Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, before the debate progresses any further, I should like to take the opportunity to react, in general terms, to certain remarks made by hon members about this Bill.

I should like to thank hon members on this side of the House very sincerely for their support of the Bill. I should also like to associate myself, in particular, with the votes of thanks to the chairman, the hon member for Turffontein, and members of the joint committee who did an exceptional job of work in scrutinising this Bill in a relatively short space of time, giving it thorough consideration and also hearing evidence, and for having completed their work in this fashion. In expressing my gratitude I should like to associate myself with that expressed by other hon members who specifically referred to this aspect.

In reacting now, I shall be referring in general to remarks about what was said by the hon members for Losberg and Houghton and other hon members, including the hon member for Randburg, who is not present at the moment. I am not going to be referring specifically to hon members. At the end of the debate I should like to make specific remarks about that. I want to make a few general statements, but in passing I also want to react to what these hon members said.

One must accept the fact that when, in a specific country and a specific situation, there is a general movement from a subsistence economy to a market-related economy, particularly when this is inevitably accompanied by a certain degree of saturation of the subsistence economy and people begin to cherish expectations of a better way of life, one inevitably has a movement which ultimately aims at stimulating, promoting and satisfying people’s expectations.

That is precisely what is happening in South Africa in this regard at present. In other words, I think hon member will agree with me that as this development is actually taking place in South Africa, specifically because of the shift from a subsistence economy to a market-orientated economy, there is consequently also a natural population shift, particularly to the towns and cities.

I should like to say this: Regardless of what the underlying political ideology may be, or on what the relevant system of government in the country is based, this movement of people from the rural areas to the cities would take place in any event. It is a universal phenomenon which is not unique to present-day South Africa, but which has, in fact, taken place in most other parts of the world over the centuries, and in other cases over a longer period of time. It is a world-wide phenomenon. We in this country are unavoidably also part of that phenomenon. There is no way of preventing that, short of wanting to employ violence.

There are, of course, methods for dealing with that. It can be regulated in various ways. At a later stage in my speech I should like to refer to them. The point is this: When the survival of an individual is at stake, and the people for whom he is responsible, in other words his family or the wider group to which he belongs, people primarily incline towards fulfilling their own basic need for survival. They take this into consideration and make choices which would seem to grant them a chance for survival. That determines their needs at that specific juncture, allowing them to give expression to them, in order to ensure that survival, by moving to the cities or towns where they can make their labour available. Thus they can give expression to their need to survive at that specific time.

Having said that it is a world-wide phenomenon, an international manifestation which has developed over many centuries, let me add that it is equally true that in our country, but particularly within the African context, this specific matter is also of singular significance or importance.

After all, we find that to be the case in South Africa today. In a certain sense one can say that we are evidencing an important transition in regard to our overall historical process, specifically in the period in which we find ourselves today, ie this population shift from a subsistence economy to a market-related economy within a relatively short period of time. This means that today we are confronted with certain important management decisions which we cannot get away from, specifically at the social level which we are discussing here in dealing with this Bill.

If we look at what has happened to the other groups in our country, particularly the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, we already see a fairly optimum degree of urbanisation. To a large extent saturation point has already been reached in regard to the other communities. As far as the Black communities are concerned, we know that the urbanisation percentage is still relatively low and that that process is still taking place.

We cannot get away from that, and in the process there are consequently those aspirations of people which we must include in our calculations and which must be borne in mind. This means, therefore, that we must specifically focus our attention on the Black communities and the development needs surrounding that shift which is taking place in order to give the best possible relevant answers.

Accordingly, several years ago the Government began to take cognisance of this process which was unfolding, took up the challenge and developed an urbanisation strategy which was given expression in a White Paper in 1986 which was published with the object of specifically providing, in its unique formulation, for the needs in South Africa at the time.

Further urbanisation must therefore be seen within this context and within the framework of the guidelines set out in the urbanisation strategy. The process of urbanisation, particularly in regard to the developed sector of society and its socio-economic needs, is therefore catered for within the framework of these guidelines.

†The Government has accepted the challenge to deal with the process of urbanisation in an orderly fashion. Instead of regarding urbanisation as a threat it should be used to offer people the opportunity to improve their standard of living and quality of life.

While most people welcome the new urbanisation initiative of the Government certain quarters surprisingly contend that this initiative spelt the end of its programme for regional industrial development. This is of course also a very important part of the whole concept of management that we have to look at here. It is their contention that the obolition of influx control has removed the need for development and the creation of employment in the rural areas. This contention is completely in error. Urbanisation and regional industrial development are complementary elements of the development programme.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am afraid we in the opposition benches are having difficulty in hearing the hon the Deputy Minister because the NP members are talking so loudly.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

The policy of planned urbanisation refers not only to urbanisation in the existing metropolitan areas, but also to rural points which have the potential for urbanisation and for development into alternative metropolitan areas or mini-metropolitan areas of the future.

One of the major objectives of regional industrial development is to bring about economic concentrations in the regions with a view to establishing self-generating growth within the shortest space of time. Regional urbanisation serves the selfsame goal.

Providing job opportunities in the rural areas where large reservoirs of unemployed families with established homes exist, will obviate the need for breadwinners to migrate to the metropolitan area with the accompanying disruption of their family life. The urgency for regional industrial development has therefore not been diminished by the introduction of planned urbanisation.

It stands to reason that more land must be made available to accommodate the natural increase of the residents of existing towns and the influx from other areas. Here again, the identification of land is being approached in a responsible manner in accordance with the requirements of the various regions and in a well-structured programme.

Considerable progress has been made in this regard. In respect of Black urbanisation since January 1986 some 32 000 hectares have been designated and proclaimed to accommodate further urbanisation countrywide. I have mentioned this particularly because this is the period in which we have actually started with an orderly urbanisation programme. Since …

Mr Chairman, does the hon the Deputy Minister have any idea how much of that land has actually been provided with the necessary infrastructure such as water and sanitation?

Mr Chairman, I shall reply to that particular question at a later stage. I shall come back to the hon member in that regard.

The proclamation of a further 10 500 hectares for further urbanisation has already been approved in principle and a further 18 000 hectares are still under consideration for that particular purpose.

I mention these figures because they are important. The arguments were advanced yesterday that we on the Government side are not taking the responsibility in this regard in terms of the identification and allocation of land.

In respect of Coloureds and Indians a further 5 600 and 1 500 hectares of additional land, respectively, has already been proclaimed.

It is Government policy to promote property rights and ownership of a dwelling within the means of members of all communities. This policy is based on the principle that it is the responsibility of the individual, the employer and other sectors of the private sector to provide housing. The Government will only accept responsibility in the case of the very poor and disadvantaged sectors of the community.

I want to emphasise that in the first instance this responsibility lies with the individual, the employer and the other sectors of the private sector.

Apart from obtaining a job, the acquisition of a house is a very important matter which affects the daily livelihood of a family. It does not only provide shelter against the elements, but is also often the finest investment on the road to economic stability and security. A community housed in accordance with their means is more contented than those exposed to the elements on the one hand or burdened by financial stress on the other.

The stability of a community is furthermore largely influenced by the security of tenure enjoyed by the residents, and in that regard I agree with what the hon member for Randburg said yesterday. [Interjections.]

I can add to these figures, but in general I think we can say that we have accepted the responsibility from the Government side since the introduction of the policy of orderly urbanisation. I think what we have achieved over the past two years in this regard is sufficient proof of our sincerity in this regard.

*There is something I should like to say about squatting, whether legal or illegal. I should like to emphasise that we must bear in mind that a major percentage of the people who are consistently being referred to are, in fact, people in informal accommodation in backyards and on legal plots of land. If we look at the figures for the Witwatersrand, for example, we see that the official figures—I do not want to enter into a discussion with the hon member for Houghton about what the correct figures are—indicate that there are approximately 800 000 so-called squatters on the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.]

I have seen the figures furnished by the Urban Foundation and am not, at this stage, going to try to determine which figures are correct. The official figures do, at least, show that the major percentage—to tell the truth more than three quarters—are people who find themselves living in backyards in the Black cities and towns.

The hon the Minister says 1 200 000 squatters in the Transvaal.

If we are speaking about those who are illegal squatters outside the Black towns and cities, the figure is, in fact, much smaller. This still does not eliminate the problem. The hon member for Houghton is going to argue with me by saying that whether they are inside or outside the Black towns, and whether they are legal or illegal, there is still a need for housing, and I agree with her. I do not want to argue with her about that. The point I want to place on record is that it is important to distinguish between legal and illegal squatting.

Frequently there are, in fact, unsatisfactory, illegal and exploitive practices involving these unfortunate victims, practices engaged in by people who, for their own financial gain, simply perpetuate these illegalities. Naturally this situation gives rise to problems which we have to deal with. I should like to say that within the context of this Bill before the House we have, in the past year or two, achieved considerable success by way of favourable campaigns of persuasion and, on the other hand, by way of assistance to people who lived under informal conditions, who were squatters or who lived somewhere legally on an informal basis, by favourably resettling them for their own benefit and for the benefit of society as a whole. Examples I can refer to are the 3 600 squatters at Varkfontein in the hon the Deputy Minister of Education’s constituency, people who were moved to Daveyton last year. The hon member for Bryanston will remember that on that occasion he telephoned me to say that the province was doing good work there, commending the province for the work it was doing. [Interjections.] There are also other examples. There are the 46 000 people from Langa and Kabah who were transferred to KwaNobuhle. Similarly, in the past year people were settled on 2 300 hectares of land in the vicinity of Motherwell. This did, in fact, relieve the pressure on the existing communities and afforded the people a better livelihood. Quite close to us we have the very good example of Khayelitsha which was established on a similar basis in order to relieve the pressure on Crossroads and similar areas in the Cape Peninsula.

One aspect of squatting which is being experienced in South Africa at present is, as the hon member for Randburg pointed out, that of the difference between squatters in the rural areas near cities and towns and those in the urban areas. In most cases the former have no services at their disposal, whilst those who find themselves in a purely urban context basically do have some access to available services. Therefore one must inevitably determine where the first prioritylies and where assistance should primarily be granted.

At this stage I do not want to say any more about this aspect, except to make just one reference to the hon member for Randburg’s remark and to address it in the context in which I have just spoken. The hon member used the example of doves and a shotgun. In the context of the Bill we are now discussing, one can draw interesting conclusions about the concept of a white dove and a shotgun, or a flock of white doves and a shotgun. I do not want to go into that matter now; it does allow one to make quite extensive use of one’s imagination.

There is just one point I want to make, and that is that if the hon member were to look at what was contained in the Bill—I am not saying he did not do so; I am certain he did—he would see that here we are specifically engaged in a plan aimed at addressing the full scope of the problem. It is not a question of a shotgun blast with which we want to hit any and every innocent bystander. The hon member knows that unfortunately there are not only white doves flying around. At times there are also hawks on the wing. No matter what side of the fence they happen to be flying, there are unfortunately also hawks in the air, and that means that at times one encounters people who are deliberate transgressors and who, male fide, aim at creating problems. The hon member knows that, and if he does not, I should like to extend an invitation to him—not to accompany us, but the province which is responsible for the practical implementation of this aspect. He knows Mr Olaus van Zyl very well. I invite him to accompany Mr Olaus van Zyl and examine the practical situation at Weiler’s Farm or wherever in the Witwatersrand and to see for himself …

Mavuso is the one you want!

I shall come back to that in a moment. Then he must join Mr Olaus van Zyl and Mr John Mavuso and see for himself what the situation in that area is like and convince himself that what is being done does not only involve dealing with the white doves, because unfortunately one also has to deal with the hawks in the process. That legal measure is provided for in this legislation, and it is something one must make provision for.

Secondly, the Government has also assumed responsibility for the establishment of temporary transit areas to help those who need help on compassionate grounds, those white-dove cases, out of their wretched circumstances and to afford them temporary, urgent relief from those circumstances.

Thirdly, by way of transit areas the Government has also made it possible to make permanent settlement arrangements for those people so that they can be provided for in the long term.

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

Order! The hon member is a bit late, but I shall nevertheless allow him to do so.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister to what extent provision is now being made for transit areas in designated areas which were not there in terms of the old section 16(6)(a). What is really new about this?

That is a good question.

I shall react to that in detail at a later stage, Sir, but the hon member himself knows that in this Bill, as it is before us now, in the case of temporary transit areas better provision is being made for the administration and control of those areas, and in the case of designated areas there is a permanent measure that can be adopted, as a matter of urgency, to furnish permanent answers to that question.

That is already the case; those powers already exist.

I shall come back to the hon member at a later stage, Mr Chairman.

I note, Mr Chairman, that while a member of the Government was speaking the lights were burning and the cameras were working, and that there are two cameras in the House facing the Government benches while there is nothing for the Opposition, but we are used to this. [Interjections.]

Order! Handsomeness just might play a role!

Yes, then I would qualify, Sir. [Interjections.] We are used to this treatment because we know that the Government misuses SABC and Bureau for Information money to promote the NP.

The hon the Deputy Minister mentioned that squatting was a universal problem, but he does not appear to have learnt anything from his research into the universal problem of squatting. Like Ken Owen, I believe that the Nats are like the Bourbons—the Nats forget nothing and they learn nothing—because if they had learnt they would know that there are three responses to the question of squatting. The first is to employ coercive and destructive measures. This will fail as shackdwellers have nowhere else to go, and that will bring enormous political and economic costs.

The second response would be to neglect the problem, that is, turn a blind eye. That will solve nothing as the growth will continue to take place outside the legal framework contrary to official land plans. They will contravene property rights and health regulations, and that sort of approach is difficult and costly to upgrade.

The third approach is that informal settlement should be accepted as part of housing policy.

If that route were to be followed, existing, informal settlements could be assessed and, where appropriate, they could be authorised and upgraded. Secondly, additional land could be prepared in advance of the need, and settlement planned to allow incremental upgrading over time. Thirdly, it would build on people’s initiative and willingness to help themselves, but I will return to that during the course of my address.

This Bill must be seen as part of a package of five Bills and should not be considered in isolation. The five Bills introduced by the Government towards the end of June were the Slums Bill, the Group Areas Amendment Bill, the Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Prevention of Ilegal Squatting Amendment Bill. All are intended to be measures to implement what the Government has called its “urbanisation policy”. In fact, they are going to have exactly the opposite effect as they are part of the process to appease the CP. They are part of the process to scrounge a few miserable right-wing votes on 26 October, and what has been the response of the CP? They have been singularly unimpressed by this measure in particular as they say it will promote squatting. That I regard as a fatuous response, for where do they expect the millions of people whom we have living around our cities to disappear to? In their own language. Sir, it is impossible for them to disappear into thin air.

This Bill has been opposed by every party and every political grouping in Parliament. It is naturally the NP with their inbuilt majority in this House who will be able to force this legislation through the President’s Council onto the Statute Book. This is short-term folly as it will only add to the misery this Government has inflicted on people of colour over the past forty long years. They can push this legislation through the President’s Council onto the Statute Book, but I wish to warn that it will be unenforceable. Millions of people are not going to disappear as the CP would wish them to and the problem has to be addressed in another way—a solution I will deal with a bit later.

The net result of all these measures should they be implemented, which I doubt, is that people will be bundled out of their homes; women and children will be sleeping in the open; millions of people both here and abroad will express their concern and anguish at what is happening in this country, and this will further add to the international isolation of this country. I say it is short term folly because in the long run the problem will have to be addressed in the proper manner.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in his opening address said—and I quote: “The phenomenon of squatting must be addressed. As in all other societies this problem cannot be ignored.” He says: “The Government intends to approach the problem in such a way that it can be solved to the benefit of both the established citizens and the newcomers to the city.” That was what he said in his opening remarks. However, the measures that the Government has devised will achieve, I believe, exactly the opposite to what the Government wishes to do.

I sat through the meetings of the joint committee; I listened to the evidence and I read the submissions, and I am convinced beyond all doubt that this Bill should be scrapped in its entirety. I say this even though there are positive provisions in the Bill, which I believe will be inadequate to achieve the desperately needed dynamic process of urbanisation. The negative aspects of the Bill still tend to outweigh the positive aspect of the provision of transit areas. I appeal to the Government to listen to the view of reason, the voices of those who have pleaded with the Government to abandon this Bill and the other four Bills I mentioned, all of which are to cause enormous damage to this country. I appeal to those members of the Government who listened to the evidence submitted to the joint committee to use their influence with the Government to scrap this Bill. People who call for the Bill to be abandoned include responsible business and church leaders, community leaders, newspaper editors—including some of those who support the NP—the Chamber of Commerce and a large number of community organisations.

One of the problems we face is that the Government does not appear to be fully aware of the extent of the problem we are currently facing.

In an answer to my colleague, the hon member for Gardens, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning replied to Question No 1210 that there were 1 490 047 squatters in the Cape, Natal and the Transvaal. These figures related to statistics available in the first half of 1988. He was unable to provide statistics for the Free State as he said these were unknown. The Urban Foundation, in its comprehensive and far-reaching research, has come to the conclusion that in the PWV area alone there are between 1,6 and 2,4 million people in informal settlements. They live in backyard shelters, shacks and garages. The department replied that there were 1,2 million in the entire Transvaal.

