue a standstill order for a period not to exceed three months. In a report in Finansies en Tegniek of 27 May 1988 Assocom says—

The reference here is to a statement issued by the Director-General of Trade and Industry, Dr Stef Naudé, in which he said—

I assume that the hon the Minister will also give us his assurances on this today.

When this Bill first hit the headlines, a few members of the media became hysterical about it. They said it was a method of freezing wages and prices, but I do not think one can read this into this Bill. It was also said that it would be used to suppress business undertakings—something which is not true either. It was also said that the legislation was unnecessary—something which is untrue too. I think that the business sector needs such legislation, and they accept it more or less as it stands now.

Certain safety measures have also been embodied in this Bill to ensure that consumer protection is effective and balanced. I shall refer briefly to these measures.

Firstly, the hon the Minister may take no action unless it is recommended by the independent statutory committee. That committee is to report to the hon the Minister in writing and that report is to be tabled in Parliament. In addition there is right of appeal to a special court.

I consider this to be meaningful legislation which will protect ordinary people, especially after the so-called kubus affair, and perhaps especially in consequence of other activities which are taking place at the moment and about which we read in certain newspapers. I think it will exclude those activities too and protect our poor people, as well as those who have saved their money over many years and who are sometimes caught by such practices, people who think that they can double their money but who lose it instead.

I should like to support this legislation on behalf of the CP.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Standerton for his support of this Bill on behalf of his party. As the hon member for Standerton said, it is certainly true that there were a few journalists who became hysterical at some stage in the Press on certain aspects of this legislation because they misunderstood it. It became clear later, however, that all important institutions in the business world actually support this legislation as well.

It is a fact that the hon the State President has said on various occasions that the Government intends protecting the consumer. This Bill is further evidence of the Government’s sincerity about this matter.

I should like to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister and the department and thank them, not only for this Bill, but also for quite a number of other Bills in which vigorous attempts are made to protect the consumer.

Consumer protection is certainly a very important matter.

I should also like to thank the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for East London City, for the way in which he handles the standing committee. It also emerges very clearly from the two Bills which have been before the House in succession—I also want to thank hon members of other parties who serve on this committee—that there is no politics in this committee, but that we deal with legislation with a view to serving the best interests of South Africa.

As the hon member for Standerton also mentioned, hon members are aware that this Bill actually has a longer history than merely a few weeks or months.

At the time of the milk-culture scheme it was found that no mechanism existed to prohibit this practice. As some hon members will recall, an undertaking was given at that time, when the Trade Practices Act had to be adapted reasonably drastically, to make specific provision for revision of the entire matter. This Bill is, in fact, one which arises from a long investigation which was conducted by the department and which was ultimately finalised in this Bill.

One of the problems experienced with the Trade Practices Act at the time was that it did not have the necessary muscle to allow for effective action. Effective measures to protect the consumer have been built into this Bill, but this was not done so that the business sector could intentionally and maliciously be harmed by it. As the Director-General of Trade and Industry said on Netwerk the other day, it is certainly not the Government’s idea to institute measures which will make matters difficult for the business sector. They are there merely to clamp down on individuals in the business world and other people guilty of abuses. They are not aimed at the vast majority of existing industries which function smoothly and productively.

I regard the crux of this Bill to be contained in clauses 8 and 12. Clause 8 deals with investigations by the committee which include, inter alia, any harmful business practice, extraordinary business practices, price rises, etc. Clause 12 deals with the Minister’s powers. Here important safety measures have been built in too. I want to refer to only a few of them. The Minister may take no steps before an independent statutory committee recommends that he do so. Secondly, a report on these matters has to be made public; in other words, it will have to be tabled here in Parliament. There is also an appeal which may be lodged in a special court.

Hon members can therefore see that this Bill represents very balanced legislation which provides the Act with sufficient muscle for effectiveness on the one hand and protects the business sector against unnecessary and malicious exploitation on the other. I think one may justifiably say that it is not only the Government’s duty to protect the consumer, but that the consumer himself also has a duty. Here the consumer is being provided with a number of mechanisms. This is why I want to make a very serious appeal to the consumer to use the mechanisms which are being given to him, to be his own watchdog too, and to make use of channels available to him, eg the Consumer Council and also this legislation, in cases of possible malpractice or in the case of excessive price rises.

I think it is only right and fair for the Press and television to play an increasing role in the protection of consumers by showing up certain malpractices. I thank the media for this. I am convinced that if the State, the media and consumers were to co-operate, we would ultimately be able to succeed in exposing exploitation effectively, wherever it may take place.

This Bill represents very balanced and significant legislation, and I consider it a privilege to support it.

Mr Chairman, as the hon members for Standerton and Sunnyside have correctly indicated, this Bill was born amidst a degree of controversy in the financial Press. It was suggested that it amounts to business-bashing, price-fixing and unwarranted interference in the free-market mechanisms, raising the bogey of centralised economic policies.

The suggestion was also made that it represents a conflict with Government-stated intentions to deregulate the economy. It was also said that this would add extra bureaucracy to an already overloaded bureaucratic system.

I share the view that was expressed by the hon member for Sunnyside that this commentary was generally an overreaction on the part of certain sectors of the financial Press. The legislation is not new, additional legislation. It is important to note that it is substitutional legislation. This takes the place of the Trade Practices Act, which has been amended a number of times and which, I think, has generally been accepted as having been ineffective. I think the principle of self-regulation without surveillance, which I regret has been the position with the Trade Practices Act, is inadequate in the circumstances in South Africa.

If one can highlight the issue of the revolving schemes of which Kubus was a notorious example, the amendment that was passed in 1985 to the Trade Practices Act designed specifically to deal with the Kubus issue, was in itself a most objectionable way of dealing with the Kubus-type problem. At that time the PFP divided against that amendment, I believe the CP did as well, because it was a method that removed the traditional powers of the courts. It made the Minister both policeman and judge on the issue. There was no appeal allowed against the Minister’s decisions in respect of that amendment. It was regarded by us as a hasty, ad hoc, ill-thoughtout measure. Also, in spite of the heavy-handedness to which we objected, the scope of it was too narrow to deal with all other variations of revolving schemes. It was designed for Kubus but would not necessarily have been effective against other kinds of abuses in terms of revolving schemes of various kinds.

Our view is that, in general, it is of the utmost importance that we in South Africa must avoid the ugly face of capitalism prejudicing the longterm future of the free enterprise system. We live in a country where it has been said over and over again that we have a First World element living side by side with a Third World element. In other words, we have a sophisticated element co-existing with an unsophisticated element. There will always be the type of shady character who will seek to exploit that situation. When that situation is aggravated by the fact that the sophisticated economically strong sector is generally the White sector and the unsophisticated economically weak sector is generally the Black sector, it is of especial importance that we in this country must avoid the ugly face of capitalism.

This view is obviously shared by the consumer bodies. As far as we can make out the various consumer bodies, formal bodies and leading consumer spokesmen, are unanimous in their support of this measure. In order that we should have an effective consumer protection measure, it is essential that it should have both teeth and safeguards. I think that is where the Trade Practices Act as amended fell down. There were inadequate teeth on the one hand and inadequate safeguards on the other hand.

The hon member for Sunnyside has described the teeth and the safeguards that are represented in this Bill. We are happy that they are both reasonably appropriate at this stage. Maybe time will tell and there may have to be some fine-tuning of the safeguards. However, for the Minister to have the power, after the procedures have been followed, summarily to stop a harmful practice or to direct an individual to cease a harmful practice or to employ a mechanism to fix a specific price after due investigation, we think is necessary.

In all honesty, I think no honest businessman will have a problem with this measure. When one looks at the reaction of responsible, organised business, it is worth placing on record that Assocom has supported the measure with certain caveats. I would like to quote from a bulletin put out by the local Chamber of Commerce on 25 May in which they say the following:

They set out the safeguards they are looking for and in my view those are largely covered by the safeguards provided for in the Bill as explained to us in the joint committee. In practice there may have to be some modifications in future but I think the spirit has been met.

One issue I would like to raise, is the question of trade coupons. Section 10 of the Trade Practices Act as amended in 1984 sets out very clearly the Government’s policy with regard to trade coupons. There is of course potential for harmful practices in regard to trade coupons which the Government foresaw and provided for in section 10 of the existing Act. I notice that in this Bill it is provided that section 10 be retained until a date when it will fall away. I would like to know how the new legislation which will require first an investigation, followed by recommendations, followed by some action by the hon the Minister is going to provide for the continuation of the various provisions relating to trade coupons to be taken up in the new system. It is not entirely clear to me how we can neatly take what exists into the future without a long procedure having to be adopted. I would be grateful if the hon the Deputy Minister would explain that to me.

In conclusion I want to say again that I believe that no honest businessman will have any problem with these provisions. The Bill will protect consumers but it will also protect businessmen from overreaction by the Minister with the safeguards that are built in. In my view it has the advantage of being strong as well as flexible. Some people have objected to the wide definition given to a harmful business practice, but that can also be seen as a strength if it is used with discretion.

I believe that in general it is landmark legislation. It takes us a significant step forward in the body of legislation relating to consumer protection in this country which we have not had up to now. I believe it is in line with the best legislative practice in advanced countries overseas. In my opinion it should be seen together with the recent new legislation on the Competition Board and it is perhaps significant that the present director-general who was generally regarded as the father of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, is also the person in charge of this particular Bill, although I am sure that a great many people have made an effort to bring this Bill to reality. I do think it is a piece of landmark legislation. It takes us a step forward and we are happy to support it.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to thank hon members for their unanimous support and for the very sound and expert way in which they explained their ideas.

†The hon member for Constantia referred to our present director-general and his contribution to the legislation. He is not only the father of this legislation but also of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act and the Close Corporations Act.

*This Bill is modelled on the very successful Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act. The same framework was used and our department did a considerable amount of work. Shortly after the hon Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and I assumed this responsibility, we started paying attention to this matter and asked our officials to expedite investigations relevant to the development of this Bill. Fortunately we could draw upon the very good doctoral thesis of one of the senior officials of the Competition Board, Doctor Van Eeden, who made a study of consumer legislation worldwide. We then chose the best elements from legislation and systems throughout the world and specifically adopted elements from American, Canadian, Israeli and Swedish legislation.

The hon member for Constantia also referred to what was called “business-bashing” in elements of the financial Press, and I agree with him that this was an overreaction. I do not want to refer to this any further—we shall forget about it.

The hon member for Sunnyside expressed thanks to our officials. I wish to associate myself with this and also thank everyone who worked so quickly to bring this Bill to its present stage of development. We hope that the legislation can also be implemented very quickly.

The hon member for Standerton put a specific question relating to the committee—that I give the assurance that it would be successful businessmen, or at least quite a number of successful businessmen, who would serve on the proposed Business Practices Committee. I shall give him that assurance. Fortunately we have many good people in the country—balanced, sensitive people—from whom we may choose. Actually we have a large supply of successful businessmen from whom we may choose, and we have recently spent quite some time in scrutinising lists of proposals submitted to us by people on request in order to obtain a balance between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people from the various sectors because we cannot simply make token appointments. We have to appoint people who are skilled, people with business expertise, people who have been successful and people who have knowledge of our economic system and of the legal system. I want to assure the hon member that this is a matter which we shall handle with great care because this legislation will succeed or fail depending upon the quality of the people we appoint to the committee. The legislation itself is good, but the quality of the people will determine its success.

The hon member of Constantia also referred to trade coupons.

†I want to say that the Bill is designed in such a way that the expert committee can reconsider the question of trade coupons afresh and advise on the wisest course.

*As a result of this, I say that these current provisions will remain in force until we have possibly reconsidered them, but that is not one of our major priorities.

I have requested the Consumer Council to sort out their priorities and to obtain a profile of consumer problems by doing an analysis of all the thousands of complaints which pour in to them because they are the body which deals with complaints. The Business Practices Committee is an expert body and the public will not direct complaints to them. The public will direct complaints to the Consumer Council and this council must sort them out and, if a pattern emerges, the Consumer Council must take note of that pattern and give a résumé of it in a request which they send to this group of professional people, the Business Practices Committee, for investigation.

There has been reference to the television programme two evenings ago in which the motor vehicle repair industry was discussed and in which it was brought to light for instance, that more than 900 complaints out of a total of slightly more than 1400 which were reported to the office of the Consumer Council in Pretoria within one month were related to motor vehicle repair work. One sees from this that there is general dissatisfaction about vehicle repairs, and I shall request the Consumer Council to examine the specific complaints, to analyse them and to see what the general pattern and the main problem of the consumer of the country is in order to hold discussions with this Business Practices Committee.

The major problem we have with the legislation on business practices on our Statute Book is that it provides only regulatory powers to prohibit general practices in the country. In this way, for instance, a general regulation had to be issued to deal with the kubus affair at the time. That general regulation for the handling of only one specific case immediately posed problems because the Department of Agriculture has a seed multiplication scheme in terms of which it provides farmers with seed and afterwards buys back the seedlings. In strict accordance with the regulation issued, that seed multiplication scheme was therefore prohibited. I could enumerate many examples of problems one encounters when one issues general regulations to prohibit a single malpractice. In the specific Bill before us we now have the opportunity of acting rapidly and effectively against an individual or undertaking which abuses the economic system.

What hon members said is obviously very important, namely that we have to protect the general public against abuse of the economic system. We follow the capitalist system and attempt to promote it in this country. We adopt a free-market approach. It is true that we live in a country in which—to use the old cliché—a First World and Third World situation co-exist. It is also true that when people have to choose a political system which they favour, they basically also have to choose the economic system which goes hand in hand with it. When those individuals are grossly exploited by the current system, one can understand why they do not necessarily exercise their choice in favour of those systems. Consequently we in this country have a responsibility to see to the poor and to examine practices by which they are exploited.

I next wish to emphasize a few characteristics of the Bill before us. There is an expert advisory committee. I promised the hon member for Standerton that we would select the best people in the community to serve on it. Further, the Minister has no capacity to act except on the advice of the committee. This is important too. In the third place, the advice referred to must be submitted to the Minister in the form of a written report. This report becomes a public document. The Minister publicises its contents; this report is also tabled in Parliament and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. In the fourth place, every individual who is affected, or thinks he is being adversely affected, has access to a special court.

I want to comment briefly on this special court. In terms of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act such a court has been in existence for 33 years—first in terms of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955, and subsequently in terms of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act. The possibility of such a court has therefore existed for 33 years now, but this court has never been convened. Four appeals were lodged with the court, but all four were withdrawn. This was obviously because the Competition Board was manned by people of very high calibre. The advice which they furnished and the reports which they issued were such that people felt they had no chance of succeeding in such an appeal court.