The Urban Foundation estimates that there are seven million informal settlers in urban areas throughout South Africa. This does not include the many in the rural areas, and in the evidence presented to the joint committee by the Urban Foundation they pointed out the fate that lies ahead of the rural squatters should this Bill become law—that their houses can be torn down once a committee has decided that they should be removed, and even if they do make an appeal to the courts and win, it will be too late because their shacks will have been torn down. It is going to have an enormous effect on families living in rural areas.

The foundation finds that there is a backlog of 1,8 million housing units at present and that an additional 2,8 million will be required if we are to house our people by the turn of the century. This means a total housing requirement of 400 000 units each year between now and the year 2000. The response from everybody concerned is quite pathetic.

In the urban areas the private sector is seeking to provide 35 000 units during this year and the public sector something like 9 000. Therefore we are looking at a situation where approximately only 10% of the requirement is being met by activities at present. This situation can only escalate if we do not address the problem in a vigorous and dedicated manner. We have people living in overcrowded conditions in township houses; they live in backyard shacks; they live in garages and outbuildings. There are informal settlements in or near existing Black townships. There is informal settlement on peri-urban land and vacant urban land. People live in the backyards of White-owned houses and a vigorous policy to provide them with housing has to be adopted by this Government.

What is needed is not a Squatting Bill or a Slums Bill or a Group Areas Bill but a Housing Bill. The Government should face the future with confidence; regard the housing challenge as an opportunity; accept the fact that the abolition of influx control has not resulted in mass migration to the PWV area; explain that the PWV area faces a crisis of urban growth and management. It is not a problem of urbanisation and its control. The answer is that more land should be made available to the millions of people in our country and that site and service schemes should be provided on a massive scale so that people will have security of tenure.

The land that has already been identified—and announced—is inadequate, and much of it to the west of Soweto has been undermined and found to be geologically insecure. Those matters must be addressed timeously. All these matters should be addressed in a Housing Bill so as to provide security and peace for our people. The intention should not be to hound our fellow citizens from their shacks, to declare war on them, break down their structures, burn their shacks and put them on the street. We have to show them that we care for them and that we wish to allow them to care for their families.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to be nasty to the hon member for Johannesburg North, but he started off by expressing his concern at the fact that the TV cameras were not focused on the PFP this afternoon. I have a PFP pamphlet here. Under the PFP logo it is stated: “U het tog nie gedink ons sou tou opgooi nie, het u?” [Interjections.] That is a propaganda document issued by that party and also a slogan which is characteristic of their spirit of negativity. They actually have doubts about their own survival. That is why the TV cameras are not focused on the PFP.

The rope is already around their necks!

They are no longer interested. They have already thrown in the towel. The hon member for Primrose says that the rope is already around the PFP’s neck. In the course of my speech I shall reply to the hon member about that.

In the debate thus far the PFP has chiefly focused on the negative aspects of the Bill and on the negative aspects of the evidence heard by the joint committee. As far as the evidence is concerned—the hon member was there; he is aware of that—I contend that that is not a correct and precise reflection of either the oral or written evidence furnished to the joint committee by the respective individuals or bodies. Taking a comprehensive look at the evidence, one discovers many positive aspects in the Bill which were noticed by various people and bodies from whom one did not actually expect to receive any positive comments. One idea—barring a few exceptions—runs like a golden thread through all the evidence presented to the joint committee, and that is that the problem of squatting is recognised and that the status quo cannot be maintained in South Africa. For that reason it is meaningless for the hon member for Johannesburg North to allege that we do not need a Bill such as this Bill on squatting and that we only need legislation relating to housing. In the meantime, what must be done about the problem which was acknowledged by the joint committee?

It is not possible to single out all the positive aspects of the Bill. I nevertheless want to mention a few examples. Important bodies such as Umsa and Ucasa acknowledge the positive aspects of the Bill. Umsa—the United Municipalities of South Africa—mentions five positive and important points in the relevant Bill. The PFP, however, makes no mention of these important aspects.

[Inaudible.]

In this regard the Law Review Project says the following, and I quote:

[Inaudible.]

I want to quote further:

The positive aspects of that Bill are also underlined by the Urban Foundation, the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Research Unit for Developmental Sociology at the University of Stellenbosch. Hon members should do themselves a favour and read the evidence.

[Inaudible.]

The last-mentioned body states, inter alia, that provision for transit areas, with a view to promoting orderly urbanisation, should be welcomed, as should the conversion of emergency camps and transit areas. The point I want to make is that regardless of the fact that certain bodies rejected the Bill, there is nevertheless a positive undertone.

I said so myself.

Even the hon member for Houghton expressed appreciation for the positive aspects of the Bill. The hon member said this in the joint committee, and I give her credit for having done so.

This piece of legislation, however, is not as draconian or objectionable as some people would like to make out, but in spite of the many positive aspects, the other two Houses and the opposition parties were not prepared to engage in an indepth discussion of the Bill in the joint committee. That is a pity, because jointly we could have tried to find a solution to a major problem in our country. Then, however, there must be discussion, dialogue and communication, and one must not disrupt the lines of communication. I do not think it is a question of our not having been able to achieve consensus in that joint committee. My impression is that it was more a case of certain parties which did not want to achieve consensus in that joint committee in an effort to give attention to this important matter.

There is another aspect I want to refer to. On several occasions during this debate reference was made to squatters who could be relocated, but for whom adequate land was not available. My information is that the majority of the squatters who are illegally occupying the land at the moment, particularly in the PWV area, could be accommodated on land proclaimed by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on 2 June of this year as being land which would be employed for the extension of existing Black residential areas. We concede the point, and the hon member for Johannesburg North mentioned a few problems, but surely he does not simply want people to settle on highquality agricultural land. In time this land will be purchased, and this will have to take place as and when the State is able to do so.

This process of land purchases for the extension of Black urban areas, and ultimately for the squatters too, is not only taking place in the PWV area, but also in the rest of the country. Already land has even been identified for the resettlement of squatters living at present on the all too well-known Weiler’s farm. It is therefore simply not correct to say that squatters are merely, of necessity, going to be relocated when people do not yet have any alternative land, or at least not enough alternative land, available for them.

As a result of this legislation and other existing arrangements, it will now be possible to help squatters in four ways as far as housing is concerned. Firstly they can live in Black towns where there is still space available; secondly in new conventional towns; thirdly in informal towns or designated areas and, fourthly, in temporary transit areas.

A last point I want to raise relates to ownership. One of man’s most fundamental rights is that of having a say about what he owns—his property. There are known cases of people having squatted without the owner’s permission. It is then virtually impossible for that owner to have the squatters removed. This applies, in particular, to certain farms and smallholdings. If squatting is not going to be subjected to meaningful control, and it is no longer possible to relocate illegal squatters, this could lead to chaos, landowners no longer being certain of their security and rights to their own property. That is something we simply cannot permit in a country such as South Africa. I very gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I have just heard from the hon member Dr Golden about four ways in which a squatter may be accommodated. I am now wondering how a former MP from Potgietersrus can qualify as a Cape squatter. Would it be because his children were at school here, because he had his house … [Interjections] … on the market and was renting … ?

Order! I do not think it befits this House to refer to an hon member as a squatter in the sense in which the debate is taking place today.

Mr Speaker, I did not refer to an hon member as a squatter at all. I asked when an hon member would qualify as a squatter…

Order! The hon member should kindly just co-operate and proceed.

As the minutes, hours and days arrive and tick by, the effect of South Africa’s second Republican Constitution is crystallising to an increasing extent. This is manifested particularly well in the activities surrounding this Bill. From the first sitting day of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid—that is the joint committee which had to deal with this legislation—members of the House of Representatives made it clear that they would scuttle this Bill and other similar Bills.

Nevertheless, it was decided, for the sake of appearances, as a matter of form and as a cosmetic measure, to proceed with joint committee meetings, two of which took place in Pretoria at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. We proceeded with this Parliamentary session, notwithstanding the fact that this Bill, and the other Bills for which this session was actually intended, have already all been scuttled in advance by the House of Representatives.

This Bill, and the one regarding the Republican Constitution which came about in 1983, should have been accompanied by rationalisation. However, nothing has come of the rationalisation, although there has been a great deal in the way of delays and disruptions, which are causing chaos. This new Republican Constitution should have been accompanied by clean administration. All that has come of it is a turbid, seething administrative mess.

This second Constitution should have been accompanied by consensus politics. We are experiencing nothing but confrontational politics. If that is deserving of credit, praise or distinction, then it must all go to the hon the State President, his hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his Government. The NP is in power, but the House of Representatives is calling the tune.

I think one can view the system pertaining to this legislation as being analagous to the Russian troika, which is being drawn by a white horse, a brown horse and a palomino. The palomino has simply stopped dead from fright. It refuses to move, and is trembling in its harness. The brown horse is stubborn, and the white horse has fallen faint. Sic transit gloria mundi. The Government is responsible for that, too, by way of this Bill.

I want to state unequivocally once again that we support certain of the provisions of this Bill, namely those provisions which will rule out the possibility of squatter-farming, those which seek to oppose any form of squatting, including the making available of facilities for squatters and illegal squatting, and which seek to increase the penalties associated with this.

However, we do not support the pole-house squatter shack recipe of squatter camp, transit area, residential area—degrees of comparison— as a method of township development in South Africa. [Interjections ]

Relevant characteristics of the pre-Botha system in South Africa were the protection of and respect for property rights, orderly development, abiding by the law, and especially the enforcement of the law by those responsible for doing so.

Our forefathers from Europe and Britain brought those characteristics with them and left them for us as a heritage. Over the years since 1951, NP governments have effectively promoted the maintenance of the Western pattern, whilst at the same time attending to the orderly establishment of the developing communities of South Africa. The two go side by side. One was retained; in the process the other one was directed towards it and played a part in that development. The present Government has abandoned this method of operation, this strategy. It could no longer continue with it—it did not have the will, the courage and the inner strength to continue with it.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that urbanisation was a world-wide phenomenon. I want to tell him that it is nothing new. It is nothing new now, and neither was it anything new 10 or 20 years ago. Neither was it new in 1951 when the NP Government came forward with its Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. Previous South African governments had realised it years previously. They tackled it; they had a strategy. Their strategy was based on influx control. Their strategy was based on group areas. Their strategy was based on the development of the Black peoples’ own homelands. Those were the positive strategies of previous governments.

The hon the Deputy Minister said the Government had accepted an urbanisation strategy in 1986. What is that? He must not tell me that now. All he must tell me now, two years later, is what it now looks like in practice. Can he tell us that?

You would not understand!

He must also tell us where it is leading to. [Interjections.] It is no excuse to say that urbanisation is a world-wide problem. I want to tell him that this urbanisation, which is a world-wide problem, has various facets. It is being tackled in various ways by various governments. I think that here on my left there are many of the hon the Deputy Minister’s friends, kindred spirits or virtual kindred spirits or friends—distributors of wealth and people of that ilk—of President Julius Nyerere. He tackled his squatter problem around Dar es Salaam very easily. All he did was to hem in the squatters around Dar es Salaam in the thick bush. That is all he did.

Do you also see it that way?

In Abidjan I saw piles and piles of flattened squatter shacks.

You did not live there!

It is true that I did not live there, but it is a nice place to live. If this Government were to remain in power here, it would be better to live in Abidjan than to live here.

Hear, hear!

President HouphouetBoigny flattened Abidjan’s squatter townships with bulldozers. No one took any notice of it! He was not apologetic about it. [Interjections.]

In fact, he developed a new and better Cte d’Ivoire for them. [Interjections.] But now, of course, we also have another facet: Mr Tom Boya of Umsa came to give evidence before the joint committee—the hon the chairman of the committee will most probably concede that. His delegations, as well as those of Mr Kgame, said that the reason for the squatter problem in South Africa was the Group Areas Act. Mr Tom Boya blames the Group Areas Act for the squatter problem in South Africa. He also tells us that there is a backlog. I think he mentioned a figure of 800 000.

I had expected the hon members of the majority party in the joint committee to take him to task on that issue. One of the members of the House of Representatives told him in the committee that he understood that there were certain people who had stayed in squatter camps—there was also Dr Riekert’s evidence to that effect before that committee—and who had subsequently obtained houses in Mitchell’s Plain. He said he had once travelled with such a man. That man told Dr Riekert that he was rather going back to the bush, meaning that he was going to squat once again. He therefore preferred his squatting to a house in Mitchell’s Plain.

One of the members of the House of Representatives referred to that example of Dr Riekert and asked Mr Boya whether he agreed with such a view. Strangely enough. I think, it was an incorrect question. Mr Boya nevertheless said that he agreed with it. He then pointed out that the Government of Swaziland had developed certain squatter areas in residential areas surrounding Mbabane. He then said that some of those people who had obtained a place in the residential areas—thus going from squatter area to residential area—had also preferred to move back to the squatter camps.

I then asked Mr Boya …

Is that Tom Mboya?

No, Tom Boya. [Interjections.] I must just add that he actually has a quite dynamic personality. [Interjections.] I then asked Mr Boya to tell me whether there was also a group areas Act in Swaziland. Mr Chairman, I do not think Mr Boya actually liked my question much. [Interjections.] I then asked him: “Who do you want to foot the bill for all those houses you demand?” [Interjections.] Mr Boya said that the Whites must pay for those houses. The hon the chairman of the joint committee will probably confirm what I am saying now. [Interjections.] Yes. he says the Whites must pay for them because, he says, it is the Whites who have brought down the Blacks to the point at which they find themselves at the moment. That is how that problem is being approached from the viewpoint of the Third World in South Africa.

However, how do things look in the rest of Africa? How do things look in the rest of Africa, where they have been living with Uhuru for more than 30 years now? I just want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the world-wide problem of urbanisation, and naturally also that of the squatting which precedes urbanisation, is being tackled by the different world components in different ways. My party and I say that if we force the First World component of South Africa down to the level of the Third World component of South Africa, we here in South Africa will ultimately create a poor Third World in South Africa.

Who is proposing that?

Then I would rather go and stay in Abidjan, Sir.

Is there a group areas Act in Abidjan, then? [Interjections.]

Who is proposing that?

I shall tell the hon member, Sir. It is not what the Government is proposing; it is the effect of what they are doing here. I shall come to that shortly. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to Mr Olaus van Zyl. In accordance with the process of delegation or appointment, Mr Olaus van Zyl … [Interjections.]

Order!

Is Mr Olaus van Zyl the MEC in charge of squatters, or is Mr Mavuso the MEC in charge of squatters? [Interjections.] Who is Mr Mavuso? He was one of the accused in the Rivonia trial. I think he was accused Number 39. Mavuso is the man who told De Kat that he had not altered his viewpoint, that he still stood by his ANC views, but that it was the NP Government that had changed its viewpoint. He is now the MEC in charge of this.

However, what happened at Zuurbekom?

Order! It is not Mr Speaker’s task to correct an hon member, but in this instance, since Mr Mavuso is a senior public functionary under the authority of this Parliament, I want to point out to the hon member that Mr Mavuso was not an accused in the Rivonia trial, but in another trial.

In the treason trial.

In the treason trial. [Interjections.] Sir, it seems to me that your remark has sent a tremor through the entire House and that the hon members on the opposite side of the House have learned something. [Interjections.]

What is at issue, however, is the fact that the people of Zuurbekom refused to negotiate with Mr Mavuso and that as a result the Administrator of the Transvaal capitulated and sent Mr Van Zyl to deal with the matter on an ad hoc basis. Now they are sitting there with an Aunt Sally which they have set up as a facade for the Government, but which is not impressing anyone. He does not impress the left wing, he does not impress the right wing, neither on the inside nor on the outside. However, that man receives a salary; he enjoys, as you quite rightly said, Sir, status and all the other perks connected to that office. However, what purpose or use does it serve? After all, it is the taxpayers’ money that is being spent.

Whilst I am talking about MECs, let me say that I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not here.

He is busy in another House.

He is busy in another House. [Interjections.] Probably in a non-sitting capacity. [Interjections.] I should have liked to ask him the question personally, but possibly his deputy could answer the question. Why is he delegating the administration of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act to the provincial administrations? The provincial administrations do not possess the administrative infrastructure to enforce the Act. I shall tell him why it is being done. It is for the same reason as the one for which he is delegating many other powers. It is because he foresees the scope of the problems which will be created by this Bill and wants to pass the buck as quickly as possible. He does not want to endure the criticism from the left or from the right with regard to the enforcement of this Act. Apart from that, he wants to be able to place the blame on some or other provincial administration if he is addressed on this issue by some formidable individual at one of his congresses or at a public meeting.

I think I must also make a brief reference to the hon member for Johannesburg North. He also speaks very typically—like many other people— about “millions of people”. How many millions of people? He asks where they must go. However, why did he not also ask where they had come from and why they were there?

They come from South Africa.

Were they all born there? I wonder whether the hon member for Innesdal would not like to come and sit here to our left in the ranks of the far left wing, where he belongs.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Soutpansberg a very simple question? He wants to know where those people come from. Does the CP regard those people who come from the Black states as also being citizens of South Africa?

Why is the hon member asking me such a question? Surely he knows that we do not regard them as South African citizens. In our time and under our dispensation, as it used to be, they will be the citizens of their national states, of their own fatherlands. [Interjections.] Then one will not be faced with what we are being confronted with at present. We shall show the Government when it happens, and it will be very soon.

How? (hoe)?

I hear there are some owls making “hoe-hoe” sounds over there.

And chameleons as well.

The owl and the chameleon, Sir. I want to tell you that any responsible First World individual would first establish where he was moving to, before actually moving. He would establish whether there was a home or shelter for him and his family. That is how I was brought up in the region I come from. My people and the people from my communities …

They are all in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town.

Sometimes those who became urbanised came from very humble circumstances. However, they did not go there and expect a house and a job to fall into their lap.

The hon member for Johannesburg North says “listen to the voice of reason”. You are only reasonable when you see his point. It is strange that “the voice of reason” is usually so far removed from “the points of hardship”. It is strange that from the luxury palaces of Houghton, and these days from those of Waterkloof Ridge as well, “the voices of reason” are concerned with situations that they only observe through binoculars. It is also strange that “the voice of reason” not only wants to legalise squatting, but also wants to destroy everything that would ensure the identities of the various peoples in this country. They go hand in hand.

You should rather move to Abidjan with that beard! [Interjections.]

Sir, I just want to say that my beard is relatively new … [Interjections] … but I think it is far removed from … [Interjections.] Oh, just give me a chance to make a joke of my own! [Interjections.] I think this beard of mine is very clearly distinguishable from Bushman grass, Sir. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether it is a privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Soutpansberg, but I want to tell that hon member that I listened to him as befits each good member of this House. Let me just tell the hon member this: With reference to what he said, and all the accusations that were levelled at the Government here, I am convinced of the fact that his party, the CP, is merely a transit camp for the AWB. [Interjections.] I shall return to the hon member for Soutpansberg in the course of my speech.

I also want to take this opportunity to associate myself with the hon members who paid tribute to and thanked the chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid for the capable way in which, starting virtually from nothing, he managed to bring about a meaningful discussion in that committee meeting. Here we must also express our gratitude to the officials who helped to make it possible.

What was very interesting during these discussions, was that after all the prejudices which the hon member for Soutpansberg had with regard to the committee meetings in Pretoria, and all the objections he raised, the first meeting on 3 and 4 August—during which oral evidence was led before the committee—was probably the most valuable time that we could have spent, particularly with regard to this legislation before the House at present. In those discussions those witnesses gave evidence which could be used very meaningfully as far as the squatter problem in South Africa is concerned. We could also use it in a positive way in future legislation.

Notwithstanding everything said here yesterday by the hon member for Losberg, the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Delmas, namely that it was actually due to the abolition of influx control that we were now saddled with a squatter problem in South Africa, I just want to tell those hon members that it was also very clear that the hon member for Losberg, because he was not at that meeting, could not evaluate it, and was unable to extract what was positive from that evidence which was led before us, for example the evidence of the witnesses who gave evidence in Pretoria on 3 and 4 August. The hon member would do well to take the trouble to ask the hon member for Soutpansberg what positive witnesses there were and what lesson they, as the CP, could learn from evidence that was given there.

The hon member for Soutpansberg referred to Mr Tom Boya, the chairman of Umsa, and he also referred to the question which he put to him with regard to the Group Areas Act. Mr Tom Boya said that squatting was a general affair and that it occurred throughout the world. The hon member for Soutpansberg then told Mr Tom Boya during question time that there was no Group Areas Act in Transkei, Malawi and Zimbabwe, and asked him why the squatter problem which we had in South Africa was attributed to the Group Areas Act. Mr Boya told the hon member for Soutpansberg that he should bear in mind that 80% of Blacks supported democracy as a result of the direction in which the Government of South Africa was moving—this is this NP Government which is now in power—and that only approximately 20% were Black liberals. These are friends of the hon member for Claremont. Only 20% of them are liberals who want to overthrow the Government by violent means.

If he and his party were to come to power tomorrow, that 80% of Blacks who are now supporters of democracy, of the Government and of the course the Government has adopted, would immediately join that 20%. The CP could then do what it liked; it would not stop them.

This would be the danger if the CP were to come to power in South Africa. The hon member for Losberg and the hon member for Delmas … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech.

… and the nominated member Mr Derby-Lewis also blamed the abolition of the Influx Control Act for the squatter problem in South Africa. Surely hon members know that this is not true. After all, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon members for Lichtenburg, Soutpansberg, Brakpan and Potgietersrus were in the NP when this influx of Blacks to the cities took place.

In the seventies they sat in the NP benches on the Government side. Two of those hon members were in the Cabinet. I want to state this afternoon that they had such an inhibiting effect and actually relied on influx control to such an extent that they prevented the Government from timeously purchasing the necessary land on which these squatters could have been settled today. For that reason, I am directly attributing the squatter problem to the CP. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Delmas is a farmer in the Eastern Transvaal. Yesterday he dramatically stated that he rejected this legislation. However, are the hon member for Delmas and the other hon members representing the Eastern Transvaal and the Western Transvaal not aware of the squatter problems that the farmers of those areas are experiencing?

There is a solution for those farmers in clause 7 of this Bill if they pass this legislation. What means they want to use to do away with the squatters there I do not know. Whether they want to shoot them or use a squatter-hunting Act to do this, I do not know.

If I belonged to the CP, I would have seized upon this legislation with all my might and with every means at my disposal in an attempt to solve the problems those farmers in those areas are experiencing.

Because they do not support the legislation, I have to conclude that they are now endorsing squatting—the greatest iniquity that South Africa could have under the present circumstances.

Owners of agricultural land use this land for squatter-farming. They cut up agricultural land … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I hope the hon member for Aliwal will forgive me if I do not respond to the issues that he has raised.

I would like to return to a criticism levelled earlier by the hon member Dr Golden when he said that this party had failed to recognise the positive aspects of this legislation.

I, in fact, attended some of the deliberations of the joint committee and certainly heard much of the oral evidence and probably read all of the evidence that was available. To my mind, the constant thread that ran through this evidence was the problem of the chronic land shortage in this country and the failure of this legislation to deal with that problem.

Hon members on this side of the House have motivated why we cannot support this legislation. Clearly, the lack of suitable land for housing for a burgeoning population is a problem of immense proportions, and little is to be gained by analysing the Government’s past lack of response to this problem. Government efforts to control influx and to promote homelands have been contemptuously brushed aside by the pressures of population growth and urbanisation.

In this context we welcome the Government’s acceptance of the inevitability of urbanisation as was emphasised again this afternoon by the hon the Deputy Minister but we cannot accept the Government’s priorities as outlined in this legislation.

Our first reason for opposing the Bill is that it concentrates on punitive measures whilst placing insufficient emphasis on providing meaningful solutions to the problem. Clauses 9 and 10 dealing with the declaration of transit areas and the designation of land for the development of residential areas go nowhere far enough to meet the problem. Similar provisions already exist but do not provide answers to the questions of how, where and when.

Secondly, as detailed by the hon member for Houghton, a number of the provisions amount to abrogation of existing common law.

Thirdly, heavy penalties may protect squatters against those guilty of so-called “squatter-farming” but again they do not address the problems of urbanisation and homelessness.

Fourthly, application in rural areas will promote further urbanisation, for there is no other option.

Fifthly, the Bill fails to deal with the most important problem of all and that is the provision of adequate suitable land for housing.

Yesterday the hon member for Pinetown recounted the problems of Emzomusha which have once again led to the destruction of squatter shacks. I would remind hon members of the case of Noordhoek here in the Cape. These are only examples of dozens if not hundreds of such cases.

The resolution of the land issue remains paramount. In the Cape Peninsula the only alternative offered to squatters in Kraaifontein, Noordhoek, Fish Hoek and Hout Bay is that they move to Khayelitsha. This is not a solution. Facilities in Khayelitsha are often no better than those in the areas where they are presently squatting, but more importantly, most of those accepting a move to Khayelitsha would lose their jobs.

What about Pinelands?

I shall come to that. Commuting distances are too great and already a large percentage of Khayelitsha residents are unemployed. The land issue is inextricably interwoven with that of group areas.

In their evidence to the joint committee, provincial authorities called for more punitive legislation because they are the ones that have to deal with squatters but can offer no realistic alternatives. Punishment by removal and destruction of shacks remains their only effective tool. For example, even if suitable land were found—and we have called for such land in the Southern Peninsula—Government policy as contained in current legislation prohibits the use of that land for settling squatters.

In any event, individual local authorities will not seek reasonable solutions for fear of attracting squatters from other areas. This fear is of course now exacerbated where transit areas may be declared without the owner’s consent. For all these reasons it is not in a local authority’s interest to find a solution to the provision of land. I wish to know how Government plans to deal with this issue. Failure to provide a solution will merely see the penal aspects of this legislation being imposed. I argue that land has to be found to meet the needs of all squatters before penalties can be considered.

Solutions proposed by members of the CP reflect naked racism, are totally impractical and will lead to chaos, revolution and bloodshed. [Interjections.] It is not possible to stress the problems without posing practical solutions. I believe that they have none, save the protection of White interests. I believe that they actually contribute to the problem.

Mr Speaker, we are dealing with people’s lives, people who are the least sophisticated and the least equipped to contest decisions, to demand alternative accommodation or to be informed of authorities’ intentions. They will only have the option of vacating the premises or going to prison, and I say that because precious few will be able to afford the fines—all of this. Mr Speaker, for the crime of seeking shelter at an affordable cost close to work opportunities. What right have we to deny them this? Yes, some will have moved into the cities when influx control was lifted but some are farmworkers who are now too old to work, some have part-time jobs or are eking out an existence through self-employment. Some live in areas which originally were farms on which they once worked that are now intended for residential development, and some are merely wives and children who wish to be with their husbands and fathers. [Interjections.] Does the legislation serve the needs of these people or does it merely provide tidy solutions in terms of First World standards? Whose interests does this legislation in fact serve?

Read the Bill.

Mr Speaker, we in this House have an enormous responsibility. We are the elected representatives of White South Africans. This legislation deals mainly with people who are not White and who in fact have no representation at all. Laws that we enact must not dehumanise people, both those who are hounded and those who are forced to do the hounding. We can have no guarantees that this legislation will be sensitively applied. In fact we have ample evidence to the contrary.

Like what?

Like your previous behaviour. [Interjections.]

Like the forced removal of the Noordhoek squatters.

What of the squatters themselves? Enormous tensions exist because of the premium placed on scarce housing. Events in KTC and Crossroads in 1986 are ample evidence of this and these tensions remain today. Will this legislation provide solutions or merely exacerbate the problem? The Urban Foundation’s submission believes that the Bill is directed more at prohibiting informal settlement than at the positive features of informal settlement as a means of addressing the acute housing shortage. We concur and therefore have no option but to oppose this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon member for Pinelands and particularly took note of his reference to more land, an issue that I will be dealing with in my own speech. I wish to emphasise at the outset that as far as I am concerned certain aspects of the Bill before us appear to be unduly harsh and restrictive as a result of the rigidity of the measures that it contains. For that reason I think that the hon the Deputy Minister should take a close look at some of the amendments that appear on today’s Order Paper submitted by the hon member for Houghton.

Of these, I do support some. These amendments give the Bill a little more respectability and make it more palatable. It also, as I see it, provides the necessary flexibility. I do not, however, wish to minimise the seriousness of the squatting problem that has taken place over recent years. The insidious manner in which illegal squatting has increased in both the rural and urban areas is obviously a matter of increasing concern, not only to local authorities but to the public as a whole. I do not have the time at my disposal to elaborate on the whys and wherefores of the present housing shortage, but I am satisfied that this Bill, in spite of its excessive powers, is an attempt to stabilise a situation which is out of control and which cannot be allowed to continue, and it is for this reason that I shall be supporting this Bill.

In doing so, however, I wish to make certain observations. The first is that the enormity of the problem cannot be underestimated; and secondly, Sir, the Government must realise that with the passing of this Bill it will have taken an enormous responsibility on its shoulders, and if it is to be effectively implemented and applied, this is a responsibility that the Government will have to bear in mind.

I am not satisfied that the overall cry that squatting is caused by a shortage of land is an entirely correct interpretation, but this may be so in certain areas.

I wish to take issue, however, with the Government and the Department of Constitutional Planning in particular regarding the lack of planning that is being carried out by the department on the trust land adjacent to and bordering on certain towns which in my opinion, if properly planned and surveyed, could provide the necessary initial base for orderly settlement and urbanisation.

In this respect I wish to refer in particular to the Pietermaritzburg area. Here we have a typical example of a lack of planning. A recent visit revealed that there appears to be no real attempt made by the Department of Development Aid, or any other Government department for that matter, to contain the spread of squatting in areas around Pietermaritzburg. People are moving into areas at will and are being allowed to erect shacks as they wish. There are no demarcated areas into which they can move, and I wish to stress that when it comes to planned, orderly urbanisation, the Government cannot pass the buck by claiming that certain SADT areas are administered by KwaZulu. One cannot get away from the fact that in spite of existing legislation, haphazard squatting in the Pietermaritzburg area has been allowed to take place unchecked, which is having the effect of sterilising developable land and it is imperative, therefore, that steps must be initiated whereby squatters are encouraged to settle on surveyed sites as an initial step, whereafter upgrading can take place in an orderly manner. The first essential, therefore, is to establish such surveyed areas.

In the few seconds left to me I wish to emphasise the need for steps to be taken to prevent illegal squatting on agricultural land, and I support the proposed measures contained in the Bill in this regard. The position has become intolerable for many farmers. Here, again, farmers who share common boundaries with properties on which indiscriminate squatting has been allowed to take place, invariably find themselves in an untenable position which affects not only their own livelihood but also the value of their land. Repercussions from such situations in many cases reverberate throughout the entire district and communities nearby. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege to follow up on what was said by the hon member for Mooi River. He is perhaps the most sensible member outside the NP and inside this Chamber.

Are you sure he is outside?

I wish to refer firstly to the actions of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in the joint committee in question. Aside from the fact that hon members of these Houses made no positive contribution to the legislation, it is common knowledge that they have summarily opposed certain pieces of legislation. This type of action, through which hon members in the other Houses are displaying their strongest possible opposition to the legislation concerned, makes it possible to have this legislation passed by way of the President’s Council.

Therefore, by their actions hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates are failing entirely in their mission to negotiate a better future in South Africa in the interests of those by whom they were elected; in fact, they are placing the future of South Africa in the balance. Our colleagues in the other Houses will have to realise that a better future can only be negotiated for the inhabitants of this country if the realities are taken into account and if the interests of South Africa are placed first. If we cannot find one another in a process in which both sides are prepared to give and take, then South Africa is done for and there will be no second chance.

Mr Speaker, permit me, as a back-bencher, to say once again that the NP grants every group in this country everything it claims for itself. However, we are not prepared to do so at the cost of the White group. These events are irrefutable evidence of precisely that. The CP is politically very virile at the moment as a result of the problems which the tricameral system is experiencing, but it has apparently not yet come home to them what is causing these problems. They are being caused by the resoluteness of NP members, who are not prepared to sacrifice the interests of the Whites, whom we are protecting. [Interjections.] Those were the chief allegations and attacks made by the CP against the NP, and they are no longer true. They never were true.

Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the scope of the problem. The Urban Foundation estimates that there are approximately 7 million squatters in South Africa. There are 2,4 million squatters in the PWV area alone. What is extremely important, however, is that the Urban Foundation also found that the greatest influx of these squatters—that is 70%—had already taken place before the abolition of the influx control legislation. If the calculations of the Urban Foundation are correct, this means that we shall require an extra 4,6 million houses by the year 2000. That means approximately 400 000 houses per annum. Another fact, of which we must also take cognisance, is that only approximately 40% of the squatters can afford this formal housing. That is why one of the most positive aspects of this Bill is precisely the potential for informal housing in the so-called designated areas. This housing may be upgraded as and when the financial capability of the inhabitants improves. In fact, when one looks at the positive aspects of the legislation, one finds that the main object of this measure is precisely what the Urban Foundation and other institutions desire. Those portions of the Bill about which they are concerned are, however, just as vital to the effective implementation of the legislation and to the attainment of the real ultimate objective of orderly urbanisation.

Thirdly, it is remarkable how those people who view this Bill pessimistically and negatively see certain things in it for which the measure was by no means intended.

Witnesses before the joint committee felt that this Bill would now afford farmers an opportunity to drive retired workers, who had served them loyally for many years, away from their farms. The fear of certain others was that the existing squatter camps would summarily be demolished without any further provision for housing being made. Likewise, it was believed that a witch-hunt would be launched in order to effect a large-scale resettlement of people.