The Business Practices Committee will really succeed, too, if it publishes reports of such quality that people do not even appeal to a court because they have no chance of success. The very fact that a court exists, as well as the possibility of appeal to such a court, is nevertheless important. Its value is largely symbolic; probably this court will never convene.

Hon members also referred to price control and said that this legislation could not be applied with a view to controlling prices. The Price Control Act is at our disposal in any case. This Act has been on our Statute Book for 25 years. It is also contrary to general Government policy to control prices. I have to administer that Act, and I know very well there are only a few prices which are controlled. The price of empty mineral water bottles is controlled, as well as the retail price of petrol and the wholesale price of diesel. So there are only four cases of price control in the country, and it is not our intention to control prices either. If I receive a complaint in the capacity delegated to me by the hon Minister, in which I am responsible for protection of the consumer, or if consumers write to me in connection with what they regard as an unreasonable price rise, I now have a mechanism to pass the complaint on to an expert committee which can investigate it and recommend action.

An example of the action which may be recommended in a report to the Minister is that the Minister may determine that such a firm or individual shall, in future, give reasons for the price rise and publish such reasons in the newspapers. In consequence of the public focus which this can attract, such an incident will occur only once, and then people will be very careful.

This is not a threat against the business sector, however, because we do not wish to interfere in the business sector’s participation in our economic system, in which supply and demand determine prices and in which free entry and competition are elements of the rules.

It is also important to realise that wages and salaries cannot be controlled by these powers vested in the Minister in terms of this legislation. There is no reference to wages and salaries, and any such reference in the Press was based on misinformation.

I want to re-emphasize the protective measures. The Minister may only act on advice. He receives a written report which is tabled and there is a right of appeal.

As regards general malpractice—take pyramidsale schemes for example, I want to tell hon members that this is also a matter which will have to receive attention. The Housewives’ League came to see me about pyramid-sale schemes because they had problems with them. I had to tell them that I unfortunately could not help them. The Commercial Branch of the Witwatersrand Police has for the past two years been trying to put together a court case in this connection in terms of current legislation but has not been able to succeed. I therefore asked them to let it stand over until the new Act became operative and then they could direct representations to the new expert body which would advise me on the subject.

As far as general regulations are concerned, there is no appeal to a court, but obviously as in the case of any Act, regulations which are promulgated by a Minister may be put to the test. It therefore falls within administrative law to use the regulations to test whether the Minister is acting within the limits of the Act, and this is the only test that can be applied.

The Government and Parliament have now taken steps to create legislation which we shall implement as soon as possible. It is now incumbent upon consumer bodies—there are approximately 25 in the country all told—to react and to make use of the legal framework which we have created. They will now acquire both stature and substance. If something like the milk culture affair occurs again, a consumer body may complain immediately. It will submit its evidence and the expert committee can carry out a quick investigation. A standstill order can be promulgated preventing a person from continuing with a certain business undertaking pending an in-depth investigation which has to be completed within three months.

This idea of a standstill order has been adopted from American competition legislation. It exists as regards the Competition Board, too, and is a very good provision in the Bill. In respect of a case like Lodewijks, who cheated so many old people in repairing their television sets, after a short investigation we would have been able to order Lodewijks to refrain from applying the practice pending a further investigation.

The Whip says your time is up!

The hon Whip says I have a few minutes left. That hon member can relax. [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to consumer representative bodies to react and to use the machinery which has now been created to the benefit of the consumers of South Africa.

That brings me to the end, and I wish to thank hon members once again for their contributions.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the CP cannot support the Mineral Laws Supplementary Act Amendment Bill and will have to vote against it. The aim of the amending Bill is to ensure that more coal is mined. It is estimated that 16 500 million tons of coal will be lost if high-extraction methods are not used. The present method, known as the chamber-extraction and pillarextraction method, results in approximately 50% of exploitable coal remaining unmined. However, this method facilitated natural buttressing and restricted subsidence to a minimum.

The CP would like to extract as much coal as possible, as would the Government, but regard must be had to the interests of the farmer and agriculture. It is estimated that by 1990 more than 18 000 ha of agricultural land will be left without underground buttressing as a result of the high-extraction mining method.

The mining companies say that there will be a three centimetre to six centimetre subsidence of the land surface. This subsidence will vary, however, depending on the thickness of the coal-seam being mined. The thicker the seam, the more the land will subside. It is surely only logical that if the coal-seam is four or five metres thick, a greater space between the rockfalls will have to be filled in, and it will therefore be realised that it will not be just a small subsidence, as has been suggested.

It could also result in the surface subsiding more in one place than another. This would cause large water-pans to form and portions of the land would become inaccessible and lost to agriculture. The subsidence could also cause boreholes to dry up, which would pose a major problem for those areas. Moreover, if the rock above the coal-seam began to crumble, the water would seep away, and nothing the farmers did would ever build it up again.

The farmer did have a right to underground buttressing, and that is why the pillar-extraction method was used. The South African Agricultural Union asked, in its evidence before the standing committee, for a committee to be appointed to inquire into all the adverse effects and repercussions of coal-mining development as far as agriculture was concerned. There was also a request that legislation be held over until this committee had brought out a report. In spite of this the Government proceeded with this legislation.

It is gratifying to note, however, that the hon the Minister has now heeded this request. A committee is being set up under the chairmanship of the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. We do not know who will serve on this committee, but assume that the hon the Minister will appoint people from agriculture and the mining industry, as well as impartial experts.

In the draft statement which the hon the Minister issued, he set out the aims as follows:

1. 1. To find methods whereby the prejudicial influence which coal-mining has on agriculture will be restricted to a minimum.
2. 2. The establishment of an organisation to maintain a sound and stable equilibrium between agricultural and mining interests.
3. 3. The introduction of suitable legislation to protect the rights and interests of landowners and developers.

The hon the Minister went further and said that on completion of the inquiry possible further amendments to the legislation might be considered in the interim. The hon the Minister therefore foresees possible further amendments at a later stage.

The CP feels that there is no urgency in amending this legislation. We feel that it should stand over until the inquiry has been completed. Our impression is that the Government wants to rush the legislation through as quickly as possible so that the farmer will lose his right to apply for an interdict requiring a mining company to cease operations until an agreement is reached.

It is conceded that the farmer no longer has to fear that once compensation has been paid, no further compensation will be payable. The amendment provides that should there be further damage at a later stage, a further claim may be lodged. But I want to ask the hon the Minister what would happen if damage were only sustained after completion of the mining operations, or if the mining company were liquidated.

There are so many problems and disadvantages in this for the farmer that the CP calls on the hon the Minister to hold the amendments over until all the parties have studied the report and had an opportunity to comment on it. Meaningful changes can only take place when the interests of all parties have been served.

The CP will not support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Carletonville said that the aim of this Bill was to mine more coal. That, however, is not true. It is a complete misconception. In each case more coal will be mined, but this Bill is intended to protect farming interests and not to mine more coal. [Interjections.] I shall come to that in a moment. Nor is this legislation intended to deal with subsidences, but with the damage people suffer and the compensation to be paid for such damage. [Interjections.]

There will be a commission of inquiry, but the legislation has nothing to do with buttressing. There is no mention of buttressing in this legislation. [Interjections.] It deals with something entirely different.

There is an urgency in having this legislation adopted. I shall tell the hon member why there is that urgency. The urgency lies in ensuring that in future farmers are no longer exploited by smaller operators, as is happening at present. That is why we are rushing to have the Bill passed.

However, we are dealing here with a very emotional issue, namely the conflicting interests of agriculture and mining. This legislation deals with the mining of base minerals and not precious minerals.

Mine-owners say quite correctly that they have purchased the mineral rights, while the land owners say they have the right to have their surface land protected, and we grant them that. As mining develops, so do the methods employed. At first we had underground mining where pillars or buttresses were left in the form of unextracted coal. Approximately 60% of that coal was left in the ground. Then came opencast mining in which the mineral-right holder carried out mining operations on the surface, a process which entailed excavation although there were provisions for later rehabilitation of that land.

Quite recently high-extraction mining methods have been developed. In this process most of the coal, approximately 85% of it, is extracted. In our present legislation there is no provision for opencast and pillar-extraction and chamberextraction mining. This legislation only refers to “mining”. As matters have developed, however, we realised that the present legislation must be regarded as being applicable to opencast as well as pillar-extraction and chamber-extraction mining. We accepted that the legislation referred to this.

There is no clarity, however, on the question of whether the protection the farmer enjoys extends to high-extraction mining, and that is what this legislation is actually all about. This Bill is aimed at putting that protection beyond all doubt.

Everybody agreed that there must be clarity on this. There were differences between the various parties, however, as to how legal provision would be made and how much protection would be provided in the legislation. The Government advised the two parties, agriculture and mining, to reach a compromise. It is interesting to note that the SA Agricultural Union and the Chamber of Mines came to an agreement after a few years of negotiation. This supplementary legislation was then tabled.

Meanwhile, however, there was apparently a change of attitude, because the SA Agricultural Union reneged on its original acceptance of the legislation. I think that was done as a result of pressure from the Transvaal Agricultural Union, because the SAAU later changed its mind and said it was no longer in favour of the legislation.

It also became a very emotional issue in the meantime. We had to listen to arguments about depopulation of the rural areas, deteriorating schools, the decline of the churches, the destruction of agricultural land and of farmers losing their right of interdict, something they apparently set great store by. There was the argument that our agricultural land would be whittled away, and we were told that they would allow our lands to subside, something agriculture and the RSA cannot afford.

I submit that that was not the real reason why certain farmers did not want to accept this legislation. I shall, however, come back to that later.

What is the present situation? At present the farmer can decide whether he wants to sell his land or retain the land and accept compensation for damage, which he can do when the Minister, after representations, has decided that his land has been damaged to such an extent that agricultural activities are hampered. Should the Minister decide that there is no damage to his land, the farmer has the right to issue an interdict prohibiting the mine from operating until it has been established whether his land has, in fact, suffered damage.

It should be mentioned that as far as my knowledge goes not one farmer has thus far applied to court for such an interdict, because the farmers and the mine-owners have always agreed on either the purchase price or the amount of compensation. It is important, however, to know that such an interdict cannot permanently stop the mine-owner from operating; on the contrary, listen to what the proposed new section 6(6)(b) states:

That is also how the present Act reads. All the mine-owner had to do, therefore, was to provide security, and he could then proceed to mine until agreement was reached on compensation for damage. Moreover, this new legislation does not, in any event, remove that right of interdict in each case; it is still embodied in the new legislation.

It is important to note that previously only the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology could decide what damage had been suffered. In terms of the new legislation he must now consult the Minister of Agriculture. That is also of benefit to the farmer.

I have already said that I am not convinced by the reasons advanced by certain agricultural representatives as to why they do not support the amending Bill. I submit that it is not a question of the destruction of agricultural land. Those are secondary arguments to make it look as if money-grubbing is not involved. Primarily, all that counts are the rands and cents. What do the representatives actually want? They have made it clear that the mine-owners, when they start to mine, must buy the whole farm, even if they are only mining a small portion of it. They want the whole farm to be purchased, even if there is only slight damage from subsidence. According to them we should make it mandatory. It is clear that some farmers are not concerned with what happens to the agricultural land. They are not worried about that. Just listen to what their legal representative, Advocate T R van Rooyen, SC, had to say—those hon members can whistle if they want to:

That is the mines—

He is telling us here what is at stake. All some farmers want is money for the farm. Then the mines can go ahead and do what they like with the land because it is no longer any concern of theirs.

“Boerehater!”

I did not say that; their advocate said it. [Interjections.] I shall go further.

I say there is an ulterior motive. But that is not all. I also submit that some farmers want to use the Government to negotiate a one-sided and unfair dispensation. Just listen to what they say in their submission:

Hon members must listen carefully now. They propose the following:

1. 1) Dat die myne grand koop deur onderhandelings, voor daar met hoëverhaal-mynbou begin word. Op dié stadium moet die boer se besittingsreg en interdikreg nog bestaan. Die keuse of die boer die grand wil verkoop of nie, moet egter nog by die boer berus.
   Incidentally, we are not taking it away; he still retains it. They continue by saying:
2. 2) Die boer moet die grond van jaar tot jaar kan huur weens die veranderlikhede van boerbare grond …
   They state further:
3. 3) Die myn moet bruikbare water voorsien.
4. 4) Die boer behou eerste weieringsreg om ná op die eiendom gemyn is weer sy grond … terug te koop.

Now I want to say this to hon members. It would really be ridiculous if I sold my farm to a man and, after I had been paid, still wanted to prescribe to him what he had to do with the land. When a purchaser has paid the full purchase price, one can surely negotiate with him. One cannot tell him one wants to negotiate with him to lease that commodity from him. I cannot sell a car, take the money and then tell the man what he must do with my car. He can do what he likes with the car! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this debate has developed into a rather interesting one which goes far beyond the merits of the Bill. It would seem as though the hon members of the CP see an opportunity here to describe the Government as representing the “geldmag” with they themselves representing the farmers on the platteland or the “boeremag”. Actually, in our opinion, that debate is not really relevant to this Bill.

This Bill is a sensible technical measure to compensate the farmer in a situation which has arisen. We in fact see it as a step forward in protecting the interests of the farming community. It takes us a bit by surprise to see the stance the CP has adopted on this matter. I do not think the stance they have adopted really squares with the measures that are before us. On that basis we do not want to be caught in the crossfire that we have seen here this afternoon. We are happy to support the Bill as it stands.

Mr Chairman, I do not think there is any doubt in this House about the importance of coal in our country. Ignoring the sanctions campaign, it still remains one of our major earners of foreign exchange. It certainly also provides for a major percentage of our energy needs in this country. The fact of the matter is therefore that in examining the exploitation of this source, we must maintain a balance between the various interested parties.

The hon member for Stilfontein has already referred to the fact that there are three well-known methods of mining. The conventional methods were firstly the chamber or pillarextraction methods. Subsequently, I would say, we had opencast mining. I shall come back to that at a later stage, because section 6 was actually introduced with that object in mind. High-extraction underground mining operations then came on the scene, and with this method approximately 85% of exploitable coal could be extracted.

In my part of the world the Iscor mine at Durnacol is a world-leader in this field. So-called longwall-mining and pillar-extraction have been employed for many years now. As I have said, not only are we leaders in this field in South Africa, but we are also world-leaders.

It is certainly true that as the amount of the extraction increases, there is a greater chance that damage to the surface will occur. Here we disagree with the CP, but I believe that it is important to maintain a balance between the various interests of the respective groups. In the first instance, probably not the only instance, there is the mining sector, and then we also have to maintain a balance in regard to the agricultural sector. Lastly it is equally important to maintain a balance in the interests of the country and to decide what is best for the country.