The intention of this Government, in introducing this legislation, is by no means to begin a witchhunt to leave people homeless. In fact, this Government is striving, with remarkable dedication and patience, to cultivate better human relations. This Bill will be applied with great compassion, and its main objective is to regulate future squatting and, gradually and compassionately, to clear up the existing squatter areas through the establishment of transit and/or designated areas.

It is tragic that the negative outlook which the rest of the world displays towards South Africa, has now blown over like a craze to South Africa as well. Whatever the National Government does or attempts to do in this country, is being met with increasing suspicion and negativity—and this is happening after 40 successful years in power. In due course this Government will convince the people of the country of its sincerity and honesty, because it is only by bringing together the moderate, thinking, positive people of South Africa that we shall be able to solve the problems of the country with the help of our Creator and in a Christian spirit.

I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Graaff-Reinet will forgive me if I do not reply to his speech. There are too many points that I want to make.

You have no reply to it.

At this moment most South Africans are watching with amusement how the whole tricameral parliamentary system seems to be teetering on the brink of collapse. [Interjections.] It is with amusement, Sir. The reason for this collapse is the fact that the tricameral system is built on sand—the sand of pure unadulterated racism. This is vividly illustrated by the legislation before us today and due to be discussed in this session.

It is impossible for this Government to reach agreement with any person of colour on any of the racist pillars of NP policy—even with those who have decided against the wishes of their communities to participate in the tricameral system. The fact that apartheid is an evil and a violent system, is borne out by the way in which this Government has forcibly removed, uprooted and resettled millions of Black South Africans, and the way in which it continues to do so. By taking away their land and by denying them land on the same basis as Whites, this regime has virtually sentenced Blacks to a pedestrian life— always on the move in search of a piece of land to live on.

Which land has been taken away?

Black people have been moving around in this country as though it does not belong to them. In this process of forced removals, millions were uprooted, thousands died in resettlement camps, thousands upon thousands lost their jobs, their humble homes and their possessions. Millions were filled with fear of the State’s bulldozers, lorries and security forces arriving in the middle of the night to remove them yet again.

Now, at a stage when this Government has stated very clearly that there will be no more forced removals, it comes with this legislation. Without addressing the reasons why Black people resort to squatting—I want to stress those words: without addressing the reasons—this Bill will merely be used as a sledgehammer to act against defenceless squatters by increasing penalties and removing the jurisdiction of the courts. I can list the things that this Bill will do to make it easier to hound squatters.

*This legislation was made by Whites for Blacks. No Black person would put such legislation through his Parliament.

†For as long as the Group Areas Act exists, squatting will not simply continue but will increase since this Act prevents Blacks, generally speaking, from obtaining suitable accommodation near their place of work. The hon member for Pinelands referred to that in passing. The choices available to a White person who is moving to Cape Town to live near his work are fantastic. A Black person, however, has to live in Khayelitsha. If he lives near his work in Hout Bay, he is kicked out because he is not White.

If that is defensible according to anybody’s Bible, I would like to hear from such an hon member. Maybe the hon the Deputy Minister could tell us whether that is Christian practice.

This legislation is not aimed at overcoming the squatter problem, it merely wants to get rid of them as though they are some kind of animal. Had these squatters been White, the Government would have acted quite differently. This legislation declares open season on the squatters of South Africa. Will the Government use the SADF to move these people? [Interjections.] They have in fact already used the police, as well as the SADF. By doing so the Government will only worsen an already volatile situation and illustrate that they consider the SADF to be the military wing of the NP. The Government misuses the SADF and by doing that they are enforcing racist policies which we in this House … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by referring to a remark made yesterday by the hon member for Turffontein when he said that the object were the Bill in question was to protect the developed parts of the community in the country as far as the maintenance and promotion of development were concerned. The Bill also has to do with the housing shortage among the under-developed sections of our communities. I want to emphasise these as the essential points of departure of the Bill. Anyone who makes a thorough study of the Bill will come to the same conclusion. For that reason I am convinced that we are adopting the correct approach and that the Bill in question is indeed the solution to the problem. Hon members are aware that this is a sensitive matter and not an easy problem to solve. The best evidence in support of what the hon member said is to be found in the reaction of the various parties. The Official Opposition rejects the Bill because, according to them, it is not strict enough, and the PFP rejects it because, according to them, it is too tough, too extreme and too strong. The fact that we have such a wide spectrum on both sides has indeed confirmed that the Government’s approach is correct.

You people like sitting on the fence, don’t you?

The hon member for Claremont should do himself a favour and keep quiet. I shall come back to him later.

Next I want to refer to what the hon member for Losberg said. The hon member referred to consensus. However, I want to point out to him that in the Cabinet Committee for Constitutional Affairs, in which the Bill was dealt with, there was unanimity and consensus among the various parties.

What became of that?

That is a very good question. Nevertheless I want to point out to the hon member that there was unanimity among the various parties. The various representatives of the respective Houses who served on that committee—they were all present on that particular day—were in agreement on the Bill in question. [Interjections.] Last night, however, the hon the Minister specifically referred to the fact that the representatives of the respective parties, after the Bill on the National Council had been finalised, intimated that all legislation submitted during the current Parliamentary session would, in any event, be opposed.

I do not wish to dwell on that point now; that is not the subject before this House at present. However I do wish to point out that the correct approach is still being adopted and always has been adopted by the Government side, and because that approach was adopted, because that clearance was obtained specifically at the level at which consensus was needed in the first place, we were able to continue drafting and preparing this legislation. In other words, the Government did not unilaterally table the piece of legislation in Parliament and adopt the stance that that was our final proposal. Therefore the correct procedure was followed. I should like to place that on record, because I think it is important to know that this kind of allegation, which is at present being widely made, is untrue.

The hon member referred to influx control and said that disorderly urbanisation had occurred because influx control had been abolished, that influx control had dealt with the situation and that at that time there were no problems. Surely, however, that is not correct. When influx control was abolished about two years ago, the problem of squatting was already present. Moreover, influx control measures were ineffective at that stage. [Interjections.] They failed to avert the situation. We know that. The hon member knows it; he is a lawyer.

Have you read the report of the President’s Council?

The hon member knows that that did not result in the process being controlled, despite the prosecution of people. It achieved nothing! It is for that very reason, because it gave rise to a pointless cycle of prosecutions and convictions, that the Government began to adopt a positive administrative approach to urbanisation, and this is the result. Thanks to this we have made considerable progress, specifically with regard to the creation of order in the establishment of these informal communities. Had we not taken that step two years ago, the problem would have been considerably greater today. Precisely because we began to work on this positively, and because we are engaged in developing this process, namely the identification of land, its availability and its development by the private sector and by local authorities, we are going to see further positive results in the foreseeable future as regards this problem.

The hon member referred to questions asked in Parliament. He said that apparently there were no figures before 1986, or else they were concealed in one way or another. The fact is that this function, the administration of this aspect, was taken over by the various provincial administrations from June 1986. Specifically from that stage, because that positive policy of urbanisation was adopted from that stage, records have been kept and today proven figures with regard to the situation can be tabled. After all, the hon member himself knows that previously the situation was dealt with by the various development boards. Largely for that reason those details that he requires are not available today. In other words, the fact that we have figures at our disposal today that can serve as administrative data is specifically the result of a positive approach to urbanisation.

The hon member wants to know what is going to happen with regard to Weiler’s Farm. The hon member knows. If I remember correctly, he was present earlier this year at a meeting at which my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, was present, a meeting which was addressed by him and by the MPC, Mr Van Zyl. On that occasion the position in regard to Weiler’s Farm was dealt with in detail and explained in the hon member’s presence, and the assurance was given that the necessary land would be acquired to remove that entire squatter set-up to, if I remember correctly, Stafforddal where the …

Are they going to be moved?

Of course! After all, the hon member was given that assurance, and the provincial authorities are undertaking the necessary development to allow this to take place. The hon member was given that assurance on a previous occasion, and the provincial authorities confirmed it again on a later occasion.

When are they going to be moved?

Surely I am telling the hon member now that the land must be obtained and the necessary infrastructure created to make this possible and to initiate the process so that the removal can take place. That is precisely what the province is doing at this stage. I shall come back to the hon member later. I should like to refer to what the hon member for Houghton said.

I must say that at the outset the hon member for Houghton did make some positive remarks. She said some things that made sense and that were realistic. For example, she said: “We cannot afford First World standards of housing for all the millions of people in South Africa.” That is true. That is a point that we agree on.

It was years ago that I said that. [Interjections.]

All I am saying is that it is a point of agreement. I am not accusing the hon member of anything. [Interjections.] I say that this is a point about which we can agree. [Interjections.] So if the hon member says that, I say that I agree with her. However, the moment we move towards that realism, we thereby make our tasks of dealing with the problems and finding solutions that much easier.

However, the hon member also knows what the needs are. Even taking that into account, even taking into account the fact that we shall not be able to provide First World standards for all as far as housing is concerned, the hon member knows that if one seeks to make provision for the basic informal requirement, for a site and service scheme, that is physically a task which borders on the impossible. I think that the hon member conceded as much yesterday. All we can do, therefore, is to make a dedicated effort to achieve that goal.

I should like to add that in this regard the private sector must play its part, too, to enable us to achieve that goal. I should like to express my gratitude to the private sector for what has already been done. The fact of the matter is, however, that the various levels of government— the central, provincial or local governments—are not able to meet this need in its entirety. For that reason the private sector must play its part as well.

Earlier this afternoon the hon member asked me how much of this land that has already been identified had, in fact, been developed. The hon member knows that there are more or less three steps to be taken when land has to be prepared for development. Firstly there is its identification. Then there is its acquisition. In the nature of things the identification is the responsibility of the central Government. That is our responsibility. Its acquisition is the responsibility of either the private sector, the private developer or the local authority, and in certain limited instances it is the responsibility of the provincial government.

The third phase is necessarily the development work in terms of which these three separate bodies that I have just mentioned must once again perform the task of providing the necessary development, the services and so on.

Therefore when we speak about this land which I mentioned earlier this afternoon I cannot at this point give the hon member the precise figure as to how much of it has already been developed, because that development is not the responsibility of the central Government. [Interjections.] I can tell her that I know of so many thousand hectares that have already been developed, but I cannot give her a precise figure because that is a matter for those different bodies—either the local developer, the local authority or the province, whatever the case may be. [Interjections.] I am not going to discuss the matter further with the hon member at this point.

Turning to the hon member for Walvis Bay, I should like to convey my sincere gratitude to him for the speech he made here and for the way in which he referred with compassion to the manner in which this legislation will, in fact, enable us to help many unfortunate people, while at the same time ensuring control and order. I should like to thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Delmas referred here to “orderly partition”. I do not think this is the occasion to elaborate on that, but I should like the hon member, to tell us at some stage what “orderly partition” is. Now he has added something. He now qualifies partition. It is no longer merely partition; it is now orderly partition. [Interjections.] At some point I should like to hear what that is. However, I want to say that he does have an orderly beard. It looks quite nice. [Interjections.] At some stage, however, he should tell us what this qualification is that he is now adding to partition. Perhaps it will help us to understand what they mean by partition. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Vryheid spoke in the same vein as the hon member for Walvis Bay. I should like to say that the one is grey and the other is bald. The hon members have now given us a very fine example of dignity by way of the contributions they have made in regard to this matter. The example they have set us has been a worthy one as regards both the compassion they expressed and the fact that they mentioned that it is not only the Government’s responsibility but that of all of us, to make the best of a difficult situation such as this one.

I should like to thank the hon member for Vryheid for his contribution and for the fact that he pointed out that urbanisation was indeed a fact, an issue I reacted to earlier.

†The hon member for Pinetown agreed that every person should have a place in the sun. Fortunately, we are in agreement as far as that is concerned. I agree with him. However, the question is, of course, that once we have said that we have to come to the reality, namely where in the sun. We also have to work that out. That is not so easy, and I think he would also agree with that. I would say that this Bill’s purpose is actually to address that real question, namely how to solve that problem.

*The hon member referred to a specific problem, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House by dealing with that now. If he wishes, we can speak about the specific case of the 3 000 squatters in Natal later. In this regard I just want to make this remark. He referred to a case in which the land of the property owner has been occupied. However, that person wants to use his land for township development, but now there are people on his land and he cannot get the land cleared so that he can develop it. This is the example to which he referred. I understand the dilemma in which the owner finds himself. After all, we cannot be indifferent to the problem experienced by that owner. At the same time, however, I want to say that we shall also have to adopt a compassionate approach to the problem of squatters. It is for that very reason that there is a need for these measures embodied in the legislation, namely the temporary transit areas and the later permanent settlement areas.

The hon member for Queenstown referred to the necessity for this legislation in order to prevent disorderliness and create order. Because influx control has not worked, we need this kind of measure to enable us to manage the urbanisation process in the long term. The hon member discussed this matter very effectively, and I wish to thank him sincerely for having done so. He is another of the stalwarts to whom one gladly listens.

I referred earlier to the hon member for Randburg. I just want to make one more remark. Apparently the hon member is not present at the moment, but the implication of what he said is that the Government must provide accommodation. It must create places where squatters can be accommodated. The hon member expects that to be incorporated in this legislation. If I understand correctly, he implied that the Government had a responsibility to provide every squatter with a place to live. However, I want to say that that is not the responsibility of the Government, and furthermore that it is not within the power of this Government or of any government to do that. In any event, that would lead to the crazy idea that people could simply come and squat and, in that way, eventually obtain a place to live. I do not think that is possible. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Cradock apologised for the fact that he could not be present. He referred to the involvement of the private sector, and I have already emphasised that.

The hon member for Johannesburg North always has the ability to say interesting things. He said, inter alia: “The answer is more land.” Just like that. However, if no more land is available, what then?

[Inaudible.]

No, the fact is that making land available is an obvious requirement. Yesterday hon members on this side of the House discussed the fact what we must do is proceed to the identification and acquisition of land. In the unqualified way that the hon member now puts it, he apparently presumes that unlimited land is available and that we can carry on in that way indefinitely. I therefore just wish to caution that we must at least give an indication of some balance and responsibility in this regard. We cannot simply establish towns throughout the country; we cannot simply establish towns and cities throughout the country. In that regard we still have a major responsibility. Therefore the authorities have an obligation to keep the total spectrum in mind.

I think, in fact, that, the hon member is speaking for the audience outside Parliament when he says that this measure, like this legislation and the other Bills to be discussed in Parliament this week, are merely there to serve and satisfy the right wing in the country.

Had that been true, surely the CP would have supported this measure. [Interjections.] Apart from that, if that statement were true, surely we should not have had, on the Order Paper of this Parliament for this week, a measure such as the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

We are coming to that.

Yes, we are coming to that. That just shows how ridiculous that hon member’s statement is, and I wish to point that out to him.

The hon member Dr Golden referred to the four methods whereby people who find themselves in this situation can be accommodated. I want to thank him for his exposition.

I regret to detect in the hon member for Soutpansberg a certain spitefulness towards other people.

Oh, rubbish!

It is true. I shall now give the hon member some feedback on what I experienced when I listened to him. I think he could well take it to heart. However he is older than I am and therefore might just as well forget it. It is a pity that we communicate in that way with one another here.

The hon member referred to what Nyerere did in Tanzania and also to what was allegedly done in Abidjan with regard to squatters. He said that Nyerere forced them back into the bush and in Abidjan the squatter shacks were all demolished. I want to know whether he wants to do that in South Africa.

I did not say that. [Interjections.]

I am asking him now. The hon member refers to that as a solution in other places. Does he want to do that in South Africa, yes or no?

I referred to that because the world did not complain about it.

That is not what the hon member said. He referred to it as a solution resorted to elsewhere.

Go and look at what I said. I said that nothing was said about it.

Very well, with reference to what the hon member now says, I take it that according to him that is no solution for South Africa.

I said that the solution for South Africa lay in the orderly manner in which the previous government dealt with it. [Interjections.]

However, in the process how does one prevent the movement of people to the cities, to which I referred earlier this afternoon? If one wishes to prevent that, either one has to adopt the methods described earlier by the hon member, methods which are adopted in other countries, or one has to erect barbed wire fences around every city and town and guard them, or else one has to pursue a policy of orderly urbanisation such as that which the Government is currently engaged in. [Interjections.] That hon member should make the choice for himself. [Interjections.]

I just wish to say a few words about the spiteful and cutting remarks made by the hon member about an office-bearer at the provincial level of government, Mr John Mavuso, the Transvaal MEC.

Yes, a man found guilty of high treason.

Order! The hon member for Losberg knows much better than that. The relevant MEC is a functionary working under the authority of Parliament. The hon member for Losberg must withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, with all due respect, may I address you on this? You say he is a functionary working under the authority of Parliament. As I see it he was appointed by the Government of the State President, because the Administrator appoints him. He is not someone who is directly accountable to an elected authority. With all due respect, I do not think that this is a reflection, but a factual statement, and accordingly that is the way I referred to the matter in my speech.