In order to maintain a balance between these various interests, one would therefore have to ascertain whether the legislation should be amended if it evidences any shortcomings. I have referred to opencast mining. Section 6 of the Mineral Laws Supplementary Act of 1975 is being amended by the proposed section 6 which again provides for the maintenance of this balance. The legislator saw the necessity for the balance and proposed this statutory amendment.

The present section 6 makes provision for the fact that a mine-owner who damages a farmer’s land so extensively that it can no longer be properly used for farming purposes, can apply to the Minister to have the land purchased by the State or even by him, an interdict being prohibited for a period of nine months, pending the Minister’s decision concerning the purchase of the land. The farmer, however, has the choice to retain the land, notwithstanding the possible damage caused by the mine. If he were to decide to retain the land, his right to obtain an interdict would lapse, if he ever had such a right.

The question about whether a specific landowner would be successful in an application for an interdict against the mine-owner who has caused a subsidence on his land owing to recognised and acceptable mining methods, is a very difficult legal question. Without going into the legal position in detail, it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that except in highly exceptional circumstances, in which the cession of mineral rights expressly prohibits subsidences, a farmer always runs the risk of having the courts turn down his application for an interdict.

There are, however, two problems with the present section 6 on the Statute Book. The first is this: If a farmer elects to retain the land, the present Act places no obligation on the mineowner to compensate the farmer for the damage he is suffering. The proposed statutory amendments before us at the moment are specifically aimed, amongst other things, at correcting this problem.

The second point to which I want to refer briefly is the following: A prerequisite for section 6 to come into operation in its present form is that the damage suffered by the farmer is of such a serious nature that it prevents normal farming practices from being carried out. Particularly in the case of high-extraction underground mining operations the damage is generally not all that serious and problems are created for both the mine-owner and the farmer. The statutory amendment before us at the moment also solves this problem. I have no doubt that this statutory amendment will maintain a balance and that it is in the interests of the farmer for us to implement it. It is necessary for agricultural land, where possible, to be retained by the farming community and not progressively to come into the hands of the mining industry. According to the memorandum attaching to the Bill, the object of the legislation is to place the farmer on whose land coal or other base minerals are being mined, and who wishes to retain his land, in a position to be compensated for damages or losses as a result of subsidence caused by underground mining operations.

We on this side of the House would like to support this amending Bill because we believe that it would maintain a balance and that it would benefit the farmer and the farming community if we were to pass this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Newcastle has just said that it is in the interests of agriculture that it should retain the land. The hon member for Stilfontein just about wanted to blow a gasket when the farmers tried to negotiate to lease back or subsequently buy back the land. With all due respect, I do not know what the NP’s big problem is as far as this is concerned. We understand that mining operations have to be carried out and that there should be high-extraction mining. We are asking, however, that the person who has the surface rights be properly protected and compensated.

The hon member for Stilfontein referred very scornfully to Adv Van Rooyen. I think that if he had any knowledge of expropriation law and law in regard to minerals, and were to make inquiries, even from the Attorney-General, he would be told that he was an absolute expert in that field in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. Let us look at what precisely is being done here.

You are befuddled!

Here it is being stated, firstly … Mr Chairman, I do not know whether that remark was intended to suggest that I am drunk, or what. If that is the case, however, let him just repeat it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Stilfontein said the hon member for Bethal was drunk.

Mr Chairman, I have not had a drop to drink. If that is … [Interjections.]

Scandalous!

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that. I did not mean he was befuddled because he had been drinking, but merely that he was confused.

That is scandalous! You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

I never said that! [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member has withdrawn it, it is quite in order.

Mr Chairman, I also insist upon an apology.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Is this not an instance in which the hon member should be asked to apologise?

I apologise, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I do not know why such personal remarks have to be made, because I want to speak to the hon the Minister about other matters. [Interjections.]

In the first place a right of arbitration is being granted here. If there is a dispute, we must have recourse to an arbitrator. I now want to put a question to the hon the Minister. No provision is made, for example, for me to go to court. We know that in the case of expropriation procedures in court cases the costs are very high, but the costs of arbitration are even higher, because under arbitration law I do not have a right of appeal. I must ensure that I obtain a very good arbitrator. He is not paid by the State; he is paid by the parties concerned. He is not a judge who is paid by the State. A venue must be found. Provision must be made, at the cost of the parties concerned, for Minutes to be recorded. In the long run we need the same evidence that we need in a court case in order to determine what reasonable compensation is. When land and water experts are involved, one needs the same evidence, and the same procedure is prescribed for setting out the claim, the full particulars, petitions, pleadings, disclosure, the whole lot. It is all the same as in court cases. There is this additional cost, however, because I have to ask ex-appeal Judge A or B, or Mr X or someone, who is an expert in this field, to make himself available for fourteen days or whatever, to hear this case, and what is more I have to pay him. There is consequently no saving in costs.

This legislation goes further, however, and perhaps the hon member for Stilfontein could now please tell me how this works. [Interjections.] This legislation prescribes that if we cannot reach an agreement, section 12 of the Expropriation Act shall apply. Section 12 of the Expropriation Act provides that on the date of the expropriation notice, and that is the date of the expropriation … Provision is not made here for an expropriation notice, Mr Chairman, but provision is, in fact, made for a notice that can be sent after the Minister has found that the land has already been encumbered or that it could probably be encumbered. Then a notice is sent and the value has to be determined. Section 12 states very clearly that the value should be determined as on the day of the notice. Must the farmer’s land now be valued on the day on which it is already clear that it has been damaged or shall be damaged? Must one determine what the value is on that day, because the Expropriation Act only provides that this should be done on that day?

[Inaudible.]

The land must now be valued and the value of the land determined, and the test for the determination of the value of the land, in terms of section 12, is quite simply that it may not be more than a willing buyer would pay a willing seller on that day. My question is now the following: If I were to come along with a willing buyer and a willing seller and I asked them what they would be prepared to accept or pay for this broken-down farm, what would the position be? Its value shall not be more than the value of the farm on that day when those two are negotiating. Surely that cannot work, Mr Chairman? With all due respect, it is the farm, while it is still intact, which should be valued, and not the farm in its broken-down state. That is why these Acts cannot simply incorporate elements from other Acts. That is wrong! With all due respect, it cannot work that way.

This brings me to another aspect. We now have interest provisions on fees. The Arbitration Act prescribes a certain formula in accordance with which interest is paid from the day of sentence. The Expropriation Act has a different interest formula. That formula determines the interest on money that should previously have been paid, but which has not yet been paid. Which of the two now applies here? Here we have two Acts. Which of the two must apply as far as interest is concerned?

Problems of that nature have not been given thorough consideration. Those are actual problems which exist and which should have been investigated prior to the formulation of the legislation under discussion. It should have been done before the Bill under discussion was introduced here. It would be a good thing if I could receive replies in regard to those aspects. This is not simply a question of insignificant matters. I have photographs here of farms on which subsidences have taken place.

It is possible that nothing at all will happen!

I am not saying that it would happen in every instance. We are nevertheless making laws to protect those who do suffer damage. That is what the NP wants to do, and that is also what we want to do. [Interjections.] The formula which is now going to be used to calculate damage of this nature is not applicable here. Perhaps the NP will never see the light as far as this is concerned. So they must please ask one of their legal experts to explain it to them. [Interjections.]

It is also a question of buttressing. There is considerable argument about whether a buttressing right existed or not. I want to ask any hon member in this House—hon members who own farms of which the mineral rights belong to someone else—whether they think that the owner of the mineral rights can start mining operations on that farm and let the whole farm collapse about the farmer’s ears.

Of course not!

Surely that cannot be the case. Farmers had a buttressing right. We are now saying that if the person holding the mineral rights wants to negotiate and extract all the minerals so that the buttressing right lapses, surely that means that the farmer is being deprived of a right. He should therefore be compensated for that right which he is being deprived of. It is now being said that we are issuing threats and are merely after money. When all is said and done, however, it is money that must be paid for a right which a farmer has and which this legislation today is depriving him of. That is what we say, Mr Chairman.

They would not understand it! [Interjections.]

We say that one cannot allow a man’s farm to come tumbling down around his ears and then tell him he will only be paid out for those portions of his farm which have collapsed. Here they are now given a formula and forced to have recourse to arbitration which would cost them more than would a court case. They have to pay the judge and the stenographer, services which would otherwise be supplied free of charge by the State.

Those are aspects we want to bring to the attention of the Government. There are aspects which Adv Van Rooyen brought to their attention, but which they cheerfully brushed aside. [Interjections.] They did so, of course, because they apparently thought there was some sinister motive involved. The CP has no sinister motives. We believe, in our heart of hearts, that there really is a problem as far as this is concerned. This cave-in method dries up the water. When the topsoil caves in, the whole structure changes. Even boreholes dry up. There is evidence to support this. Serious damage is involved here. These are not aspects which should be considered lightly, merely for the sake of conducting mining activities.

We place a high premium on mining. It is nevertheless a fact that individual farmers are battling against a powerful organisation. Mining enterprises have money with which to carry on the fight. The poor farmers do not. They cannot afford court cases. They cannot afford this kind of thing. That is why we are asking the Government to look into this and to make it possible for farmers to make a living on their farms. The Government ought to compensate them for the rights which they had. Let the Government compensate them when the mines wish to deprive them of their buttressing right. If the mining enterprise wishes to remove the buttresses, causing a subsidence, let the mining enterprise compensate him for that. Surely a mining enterprise cannot remove the buttresses and, when subsidence occurs, simply compensate the owner for those parts which have subsided.

Surely that cannot be allowed! I am sure that is not the intention of that side of the House. Perhaps they have not perceived the implications. I am therefore asking them not to be in such a hurry with this legislation. Surely it is not all that urgent. Let this commission, for which we are very grateful to the hon the Minister, complete its work and then come to light with proper legislation. Surely it is not that urgent. I do not know what the motivating force is for this sudden urgent need, at the end of the session, to push this legislation through.

It is also true that agriculture has changed its standpoint. We need not have any doubts about that. They obtained legal advice which was different to the advice they had previously been given. If the NP can change its policy every other day, why can the agricultural union not, on legal grounds, at least change its policy? [Interjections.]

I want to ask to have this Bill referred back to the committee and for us to await the findings of that committee under the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. It is not necessary for the committee to deliberate for years, because the data has already been collected and there are only loose ends to tie up. I am sure we can do so and clear the matter up so that proper compensation is obtained and there is a formula in terms of which to do so. As far as the judicial formula is concerned, the intention may be a good one, but this cannot work in its present form. We ask the hon the Minister please to hold back this legislation so that we can examine it properly.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Ermelo.

Bethal!

On certain points I agree with him. I think we have specific common ground in regard to the proper protection of the landowner, but not in regard to so-called sinister intentions. It is interesting to me that the CP specifically endeavours to preserve the country’s coal areas—that stretch from Witbank to Northern Natal, etc—but I wonder whether this does not have something to do with their future “Boerestaat”. That is, after all, approximately the area they have identified. [Interjections.] They know that if they were to come to power, they would not obtain any fuel there, and that is why they now want to obtain this coal so that in that miserable little State of theirs they will have some form of fuel. [Interjections.]

So he is afraid the “Boerestaat” will collapse about his ears; now I also understand!

The hon member over here says that that hon member of the CP is afraid their “Boerestaat” will collapse around their ears. That is one of the reasons, and it is also a possibility that he will disappear into a sinkhole. [Interjections.]

I should like to return to the legislation under discussion, and I more specifically want to analyse the proposed new section 6. The fact that it offers proper protection to the landowner should be very clearly apparent from an analysis of this section.

Section 6 of the principal Act is now being amended by clause 2 of the Bill which expressly provides that if the Minister, after the representations have been made to him in writing by an owner or a mine, is satisfied that the mining activities are going to obstruct the farming activities or that the remainder of the farm will, as a result, become an uneconomic unit, he must accordingly notify the parties, ie the farmer and the company, and thereafter a right shall be vested in the State to purchase the land.

If the Minister of Agriculture says that they are not interested in the land, the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology must instruct the mine to purchase the land. If the Minister says that there is no damage, we are back to the normal position and the farmer can once more have recourse to the courts. If the farmer should decide to retain the land in any event, however, or if the farmer and the mine were to agree to compensation for damage suffered, no right to acquire the land shall vest in the State.

The effect of this is that the owner—in this case the farmer—loses his right of interdict against the mine. By the very nature of things he will then have something else in its place, and if not he receives compensation for damage suffered. If the farmer makes representations to the effect that there are or will be damage as a result of mining operations, and that he tried to obtain compensation for damage, the Minister must instruct the mine to pay the compensation, in effect in terms of the Arbitration Act.

A farmer may not obtain the compensation for damages if his predecessor has already received such compensation. What this amounts is to that he cannot once more claim compensation for damage which has previously been caused, but provision is made for compensation for further damage. Let me therefore respectfully tell the hon member for Ermelo that this is surely, in all fairness, further proper protection for the landowner. [Interjections.]

Bethal!

My apologies. I am referring to the hon member for Bethal. [Interjections.] Is the hon member for Ermelo in bed? My good wishes to him for his recovery. I shall send him a message on the radio. [Interjections.]

In the case of a dispute in regard to compensation for damage or the price of the land, provision is made for arbitration, specifically in terms of the Arbitration Act. The Minister is given a period of nine months to investigate whether there has been any damage. The new amending Bill makes provision for the fact that during that period no interdict can be issued—on the one hand to allow the hon Minister to investigate the matter properly and, on the other, to enable the mine to continue with its mining operations.

The 1975 Act created the principle that an owner could choose whether he wanted to sell the land or retain it and that he would then loose this right of interdict if the land were damaged by opencast mining operations. This amending Bill is now extending the scope of the 1975 Act. At the time these surface-mining methods were still unknown, and this amending Bill now aims at making provision for the high-extraction method, at the same time making it compulsory to pay the farmer compensation for damage suffered. It is therefore a pleasure for me to support the Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I could never have imagined that there would be such antipathy towards the farmers. I have again witnessed it today. [Interjections.]

I have no doubt that over the years mining has had a great influence on agriculture, particularly in the Eastern Transvaal where there are coal mines. Farmers who have sold their land to mining magnates for opencast mining, have thereby said farewell to their farms. They have got their price in the full knowledge that they would never be able to return to their farms in their original state.

It is true that grass is planted on the opencast mining land, but that is an expensive process and apparently not very successful, because the topsoil can never properly be reclaimed in its original state. Farmers who are the landowners, however, while the mineral or coal deposits belong to some or other mining group, are hardest hit as far as farming operations are concerned. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs at the time also announced that the Cabinet had decided that a comprehensive scientific investigation should be instituted into the long-term consequences of high-extraction coal-mining on agriculture.

I want to mention a few instances I have encountered in the sphere of coal-mining. One morning I visited my neighbour who was in a very dejected state. The previous night there had been a subsidence on a portion of his farm. That is water under the bridge, a situation that can never be changed. His friends, who were leaders in the mining field—the manager, surveyor and engineer—came to have a look at the subsidence and told their friend: “That is merely a subsidence; no damage has been done; you can plough there again; you can plant there again.” The subsidence was such, however, that he had to relinquish that part of the farm, because it was dangerous to life and limb to plough and plant there. He went to his lawyer to ascertain whether he could reclaim a few cents. The lawyer advised him not to take the matter any further because it could possibly cost him R250 000, and what would he then have?

That same neighbour still had water that morning, but by the afternoon there was nothing. The mine had to sink a shaft on the farm and had to fence off a small portion for that purpose. In exchange for that, however, he asked them for water. He was given the water. With the mining strikes, however, his cattle went without water for more than a day. Those are the wretched conditions affecting farmers who farm on mining land.

Years ago, when not so much attention was given to details, when water was not yet specifically designated and when the farmers and the mines concluded many agreement in good faith, another neighbouring farmer was promised that he would be supplied with water on his farm. It was never recorded in black and white, however. Now he is being blackmailed. Every time he wants to do something, they threaten to cut off his water supply.

Those are the problems where buttresses are still being used and where there have not been that many subsidences. What will now happen in the event of many subsidences? What about the high-extraction mining? It is being stated, amongst other things, that the 14 tests conducted on water coming from high-extraction mining enterprises all indicate that the water is unsuitable for human consumption. We ourselves have seen the ground surface turning into pans. It is said that not much damage has been done, that there are only a few pans. But one cannot, after all, cultivate land consisting of certain arable patches and other non-arable patches. It is impossible! It is becoming an impossible situation.

There is a very big difference in the way in which one uses the land in Natal—whether one puts it under the plough or merely uses it for grazing purposes. The water levels drop and the soil structure can never be the same again. The objects of the investigation team the hon the Minister announced are significant. We express our appreciation for the appointment of such an investigating team in the belief that that team will do its job. What, however, was the gist of the hon the Minister’s announcement? Methods must be found to restrict the adverse affect of coal-mining on agriculture. Mention is made of the adverse effect, not of agriculture on mining, because agriculture has no adverse effect on mining, but the adverse effect of mining on agriculture. The adverse effects are caused by the mining operations, and we only want to protect the farmers. When the mines in a certain area have long since ceased their operations, agriculture will still be there. So these adverse effects do not only last for a one year or for 20 years. They carry on for ever. As long as this earth of ours remains in existence, those detrimental effects on the topsoil will remain. That is why the farmers are concerned. The farmers are not simply negotiating for today or tomorrow, but also for the generations still to come. [Interjections.]

The second point the hon the Minister mentioned concerns the maintenance of a sound and stable balance between the interests of agriculture and those of mining. One could possibly give a wonderful definition of this on paper, as the hon member for Bethal indicated, but in practice this is a hopeless failure. The reason for this is that the weak have to compete against the strong. No farmers see their way clear to going to court for a decision. The costs involved in reaching a settlement are far too high. Some people say it could be as much as R250 000 per case. The attitude amongst many farmers is therefore that the land should simply be allowed to subside and the value of the farm allowed to decrease. Those who are in a strong position must simply wreak as much destruction as they wish. The farmers are growing powerless. On their own farms they are being driven into a corner from which they cannot extricate themselves any longer.

With this new method of coal-mining the State will increasingly find that the farmers get the short end of the stick. I have never heard of a mine being adversely affected by farming, but I have, in fact, heard of many farmers who have suffered losses. Some of them have even had to move as a result of the adverse influence of mining on the infrastructure which has an overall affect on farming. [Interjections.] Thirdly, the hon the Minister spoke of suitable legislation to protect rights. Legislation alone, as it stands today, cannot really afford such protection in regard to certain rights. To use the law to protect a person’s rights is, at times, such an expensive process that it is impossible to do so. A fair method, a better method, must be found to protect those rights without risking thousands upon thousands of rands in the search for a solution. That is what we are asking the hon the Minister, because that is what is important to us.

Fourthly the hon the Minister spoke about the fact that in time further amendments to the legislation would possibly be considered. There is no “possibly” about it. In time amendments to the legislation will definitely have to be considered. Today I want to tell the hon the Minister that as this investigation team continues with its work, there will definitely have to be amendments. What happens to the farmers, however, who are adversely affected in the interim? Will they also be in a position to claim compensation at a later stage?

Moreover, as far as the composition of the investigation team is concerned, let me ask this afternoon for the inclusion, at the very least, of farmers from the Highveld, from the Witbank-Bethal area, farmers designated by the Transvaal Agricultural Union.

It has never been my intention to play the one industry off against the other. It is my intention—I think it is also the intention of hon members on this side of the House—for them both to have their rightful place. From this legislation it appears that at present it is the mining sector which is plunging agriculture into a crisis situation and not the other way round. Why is the Government in such a hurry with this legislation? Why did it not first gather more information before legislation was placed on the Statute Book?

Sir, bearing all this in mind, let me say that as a representative of the mining community and the farmers of Witbank I cannot be satisfied with the answers I have received. I am therefore of the opinion that we cannot pass this legislation before an in-depth investigation has been carried out.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by firstly thanking the hon members for Bloemfontein North, Newcastle, Stilfontein and Constantia sincerely for their fine exposition of the aims of this amending Bill. Here we are discussing the amending Bill, not the existing Act.

†I think in that respect the hon member for Constantia was quite right in his very brief summary of the situation.

*I want to thank the hon member for Stilfontein sincerely for the competent way in which he, as chairman of the Joint Committee which had to examine the Bill, dealt with the matter. I am aware of the considerable trouble he went to and the competent way in which he and most of the members of his committee dealt with the matter. I also thank him for his openness in giving practically everyone who was prepared to come and give evidence the opportunity to do so. For that I thank him sincerely.

I am not a lawyer. I am merely, as our previous colleague, Mr Hendrik Schoeman would have said a “plain and simple” engineer. However, the arguments which I had to listen to from the Official Opposition today astounded me. [Interjections.] It is truly astounding. The hon member for Witbank said that the antipathy of the NP towards the farmers had come to the fore. I say it is exactly the opposite. [Interjections.] They completely ignore the compensation and security which we are incorporating into the amending Bill—for the very purpose of making provision for compensation, in order to give the hon the Minister the right to compel the mines to pay compensation. [Interjections.] The hon members astound me. I want to say that the opposite is true. Those hon members have no feelings for the problems of the farmer when high-extraction mining methods are applied. [Interjections.] If they did in fact have any feeling for this aspect, they would have supported these amendments wholeheartedly.

I want to say that the hon members on our side referred in full to the aims of this Bill. I am merely going to highlight a few of them. I want to end with the hon member for Witbank. The examples he mentioned here today are, in fact, a direct demonstration of why these amendments are necessary. Whereas previously exploitation first occurred because the farmer, in terms of the Act, had no right to compensation and the Minister, in terms of the existing Act, had no right to enforce the payment of compensation, this is now being incorporated into the new legislation. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the examples which the hon member mentioned to indicate why they did not support this legislation are the very reasons why the Bill should be supported, and should be supported by everyone who has an interest in farming in South Africa and the farming community of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The following aspects, which is not dealt with in this Bill, is the question of rehabilitation. If at this moment a subsidence or sinking or a disturbance were to take place, the farmer could lay no claim to the possible rehabilitation of that land, depending on the extent of the subsidence. We are now going to make provision for enforceable rehabilitation as well, so that, as the hon member for Bethal said, the position will not later arise that mining operations have been disbanded or the mine has closed down and that once that has happened, no rehabilitation rights exist any longer. That is when rehabilitation mining must occur and not after the mining activities have been completed.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to point out to the hon Minister that in last year’s debate we dealt with rehabilitation, and the assurance was given at the time that steps were already being taken in every mining industry in respect of rehabilitation. It is already a certainty. It is therefore unnecessary to raise it again now.

The hon member is correct, but one cannot separate the compensation and the rehabilitation. If one wants to rehabilitate, surely there must also be an enforceable compensation process. [Interjections.] In the present Act no provision is made for compensation. Let us consider what the present Act says. The present Act says that the farmer, if we want to use the juristic person, or the person can go to the Minister to determine whether there is going to be any damage. That occurs before mining activities are initiated, not after the mining activities have been finalised. Long before the mining activity starts, it is possible for the farmer to pose questions in order to determine whether there is going to be any damage. The present Act—that is not the new legislation—very clearly states that the Minister can then determine that damage is going to occur.

If the hon the Minister says that damage is going to occur, there is only one person who decides on the future of that land, namely the farmer. The farmer can take one of two possible decisions. In due course I shall expand a little on the second decision, but the one decision the farmer is able to take, is that he wants to retain the land. He can therefore say that he does not want to sell his land but wants to retain it. In accordance with the present Act, the right of interdict falls away completely the moment he takes that decision. Where must he go to in that case? He must then request arbitration. According to the present Act he must then have recourse to arbitration.

The hon member for Bethal made a huge fuss a moment ago, as if this was now being written into the legislation for the first time. It is not being written into the legislation for the first time now. At the moment the farmer cannot even enter into arbitration for compensation purposes, because it is not stated in the legislation. What is stated in the Act relates only to the purchase price. The hon member should reread the Act thoroughly. The matter involved here is the purchase price, not compensation. [Interjections.] We are now, in fact, incorporating the right to compensation in the Bill in order to confer protection upon the farmer.

If within a certain time the farmer does not reach consensus in respect of compensation with the juristic person or the mine, the Minister has the right to instruct that mine to arrive at a settlement. That provision does not exist in the present Act. In that way we shall once again protect the farmer by giving the Minister the authority to instruct that mine to arrive at a settlement in respect of compensation.

And if it does not carry out the instruction?

That means we are not changing the present situation in any way. We are merely creating more legal certainty to ensure that the farmer will ultimately receive legal compensation for his property.

Surely we now have superb examples of this. I now turn to the hon member for Carletonville. Good heavens, Mr Chairman, this hon member is surely a man who knows something about mining … [Interjections] … but hon members must listen carefully to what he said. The hon member said that the reason why we had used pillar methods in the past was to support the topsoil. Surely that is the greatest untruth under the sun! Surely that has nothing to do with that. The reason why we used the pillar method in the past was because there was no other technology available. At that stage there were no other mining methods. That has nothing on earth to do with the buttressing right, because nowhere in the legislation at hand is anything stated about the buttressing right.

It does exist in commonlaw.

I challenge that hon member—apparently he is a legal expert—to point out to me where in this legislation or in any legislation a farmer has a buttressing right.

With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I reply?

Order!

That hon member can have an opportunity; I challenge him to point out to me where, in this legislation, such a buttressing right is being granted to the farmer. No such thing exists.

No, it is not in this legislation.

The hon member for Stilfontein pointed it out very clearly. The reason why we used pillar methods was that there was no other technology available.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he concedes that in common law the buttressing right did exist?

No, not at all.

Well, all the hon members conceded that there was.

Order!

The hon member must tell me in which cases commonlaw would support the farmer in respect of these rights. No such judgment has ever been given in a court of law. No, there was one judgment, namely the Fourie case. I think the hon member should read through the Fourie case carefully. It was not concerned with buttressing. It was concerned with the maintenance of an existing agreement which included buttressing. The hon member must merely go and do his homework and not come and sit here without having done it. [Interjections.]

The hon members for Carletonville and Witbank maintained that now, towards the end of the session, we wanted to rush this legislation through, even though there was no hurry. We are still a long way away from the end of the session. We can discuss this legislation until 11 o’clock this evening, and with your permission, Mr Chairman, we could discuss this until two o’clock tomorrow morning. Surely it is not true that things are being rushed through, nor is it necessary to make up time. Surely that is completely untrue.

The preliminary stage of this legislation do not date back to yesterday, but to as long ago as 1979 or 1980. How long must we continue to sell the farmer down the river because his rights are not protected in the present Act. Surely we cannot wait another eight years. Somewhere we have to put a stop to it and tell the farmer that from a specific moment onwards he has a right to compensation and an enforceable right to arbitration and that his property will, to some extent, be rehabilitated. We have no choice but to do so at this stage.

We can take the argument even further. Surely there has already been a committee under the chairmanship of the Government mining engineer, on which the agricultural union, the representatives of the mining industry and independent people have been sitting for a period of three years, Hon members should listen carefully to these facts. The South African Agricultural Union agreed to the statutory amendment, but then something interesting followed. The South African Agricultural Union had an extremely competent legal adviser, who agreed with the department and with me. The Transvaal Agricultural Union was, however, not satisfied and subsequently also appointed a legal adviser. The two agricultural legal advisers were at loggerheads.

Why?

One of them raised exactly the same points as the hon members of the CP did. They have merely said exactly what is stated in his report. They did not mention a single new point which did not appear in Advocate Van Rooyen’s report. [Interjections.]

He was at loggerheads with the agricultural legal adviser of the South African Agricultural Union. The Transvaal Agricultural Union sent representations to me in order to obtain legal certainty in the face of the two conflicting opinions. Surely that is not my task! Surely they could have called for a third independent legal adviser’s opinion. Why should I do it? If, according to my personal physician, I have to undergo a serious operation, I surely have the right to consider a second and even a third opinion, in order to be sure. Their two legal advisers were quarrelling with each other, yet I had to obtain legal certainty about the matter.

The hon members of the CP said we were rushing the legislation through, but that is not true. We think it is extremely important, in the interest of the farmers in the coal-mining areas, for them to receive certainty in regard to compensation and arbitration and for them at least to have the right to decide for themselves about the future of their land. This legislation makes provision for this.

I want to raise the issue of purchases. It is inconceivable that a Minister, regardless of whether he be from the PFP, the CP or the NP—would say, after receiving representations, that there would be no damage if no high-extraction mining activities took place below the surface of a farm. No such person exists. After the Minister has stated that damage would take place, only the farmer may decide whether he wants to retain the land or sell it.

If he wants to retain the land, the legislation now makes provision for compensation for the fact that damages have to be paid. However, the legislation also makes provision for the fact that if compensation for damages has been evaluated and paid, and in two years’ time there is recurring damage, the farmer can again obtain compensation for damages.

And the adjacent farm?