Order! I accept that the hon member dealt with the matter with the necessary respect in the course of his speech, and I have no objection to that. However, the hon member for Losberg made a remark about a person occupying his post under the authority of this Parliament. He was appointed MEC of a provincial administration in terms of legislation of this Parliament, under the authority of a Minister of State. An hon member of this House made a remark about such a person that is untrue, and I call upon the hon member for Losberg to withdraw that remark because the relevant MEC was not found guilty of high treason. That is an incorrect remark, and I therefore ask the hon member for Losberg to withdraw it for the sake of justice and respect for the authority of this Parliament.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Speaker, I should just like to say the following for the record, because I do think it is necessary for one to do this here with reference to the remarks made by the hon member for Soutpansberg.

He said, inter alia, that this Mr Mavuso was a puppet. He also insinuated that in this regard the Government was associating with a person who perpetrated violence and who exercised certain choices and continued to do so. For the sake of the hon member, and for the purpose of the record, I should like to quote from a letter which Mr Mavuso himself wrote for publication about two years ago. He refers to his position in the past and now:

Then he says, and here he refers to this matter about which the hon member for Soutpansberg had the wrong end of the stick:

Ultimately, therefore, there was no case.

I said that he was an accused in that trial. Am I right or wrong?

I was present where Mr Mavuso. in his official capacity as functionary of the provincial government of the Transvaal, performed his task better, specifically with regard to squatters, than anyone else would have been able to do so. I should like to add that as far as I am aware, the only reason why Mr Mavuso did not appear on a certain occasion at a certain meeting was out of respect for certain people—in that instance certain inhabitants of Zuurbekom—who declined to have him present. Out of respect for them he said that he would not cause unnecessary friction by being present there. In that respect he certainly did not in any way dissociate himself from his functions or from the execution of his functions.

I should now like to make an offer to the hon member for Soutpansberg. I invite the hon member. if he wants to. to join me at a round-table conference with Mr Mavuso to discuss with him the subject of squatting in the Transvaal. In that way he will be able to establish whether Mr Mavuso is capable of dealing with this aspect or not.

I should like to refer to the hon member for Aliwal, and I want to express my sincere thanks to him for his outline of the significance of this Bill and for the very sound way in which he did so. Similarly I wish to thank the hon member for Graaff-Reinet, who dealt with matters in the same context.

†I would like to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his support; we know him as a practical person and I think for that reason he can support this and I appreciate that. He referred to the question of trust land and I would like to tell him that this Bill now provides that in future trust land will also fall within the ambit of this particular legislation. The problems he has indicated will in future also be addressed accordingly through the provisions of this legislation.

*Finally I come to the hon member for Claremont. The only reason I am reacting to this hon member is that he says things in this Parliament that one cannot leave unanswered. Otherwise he does not deserve an answer, and I should like to state it in those terms.

The hon member made a speech here which, if one listened to it carefully, was made for one reason only, namely to be hawked abroad and used to the detriment of this country. Just listen to what he has to say:

Into whose hands is he playing when he makes such statements? [Interjections.] Really, I do firstly want to make an earnest appeal to that hon member to consider whether he deserves his place in this House and whether he ought to be here at all. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I wish to make the statement that he is abusing this forum for other purposes and for other objectives. I think this is a matter which deserves serious attention.

Mr Speaker, I am acting on behalf of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

In order to understand the Bill in context, it is essential to sketch its background. The area commonly known as Moutse was added to the area of jurisdiction of KwaNdebele, in terms of Proclamation R227 of 1985, on 31 December 1985. On 29 March 1988 the said Proclamation R227 of 1985 was declared null and void by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa in the case of Chief G T Mathebe versus the State President and others. As a result of the invalidation of Proclamation R227 of 1985, Moutse is regarded as never having been incorporated into KwaNdebele.

As hon members know, in order to enable the Government to take a workable decision on the political and constitutional future of Moutse, the Hon Former Chief Justice F L H Rumpff, DMS, was appointed by the hon the State President on 14 June 1988 as a one-man commission of inquiry to advise the Government on this matter.

Although the future of the area is therefore being investigated at present, the implications of the decision of the court, as far as the administration of Moutse is concerned, give cause for concern. It is necessary for certain actions, taken in respect of Moutse during the period between 31 December 1985 and 29 March 1988, to be validated. The implications of the decision of the court to which reference was made include the following, inter alia:

In practice this means that all pension payments, vehicle licences, including third-party coverage, trade licences and marriages concluded or granted in this specific period, for example, can be contested in court. Hon members will realise that this could have far-reaching consequences for the authorities, but in particular for the residents of Moutse, and even innocent people outside Moutse.

Just like every other responsible government, the Government has a responsibility to its residents. In the final analysis, after the announcement of the decision of the court, the population of Moutse is the responsibility of the central Government. The rights and interests of the residents of Moutse are in question here. It is essential for certain bona fide actions, which took place within the Moutse territory between 31 December 1985 and 29 March 1988 in terms of legislation that applies in KwaNdebele, to be validated by means of legislation.

In its decision the court admits that this Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill of 1988 gives effect to this without encroaching upon the provisions of any other legislation in any respect whatsoever. I repeat, this merely confirms those actions taken in good faith in Moutse by the KwaNdebele government during this particular period.

†The Bill is most definitely not aimed at covering up any illegalities. It must be quite clear that every aggrieved person maintains his right to approach a court for relief should he have been injured by the KwaNdebele government or any of its officials.

An action which is contrary to any law or which does not comply with the provisions of the law in terms of which it has been performed still remains challengeable.

With regard to clause 1, during the period 31 December 1985 to 29 March 1988 the government of KwaNdebele, in terms of legislation, proclamations and regulations applying in KwaNdebele, performed several administrative acts such as the approval, authorisation and issuing of documents, certificates, licences and so on with regard to the district of Moutse. Should these actions not be validated a vacuum will result in the administration of Moutse which would lead to chaos and drastic prejudice of innocent individuals.

This clause therefore gives effect to the validation of such actions and acts performed during the said period.

Clause 2 defines certain concepts such as the district of Moutse and the area of the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly.

This Bill is essential for the sake of legal certainty in the territory concerned.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to take part in a debate on the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill since, with all the events that are taking place during this session of Parliament, we have now entered a very interestin g phase of the constitutional history of the second Republic of South Africa.

This Bill is also one of the seven Bills with constitutional implications about which no consensus could be reached during the recess. To tell the truth, the score in favour of consensus in respect of the above-mentioned Bills was nil.

In the debate yesterday, as well as this afternoon, the hon member for Graaff-Reinet and numerous other members of the Government were most concerned, however, and they expressed their displeasure about the conduct of the other two Houses of Parliament. Those hon members of the NP must keep two things in mind.

In the first place, if this system is to work, the participating groups must be dedicated to the preservation of the system. The fact of the matter is that since day one, the two other groups have said that they were not in favour of the preservation of the tricameral system; on the contrary, they want to use the system itself to destroy it.

Secondly, the CP has said from the beginning that the crisis point would concern the Group Areas Act and the race classification legislation. It appears that we have reached this point.

Your little friends have dropped you! [Interjections.]

What we are dealing with here is a very short Bill which consists of only three clauses. The Government incorporated the area known as Moutse, Areas 1, 2 and 3, into the area of jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly of KwaNdebele by Proclamation R227 of 31 December 1985. Certain legal steps followed, and in the case of G Mathebe and Others v State President and Others the Appeal court decided that Proclamation R227 was null and void.

On 2 June 1988 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following in this House. I quote him (Hansard, 2 June 1988, col 12361):

That is, in fact, what we are dealing with now. The Official Opposition agrees that a vacuum cannot exist in the administration of the district of Moutse in respect of actions taken in the period between 1 January 1986 and 29 March 1988.

Consequently it is necessary for this situation to be rectified for the sake of legal certainty. For that reason the CP will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the introduction to his speech the hon member for Randfontein made a few very interesting statements which, in effect, amount to the following: This hon member claims that the other population groups in Parliament do not have the right to differ. [Interjections.] That is the implication, because this system contains …

A President’s Council!

… provisions that enable one to resolve conflict should it arise. [Interjections.] Mechanisms were specifically provided for this purpose in advance.

I should like to tell the hon member for Randfontein that although one cannot agree with the conduct of hon members of the other Houses of Parliament, it is their right to decide to protest. Neither the NP nor any other party will be able to succeed in denying people the right to differ. People have that basic, elementary right. [Interjections.] What is happening here, in effect, is that people are exercising their rights. Whether or not we agree with that, and whether or not it is justified, is not the point. [Interjections.]

This legislation has no purpose other than to correct the effect of actions which took place in this specific period to the extent to which people who actually had nothing to do with it are affected. This legislation definitely does not aim at providing indemnification against mala fide action or action which would otherwise have been ultra vires.

The legislation affects the lives of numerous people outside KwaNdebele, in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. If, for example, a vehicle licensed during this period, which has third-party insurance, were to be involved in an accident, the consequences of this would affect other people who have nothing to do with the matter.

Children born from a marriage performed by a marriage officer during this period are legally illegitimate, and they have nothing to do with that. The only purpose of this legislation is to legalise the actions that took place during that short period. This is an ordinary administrative action in which the State or the Government of the day is acknowledging the court’s decision.

I should like to support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon members on the other side of the House constantly amaze me. I would have thought they would have come to this House slightly contrite. They say that all they are concerned about are the “huwelikskontrakte” and “geboorteregte” of a few individuals, and it all started because of a court case in which the Appellate Division found something.

That is not so. It started because the hon the State President and the Cabinet made a fundamentally wrong decision about Moutse. That is when it started. They did not make that error by accident. They made it because of part of their policy. In 1984 and 1985 they were trying to push KwaNdebele in the direction of independence.

That is right.

That was what it was about. It did not start with the Appellate Division’s decision. It started with the hon the State President’s and the Cabinet’s decision that Moutse should be incorporated into KwaNdebele, a decision which has now been found to be invalid.

I would have thought that the hon the Minister would have taken us through the history of those events because that was the trigger event.

The hon the Minister now says that of course the future constitutional development of KwaNdebele Moutse is being investigated by ex-Chief Justice Rumpff, but that was only after the Government had lost two major court cases. They did not initiate that. They are trying to use this as a means to extricate themselves from the dilemma that they are in because of their actions and their policy.

Thirdly, we have heard that contracts of ordinary people are going to be jeopardised. I am not going to argue that there is not a legal argument, that there is a degree of validity in the legal argument, but that is not what the Bill asks for. It is not just legalising a few contracts. It refers to any proclamation, any regulation, any notice, any declaration, any direction, any approval, any authority, etc, made, given or granted or any action taken in respect of the district of Moutse under any provision of a law of KwaNdebele. This is a total blanket validation of everything that happened in Moutse under the law of KwaNdebele during the period 31 December 1985 to 29 March 1988. That is what it is. Why does the Government not come clean?

What do you want to exclude?

Leave Moutse alone.

If the Government wants to break down fences it must repair its own fences. It must not come here and suggest that this is really only a minor administrative problem that results from a court judgment. It is a major problem that results from the incompetence of this Government. They are the people who have to deal with it. [Interjections.]

We will oppose this Bill as we did on the joint committee, and I thought that the hon members of the CP also opposed it on the joint committee. Be that as it may, just as we opposed the Constitution Second Amendment Bill which was in fact the validation of the KwaNdebele legislature, so we oppose the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill.

A problem arose in the case of the KwaNdebele Bill because the Government, in the proclamation of the constitution of KwaNdebele, excluded women from voting. That has been dealt with and I believe that it is going to be at the President’s Council, if it is not there by now.

The Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill arises directly from the fact that the Appeal Court of South Africa headed by Mr Justice Grosskopf found that the State President, by proclamation and, according to the explanation, with the full approval of the Cabinet, had irregularly and improperly incorporated Moutse into KwaNdebele. That is the issue. I believe that the Government must accept responsibility and at least apologise for the error that it has made. It has jeopardised the rights of those people, if their rights have been jeopardised. There is a Jewish word, “chutzpah”, that is what they have got. There is no apology, no explanation, just: “It has happened and you must help us out of this particular dilemma.” [Interjections.]

Whatever the legalistic argument may be, ever since the Government tried to manipulate and push KwaNdebele into independence some years ago it has given rise to turmoil, dispute and controversy. They have raged in respect of the constitution of KwaNdebele and in respect of the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele. There is no way in which an opposition party in South Africa can give blanket approval to this Government for everything that has happened in the legislation of KwaNdebele and any actions taken in terms of that legislation in the area of Moutse.

It would be quite wrong for this Parliament to become co-responsible for everything that has happened in KwaNdebele over that period. By passing that legislation we would. I would have thought that the Government would at least have been selective in what legislation and regulations …

How do you see that?

It is the Government’s problem to come to us to say how they want to resolve this.

Order! The hon member for Klip River has asked enough questions and made enough interjections. The hon member for Sea Point may continue.

It arises out of the ineptitude of the Government and because of the fact that the Government was trying to manoeuvre KwaNdebele into accepting independence. We find that in the memorandum on the objects of the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill, 1988, it says:

After the State President with the Cabinet had negotiated with the KwaNdebele government and the inhabitants of Moutse, they did that. What did the Appellate Division find? This is nonsense, according to the Appellate Division. The court held, and I read from Die Burger of 30 March 1988:

The explanatory memorandum says “After negotiations with the … inhabitants of Moutse”. The Appellate Division says, and I quote again from Die Burger:

*Mr Justice Grosskopf says that the State President disregarded the feelings of the majority of the inhabitants of Moutse; the memorandum that the Government has submitted to Parliament states that the State President took this decision after negotiations with the Government of KwaNdebele and the inhabitants of Moutse. I quote further from Die Burger-.

†It is in conflict not only with elementary principles of justice—that one negotiates with majorities of people to find out what they want—but also with the principle contained in the Government’s own Act in respect of national states, and here the Government has the temerity to give us a memorandum in which they say that all of this happened after the Cabinet and the State President had negotiated with the Government of KwaNdebele and the people of Moutse.

I believe it is a disgraceful episode and I believe that the hon the Minister in reply to this debate has to deal with these things. He, after all, is the Minister, not of Constitutional Development and Planning, but of Development Aid. He deals with homelands and these various states, and I want to say that I cannot help feeling, when I read what the Appeal Court said and when I read what is said to us in the explanatory memorandum, that here we have another illustration of what this Government means by consultation. This Government means: Do it our way, and that is consultation, and if you do not do it our way we will find some other way of making you do it.

They do it anyway!

Mr Chairman, in the absence of a convincing explanation, in fact in the presence of an explanation which I believe is faulty and misleading, there is no way in which we on this side of the House can support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I must tell you that I am surprised that the hon member for Sea Point stated the view that the Appeal Court ostensibly found that there had been no consultation. I have the complete relevant finding of Mr Justice Grosskopf here with me, and the rationale of the decision had nothing to do with consultation. The rationale of the decision was that in terms of the National States Constitution Act of 1971, the ethnic context of the particular community should have been definitive in determining whether or not they should have been incorporated.

The principle of ethnicity was not complied with!

That was what the Appeal Court found.

Sir, we have a case here in which the Official Opposition supports the Bill because juridically they can see the sense of not allowing a vacuum to arise in the Moutse area for the particular period, with all the legal uncertainty and all the implications and disadvantages that entails for more than 100 000 residents of the area in question.

Then we have the performance of the PFP, who always make such a fuss about their concern for the residents of KwaNdebele and Moutse, but when it really comes to the crunch, and when these individuals can be seriously prejudiced as a result of the loss of legal certainty in that area, they wash their hands of it, like Pilate, and say that on the basis of certain other historical objections they are not prepared to support this Bill. I really think that is irresponsible, and I am pleased, in any case, that the Official Opposition has not adopted the same standpoint here.

What is at issue is merely that the period stated here is being experienced as an uncertain period in the history of the Moutse area. The Appeal Court declared the relevant proclamation null and void, with all the implications put to us by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech. The Government had two options. They could have adopted the policy of ignoring the decision of the Appeal Court and attempting to introduce legislation to confirm the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele by means of legislation. The Government’s second choice was to respect the decision of the Appeal Court and merely try to obviate the practical consequences of that by means of this Bill. I think it is to the Government’s credit that it did not ignore the decision of the Appeal Court, which would have caused conflict between the standpoint of the Bench and that of other branches of our Government.

We can support this legislation with confidence, because it is not legislation of KwaNdebele which is being validated in terms of the Bill. That legislation can still be contested in any court. These are legal proclamations and other actions which were taken in good faith in terms of that legislation which we want to legalise. For that reason we can support this Bill with the utmost confidence.

Mr Chairman, the history of Moutse and its incorporation into KwaNdebele is one of those messy, embarrassing episodes of ad hoc patchwork homeland building instituted by this Government. It has, however, resulted in a situation where, after the Appellate Division’s decision, practical consequences arise in the Moutse area which could prejudice, and which have prejudiced, individuals who acted in terms of regulations issued during the period mentioned in the Bill.

One has the dilemma of finding avenues of rectifying the situation and one has to look into the practical aspects which follow. As I understand it, the chief of the biggest tribe in that area, who actually brought the action to the Appellate Division, considered this legislation and is of the view that the practical consequences of the Appeal Court decision and the prejudice which could result to individuals in Moutse if this Bill is not passed, are such that a technical measure of this nature ought to be supported.