No, surely there cannot be compensation for damages in terms of an adjacent farm? Surely that is absolute nonsense? [Interjections.] If there is damage on my farm, surely there is only compensation for damages to my farm. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to the water problem. The problem of water in pillar mines is surely just as bad. Hon members have not even thought of that. I do not now want to use it as an argument, but the hon member for Witbank complained about his neighbour, and that was in fact motivation for the legislation.

However, the hon member should tell the House what is happening to the four farms at Witbank where the pillars are burning. There is no way in which one can prevent a worked-out pillar mine, which has been closed down, from starting to burn sooner or later. There is no way. I am not saying it is going to start burning tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, but the chances are very good that it will, in fact, start burning at some time in the future, and now the hon member merely has to examine previous events to see why those four mines around Witbank are burning.

According to the evidence furnished to us, the one caught alight as a result of waste which was dumped in the old mine and subsequently caught alight. The second one caught alight as a result of veld fires. The hon member for Witbank referred to that.

Even if one has pillars, one is still going to find cracks here and there, and as a result of fires various gases caught alight and those mines are burning today. The hon member should take a helicopter flight over that area at night. It looks like a fairytale world with a subterranean glow.

That farmer has fallen victim to a pillar system over which no one has any control, because there is no conceivable way in which those fires can be extinguished. No one must come and tell me now that they can be extinguished. They cannot be extinguished. We have spent millions on trying to extinguish one of them, and it is still there, below the masonry works. We have spent millions, and it is burning with the same ferocity as it did five years ago. There is no way of extinguishing those fires.

There is a third way in which these mines catch alight. Lightning starts the blaze. The hon member for Carletonville ought to know how critical the interaction of oxygen and methane gas is, and the spontaneous combustion which can occur. He ought to know that very well. [Interjections.] He knows that last year we had accidents in the coal-mining areas in which lightning caused an explosion. He knows that.

There is no way in which one can permanently ensure that a pillar mine which has been worked out and closed down will never burn. We are now incorporating systems in which we protect the farmers in cases in which we want to apply high-extraction mining methods, and I am astounded that there are some of the hon members on that side who do not want to accept the protection we now want to incorporate for the farmers. I think it was a very reasonable proposal which came to me from my colleague, namely that we appoint a committee. I immediately accepted it, knowing that I already had a committee which had not come up with anything. We did not come up with a formula; we came up with nothing. We had to do this work in order to protect the farmer. The NP and the National Party Government had to prepare this legislation in order to protect the farmer …

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

… and not the CP or that committee.

The “boerehaters” are sitting over there! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville said—hon members must listen carefully now—that this amending Bill deprived the farmer of his right of interdict. Good Lord, Mr Chairman, this amending Bill which we are discussing now does not in any way affect the farmer’s existing right of interdict—not at all, not in the least. Not in any way! Now where does that hon member come by that story? I know where he gets it from. He read it in Advocate Van Rooyen’s report.

He was struck by lightning!

I want to state categorically that this amending Bill does not, in any way, affect the right of interdict which the farmer has under specific circumstances. I reject it because it is not true at all.

The hon member for Bethal distributed photographs here. We shall show him a series of photographs of the most intensive high-extraction mining activity which has yet been applied in South Africa, by Sasol. The hon members are free to go and investigate Sasol’s agreement with the farmers. I want to mention it here now, and if I do not have my figures precisely correct. I shall adjust them in my Hansard. [Interjections.] Fine, I shall get up here in this House and ask that it be adjusted in Hansard. [Interjections.] I have, after all, been in Parliament for 14 years. Hon members do not have to prescribe to me how to do it. I know how to do it. [Interjections.]

I do not, however, believe that my figures are incorrect. What is the agreement that Sasol has with their farmers?

An agreement?

Yes, an agreement. It was an agreement which was not enforceable by the existing Act. In the legislation before us we want to make it enforceable. The agreement specifies that the moment mining activities are commenced on a farm—let us accept for the moment that the entire farm is to be mined below the surface—Sasol tells the owner of the farm as soon as they have commenced mining activities they will pay the farmers 60% of the value of the land involved.

That brings me to the argument regarding the value of the land before it has been damaged. Before mining activities are commenced 60% of the value of the land is paid out. The day on which the damage occurs, 50% of the value of the same land upon which the 60% is based is paid out. That means, therefore, that the farmer receives 110% of the value of that land. In addition he is still in possession of that land.

The most important aspect, however, is the following. We asked Sasol to make a survey of the state of the agricultural potential of the areas which have already been mined. According to Sasol’s report 91% of the agricultural potential of those areas which have been undermined is totally unaffected. The owner of the land received 110%—60% plus 50%—for those parts of his land which were damaged, while in addition he still has 91% of the agricultural potential of his land in an unimpaired state. [Interjections.]

Yes, and Sasol carried out the investigation!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan has now cast a reflection on Sasol. I reject that reflection on Sasol with the utmost contempt. [Interjections.]

But Sasol is involved in it!

Sasol is one of our strategic enterprises and no reflection has ever been cast on it. Now the hon member for Brakpan is casting a reflection on Sasol arising out of information which we obtained from them. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to come to the final issue. A farmer can decide whether he wants to retain his land or wants to sell it. What is the position should he decide to sell? When he wants to sell, he must conclude an agreement with the company or another prospective buyer. Surely the value of that land is, in any event, not going to be determined after the mining activities have ceased. That happens the moment the Minister has determined that damage is going to occur. The Act specifies very clearly that there is a strict time limit within which that farmer has to exercise his right. He cannot take 10 years, should he want to. I think the period is three months. Within three months, after the Minister has determined that there is going to be damage, this farmer must decide whether he wants to sell. The decision must be made by the farmer himself, and within three months he must inform the Minister that he intends to sell.

The proposed legislation now makes provision for the Minister to issue an instruction. The existing Act also makes provision for this. Now the hon Minister has two options. The first option is that the State can purchase the land. If the State does not purchase the land, the Minister can issue an instruction that the mine must purchase the land. That is an existing right. This existing right also specifies that if they cannot come to an agreement—which the Minister, in terms of the new legislation, can now order them to do—they either have to submit the matter to arbitration or have recourse to expropriation proceedings.

The hon member made a big fuss about section 12 of the Expropriation Act and elaborated on the circumstances in which notice was given. Surely this notice can always be given before the mining activities begin, not 10 years after they have been completed. That is, of course, totally untrue.

However, we are introducing another means of protection. Let us accept that a farm is not being undermined as a whole. A certain percentage of the farm is being undermined, and not the rest; the rest is not going to be touched. We now bring in the Minister of Agriculture, a provision which was not there before. We are now doing this for the first time as another protection mechanism for the farmer.

Now the hon the Minister of Agriculture can tell the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology: “Look, my friend—the remaining portion of the farm is not an economic farming unit.” The moment the hon the Minister of Agriculture says that, the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has no option. Then he must either, as specified in the existing legislation, have the State buy the land—the entire piece of land and not only the part which is being mined—or he must compel the mine to purchase the entire piece of land and not only that part which is being undermined. [Interjections.] This protection measure already exists in the Act. We are now adding a measure aimed at compensation, but we are not changing anything in respect of the existing rights of the farmer. We are giving them additional rights of protection. There are instructions involving compensation as well as settlement, and we hope to incorporate rehabilitation in terms of the new regulations.

I want to say that this Bill is proof of the fact that the NP and this Government have the interests of the farmers who have coal rights on their land at heart, and we are incorporating protection for them. [Interjections.]

I think I have replied to the hon member for Carletonville in full and I thanked the hon member for Constantia.

The hon member for Bethal made an extremely interesting observation. Hon members must excuse me if I am taking quite a while, but I think we must expose those hon members. [Interjections.] Firstly, they do not do their homework, and secondly they emotionally latch onto fellows who do not do their homework either. [Interjections.] I am referring to Advocate Van Rooyen.

Are you now attacking the Transvaal Agricultural Union?

No, I am referring to Advocate Van Rooyen.

Are you now attacking Advocate Van Rooyen in his absence? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Potgietersrus cannot carry on in this way. This is definitely not the place for it. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I am not speaking now to the hon member for Potgietersrus, but to the hon members for Bethal, Witbank and Carletonville.

The hon member for Bethal made a very interesting statement. He said it was important for the farmer’s surface rights to enjoy protection in the sense of compensation for his topsoil. If I remember correctly, he said that protection and compensation in respect of the owner of the land must be ensured. He said that, and that is exactly what we are doing with this Bill, but now he is contradicting his own argument.

I agreed with you on that score! [Interjections.]

I have already dealt with the issue of arbitration. The right of arbitration is exercised in accordance with the existing legislation, and we are not amending that.

I come now to the hon member for Witbank, who dealt with my statement point by point. We shall change the legislation if this committee comes up with amendments which will give the farmer greater certainty and bring about a better balance in respect of the farmer’s surface rights and the mining rights. I want to repeat that we shall change the legislation in order to incorporate greater certainty. [Interjections.] The hon member does not need to select words from one’s statement and try to use them to create illfeelings.

It was the hon member for Bethal who said that we wanted to rush this thing through at the end of the session. However, hon members themselves decided how long they wanted the discussion to be. I think the new Rules make provision for their being able to decide for themselves how long they want to talk. They themselves decided! [Interjections.] Those hon members had 15 minutes each.

Order! I think the hon Whips must sort out the matter among themselves.

I want to conclude by saying that there is no one who has a greater understanding or a better understanding of the conflicting interests between surface owners and mineralright owners than I do. This legislation is surely not concerned only with coal. Surely it is also concerned with the exploitation of chrome, copper and other base minerals.

We have already seen the inadequacy of this Act in previous cases, for example the exploitation of chrome. Surely we have seen the shortcomings of this Act from a legal point of view. Does the principal Act also apply to high-extraction mining? We know that it applies to opencast mining. We do not have any difficulty with that. Our legal people, however, tell us that the chances of one obtaining an interdict, in respect of whether this Act applies to high-extraction mining or not, are 50-50. We are now eradicating that uncertainty with this amending Bill, because we are amending this Act so that it applies to high-extraction mining as well. It is the most important amendment which, once again, we are incorporating in the interests of the surface-owner.

I want to conclude by appealing to those hon members. I think that in their decision to vote against this amending Bill, hon members are doing an injustice to legal certainty in respect of compensation for damage done to the farmer on whose land high-extraction mining operations were carried out. If the Act remains as it is, as they submit it should, there is no way in which they could stop the mining activities.

We do not want it to remain as it is!

Order! The hon member for Bethal must stop making interjections now.

There is no way in which they will be able to prevent the mining rights of the mineral-right holder to exploit the minerals because that is specified in the Mining Rights Act—not in this legislation. We just think the time has come at least to incorporate certain aspects, especially in respect of compensation, and instructions in respect of settlement for compensation, in this Act and to involve the hon the Minister of Agriculture in advising us on the agricultural activities and the effect which this legislation will have on existing activities, so that we can obtain expert advice.

If the committee of the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture makes recommendations which will incorporate greater certainty and greater balance, we will amend the Act yet again. I listened to hon members, and if we appoint this committee there will be—there will have to be—agricultural people and mining people serving on the committee. I shall suggest to the hon the Minister that one or two impartial individuals, who have a knowledge of this matter, should also serve on this committee.

Debate concluded.

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

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister had a great deal to say about my supposedly having known that pillars had never been left in place for support. I just want to tell the hon the Minister that he displayed his ignorance again here this afternoon. He demonstrated that he knew nothing about mining.

He must investigate whether pillars had indeed been left in place for the purpose of support. [Interjections.]

The CP is opposed to this legislation and we are going to vote against it. We are in favour of the mining of the maximum amount of minerals in the interests of the Republic of South Africa. Yet we feel that the present amendments, as they have been made to this legislation, are not satisfactory. I want to tell the hon the Minister that the CP has never said that it was not in favour of the statutory amendment. [Interjections.] Our whole argument was that it should not be passed now. What we asked was that the committee that was appointed should investigate all the aspects and then submit a report. We would then consider the legislation. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister also told us that a committee had been appointed three years ago.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If the hon member makes a speech now, I also want the right to react to it.

Go and look at the Rules, Daantjie; you have the right to do so. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said there was a committee that sat for three years. I should now just like to know …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member allowed to refer to the hon the Minister as “Daantjie”?

He is my friend Daantjie.

Order! I do not think I will apply the rule regarding the use of names of members very strictly in the circumstances. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

If the hon the Minister was satisfied with the investigation of the previous committee, why did he see fit to appoint a further committee? [Interjections.] I just want to suggest that the hon the Minister doubts whether this legislation is correct, and for that reason he wants to launch a further investigation.

That is why we are not supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the debate with great interest, we remain of the view that this is a positive step forward in the interests of the farmer. The hon the Minister has dealt comprehensively and effectively with the objections that have been raised. Therefore we shall support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, once again we have not had any new arguments from the hon members of the Official Opposition. In fact, we are now slightly confused, in the sense that we do not know whether they are in favour of the Bill or opposed to it. They must now tell us whether they are in favour of it or opposed to it.

It is important for us all to know that this Bill aims at protecting and not adversely affecting the farmer. It is also important for us all to know that this Bill was introduced for the future protection of farmers who, at present, are at the mercy of faceless operators.

I really do not know what hon members have in mind by linking up the investigation which is to be carried out with this Bill. On the contrary, the purpose of the investigation which is to be carried out is to re-examine the whole field of mining and not simply to examine the field of high-extraction mining.

I think that this evening the hon the Minister has done an excellent job … [Interjections] … of indicating why we should all support this Bill, including the Official Opposition. We on this side still do support it.

The House divided:

AYES—95: Alant, T G; Andrew, K M; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Brazelie, J A; Burrows, R M; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Dalling, D J; De Beer, S J; De Pontes, P; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hulley, R R; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Lemmer, J J; Lorimer, R J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Matthee, J C; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, S S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Wessels, L.

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

NOES—18: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me, as the representative of the constituency in which the University of Pretoria has its seat, and as a loyal and proud Tukkies old boy, to be involve with this amending bill on this 80th anniversary of this exceptional institution. Although the technical particulars are explained in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, I should briefly like to make a few general remarks.

In my view the amendments being introduced by this Bill can be summed up in terms of three main considerations. Firstly it has become necessary as a result of the growth in numbers and the scope of the activities at the university. It should be borne in mind that this year more than 22 000 students have enrolled at this university. They study in twelve faculties functioning in more than 130 departments. The university has assets of more than R300 million and has an annual operational budget of more than R175 million. Secondly amendments have become necessary for the better implementation of rationalisation and economy measures. Rationalisation and economy measures are key concepts for universities these days, and in this regard the University of Pretoria plays a leading role. May I just mention that recently the university introduced large-scale rationalisation measures by selling its extramural building complex in the city centre and now offering all extramural classes on the main campus. As a result there is now optimal utilisation of facilities.