What is quite clear from the Moutse episode is that the Government has until now dealt with it with a one-sided approach without consultation. Now we have heard again that the hon the Minister says the future of Moutse is under consideration. Mr Chairman, are the people of Moutse being consulted? Have they ever been consulted? Or do we again have a situation of a one-sided approach where the Government is once again considering the future of Moutse in regard to incorporation without consulting the people? Cannot we learn from this experience, from the mess Moutse ended up in, and start off with open consultation with the legitimate representatives of the people of Moutse?

We accept that in order to rectify the prejudices which people suffer from, this type of measure is necessary. We will therefore support it, because we see no other way in which the consequences which have followed from the actions taken during that period can be legitimised. It is not a question of the laws of the KwaNdebele being validated; it is actions taken under those laws which are validated. We regard this Bill as a practical measure. It has the support of the people in Moutse and we believe that it ought therefore to be passed.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Durban Central for his support of the Bill on behalf of his party. The hon member did not pass up the opportunity to make certain derogatory remarks about the Government’s homeland policy, however. I do not begrudge him that, but the question is whether his leader agrees with him and whether there is perhaps a difference of opinion about the matter in that party.

The hon member went on to request that the Government consult the people involved in the enquiry that is being conducted by the relevant judge at the moment. The hon member wanted to know whether or not the Government had learnt anything from its experience recently. I can assure hon members that the Government, as a government which faces the realities of the country, does in fact learn from its experience and that the necessary consultation will take place.

Hon members said a great deal about the details of the Bill. What is important is the fact that certain administrative actions, which were related to the day-to-day administration of the district, took place in the district within a specific period, from 1 January 1986 to 29 March 1988. Since the Appeal Court declared Proclamation R227, which incorporated the area into the KwaNdebele area of jurisdiction, null and void, there is uncertainty about the legality of these particular actions. The Bill in question aims at eliminating that uncertainty and validating actions which were performed in terms of a law of the Legislative Assembly of KwaNdebele. One must emphasise that the Bill does not concern a law or laws which were promulgated with reference to Moutse, but that it has reference only to the administrative action. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with those actions. The hon the Minister, as well as the hon member for Caledon, referred to the various facets of this in their speeches. I am not going to repeat what they said. Those actions cannot be declared invalid. The vacuum that came into being is not to the advantage of that country and its people. It will result in confusion and uncertainty. The validation of these actions will lead to legal certainty in Moutse. The South African Government has a responsibility to Moutse and its people, and in the Bill under discussion, it is simply discharging that responsibility.

Mr Chairman, the memorandum on the objects of the Bill notes that after negotiations with the KwaNdebele Government and the inhabitants of Moutse, the hon the State President, in accordance with a Cabinet decision, incorporated the territory known as the District of Moutse into the area of jurisdiction of the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly by Proclamation R227 of 31 December 1985.

When reading that statement without any background knowledge of the area, or of the people of Moutse, any reasonable person will draw the conclusion that the proclamation was issued with the approval of the people of Moutse. How cynical! As my colleague the hon member for Sea Point said, the attitude of the Government is one of: “You will do it our way!”

What are the facts? Against the wishes of the people of Moutse the area was incorporated into KwaNdebele. Delegations led by their leaders came to Cape Town on a number of occasions to plead with the hon the State President, the hon the Minister concerned, Government officials and foreign ambassadors that they did not want to be added to the selfgoverning state of KwaNdebele. There were many reasons for their objections to this idea, the main one being the fact that the two groups of people have different languages and they have ethnic differences. These ethnic differences run contrary to the fundamental policies of the Government of ethnically-based geographic units for our Black population. It also runs contrary to their passion for orderliness as there were to be two separate ethnic groups for the selfgoverning state of KwaNdebele. It is a passion which ignores all the personal interests of the people concerned.

Notwithstanding the fact that even the selfgoverning state leaders concerned, like the late Dr Phatudi and Chief Mahlangu, were not able to agree on this matter, the Government in its stubbornness pressed ahead and forced the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele—this, in spite of all the warnings by people who know what is going on in that area.

What happened in Moutse on 1 January 1986? Our worst fears were realised. The Mbogoto moved in and pursued a campaign of violence against the people of Moutse which was indescribable. I have personally interviewed people who were taken to a hall where the floor was covered with soapy water, where they were stripped naked and beaten almost senseless as they slipped and slid around the hall while they were told that they had to agree to independence for KwaNdebele. This was a disgraceful state of affairs and only one of a whole series of abuses in that area.

Although I have raised this matter, the matter of KwaNdebele, the KwaNdebele police and Moutse, on a number of occasions in this House, I have failed to get any answers from any Cabinet Minister. I have put questions to this hon Minister, the Minister of Education and Development Aid, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Law and Order. As I have said before, they sit here like goldfish with their mouths opening and closing, and not uttering a word.

What is happening in KwaNdebele is totally unacceptable, and it is the action of the police and the Mbogoto we are asked to ratify in the Bill before us. [Interjections.] Obviously one approves of pensions and salaries being paid, but the illegal actions …

Mr Chairman, I heard the hon the Minister saying that my colleague was not telling the truth and that he knew he was not telling the truth.

Order! Did the hon the Minister say that?

Yes.

Order! The hon the Minister will have to withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

We approve of pensions and salaries being paid, but the illegal actions undertaken by the authorities in that area are unacceptable and, because of the state of emergency, individuals in Moutse have no recourse to the courts to seek redress against the actions of the police. They were able to pursue the main objection of the incorporation and they won that in the Appeal Court when the hon the State President’s proclamation was declared invalid.

All efforts to coerce the people of Moutse into submission failed. The Moutse people even had to seek a court order restraining the KwaNdebele police from preventing them travelling to Bloemfontein to attend the court proceedings. Imagine that! People are restricted by the police from travelling to court to hear the outcome of an action which they have brought!

The police were thwarted on this occasion, but the question is: On how many other occasions did they interfere with people’s movements, their rights and their possessions? Not only the police, but also other KwaNdebele bureaucrats and functionaries have been involved in interfering with the rights of the citizens of Moutse and KwaNdebele. I am aware of many instances of beatings, burnings, the restrictions placed on people’s liberty, the draconian detentions without trial and the disgraceful way in which the Press has been treated.

Nobody will tell us who was responsible for what is happening there. And now we are asked to approve a Bill which states that—

A very wide validation indeed, Sir. We cannot sign a blank cheque, and we will therefore oppose this Bill, particularly as after the judgment which was delivered earlier this year the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning announced that legislation would be introduced to reincorporate Moutse into the Northern Transvaal homeland. This is one of the most cynical statements ever made by a cynical Government. The record of the Government in regard to the circumstances surrounding KwaNdebele and Moutse is tatty—tatty indeed—and one can only hope that Mr Justice Rumpff, a man of great wisdom, will come to conclusions which will bring peace to Moutse. In the meantime, we hope the Government will leave them alone.

Mr Chairman, in broad terms I should like to repeat the matters of principle underlying this Bill. Firstly I want to emphasise that as far as this Bill is concerned, the Government proceeds from the point of view of the acceptance of the Appeal Court decision. This in no way detracts from the Appeal Court decision in regard to the question of the non-validity of the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele.

Secondly, with the introduction of this Bill the Government respects the fact that a commission of inquiry, under the chairmanship of ex-Chief Justice Rumpff, was designated to advise the Government on the future status and constitutional position of Moutse. What is involved here is merely the validation of all measures adopted in regard to Moutse in the relevant period in so far as they have been affected by this Appeal Court decision.

It is therefore a question of the powers of the acting authority at the time, ie the authority within the framework of KwaNdebele’s governmental structure which has been encroached upon by the Appeal Court decision. One needs to emphasise that during that overall period everyone accepted, in good faith, that the Government and the KwaNdebele authorities were, in fact, the correct and proper authorities, which was the impression gained from the hon the State President’s proclamation whereby Moutse was apparently incorporated in the area of authority of KwaNdebele. In fact, it is important to point out that it was so readily accepted that KwaNdebele was, in fact, the proper authority governing Moutse that the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court, which dealt with the case in the first instance, rejected the objection and regarded the incorporation as being valid, and therefore declared the authority of KwaNdebele to be valid. There was consequently nothing obviously invalid or illegal in the situation, and therefore in good faith everyone made or accepted decisions in terms of the legislation in accordance with which the apparently competent authority, ie that of KwaNdebele, acted there.

What is more, it is important to re-emphasise that this Bill in no way detracts from the necessity of having all relevant measures comply with every other relevant legal rule or provision, and in particular the requirements of the relevant legal provision in terms of which that measure was adopted.

Consequently there is no question here of covering up illegalities, and the hon member for Johannesburg North’s remark is wilful. He knew that he was being wilful when he intimated that here we were covering up all kinds of alleged acts of violence, assault or injustice because they were supposedly also included in the actions of the authorities. Here we are dealing, however, with actions in terms of and in accordance with an Act—and he knows that as well as I do—and not actions in conflict with the law or any Act. Now he tries to discredit people who cannot defend themselves here. What is being validated here are actions in terms of an Act, and there is no Act which legalises the aforesaid alleged irregularities. [Interjections.] Anyone who therefore regards himself as having been wronged by an act which is in conflict with a legal provision is still entitled, as would otherwise be the case, to have recourse to the courts to remedy the situation.

The important point which I want to re-emphasise, and which several hon members mentioned, is that the intention of this Bill is to protect the interests and rights of innocent individuals and bodies inside and outside KwaNdebele, individuals and bodies that would otherwise be seriously prejudiced if the effect of the relevant court decision were allowed to go unqualified.

A refusal to pass this Bill, to declare these measures valid—as the PFP is doing—is not punishing the KwaNdebele Government, but rather those innocent people affected by bona fide actions, on the part of the KwaNdebele Government and other persons and authorities, in regard to those people. It is actually a pathetic display on the part of the PFP, which professes here to be trying to get at the KwaNdebele Governemnt. In opposing this Bill they are trying to exact punishment for all kinds of acts which they ascribe to the KwaNdebele Government. In adopting this kind of attitude they simply prove their total misconception about what is going on. [Interjections.]

I should also like to point out that a portion of the problem which was not raised in the debate, but which I think should be, is the fact that the problem involving Moutse is not only being created by the fact that the actions in terms of the laws of KwaNdebele are invalid in Moutse, but also that the RSA’s legislation, which would otherwise have been applicable to Moutse, was in fact not applicable to Moutse throughout that entire period. Therefore the legislation which was regarded as having been applicable must, in fact, be declared valid here.

I sincerely want to thank hon members who supported this legislation—some, it is true, with a certain degree of criticism—for their support. Amongst them there are my colleagues on this side of the House, for example the hon member for Caledon who, in very adroit and practical terms, indicated how the interests of people outside and at some distance from KwaNdebele could be affected. There is also the hon member for Roodeplaat, who very succinctly pointed out that here it was not a question of the Appeal Court having raised questions about a lack of consultation, but rather, as the Appeal Court pointed out, about the encroachment upon the principle of incorporation having to take place within the ethnic context. The hon member for Durban Central also gave his support to the Bill, and I want to thank him for that. The hon member for Bloemfontein East also made a very valuable contribution.

In granting his support to the Bill, the hon member for Randfontein alleged that for the system of parliamentary government to work in this country, the relevant groups must be dedicated to that system. If some of the groups are not dedicated to the system, by implication it cannot work. I respectfully want to say, however, that I think that in this case the hon member is wide of the mark. In the past—prior to 1983—there have always been, in the political system, parties in this Parliament which fundamentally objected to the system which was operative at the time. The then Official Opposition, which is now the downgraded second group opposite, has always advocated very fundamental and, this side of the House is convinced, almost revolutionary change to the political system in our country.

They have consequently never, in any way, associated themselves with, or dedicated themselves to, the existing system. For that reason one surely cannot argue now that the pre-1983 system could not operate because there were specific elements in Parliament which did not identify themselves with the system.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether, in the old system, if there were parties which did not wish to cooperate, the position was not such that Parliament could continue to function. It was unnecessary for another body to do Parliament’s work for it.

In the new Constitution provision has also been made for the legislative process to continue. That is, in fact, what is happening at present.

†Mr Chairman, I would also like to refer to some arguments of the hon member for Sea Point which were repeated by the hon member for Johannesburg North. It is to me really an amusing situation that the members who normally would have nothing to do with ethnicity, language difficulties and group context are here becoming filled with excitement and indignation because the Government did not adhere strictly to the concept of ethnicity in deciding on Moutse.

It is very amusing that those hon members on the opposite side have suddenly become the indignant proponents of the maintenance of ethnicity as a basis for arranging the boundaries and the areas of authority of the various self-governing territories.

[Inaudible.]

It shows one how bankrupt they are in this debate, in which their former colleague, the hon member for Durban Central, has clearly pointed out the inconsistency of their own point of view.

The hon member for Sea Point also said that they were not prepared to validate all the actions— that the Government had to select which actions should be validated and which should not.

As the hon member for Bloemfontein East pointed out it is virtually impossible to select from the thousands of actions performed by virtue of KwaNdebele laws a list of those which could be and those which could not be recommended. It would be such an impossible and impracticable administrative task and cause so much further confusion that it is quite impossible. The basic problem is that the actions being validated here are actions which were taken in a bona fide way on the basis of existing legislation. It does not affect the illegality of such actions in terms of the laws on the basis of which they were performed or other laws affecting their validity.

The hon member for Sea Point also wanted me to explain more clearly what the considerations of the Government were in the incorporation of Moutse. I would like to suggest that the incorporation of Moutse and the merits of that decision are not strictly relevant here. I would like to refer to the fully reported affidavit submitted to the court at the time by the then Deputy Minister of Co-operation and Land Affairs, Mr Wilkens.

He pointed out that the main considerations in the incorporation of this area were first of all considerations from an administrative point of view and for the sake of effective and efficient government, by consolidating this area with another adjoining area.

Secondly, he pointed out considerations of physical planning and of linking up the infrastructure between two adjoining areas under the same authority rather than having it under different authorities. He conceded that in terms of strict ethnicity the decision could be challenged, but he also pointed out that not only Moutse, but to some degree also KwaNdebele and Lebowa themselves, were not homogeneous communities consisting only of one ethnic group.

He acknowleged that although the largest group among the inhabitants of Moutse were North Sotho people, there were also about 23 000 Ndebele—South and North—7 000 Swazi, 5 000 Zulu, 12 000 Tswana and 4 000 ShangaanTsonga people. He argued that the Government anticipated that since such diverse communities were finding themselves quite comfortable in both Lebowa and KwaNdebele, it was not an unfair assumption that the same would in the course of time also work out quite well in the Moutse context. There was a clear arguing of the Government’s case. It was not as if the Government acted in a blindfolded way without any justification. Although the Appeal Court in fact decided that, in terms of the legislation regarding the determination of borders of selfgoverning territories, ethnicity had to be the main factor of consideration, the Government did also clearly point out what the logic and argumentation behind its decision had been.

The hon member for Durban Central claimed that the people concerned had not been consulted in the past and neither, he said, was it likely that they would be consulted in the future. Let me say, first of all, that the former Chief Justice the Hon Mr Rumpff has invited interested parties to submit memoranda to his commission and to tender evidence, also in person. Therefore all interested parties have access to this commission of enquiry. I think it is therefore unfair to suggest that there is not going to be any reasonable consultation.

I would also like to point out that, with regard to the past history of this matter, there was a period of lengthy consultation …

Order! There is too much loud conversation taking place at the moment. The hon the Minister may proceed.

A series of consultations were conducted by Minister Koornhof, the Minister responsible at the time. A series of consultations were conducted by the Deputy Minister at the time, Mr Greyling Wentzel. A series of discussions and consultations were conducted by the Commission for Co-operation and Development. The then Prime Minister, the present State President, had several discussions with the parties concerned. Ultimately, the former chairman of the Commission for Administration, Dr Piet Rautenbach, was appointed as a sort of arbitrator to assist. Thus it was not a question of an overhasty, careless action.

No, you just ignored what they wanted!

It was a well-calculated and carefully considered process, however much people may differ with me or may criticise me.

Disgraceful!

I want to emphasise that, particularly under the leadership of the hon the State President, this matter was discussed, canvassed and considered over a period of many years with great care before a final decision was taken. It is therefore quite wrong to create this distorted impression which some members on the other side have tried to create.

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

No, I think I have listened enough to that side.

I would like to conclude by emphasising very clearly again—as several hon members have done—that the impression the hon member for Johannesburg North wilfully created here that we are being called upon to ratify illegal actions—an impression which he created by his description of several alleged acts of violence and similar transgressions—as weir as his statement that acts of burnings and of beatings and similar things are to be condoned by this legislation are just not true. Any illegal and improper act will, after the acceptance of this legislation, remain as challengeable as it would have been under any other circumstances.

Under the emergency regulations?

Therefore I have the confidence, with the support of all parties in this House, except the one that is sliding back continuously, to ask the House to support this proposed legislation.