Since the university’s sphere of operations is now, under specific conditions, being extended beyond the traditional boundaries of Pretoria, it will now be possible for lecturers to travel to the town in which the students are living to present certain courses there. It is not necessary for students always to have to live in Pretoria in order to study at the university. The savings which can be affected on the national level are obvious. Lastly the amendments are necessary to bring about more effective management and administration and to meet the demands of modern times.

The establishment of an electoral college for the election of a chancellor is one example that can be mentioned here. If hon members bear in mind that more than 70 000 students have completed there studies at the university during the past 80 years and that in the following 12 years, up to the end of the century, the university will furnish approximately 60 000 more graduates, one realises that the administration of an election in such a convocation would be virtually impossible and would entail extensive costs which are unnecessary.

This amending Bill will enable an institution of which we, as South Africans, are all proud, to make an even better job of carrying out its task.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to support this proposed legislation. I want to assure hon members that apart from its achievements on the rugby field, the University of Pretoria has also notched up achievements in other spheres. If hon members do not believe that, here stands an example. [Interjections.] Hon members only have to know what I was like before I attended that university! Hon members would find that there has been a great improvement, and if they had not noticed it, Mr Chairman, they could ask you, because you knew me before the time and you know me now.

We are proud of the fact that as a result of extensions to the university from time to time, it is necessary to amend the Act. We are happy at the prospect of a consolidation Act, because we find it a nuisance that the spelling in the amended sections has not yet been changed to bring it in line with present-day Afrikaans spelling.

As indicated by the hon member for Rissik, who also studied at my alma mater, this statutory amendment has become necessary for the purposes of rationalisation, and we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PFP I support this Bill. It is a great pleasure to do so as Tukkies is a very attractive campus. It has a student body which is dedicated and hard-working and its staff body is very competent. The hon member for Rissik is very fortunate to have an institution of this nature in his constituency. Another reason is that they are also very good at rugby, as has been mentioned. One of the products of Tukkies is the dreaded Naas, the person who is hated so much when he appears here at Newlands. The fans at Newlands will be disappointed later this month when the North plays the South.

I have a few comments on three clauses. We welcome clause 2 because it allows medicine of an academic standard to be taken to the people to whom this standard of medicine is not always available. Clause 4 allows for the electoral college to be elected by the members of the convocation. Clause 8 allows for the convocation to be elected by the council of “die Bond van Oudstudente van die Universiteit van Pretoria”.

I regret that the former hon member for Bezuidenhout, Major Reuben Sive, who is also an ex-Tukkie is not a member of this House at the present time, because I am sure he would have liked to have spoken on this Bill and would have regaled hon members of the House with many stories about his days at Tukkies. I regret that he is not here at this time.

Clause 26 provides that students will be admitted to the university on grounds of academic considerations and that staff will be appointed only on the grounds of competency and in the best interests of the university. We take note of this and we understand that the new clause will also not allow any test of religious belief to be imposed on students or lecturing staff. All in all this is a measure that we welcome and support.

Finally, on a lighter note, I want to say that it was my pleasure to visit the campus last year during the course of the election campaign and to address a meeting there. I found it a very pleasant experience and I hope I was sufficiently effective to make the hon member for Rissik’s task a trifle more difficult in coming to this House. [Interjections.] With those few words we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, permit me, on behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the University of Pretoria, to thank a few individuals and bodies that assisted in piloting through this legislation. I thank the chairman of the committee on members’ private Bills—the hon the Leader of the House—and the chairman of the House Committee on Education—the hon member for Stellenbosch—and also the members of their committees. I not only thank them for having approved the Bill, but also for having helped to accommodate the university by expediting the matter.

I should also like to extend a word of thanks to Parliament’s Head of Legislation and Proceedings, Mr Erasmus, for the effective way he has smoothed the passage of the legislation and has rounded off the Bill and for having briefed me on how to deal with this matter.

Lastly I also want to thank speakers from the other parties. I thank the hon member for Bethal and the hon member for Johannesburg North for their kind words and support in regard to this Bill.

I am convinced that the unanimous support for this amending Bill is symbolic of the university’s endeavour to serve all members of the community.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I move the motion printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Chairman, may we please have an explanation before we vote on this motion?

Order! Does the hon member for Border merely want an explanation?

Sir, I should like to have an explanation. In addition I want to ask the mover of this motion to elucidate certain points. We have sympathy with the hon member for Manenberg. There is no doubt about that. Nevertheless we want the interests of the people of Manenberg to be taken care of. We on this side of the House merely want to know whether the interests of these people are being taken care of, and by whom, and if not, why not? We are aware of the fact that the hon member for Manenberg has been absent from this House for two years because of illness. According to the medical certificates that were handed in, it may not be possible for the hon member to return to this House. We merely want the mover of the motion to tell us whether it is fair to carry on in this way. What is the situation? Why can the people of Manenberg not get another representative in this House?

Sir, I do not really have to reply to the question of the hon member for Border, but I nevertheless want to respond. I find it surprising—in fact it amazes me—that hon members want to debate such a sensitive issue. The hon member for Border is fully aware of what the situation is. I am not God. I cannot determine whether or when the hon member for Manenberg will come back to this Chamber. I am thus not in a position to make a decision as far as this matter is concerned. If I were God, I could predict that the hon member for Manenberg will not recover. I am not, nor is anybody else, in a position to make any predictions regarding the hon member’s health. In fact, I challenge anybody to make that kind of prediction.

I also want to assure the hon member for Border that we, unlike hon members of the Official Opposition, look after our constituents. When hon members on this side of the House, because of illness or other responsibilities, are unable to do what they have to do, their responsibilities are shared among other hon members. The same applies to one’s responsibility inside this Chamber. I did not ask the question last week, but I want to know now why there were no hon members from the Official Opposition present last week. We were all concerned about the byelection, but hon members on this side of the House still carried out their functions and responsibilities. We are interdependent. However, there were no hon members of the Official Opposition present here last week and if they were here, they were here for a few minutes only. We must stop trying to be technical about these issues.

*If people want to say something, they must do so. I therefore move that the motion be adopted.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no objection to the Bill. Nevertheless it is our duty to inform hon members about this legislation.

This particular Bill has been standing over since the previous session because the standing committee wanted to study it very thoroughly. There was uncertainty about certain aspects, and consequently it was decided to refer the Bill back to the hon the Minister. I want to thank the hon the Minister for clearing up the matter and his department for submitting the Bill once again.

I want to say that this piece of legislation will certainly eliminate the large-scale confusion that exists in respect of uniforms. The objective of this legislation, therefore, is to ensure effective control over the wearing of services-type uniforms. In addition a register is being introduced. Consequently there will be a comprehensive registration process. The council that will deal with this matter will be called the Advisory Council for Services-type Uniforms.

There are numerous service organisations and security services today which deal with matters concerning their uniforms themselves. It was decided to constitute an interdepartmental working group, on which the SA Police, the Defence Force, the Prisons Service, the Railways Police and the Bureau of Heraldry would serve, in order to institute an enquiry into this matter. They came to the conclusion that legislation such as this was necessary to exercise control over the registration of uniforms.

We know that wearing Defence Forces uniforms is controlled in terms of Act No 44 of 1957. Act 7 of 1958 enables the Police to do this as well, and Act 8 of 1958 enables the Prisons Service to regulate the wearing of uniforms. The security staff of various commercial enterprises also wear uniforms these days, however. Consequently confusion arises. [Interjections.] The public is not always capable of identifying uniforms …

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. I should not like to name hon members; therefore they must please co-operate. The hon member for Mamre may proceed.

… or distinguish between ranks. Confusion has arisen at scenes of accidents, for example, about who was in control.

Sir, why does this legislation fall under the hon the Minister of National Education? That is the case merely because the Bureau for Heraldry falls under the hon the Minister.

All interested parties in the country who make use of uniforms—I am thinking of the Defence Force and the ambulance services, for example—were consulted about this matter. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister and the interdepartmental committee had extensive discussions with interested parties and collected advice from them.

This legislation has nothing to do with education; it has a great deal to do with the control that is exercised over the wearing of uniforms, however. We on this side of the House support the legislation. We trust that it will assist in eliminating confusion and that it will ensure better control in this connection.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Mamre sincerely for his support. He has considerably facilitated my task by his relatively comprehensive explanation of the objectives of the Bill, of the basic provisions and the way in which those objectives can be attained.

I want to make one more comment, and that is to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that we are not dealing only with the protection of the rights of existing services in the public sector in this case, but that this Bill makes it possible for the private sector to obtain the necessary protection for their uniforms too, so that their uniforms cannot be copied by other people in the private sector. As a result this legislation not only protects the public sector against the private sector, but also grants certain rights to the private sector.

With these few words I want to thank hon members of the joint committee sincerely. They did thorough research on this matter. They made very sure that the Bill was indeed necessary, since we do not want to place unnecessary regulations and legislation on the Statute Book. I therefore want to convey my sincere thanks to them for their contribution to this Bill.

In view of the motion that was agreed to earlier, I have observed a degree of relaxation in this House, which can probably be compared with children’s reaction to the ringing of the school bell. Consequently I do not want to keep hon members for too long. If nothing unforeseen happens, this may be the last time that I will participate in this particular House during this session of Parliament. I therefore want to avail myself of the opportunity to thank hon members for the friendly way in which I have always been received in this House.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

May I just say by way of explanation that the proposal that this Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid is being made to expedite the consideration of this particular Bill. On account of the fact that a number of other Bills are also being referred to the Standing Committees on Constitutional Affairs and Constitutional Development, respectively, it has been decided by the Government to spread the Bills among other standing committees.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, local authorities deal with the day-to-day basic needs of the community. The effectiveness of the local authorities depends on the quality of the municipal organisation with the town clerk as the head of the organisation. The town clerk clearly plays a tremendously important role and for this reason it is necessary that the town clerk’s profession be put in sound position.

When one looks at the proposed powers and duties of the town council to be established in terms of the Bill, it will become clear that through various steps such as the determination of the educational and other qualifications and requirements for registration and the setting of a code of conduct or ethical rules for its members as well as the steps the council hopes to take to promote and improve the profession of the town clerk, that a new standard will eventually be created and to obtain registration with the council will eventually be a much sought-after achievement. In fact, as contemplated in the Bill, registration will in future be a prerequisite before the appointment of a town clerk. Having said this, it is gratifying to note that the Bill makes provision for the consideration of exemptions proposed by the Town Clerks’ Council should a local authority experience difficulties in securing a candidate for the position of town clerk.

I now wish to refer to clause 20 of the Bill which allows the council to consider such applications by local authorities. I can think of many small local authorities in South Africa where persons with the absolute minimum educational and other requirements have served and are still serving their communities in the capacity of town clerk so admirably well.

Whilst it is essential that an acceptable standard be established for the profession, it is important to bear in mind that dedication and devotion to duty and enthusiasm for the job are attributes which cannot be obtained from textbooks. In a sense, of course, the provisions in the Bill pertaining to the appointment of town clerks and to disciplinary action will impinge on the autonomy of local authorities since decisions of the local authority will be subject to approval or action by the Town Clerks’ Council. However, I think that adequate safeguards in the form of exemptions and appeals have been built into the draft legislation. I am accordingly of the opinion that the Bill will be to the advantage of local authorities in South Africa.

If I may make one last observation in regard to the general objectives of the Bill, I wish to express the hope that the implementation of the Bill will not eventually lead to an increase in expenditure as a result of higher salaries. I am thinking of the smaller local authorities in particular. If the standard is to be raised and more stringent requirements are to be set for the appointment of persons to the position of town clerk, an upward pressure on salaries is likely to result. Even if this is hardly noticeable, it could gradually place increased burdens on those local authorities with limited resources. I hope that the proposed Town Clerks’ Council will bear this in mind when dealing with the smaller local authorities.

The position of town clerk has become of considerable importance in the implementation of constitutional reform processes in South Africa. In this regard I must compliment the department for the introduction of this important Bill. Mr Chairman, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think this is a good piece of legislation before us. The Croeser working group, in its report on the Browne Report, accepted most of the recommendations and stated, inter alia, that the finances of local authorities in South Africa should be controlled and looked after much more carefully.

It stated thus that the role played by the town clerk in the activities of a municipal type of authority, is of key importance for the efficient and effective administration of the authority, as well as the successful determination and implementation of its policy. As more and more local authorities are established, and the extent of activity in those areas increase due to population development, it is very important that this aspect be looked at very closely. The Profession of Town Clerks Bill makes certain recommendations and tightens control on the qualification and registration of town clerks.

We appreciate that there are large and small local authorities. At several standing committee meetings hon members have expressed their unhappiness about the grading system. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to note that. I am not going to debate the issue, but I wish to point out that hon members stated their objection to the grading system. However, I do not wish to labour that point. It has to be looked at again at some future date.

The legislation before us is important in respect of providing for discipline in the case of misconduct, providing for the creation of a Town Clerks’ Council and an Education Advisory Committee, and in order to ensure that proper education is adhered to by the incumbents and that the local authorities benefit from the incumbents themselves. Recently we learnt through experience of the inability of individuals—without naming them—and the dissatisfaction between town boards and local authorities regarding town clerks of particular towns, who are really the most important persons in authority.

An important aspect of the Bill, which should also alleviate the fears of the town clerks, is that there is an appeal mechanism against the rejection of an application. Also, if anyone is found guilty of improper conduct, they now have a mechanism for appeal. I believe that that should satisfy them. The hon the Minister will from time to time make regulations and we hope, in doing so, ensure that the main objectives of the Bill are to the benefit of the local authority, as envisaged by this Bill.

Finally, I wish to state that some views were also expressed regarding concern about the three categories of town clerk which will eventually be graded, namely professional town clerks, registered town clerks and prospective town clerks. Many are worried about the levels of town clerk. From what I can see here, the opportunity exists for a local authority to appoint a town clerk, provided the incumbent meets all the requirements. Of course, the local authority also has the Town Clerks Council and the Education Advisory Committee which will examine whether these people are suitably qualified for those different levels.

We have no objection to this Bill and we believe it is a good measure to control the affairs of local authorities and to ensure that this very important portfolio in local authorities is looked at in order that proper maintenance, order and accountability are adhered to. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is a Bill which makes the profession of town clerk similar to that of a lawyer, who has to be a member of a legal council, and that of a chartered accountant. Recently, municipal treasurers were constituted into a municipal council. This will be a professional body where all the town clerks who are executive officers of municipalities will be registered.

This council will have far-reaching powers. When someone qualifies as a town clerk, he must be a member of this particular council and therefore he becomes a municipal accounting officer or an executive officer of a municipality. Other speakers on this Bill have outlined the discipline concerned. If a particular town clerk has to follow the code of discipline of this council, there are certain qualifications he has to have before he can become a town clerk and is accepted as a member of this particular body.

The entire Bill came about as a result of the Browne Committee, which looked into various aspects of municipalities, finances and other matters. They found that the town clerk as a professional man was holding a very important position within the municipality and should as such be registered in a professional body. Therefore this is a very good thing and it brings all the town clerks under one umbrella body where they have their own code of conduct and their own professional examinations which are written by those who wish to join the profession. This side of the House has great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is not always so that anything emanating from the Government is wrong. Sometimes they are right—this happens once in a while. [Interjections.]

This Bill actually has the effect of enhancing the status of town clerks by making them belong to a profession rather than being employees of individual town councils. This will therefore elevate their status and will of course also bring them under the purview of a professional organisation. The hon member Mr Thaver mentioned the legal and medical professions, but there are other professions as well; engineers, surveyors, architects, quantity surveyors, pharmacists, etc. Not so long ago I think this House supported a Bill elevating physical scientists to a professional status as well. That being the case, the question arises if it would be reasonable to impose minimum qualifications or experience for registration.

I think it would be proper at this stage, without in any way denying the hon the Deputy Minister or the hon the Minister any credit for this Bill, to record that we who participated in the standing committee when this Bill was under consideration, recognised the high standard of draughtsmanship. A great deal of thought obviously went into the preparation of this Bill. In certain minor respects members of the standing committee helped to adjust certain minor matters, but in the main we certainly were very pleased that legislation of this calibre was being presented by the officials to the standing committee.

The question then arises, after professionalisation, what happens to the existing town clerks or those who would otherwise have entered into the profession. For many years in the larger city councils a young fellow might have started as a junior clerk in the town clerk’s department, gradually working his way up and waiting for his predecessors to retire or to die until he could step into the shoes of the senior executive. Undoubtedly that process can still continue, but in the mean time, because of the establishment of further local authorities—and I am not dealing here with local authorities on a racial basis—when a new township is created and a local authority has to be established, there has to be a certain minimum qualification for the appointment of a person as town clerk. As that situation did not obtain before, we have had problems in the past which resulted in several commissions of enquiry having had to be appointed.

Unfortunately the hon member for Stanger is not here, but I had to serve on a similar commission of enquiry into the affairs of Stanger a number of years ago. That enquiry would probably not have been necessary if qualified people had been in charge of the administration of that town. Therefore we take pleasure in supporting this Bill, all the more so because a code of ethics will now be established and every town clerk of whatever category, whether he is a novitiate, or a registered or a professional town clerk, will be obliged to abide by that code of ethics.

Clause 14 provides for an Education Advisory Committee and as hon members will recall, provision was made on a previous occasion, not only in this House but by Parliament as such, for the establishment of a training ward for local government bodies. That would serve to assist in the training of would-be officers of local government bodies, which include all forms of local authorities and quasi-local authorities.

Clause 24 of this Bill—and this is important—provides that—

1. (a) contravenes or fails to comply with any ethical rule determined by the council under section 8(b)(iv).

This will apply if he contravenes any ethical rule. Ethics are not always laid down in statutes or regulations. Ethics are governed largely by convention, and I trust that those hon members listening to me will bear in mind what the demands of ethical rules are. Ethical rules include the rules established by tradition and convention appertaining to Parliament as well and they govern, or should govern, the conduct, not only of hon members of Parliament but also of all kinds of Ministers of Government.

Where any Minister breaches the code of ethics laid down by tradition and convention, he ought to be relieved of his Ministry. Likewise, any member of Parliament ought to be relieved of his membership. We should not legislate only for town clerks or potential town clerks; that legislation should apply to ourselves as well in every respect. [Interjections.]

If any registered town clerk conducts himself in a disgraceful, improper or unbecoming manner in connection with the performance of his duties, he will also be guilty of improper conduct, and so on. The draft legislation before us would therefore definitely regulate the conduct of town clerks. Clause 25 provides for disciplinary action to be taken against those who transgress these codes.

I repeat that this Bill is functional. It is purposive, and I believe it will be wholesome and therefore we have no difficulty in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, those of us who have been scanning the Sunday newspapers will have noticed advertisements placed in them by Black local authorities inviting applications for town clerks. The developments in our country in regard to the progress of local government are now all-embracing and we will have town clerks serving members of the Coloured, Indian, Black and White communities, and in many areas in due course we shall possibly have multi-racial local authorities.

This piece of legislation before the House this afternoon represents a charter which, when adopted, will be self-regulating and will enhance the image of those people who will assume their responsibilities as town clerks. A town clerk, after all, is the gentleman or the lady who will have to tell councillors how far they can go and where they have to stop. Therefore, he or she is the trustee of the rights of the entire community of which that city council is representative. Hence it is very important that these people be qualified, competent to adjudicate on matters, to pronounce judgement on legislation and to contribute towards the creation of good legislation. The town clerk plays that role in many ways.

Mr Chairman, I believe that with regard to the new direction in constitutional development in South Africa, starting as it does at the third tier of Government and with the emergence of so many Black local authorities, the time has come for the job of town clerk no longer to be the preserve of any one section of the community. It is an all-embracing task which involves all South Africans and consequently there is nothing so important as setting down standards of behaviour, education, ethics and morality. This Bill represents a charter which will be regulatory and contribute to the enhancement of this profession. It will thereby cause those gentlemen to live up to a certain standard. It will also cause other people who come into the profession for the first time to look at the hallmarks of achievement of their predecessors. They will then also commit themselves to walking that road and conducting themselves in a certain fashion and manner which will enhance the image of this profession. For these reasons I wish to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I do not want to be unnecessarily exhaustive in my discussion, nor do I want to repeat sentiments that have already been expressed. Of course, in the light of changing circumstances the Bill is necessary. The various arrangements with regard to town clerks certainly enhances the profession of town clerks.

It must be conceded that town clerks are key officials of municipal government. The regulations as set out in the Bill with regard to town clerks have been purposefully considered and conceived and therefore we welcome the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the principal object of this Bill which is before this House is to grant professional status to the profession of town clerks, which is most welcome.

There have been far-reaching social, economic and constitutional changes and they have been under way for the last decade in this country. As a result the South African community is undergoing fundamental changes in all its facets and as chief executive officers of the local government, town clerks fulfil a key role. The performance of their duties requires greater insight into local government affairs and demands great responsibility and a measure of competence.

This Bill gives statutory recognition to the office of town clerk and it defines a town clerk as a chief executive administrator and accounting officer of a local authority, regardless of the designation of the post occupied by that officer. This Bill represents the maximum devolution of power because the regulation and control over professional town clerks is placed in the hands of a body which will be representative of town clerks from all population groups. Therefore I have no problem in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, when I listen to the hon Chairman, I get the impression that this is an Afrikaans afternoon.

†Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Reservoir Hills will just give me a chance before he leaves, I should like to thank hon members for their support of this Bill and their references to this legislation as a good piece of legislation. I think this is true and I wish to agree with them because I think that the persons who were responsible for drafting this in fact did a good job. I think that the town clerk of Pretoria, Mr Redelinghuys, and those who shared the responsibility for drafting this fine piece of legislation with him can be congratulated. Therefore I should like to agree with hon members in that regard, and I will convey hon members’ appreciation to the persons involved.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that it is not always the case that the Government is wrong, or words to that effect. This signifies to me that he is sometimes also right in admitting that the Government is doing a good job. I think he could do that a lot more often, as far as I am concerned!

The fact is that this is a good piece of legislation. Hon members have also referred to the fact that this Bill will place town clerks on a professional basis of their own. This is well deserved; there is no doubt about that. The fact that we have before us legislation that is actually part of a development process that has been going on for more than 30 years and that this particular legislation is in fact in itself the 16th draft, shows that good work has been done in preparing this and that the Bill meets with the approval of the profession itself, and also, in fact, the Institute of Town Clerks.

For that reason I think we can say that this is the culmination of well-considered deliberations over many years. I think it is also for that reason that we see the kind of support we have this afternoon. As regards certain remarks made by hon members, I should just like to say something in regard to the grading system that the hon member for Red Hill referred to. Of course, the grading system has been dealt with in clauses 18(3) and 29 of the Bill itself. I think it indicates that it affords ample opportunity to all parties concerned to make representations whenever it comes to that particular point. Clause 17 further refers to the fact that the Education Advisory Committee will actually advise on the qualifications that will be necessary to apply and qualify for a particular grading. I think that through that we can actually say that adequate consideration is being given to the interests of those concerned, and that eventually, once this Bill is in operation, this will in fact be handled in a flexible way.

As far as the salaries of town clerks are concerned—this is a matter that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture referred to—this aspect is of course being dealt with in a separate Act; the Act of 1984 dealing with the remuneration of town clerks.

As far as the further remark of the hon member for Red Hill is concerned as regards the matter of appeal, I think—I should like to agree with the hon member for Red Hill in this regard—that the standing committee has also assisted greatly in this context, in the sense that it introduced the amendment to clause 27 in order to provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court instead of to the hon the Minister, as the situation was originally. I thank the standing committee for their work in this regard.

Since there has been no conflict or controversy about this subject before this House this afternoon, and since we all support this measure, I shall let that suffice.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, by way of introduction I take this opportunity to make just a few remarks. This Bill is a result of some very good work done by the joint parliamentary committee. Close to 30 amendments to the original Bill were accepted at a number of meetings. The Bill originated from a recommendation made by the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee. Some years ago the National Transport Commission commissioned a policy study to have an in-depth investigation of transport matters in South Africa. In its recommendations the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee wisely found that transport issues should be divided into four categories, namely rationalization, passenger transport, freight transport and cross-border transport.

This Bill is part of the rationalization process but it is also part of a whole package of Bills on the various aspects of transport. The White Paper expressing the views of the Government on the policy study appeared in January 1987 and has often been the subject of very serious discussions.

For the sake of clarity I want to mention some of the recommendations made in connection with the issue before us. The first was that a statutory body such as the Roads Board should be formed within the Department of Transport. Secondly, this body should perform the functions previously performed by the National Transport Commission in terms of the National Roads Act of 1971, the Urban Transport Act of 1977 and the National Roads Safety Act of 1972. These functions include the control and administration of the National Road Fund and the Urban Transport Fund. Thirdly, the functions of the board should further, apart from other toll roads, include the control over and the management of agreements entered into with the private sector regarding the financing and construction of private toll roads. Fourthly, the constitution of the board should be such that members from both the private and the public sector under the chairmanship of a member of the public sector have seats on the board.

This is the background to the Bill. I would like to make a few remarks on the proposed board. First of all, I want to say that it will be a functional body. Secondly, clause 3 makes it abundantly clear that members of the board must have adequate knowledge of the planning, construction and maintenance of roads. Thirdly, members must have knowledge of transport, commerce, finance, mining or agriculture. Fourthly, decisions taken by the board will often be of a highly technical and scientific nature. Members of the board will have to have a clear view of the economic needs of South Africa. Roads are essential for decentralised economic development and increased urbanisation will also place increased burdens on our road development plans. Fifthly, in view of our stated policy to deregulate and privatise transport, the need for a sound national road network will become more urgent and essential.

We are already experiencing a significant increase in motorists and transport operators. Tourism is also increasing. The Republic and our neighbouring national and independent states are not dormant areas. We are continually encouraging cross border traffic. Whether we deliberately encourage it or not, there is economic development. We see this in our own country, as well as in neighbouring states. A flow of traffic will come naturally. It is there and it will increase in the future.

To meet all these demands, toll roads are also necessary to provide essential income for improved services. However, in principle the provision of toll roads has already been accepted. The provision made for a Toil Roads Committee is a new departure in this Bill. Clause 7 makes provision for its establishment. Its functions are also clearly set out in Clause 8. A major function will be to monitor concession agreements entered into with the private sector to build and maintain toll roads. The constitution of the Toll Roads Committee will also provide adequate representation for members of the private sector who have experience in the operation of toll roads or in the field of commerce or finance.

In conclusion I wish to place on record that we appreciate the work that is being done by the joint committee. They have a fairly heavy load. It also entails a lot of dedication and hard work. However, there is also general consensus on deregulation and privatisation amongst hon members who serve on this committee. In that spirit they are fulfilling their parliamentary duties on transport legislation. I have a high regard for the contribution that hon members of this House make towards the work of the joint committee.

Mr Chairman, the South African Roads Board Bill before us is a result of the deregulation programme which is taking place as a result of the White Paper on the proposed deregulation of the Transport Act. It has now become necessary to phase in new legislation. The function of this Bill concerns the following: With effect from the date of its coming into operation, the powers, functions and duties vested in or assigned to the Transport Commission in terms of the National Road Transport Act, Act 54 of 1971, the National Road Safety Act, Act 9 of 1972 and the Urban Transport Act, Act 78 of 1977, will be executed by the South African Roads Board. The board will, for all purposes, in the application of the said Acts be deemed to be the successor to the National Transport Commission.

The South African Roads Board will consist of eight members appointed by the hon the Minister, of whom one will be the Director-General. He will also be chairman of the board. Two members will be officers of the board and will be nominated by the Director-General. They will have adequate knowledge of planning, construction and maintenance of roads. Other members will be nominated by the Administrators of the four provinces, local authorities and organised commerce, industry, mining and agriculture. A member will also be nominated by the road users and by persons concerned with the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roads.

This Bill also provides for the establishment of the Toll Road Committee. This committee will monitor the execution of concession agreements concluded in terms of section 9 of the National Roads Act, Act 54 of 1971. In exercising its powers and performing its functions and duties, the committee will also take into consideration the effect which the erection of any tollgate will have on the transport of persons residing within a radius of 20 km from such tollgate.

This Bill, like other Bills approved by this House, heralds the beginning of a new era and I believe further amendments will be forthcoming in the future. Twenty-six departments and institutions were consulted and the joint committee made 28 amendments to the original Bill. We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, if you will just allow me a few minutes to drift away from the Bill proper, I would like to compliment the hon the Minister on the first leg of his journey to desegregation. We have read in recent times that in the Western Cape some progress has been made in regard to a call which this House and the general public have been making to the Ministry for many years. Desegregation is not only necessary in the Western Cape at this stage. I would like to ask the hon the Minister: Why only the Western Cape and not other areas? The hon the Minister did make a commitment that he would consider the other areas at a later date. I think the progress so far is good, but it is not fast enough. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to put this into motion so that all people can enjoy the benefit of having transport at their disposal and be allowed to sit freely where and as they wish to, if they can afford to.

The other important aspect to note is that the hurtful signs which prevailed at all stations in the past have now been taken away. This is very good. They have been very hurtful racial signs and have affected many people mentally. The removal of those signs brings much joy to the Black community generally.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister and his departmental heads for having taken a very positive stand when a call by the South African Hindu Maha Sabha was made recently, after an advertisement appeared in the newspapers with a picture of Hindu deities, which was distorted. The action taken by the hon the Minister and his department is very worthy, as they have promised sincerely to withdraw all future publication. We also appreciate that they apologised in case it had in any way affected the community at large. For this we are grateful.

The Bill before us, the South African Roads Board Bill, is a direct result of the recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study Committee. It was highlighted in the White Paper which was presented to Parliament last year by the hon the Minister of Transport. Briefly, the purpose of the board, in the exercise of its power and the performance of its functions and duties, is to execute the existing and contemplated road facilities, and existing and contemplated transport facilities. In undertaking the execution of road facilities the board will consider contracts, which is a very important issue and which in the past was done internally by the department itself. However, the fear was voiced in the past that there had been favouritism and so forth. This fear will now be dispelled, because both the private and the public sectors will now have a say in determining the contracts.

The other important duties of the board will be to give expert advice on toll roads, which are in South Africa to stay. We have seen several instituted in a short space of time. I think with the regional services councils coming fully into being, there will be a greater need for toll roads to be monitored against each other. This, too, will therefore have to be looked at, from a broad perspective, in the interests of all parties.

Another important aspect of this Bill is the regulation of toll tariffs, which is a very good thing. The standing committee also made the recommendation that when toll roads are contemplated in any particular area or within a certain radius, this should be done in consultation with the people in that locality. This is also a very good thing, because we have seen in this House, not very long ago, a certain amount of discord from hon members in the Transvaal area, where a toll road just appeared which has now become a matter of concern and a problem to those living there.

Regarding transport facilities, the board, which will be made up of persons from both the private and public sectors, will look into the type of vehicles necessary for cargo carriers. This is an important aspect, because road transport quality systems are coming into being shortly, and this is the first step in the right direction. This Bill represents progress in the right direction and we have absolutely no reason to oppose it. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to start by supporting the comments made by the previous speaker, the hon member for Havenside, who believes that the establishment of any new toll road should naturally be done in consultation with the people. In that spirit I would like to quote the hon member for Umzinto, who gave a very detailed outline of this particular Bill. As always, he has done his homework. One of the pleasing features is the composition of this board, which comprises eight members drawn from various fields of expertise nationwide.

Whilst I begin by supporting this Bill, one of the important aspects in this particular era is the question of the establishment of the board on the one hand and the importance of considering people of colour for service on these boards on the other. The South African Roads Board Bill results from the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee, as set out in the White Paper. This committee recommended, inter alia, that a statutory body be established, charged with the exercise of the powers, functions and duties in terms of the National Roads Act, 1971, and the Urban Transport Act, 1977, to include the control and management of the granting of concessions for the financing and building of toll roads. This statutory body would seem to have the support of various departments and each one has a positive role to play.

I concede in all respects the need for this board. I mentioned earlier that this appears to be a new departure from the total framework of all the legislation that controls transport as a whole in this country, but with the advancement and development in South Africa and with the highest standard of roads here. The hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned the high standard of roads and I think that the need for toll roads has become absolutely important. However, to control the toll roads one needs a board. In welcoming this board I want to reiterate my statement that consideration also be given to the nonWhites to serve on this board. Knowing this department as I do, as well as the important responsibility that rests on their shoulders, I fully support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs has discussed the Bill at length. This Bill emanates from the recommendations made by the National Transport Policy Study Steering Committee as set out in the White Paper and accepted by the Government in January 1987. Here we are presented with one of a package deal of Bills related to Transport Affairs in South Africa, among which there is a Bill relating to the Transport Advisory Council which was passed by this House. At the joint committee this Bill did not have an easy passage. The need for the Bill was questioned extensively and it was felt that the Transport Advisory Council could absorb and carry out this work and as such there was no need for various other bodies. Upon consideration it was noted that road building was a very highly specialised field in South Africa and as such the need for the establishment of this body was beyond question. One of the most important aspects of the work of this body is to consider the tenders for millions of rands’ worth of construction on South African roads, as well as the administration of the National Road Fund.

The board has the power to appoint various committees. It also appoints specialists in the field of road construction. The board also has the power to appoint committees such as the Toll Roads Committee. It was felt that the Toll Roads Committee was not necessary but on second thoughts, I want to lend it my support. There was a tremendous need for this Toll Roads Committee to be formed so that people could make representations to this committee if they had any problems. Other hon members have mentioned some of the advantages of having this Toll Roads Committee.

This is one of those Bills, as the hon the Minister has quite rightly pointed out, which form part of the package deal in relation to the improvement of transport in this country. After careful consideration, we feel that this Bill is necessary and we support it.

Mr Chairman, I would like to start off by mentioning the support given to the Bill by the hon member for Umzinto and by thanking him for the excellent exposition which he also gave of the legislation before us. This is a clear example of the work so zealously done by that hon member on the joint committee, and I want to thank him for that. It also shows that he has a clear understanding of the Bill.

The hon member for Havenside complimented the Ministry on its desegregation policy with regard to suburban trains in the Western Cape and posed a question. Although I must say that I appreciate the remarks made by the hon member, they do not actually fall within the ambit of the legislation that we are discussing now. However, Sir, if you will allow me, I would like to thank the hon member for his compliments towards the Ministry for having desegregated the trains on the suburban lines in the Western Cape. The indications are that it is working very well. We have often stated in the past that the Ministry and the SATS themselves would monitor the situation carefully, and we have now reached a stage where we could do this.

I think the important point in this regard is that we should at all times maintain reasonable standards of good behaviour on our suburban trains because after all, all race groups are the clients of our suburban trains. As long as we can maintain good standards, I do not think there will be any objection to desegregation and I think that the system will work well in the long run. I think that the commuters on the suburban trains all realise that the highest standards should be maintained. Furthermore, one should always—whether one is segregated or desegregated—watch out for the criminal element and those who make it difficult for everyone, regardless of race, who travel on our trains. The hon member also made the point that we should put this into effect in othér areas as well. That is receiving consideration and I think the hon the Minister and the SATS themselves have clearly indicated that that would be the position.

The hon member also welcomed the Bill and pointed out the importance of contracts with regard to the building of roads, especially in the case of Natal roads, and said that we should consider the views and the feelings of the people who live in close proximity to them. I think he also welcomed the provision pertaining to the 20 kilometre radius and said that we should consider the feelings of the people.

I thank the hon member for his support and also for his great interest in transport affairs. I also thank the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture.

He is sitting over here.

Yes, I know. He is always present when someone wants to talk to him. The hon the Minister made the point that we should have people of colour on these bodies and committees that we establish. It is not really necessary for me to say that colour will really play no part and that merit will be the important issue. However, we realise—we are not fools in this regard—that the majority of our passengers are people who come from race groups other than the White group.

Whether it is road or rail transport we will bear in mind that the wishes and feelings of the other groups should be considered at all times. When it comes to the co-opting of people onto these committees—they are just as important as the members of the board—it is important to bear in mind that, as I have indicated, this will be a functional body and the decisions it will have to take will be of a scientific nature. However, if it is necessary for us to include other people on our committees in order to promote the work that has to be done by this Roads Board, then I think the board will surely bear in mind that it will also have to consider people for reasons other than the fact that they know the economy and have knowledge of how to plan and build roads. I wish to thank the hon the Minister for his support in this regard.

The hon member for Merebank admitted that the need for this board was questioned because it was thought that the Transport Advisory Council would be able to do the job. At the same time the hon member admitted that he has seen the light—or some other members, if not he, had seen the light—and today there is support for this particular board.

The Transport Advisory Council is a large body consisting of 40 members and it has to give advice on every mode of transport. The Roads Board deals entirely with the provision of adequate roads in South Africa, therefore there is a difference between what the work of the Transport Advisory Council will be and what that of this particular body will be.

It is also envisaged that the National Transport Commission will eventually be phased out. However, the necessity for planning roads and toll roads and providing the money for this and seeing to the contracts indicates that the need for a special Roads Board still remains. That is why the Government supported the idea. I may just say for the interest of hon members that they may not realise this, but there was a time when we had a central roads board in South Africa. It was abolished sometime in 1948. However, because of decentralisation and deregulation I think one can see that there is a necessity for a board which has a particular function.

Therefore I wish to thank the hon member for that and for his support as far as the Toll Road Committee is concerned. I think that people are inclined to think that we are now going to impose a toll on every road in South Africa. That is not so. I can see that our major roads or portions of our major roads—our national roads—will be subjected to tolls.

Especially Richards Bay.

Yes. However, there is the proviso that no road in South Africa will be tolled unless we have alternative routes on which people can travel as they did in the olden days, if I may say so—in other words, free of charge.

Secondly, we made the point that no toll fee will be higher than 75% of the margin that we can save on that particular road. Make no mistake about this—one can travel on every toll road that we have so far in South Africa, and one will find that the motorist and the transport operator will be saving money. I just wish to relate my own experience with the Huguenot Tunnel. Of necessity I have to travel to Swellendam quite regularly, and I have found that using the tunnel reduces the travelling time from where I live in the Cape Peninsula—whether there is heavy traffic or not—by half an hour.

The fact that it saves half an hour’s travelling time, whether one travels at 120 km an hour or 80 km an hour is, I think, very important. One can ask any transport operator or entrepreneur; he will tell one that they are saving money. This is the objective.

That is why we are demanding a second access road to Chatsworth; to be fair to the people of Chatsworth.

Mr Chairman, perhaps I should not have spoken at this point … [Interjections] … about specific roads because the hon member wants to catch me out! However, wherever there is a possibility of having a toll road we would obviously be very hesitant to take a decision unless we knew there was an alternative road that people could take.

In conclusion I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the hon members for having participated. It is always a pleasure to come to this House and to listen to the positive approach adopted by hon members when it comes to national affairs.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I have had the opportunity of reading the report of the select committee, and from this it is quite clear that the hon Dr Hartzenberg relied upon newspaper reports published in Die Burger of 4 November 1987, the Sunday Star, a publication called the South African Observer and the Weekend Argus of 7 November 1987.

It would appear that when the hon member Dr Hartzenberg made his statement in the House of Assembly there was no denial whatsoever of the allegations that had been attributed to a senior Cabinet Minister in this country to the effect that certain inducements had been offered to hon members of the Labour Party if they did certain things. In view of the fact that wide publicity had been given to the allegations and that there had been no denial of those allegations, it is in my respectful opinion not unreasonable for the hon member Dr Hartzenberg to have come to the conclusions that he did. I am not saying that he was correct in coming to those conclusions but it was not unreasonable of him.

The committee itself states on page 11 of its report that Rev Hendrickse was not prepared to disclose to the committee the information on which his quotation was based. In other words, the committee made a definite finding that Rev Hendrickse had made a statement which had been quoted in the newspapers but he was not prepared to give the source of that information. The report goes on to say and I quote from page xi:

There was a definite finding that that statement had its origin in Rev Hendrickse’s party caucus. Since the members of that party caucus are members of Parliament, it is a member of Parliament or more than one member of Parliament who gave that information to Rev Hendrickse who presumably in good faith accepted that and transmitted it to the newspapers. That being the case, I want to repeat that it is not unreasonable for Dr Hartzenberg to have come to the conclusion to which he did. He himself said in reply to a question, and I quote from page 11 of the report:

I do not want to repeat the conclusion which he drew.

These were not the actions of an irresponsible man; since three months had lapsed from the time of the original statement to the time that he made his own statement in the House of Assembly. Therefore, while I do not oppose the select committee report, fairness and justness require that the hon member Dr Hartzenberg himself has to be exonerated from any mala fides. He obviously acted bona fide, basing his information on the information contained elsewhere, and that information let him down.

Mr Chairman, earlier on the hon member for Reservoir Hills said that he was taking the path of the Government, and not going against it. I want to follow the same path. Being an attorney himself, I am sure that he scrutinised the report in great detail and I cannot go against him. I wish to support the adoption of the report, as he has also done.

Mr Chairman, the allegations made by the hon member for Lichtenburg on 9 February 1988 in a speech in the House of Assembly were directed not only at the NP as such and at the hon members of the Labour Party. It was also an indictment of the hon the State President. It was insinuated that he had some knowledge of the rumours that were going around at the time and that he had presumably failed or refused to investigate allegations in that regard, because he had allegedly known that such allegations were true or was afraid they would prove to be true.

This indictment of the hon the State President was indeed very serious. The hon the State President must be fully armed with actual proof of such allegations before he can institute a judicial commission of inquiry or, in the case of the House of Assembly, a select committee. This joint committee was instituted to look into the allegations that had been made. This report vindicates any allegations that were made. It cannot be doubted that the report is a true reflection of the actual circumstances of the situation. We have therefore no hesitation in adopting this report.

Mr Chairman, we on this side support the adoption of the report.

Debate concluded.

Report adopted.

Mr Chairman, it was unanimously decided to discharge the committee as the two hon members concerned with this matter had resolved their differences. I support the adoption of this report as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr Chairman, I take it that once the report has been accepted, the committee will be discharged. If that is not the case, I would like to propose an amendment that the report be adopted and that the committee be discharged. I do not think I need to debate this matter at length.

Order! I wish to advise the hon member that once the House adopts the report, the committee will automatically be discharged.

I am indebted to the Chair. Sir, as far as the committee is concerned, there was some problem. The person who was the alleged miscreant apologised to the other person involved. This person forgave him and informed the committee that he had forgiven him, and asked that the committee discharge itself. This is what it amounted to. In ordinary parlance, once a person has forgiven another person, it can never be recalled.

If there is a further offence at a later stage, the further offence can be dealt with separately. We will not be helping if we go against the spirit of forgiveness which was recorded at that time. For our present purpose we are not concerned with anything that transpired after that. Anything that transpired after that can be dealt with entirely separately. We support the adoption of the report.

Mr Chairman, I just want to place on record that I have no objection to adopting the report of the committee itself, but I wish to draw the attention of this House to the fact that before the House could consider the report of the House Committee on a Question of Privilege, whereby Mr Y Moolla, the hon member for Stanger, alleged that he was insulted by an office-bearer in the administration of the House of Delegates, a further report appeared in the Sunday Times Extra of 12 June which has caused the hon member for Stanger much grief. That is another issue, as pointed out by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Whilst we accept the report, I do hope that the hon member for Stanger will not be denied the right to pursue the matter further when he is present in this House. With these words we support the report.

Debate concluded.

Report adopted.