Mr Chairman, I believe the hon member for Johannesburg North and I have stated the case in the main. The hon the Minister did not wish to take a question. He gave us a long explanation about the consultation that had taken place, but the question that he would not answer was whether the Government had satisfied itself that the majority of the people of Moutse wanted to be incorporated in KwaNdebele.

The answer is no.

All the evidence, the fact that there was a court action brought and that the judge and the Appellate Division found that the majority of the people did not want to go, indicate that, in spite of all the consultations, the Government either misread the situation …

… or ignored it!

… or else they wilfully proceeded to force Moutse into KwaNdebele against the wishes of the people. We say this kind of action does not deserve the support of this House.

Mr Chairman, this side of the House supports this Bill for the simple reason that if we do not do so, a great many people will be adversely affected. We will be deviating from our duty and that is the simple reason why we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill does not concern the whole question of the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele; it is concerned with effecting legal certainty, and that is why the CP will support the Bill, to fill that vacuum.

When one talks about dedication to the system, one is obviously talking about the whole question surrounding the present tricameral system, in which the various population groups form a partnership, and not the normal parliamentary system.

Despite that we shall support the Bill for the sake of legal certainty.

The House divided:

AYES—132: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cronje, P C; Cunningham, J H; De Jager, C D; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; De Ville, J R; De Villiers, D J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Gastrow, P H P; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hartzenberg, F; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jacobs, S C; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Kotze, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Langley, T; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, F J; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malan, W C; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Mentz, M J; Meyer, W D; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nolte, D G H; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Oosthuizen, G C; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Prinsloo, J J S; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, C B; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Snyman, W J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

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

NOES—15: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Olivier, N J J; Schwarz, H H; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Malcomess, D J N; Soal, P G.

Mr Chairman, the hon members in this House will recall that a resolution was adopted by the House some time in June for a House Committee to investigate certain matters pertaining to the hon member for Stanger. That House Committee subsequently met and its report was submitted to this House and it was adopted on 12 June 1988. Unfortunately, even before that report was submitted to the House for adoption, certain disparaging remarks had appeared in the Sunday Times Extra and these impaired the dignity of my colleague the hon member for Stanger. He was very perturbed on the eve of his departure for his pilgrimage.

What aggravated the situation further was that the official, after having apologised in the presence of other hon members, denied that he had, in fact, apologised. The writer of the article which appeared also confirmed that it was a true reflection of the official and that the statement was true and correct.

Mr Chairman, I therefore want to move:

Mr Chairman, in rising to object to the proposal that a House Committee be appointed to investigate and report on this matter, I know at the very beginning that we have now reached a game of numbers. Irrespective of the merits of what I say or what anybody else in this House may say, numbers will carry the day. [Interjections.]

I did not interrupt or interject when the hon member for Havenside was speaking. I trust that there are certain proprieties which the other side may be able to observe.

He did not say such stupid things!

Order! I want to appeal to hon members not to interject unnecessarily. The hon member Mr Nowbath may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that there was an interjection by the hon member for Bayview who said that he did not say such stupid things. I should like to know what his implication was.

Order! Did the hon member for Bayview say that he did not say such stupid things?

I did, Mr Chairman.

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

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Thank you, Sir. All I will say is this: There is an observation in life that the hallmark of a gentleman is not the manner in which he looks up to his superiors. It is not the manner in which he goes to his superiors on bended knee and cap in hand. The hallmark of a gentleman is not the manner in which he is prepared to disagree with his equals or his peers. The hallmark of a gentleman is the manner in which he treats and deals with his subordinates who are in no position to respond to him.

That is a matter of opinion!

Take your hand out of your pocket when you speak! That is the first requirement of a gentleman! [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is a spent force.

And you are hunting in wild fields!

There is another monkey,

Mr Chairman. What can I do? If they let me speak, I would not say what I am saying. All I am saying is that it requires a great man to be able to override what he considers a simple aspersion cast on his person. It requires a great man to do so and I should like to believe that the hon member for Stanger is that great.

Mr Chairman, it saddens me to get up and speak on this motion before us, because—as the hon member Mr Nowbath has rightly said—we seem to take on our positions and try to bring discipline among those who are not seated in our House to defend themselves here.

Are you issuing threats?

If the hon member wants it to be so, let it be so. The cap fits the hon member well. I believe that we, who are supposed to be members of Parliament and to look broadly at all the peoples of this country, should be the first people to set examples to those who work on a lower rung of the ladder. I know that hon members of this House, members of Parliament, go and pull at the gate. They feel that because they are members of Parliament, they are virtually everything.

I agree with the hon member Mr Nowbath: If one affords respect, respect will be afforded to one. I think wise men and great writers have said that those who bring a bit of happiness, a little amount of harmony and a bit of courtesy to the peoples of this country or the world are greater men than those who have conquered the world. I hope these words will be heeded. I feel that there must be respect. If one does not respect other people, others will not respect one. This is how I see it.

There was harmony, there was an agreement and we all made an appeal before the hon member for Stanger left. We were very happy and we actually complimented him for withdrawing it. However, unfortunately something has gone into the newspapers and we are making a mountain out of a molehill. I think we are grown-up men. We are mature men, and the great books say that if someone has made a mistake, one must forgive him. Are we not big enough to do that? I feel that it is unfair to constitute a parliamentary House Committee to look into an ordinary office worker. I feel it goes down to a level to which we should not really go. It is a shame. It is an absolute shame for the people who are calling for this.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to have a ruling. I would like to respond very briefly, because I did not expect the issue to develop into a debate.

Order! I have the name of the hon member for Reservoir Hills in front of me. The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

Mr Chairman, over a period of some years, repeated calls have been made for hon members to uphold the dignity of this House. I do not believe that this particular motion does anything to further or to uphold the dignity of this House.

On a previous occasion a select committee was appointed, of which I was made a member. That select committee had a letter from the hon member for Stanger stating that an apology had been made to him, and he therefore forgave the transgressor. Mr Chairman, I believe that forgiveness, once granted, can never be recalled. Once one has forgiven a person, that offence by the transgressor, whether of omission or commission, remains forgiven. If one does not adhere to that fundamental tenet, one withdraws from civilised society. I do not believe that this House should aid and abet anyone in the withdrawal from civilised society.

Furthermore, from a practical point of view, this House has a great deal of far more important work to do than to be involved in what is obviously a petty matter, since a select committee was appointed, the discharge of this matter was requested before this House and this House granted the discharge on the statement made by the original complainant that he had forgiven the transgressor. I therefore seek the permission of the Chairman to withdraw from the House, because I do not wish to be associated further with this particular motion.

Mr Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the comments that have been made. It is a fact that to forgive is divine. I am aware of the fact that when it comes to the question of forgiving a person, I will be the first one to forgive a person who has made a mistake.

I do not object to that. What has annoyed me is not the fact of the original insult. That is no longer at issue. The issue now is, pardon having been asked and forgiveness having been granted, that what appeared in the newspaper should have been kept in our private circle. However, it did appear in the Press. Now hon members may say that it is petty and that this is something one should overlook but, with the circulation of the Sunday Times having improved dramatically over the past few months, this article was read in every household. What I take offence to is the article itself. It is insulting.

When I left South Africa, some very serious remarks were made beyond our borders about this article. If the purported originator of this article states that he had nothing to do with the publishing thereof in this newspaper, I would not foresee any problems. Now I believe that a committee should be established to ascertain the truth. There is no point in people coming and telling me privately that that person has already apologised and is not responsible for these statements in the newspaper. Then somebody is obviously going around and casting aspersions on hon members of this particular House. If that is the situation, we need to remedy it. As I understand it that is basically the objective of the resolution that is before us. It is not a question of trying somebody who is not present in this House. If he is not guilty, the committee will hear him. That is the object. The committee will hear him and if somebody is misquoted in the Press, this should be remedied.

Up to now I have heard nothing concrete to say that this cannot be attributed to the person who is indicated as having said so in the article. There is no denial from him, except hearsay. I do not want to engage in this private sort of situation. I thought the best thing would be, since it cannot be resolved on that basis, for a committee to sit and listen to the facts and, having heard the facts, to correct the reporter if he is the one who was wrong. Thereby we could avoid such aspersions being cast upon hon members of this House.

However, if the person who originally apologised should have since then restated his position, he would also need to be corrected. One forgives people, but afterwards one does not let them go around using one as a target. This is the point. I believe we are getting our issues mixed up. It would appear to me that the hon members on that side of this House are assuming that, having been found guilty and having been pardoned once already, this person can subsequently just continue to be forgiven. [Interjections.] Whatever such assumptions may be, I believe a committee should investigate this and give a firm report as to exactly what the background to this article is. My problem lies with the article and not with what was uttered in May. The article appeared on 12 June 1988. That is the problem and we must sort out that aspect. I do not want to add anything to this, because I am directly affected by what has happened.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I would like to have it recorded that while we do not object to this, we are agreeing to the deferment because the joint committee dealing with this matter did not reach consensus.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have discovered that there are certain omissions in the printed version of this report. I regard them as printer’s errors, and they could also be regarded as additions and alterations. With your permission, Sir, I wish to put forward those omissions, additions or alterations.

Order! I must point out to the hon member that although he may proceed, he will have to submit those amendments in writing before the conclusion of this debate. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I object to this submission by the hon member Mr Thaver that there are certain alterations and omissions. We do not have them before us.

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath has been allotted a turn to speak in this debate, and he may voice his objections at that stage. The hon member Mr Thaver may proceed.

These are very straightforward additions. On line 16 of paragraph 13 on page W64, the word “been” should be replaced by the words “to be”.

The phrase “black of funds” in paragraph 14.2 on the third line of page W65 should read “lack of funds”.

In paragraph 17, on the last line of page W65, after the word “purchaser”, the words “save for the Rev Michael Henry” should be added.

On page W71 under paragraph 34, on the 14th line after the word “been”, the amount of R160 500 should read R60 500. I should like the amount of R160 500 to be altered to R60 500. That is on the first line only; not on the second line. The figure of R160 500 on the second line remains unchanged but the figure of R160 500 on the top line should be altered to read R60 500.

The next alteration is on page W72 under paragraph 37. On the third line down, the words “transaction conducted” should read “transaction was conducted”. The word “was” must be added.

In the last paragraph, paragraph 38, on the fifth line from the bottom, the word “purchase” should be inserted in place of the word “furnish”.

I have pleasure, Mr Chairman, in presenting you with an altered copy of the report for the purposes of the record.

Order! The hon member Mr Thaver must kindly submit all those amendments which he has now proposed, in writing.

Will an altered copy not suffice for the time being, Mr Chairman? The copy has been duly amended.

Order! May I just point out that by and large, the hon member Mr Thaver has proposed that what one would call typographical errors be corrected. However, I do not think that the words “save for the Rev Michael Henry” can be regarded as a typographical error and I want to suggest to the hon member that he submit that in the form of an amendment.

If I submit to you that that is an omission, Sir, would you accept that? It is not an amendment.

Order! Does the name of the Rev Michael Hendry appear in the Afrikaans version of the report?

That is a matter which I would not be able to comment on. I have not examined that part. [Interjections.]

Order! The debate may continue. We will check up on it. Otherwise, the hon member will have to submit an amendment.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, it is incumbent upon me to read this report, thereby having this report recorded for posterity in Hansard. The copy I have here differs in certain material respects with regard to the numbering of the pages. Therefore the alterations made by the hon member Mr Thaver may not appear in my text. Therefore, if there are any alterations that I did not pick up when the hon member Mr Thaver spoke …

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence. May I oblige the hon the Deputy Minister with a corrected copy?

That would make my life easier, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

Mr Chairman, I quote from the Second Interim Report:

1. 1. Your Committee was appointed on 3 June 1988 with the following terms of reference—
   That a House Committee be appointed, with Mr M Thaver as Chairman, to inquire into and report not later than 29 August 1988 upon—
   1. (1) the acquisition by the Administration: House of Delegates of the property known as Odeon Cinema; and
   2. (2) all the allegations of maladministration, corruption and bribery relating to the alienation, acquisition and leasing of property, including the allocation of business sites and premises, the awarding of contracts involving State funds and all matters incidental thereto,
      the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.
2. 2. On 24 June 1988 the State President appointed a Commission of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Neville James, former Judge President of Natal (the James Commission), whose terms of reference, namely to inquire into, report and make recommendations on—
   allegations concerning the involvement of any member in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates or any member of the House of Delegates in any irregularity connected with his capacity as such a member and which allegations—
   1. (a) have already been formally submitted to the Advocate-General provided his permission is obtained in terms of section 6(3) of Act 118 of 1979; or
   2. (b) have already been formally submitted to any other official body or official and are again in writing formally brought to the attention of the Commission before 15 July 1988; or
   3. (c) are formally placed before the Commission in writing and supported by affidavits before 15 July 1988;
      and any other matter on which the Commission deems fit to report on, are somewhat more limited than those governing your Committee.
3. 3. On 5 July 1988, Mr A J de Villiers, the Secretary to Parliament, informed your Committee that he had been asked by Mr Speaker to recommend to your Committee that, pending the report of the James Commission, because of the apparent overlapping of the functions of your Committee and the James Commission, your Committee should consider either requesting that it be discharged from service or suspending its work and recommending to the House that such evidence as had been gathered be submitted to the James Commission.
4. 4. Your Committee gave Mr Speaker’s recommendation its careful and most respectful consideration and came to the conclusion, without opposition, that it should continue its work, having particular regard to the fact that your Committee was required to submit its Report not later than 29 August 1988 whereas the James Commission was required by the State President to report if possible by 30 September 1988.
5. 5. Your Committee was presented with a considerable volume of evidence. Much of it dealt with the Odeon Cinema transaction, but some of it also dealt with a number of other transactions which relate to the other aspects. Because of the considerable costs that would otherwise be incurred, your Committee has decided not to annex hereto transcripts of the voluminous evidence, nor all the documents that were submitted to it.
6. 6. Because your Committee’s terms of reference were in two parts, your Committee proceeded in the first place to enquire into the circumstances and facts relating to the acquisition by the Administration: House of Delegates, of the Odeon Cinema Complex.
7. 7. Your Committee has accordingly decided to submit a further interim Report for consideration by the House dealing exclusively with the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex by the Administration: House of Delegates, whilst it performs the other obligations imposed upon it by the House.
8. 8. In respect of the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex, the following persons gave oral evidence upon oath at the request of your Committee:
   Mr H J Backer, former Director of Local Government and Housing, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr B Dookie, MP, former Minister of Local Government and Housing, House of Delegates
   Mr V G Hunt, Director of Local Government and Housing, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr I Kathrada, MP, Minister of the Budget, House of Delegates
   Mr G L McLoughlin, Senior Community Services Officer (Land Tenure), Administration: House of Delegates
   Dr G K Nair, Chief Director: Professional Planning Services, Department of Education and Culture, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr R L Pienaar, Director of Planning, Department of Education and Culture, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr A Rajbansi, MP, Minister of Housing and Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, House of Delegates
   Mr K Ramduth, MP, Minister of Education and Culture, House of Delegates
   Mr R Shaw, Deputy Chief Architect, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr A K Singh, Acting Executive Director, Department of Education and Culture, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr N R Singh, who was for five months Acting Director of Culture, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr J W A Steenkamp, Treasury Official, Administration: House of Delegates
   Mr R P Wronsley, Director-General, Administration: House of Delegates
9. 9. Your Committee, having considered the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses, and papers submitted to it, finds as follows in respect of the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex:
10. 10. Your Committee deems it desirable to set out briefly the developments which led to the acquisition by the Administration: House of Delegates, of the property known as the Odeon Cinema Complex.
11. 11. It is necessary to mention that the Odeon Cinema Complex consists essentially of one large cinema auditorium capable of seating 1 000 persons and another small cinema auditorium capable of seating 400 persons. On the ground floor of the cinema premises there is a motor garage service station and there are also shop premises occupied by a furniture dealer and by a chicken fast food outlet. There is a basement which is capable of being put to use. The main auditorium has a stage of sorts but the smaller auditorium has no stage at all. There are no dressing rooms. The floor of the main auditorium is substantially inclined as the seatin g arrangements were designed for the purposes of a cinema. Expert opinion was that the acoustics in the two auditoriums are suitable for cinema purposes but not for theatrical or concert purposes.
12. 12. According to evidence made available to the Committee, the Odeon Cinema premises have not been used for purposes of the cinema for about five years. The main auditorium has in recent years been occupied by a Christian missionary society under the leadership of the Rev Michael Henry. The small auditorium has remained unoccupied. The motor garage premises are let and produces an income of R1 245 per month. The fast food outlet produces a rental of R1 172 per month and the premises occupied by the furniture dealer produces an income of R4 948 per month. The main auditorium produces an income of R968 per month. The total income from the premises amounts to R8 333 per month.
13. 13. If all the witnesses who gave evidence before your Committee are to be believed then it would appear that no person whatsoever initiated the proceedings in terms of which the Odeon Cinema Complex was purchased by the Administration: House of Delegates under the guise of expropriation. Obviously such a situation would be completely absurd. Mr A Rajbansi, MP, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the current Minister of Housing, at first denied the allegations made in evidence to the Committee that it was he who initiated the proceedings that led to the acquisition. Mr Rajbansi also denied having given instructions that the cinema property be purchased by the Administration: House of Delegates. However, when confronted with a letter dated 2 March 1987 bearing his signature and in terms of which he instructed that the property be purchased, stated that a price had to be agreed upon and instructed that the payment must be made not later than 31 March 1987, Mr Rajbansi changed his evidence and admitted that his letter constituted a directive.
14. 14.1 This meant that the whole transaction had to be finalized with undue haste. It has been suggested that a possible reason for this was the fear that the savings on expenditure with which the property was purchased would otherwise have had to be surrendered to the Central Treasury at the end of the financial year. However, from evidence before the Committee it became clear that such fears were unfounded and that this fact had also been conveyed to the Ministers and officials involved timeously.
15. 14.2 In any event, Dr G K Nair informed your Committee that the Department of Education and Culture had for some time been trying to acquire land for a very urgently needed school in Malakazi in Isipingo and under questioning Mr Rajbansi agreed that there was no reason whatsoever why the funds available should not have been used to expropriate the required land. It is also pointed out that it is quite extraordinary that so-called surplus funds should be expended in an obviously wasteful splurge while the excuse of “lack of funds” is used to explain failure to perform other very urgently needed tasks in the educational field. The feeling that something is seriously wrong is inescapable. All the witnesses, except Mr A Rajbansi, MP, stated in evidence that, had they been given enough time to find alternative premises for the purposes of a cultural centre, they would not have selected the Odeon Cinema Complex.
16. 15. Indeed, the directive that the property must be acquired by 31 March 1987 was addressed by Mr Rajbansi to Dr J Gilliland, the then Director-General of the Administration: House of Delegates. It seemed to your Committee quite extraordinary that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should, in this fashion, bypass the then Minister under whose portfolio the acquisition of immovable property fell, namely the Minister of Local Government and Housing who at that time was Mr B Dookie. However, upon consideration of the evidence of Mr Dookie, who informed the Committee that he was at all times opposed to the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex by the Administration: House of Delegates, it became clear that Mr Rajbansi had deliberately gone over the head of the responsible Minister and had instructed Dr J Gilliland to see to it that the property was acquired. On the basis that bad administration is maladministration then this action of Mr Rajbansi is a glaring example of maladministration.
17. 16. Your Committee was unimpressed by Mr Rajbansi’s claim that he had merely suggested that the purchase of this property be considered and that he thereafter left the matter to be dealt with by the Ministers of Education and Culture and of Local Government and Housing. Your Committee is satisfied, on the evidence available to it, that Mr Rajbansi was endeavouring to mislead it by an evasion of the truth. Your Committee is of the opinion that a Minister of State is appointed by the hon the State President for purposes of carrying out certain functions of State and as such the Minister has responsibilities and corresponding rights as Minister. It is therefore unacceptable that the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council, in this case, Mr Rajbansi, should either override or bypass a Minister simply because that Minister takes a view which is not shared by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The funds available to the Administration: House of Delegates and the assets controlled by that Administration are not the property of a single individual. These are assets which should properly be regarded as being held in trust by the Ministers concerned and the Ministers’ Council of which Mr A Rajbansi is the Chairman. Any misuse or abuse of that trust is inevitably a matter for serious concern. There is no doubt that in the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema properties, there was serious misuse of public funds.
18. 17. It has been established that the owners had been trying to sell the property for some four years without success and that at the time of the purchase by the Administration: House of Delegates, there was no other serious purchaser, save for the Rev Michael Henry. Despite the fact that two valuations, one for R700 000 and one for R730 000, respectively, were submitted by independent valuators, the Administration: House of Delegates eventually purchased the property for an amount of R1,1 million.
    That is save for the Rev Michael Henry. I continue:
19. 18. It is clear from the evidence that both Ministers K Ramduth, MP, Minister of Education and Culture and Mr B Dookie, MP, the former Minister of Local Government and Housing, were unhappy about the proposed acquisition of the property, but that they did not actively oppose it because they believed that should they do so, they might be jeopardizing their jobs as Ministers. Several officials also stated that they were subjected to “pressure from above” and felt that they had no other choice but to obey Mr Rajbansi’s instructions concerning the acquisition of the property. That the Ministers succumbed to this pressure is to be regretted.
20. 19. According to the evidence placed before your Committee, the following can be stated—
    1. (a) On or about 9 December 1986 the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Mr A Rajbansi, initiated steps which eventually led to the acquisition, on his specific instructions, of the Odeon Cinema Complex by the Administration: House of Delegates for the sum of R1,1 million.
    2. (b) Mr Rajbansi arranged for several Ministers and officials of the Administration to make an inspection of the Odeon Cinema property on 10 December 1986.
    3. (c) Thereafter at the instance of Mr A Rajbansi the Minister of Education and Culture, Mr K Ramduth, requested the Acting Executive Director of Education, Mr A K Singh, to require his staff to prepare a memorandum which, to use the Civil Service language, was to motivate the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema property.
    4. (d) At that stage, it is clear from the evidence, not a single official of the division of Education and Culture nor any Minister, had applied his mind in any way whatsoever to the desirability or otherwise of establishing a cultural centre other than what had been proposed by a previous Administration for establishment in conjunction with a projected teachers’ training college to be established in Cato Manor. Mr A K Singh, the Acting Executive Director of Education, told your Committee that in his view the Cato Manor proposal would have been ideal in that it would have been accessible to the people of the Chatsworth complex as well as to those of the Phoenix complex and also to those of the other suburbs of Durban inhabited by members of the Indian community.
    5. (e) Neither Mr R L Pienaar, the Director of Planning, nor Dr G K Nair, the Chief Director responsible for planning in the Department of Education and Culture, had given any consideration to the establishment of a cultural centre.
    6. (f) It was quite clear from the evidence that until Mr A Rajbansi instructed that the Odeon Cinema Complex be considered for acquisition, there had been no consideration of the establishment of a cultural centre anywhere in the Chatsworth complex. Indeed, a memorandum which originated in the division of Education and which was eventually submitted by Dr G K Nair to Mr A K Singh for consideration by the Minister of Education and Culture set out in rather glowing terms what was required of a cultural centre and astonishingly wove the representation for a cultural centre around the Odeon Cinema. A perusal of this memorandum indicated exuberant support for the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema property, but the authors of the memorandum evidently failed completely to appreciate that in terms of their own requirements the Odeon Cinema Complex as it stood was totally and completely unsuitable for purposes of a cultural centre. Dr G K Nair was obliged to admit, and so was Mr R L Pienaar, that to fulfil the needs set out in the memorandum a minimum of 20 additional rooms would have had to be provided, which would have meant very radical and very substantial physical alterations to the premises at considerable extra cost.
    7. (g) Neither prior to the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex nor up until September 1987 were any plans of any kind prepared, even in preliminary form, for the necessary alterations and additions which would convert the Odeon Cinema into a cultural centre. (See also par 26.)
    8. (h) Every single witness who appeared before the Committee, except for Mr A Rajbansi, agreed fully that not a single school and certainly not the Department of Education and Culture had ever had any difficulty whatsoever in being able to use the community halls which were available in most areas of Chatsworth and in several areas of Phoenix and certainly in many other areas of the Durban metropolitan area.
    9. (i) Immediately opposite the Odeon Cinema there is the Scidifa Hall which is readily available for all community purposes. These obviously include musical concerts and classical dances, of which there have been a number of performances in this hall in the past. Every witness except Mr Rajbansi agreed that this hall was suitable for these purposes but Mr Rajbansi claimed that this hall was, as he put it, frequently engaged. However, he was not able to cite a single instance when the use of this hall was required by any school or by the Department of Education and Culture and was unavailable at a reasonable date.
21. 20. Evidence from two witnesses was to the effect that Dr G K Nair, the Chief Director of Education (Planning), contended that the market value of R730 000 placed upon the properties by an experienced and qualified sworn valuator was too low. Dr Nair denied having made this observation. However, your Committee has no hesitation in accepting the evidence of two other honest and straightforward witnesses and regrets that Dr G K Nair was being intentionally untruthful.
22. 21.1 A remarkable feature of the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema property which emerged from the evidence before your Committee is that the two Ministers responsible, namely Mr K Ramduth, the Minister of Education and Culture, the head of the user department, and Mr B Dookie, the then Minister of Local Government and Housing, the head of the department responsible for acquisition of property into the Administration, were not in favour of the acquisition.
23. 21.2 From his evidence it appeared that although he was not in favour, Mr Ramduth capitulated very early to Mr Rajbansi’s wishes.
24. 21.3 However, Mr Dookie, having recorded his objections, held out, right up to the very last day, namely 31 March 1987. Mr Dookie’s evidence was that he was already very unpopular with Mr Rajbansi by reason of not being prepared to obey Mr Rajbansi’s instructions in a number of matters, as Mr Dookie felt that those instructions were inimical to the interests of his department and of the community. Nevertheless, because Mr Dookie perceived that if he failed to obey Mr Rajbansi he might be deprived of his position as a Minister, he did at the very last moment capitulate to Mr Rajbansi’s wishes.
25. 22. If it is regrettable that two Ministers of State should have given in to something which they themselves were satisfied was not in the best interest of the community, it must nevertheless be recognised that the earlier dismissal of Dr M S Padayachy, for no apparent good reason, in which dismissal Mr Rajbansi played the crucial role, must have weighed upon the minds of Mr Dookie and Mr Ramduth.
26. 23. Indeed, the evidence given to the Committee by senior State officials was to the effect that, according to their perception, it was clear that Mr Rajbansi had determined and decided that the Odeon Cinema property had to be acquired. Therefore they, perceiving Dr G K Nair as Mr Rajbansi’s agent in this determination to acquire the property, felt obliged to go along with the previously made decision. Their function, they believed, was to act in terms of decisions made by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.
27. 24. Dr G K Nair is the Chief Director responsible for planning in the Department of Education and Culture. On his own evidence, until his attention was directed specifically and solely to the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex, he had not given any consideration to the establishment of a cultural centre for the Indian community. At first, when he appeared before your Committee, Dr G K Nair produced evidence all of which tended to show the acquisition of the property concerned in a good light. He produced two letters addressed to Mr Rajbansi, one from a firm headed by a well-known wrestling promoter, in which the writers congratulated Mr Rajbansi on the acquisition of the cinema complex and indicated that both offerers were prepared to make an offer of R1,5 million, namely R400 000 more than the price paid for the property by the Administration: House of Delegates.
28. 25. In the opinion of your Committee these are letters obviously arranged by Mr Rajbansi himself, tending to put a gilt upon the acquisition. Any gilt quickly turned into dross, but not before pointin g the finger of guilt towards Mr Rajbansi. Dr G K Nair also made great play of an opinion to the effect that the replacement cost of the cinema property would exceed considerably by approximately half a million rand the price paid for the property. What Dr Nair completely failed to explain to the Committee until he was obliged to do so by questions put to him, was that the replacement contemplated was the reinstatement of the property concerned for use as a cinema. Indeed it transpired that there were documents on record which Dr Nair did not, conveniently for his purpose, himself produce to the Committee, showing that it would cost R1,2 million merely to repair and renovate the property as a cinema complex. Thus to restore the property for the purposes for which it was originally intended, namely a cinema, would cost not less than R2,3 million. It is clear that the owners closed down the cinema due to lack of business.
29. 26. No attention whatsoever had been paid to the planning and the estimate of costs for the conversion of the property for the purposes set out in a document which Dr G K Nair had presented to Mr A K Singh. An assessment made much later, at the instance of the Administration: House of Delegates, indicated that the cost of converting the property for purposes of a cultural centre would be approximately R45 million. Your Committee, having perused the rather grandiose schemes for such development, agrees with the contention that such luxury may not be necessary. Nevertheless even if only one fourth of the projected expenditure is taken into account, the cost of providing a cultural centre in Silverglen would approximate R15 million without taking into account the cost of maintaining such a cultural centre. It is noteworthy that there was no costing of the annual expenditure that would be required to maintain a cultural centre such as that envisaged in the memorandum presented by Dr G K Nair to Mr A K Singh and ultimately to the Minister of Education and Culture. The lack of such an elementary exercise is astonishing.
30. 27. The only two persons among all the witnesses who were prepared to insist upon support for the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex were Mr Rajbansi and Dr Nair. Mr Rajbansi adopted the attitude before your Committee that he was not particularly concerned as to whether or not the property was purchased, and that having referred the matter to the officials, it was a matter for decision by the Minister of Education and Culture and the Minister of Local Government and Housing. Your Committee is satisfied that in this pretended attitude Mr Rajbansi was being deceitful. Your Committee is satisfied that it was a predetermined attitude by Mr Rajbansi that the Odeon Cinema Complex had to be purchased and that this influenced not only his colleagues in the Ministers’ Council but also the officials of the Administration.
31. 28. Dr G K Nair valiantly attempted to the very end to defend the purchase. So determined was he to defend the indefensible that he confessed both to professional incompetence and to gross negligence in his role in the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema property. Unfortunately this senior official, a Chief Director of Education responsible for planning, was quite dishonest in his evidence before your Committee. He was a seriously unreliable witness. Dr Nair was consistently evasive. He failed to assist the Committee with simple and direct answers to simple questions and indulged in evasiveness to an unacceptable degree. As has been said, he started out in an endeavour to present the acquisition of the Odeon property in a rosy complexion but ended off agreeing that the acquisition had been a major blunder. Dr Nair agreed that the property stood as a white elephant. He also agreed that the establishment of so-called regional cultural centres, if carried to its logical conclusion, namely one in each regional area, would be economically unfeasible and that insofar as the Durban metropolitan area was concerned the most suitable venue for a cultural centre was in central Durban. Dr Nair admitted that he had not given consideration either to the acquisition of any available property, whether in the Chatsworth central complex near the law courts or in the centre of Durban. Nor had he given any consideration to the acquisition of vacant land available in Chatsworth central business area or for property in the central Durban area for the establishment of a cultural centre. Nor had he given any consideration of any kind to the renting of property for purposes of a cultural centre.
32. 29. Your Committee was disappointed that a person holding the office of Chief Director of Planning and the status which that involves could have been negligent to the point of recklessness in the pursuit of his responsibilities. That a Chief Director of Education should attempt by untruth to mislead a committee of Parliament is a sad reflection upon the person concerned. Dr Nair admitted to incompetency and negligence. Whether he should continue holding his present post may deserve the attention of the Minister of Education and Culture.
33. 30. The clearly set and predetermined objective by Mr Rajbansi that the Odeon Cinema Complex be purchased, as well as the direct support given to that by Dr Nair who, it appears from the evidence, acted as if he were an agent of Mr Rajbansi, if not of the sellers concerned, does indeed give rise to grave disquiet.
34. 31. From the oral evidence given before and documentary evidence submitted to your Committee, it is clear that the acquisition by the Administration: House of Delegates at R1,1 million of the property must have been a godsend to the sellers of the property. The alleged offer of R1,25 million, which the owners are alleged to have claimed had been offered to them, is not to be taken seriously. No documented offer of such an amount was ever presented to any official of the Administration. In any event it is hardly likely that a seller, having received such an offer, would sell the property at a discount of R150 000 to the Administration: House of Delegates.
35. 32. Indeed, your Committee has had evidence that at the time when Mr Rajbansi intervened to direct that the Administration: House of Delegates acquire this property the sellers were in active negotiation for the sale of the property to the Rev Michael Henry’s Christian Mission at a price of R1 million, with R50 000 being payable on the signing of the agreement; R150 000 on registration of the transfer; R650 000 on registration of a first mortgage bond; and the balance in instalments.
36. 33. In evidence before your Committee Mr Rajbansi claimed that as soon as he discovered that the Rev Michael Henry’s Christian Mission was in occupation and was using the main auditorium of the Odeon Cinema for Christian religious purposes, he did his best to assist the Rev Henry to acquire the property, but claimed that the sellers were antiChristian and refused to sell to a Christian church. When asked as to how a supposedly anti-Christian owner would have leased the property for purposes of propagating the Christian faith, Mr Rajbansi was nonplussed. This had simply not occurred to him, he said. Yet he had no acceptable reason to offer as to why if, as claimed, he wanted out of the goodness of his heart to assist the Rev Henry, he was directly responsible for undercutting the church and, using the superior spending power of the State, substantially outbid the Rev Henry and his church by an effective R200 000. Apart from any other factor your Committee is satisfied that to use State funds to deprive any religious organisation of whatever faith of a chance of acquiring property, is unacceptable.
37. 34. Documentary evidence also demonstrates that there were mortgages registered over the property to the extent of R879 200, which, even at a moderate interest rate of 15% and taking into account the income from the property and the rates payable thereon, would have resulted in a substantial annual loss to the owners of the property. Had the transaction with the Rev Michael Henry’s organization been completed, the owner would have received R100 000 less for the property than he did receive from the Administration: House of Delegates and the seller would have been obliged to pay a selling commission to a well-known firm of estate agents involved in the earlier transactions. It is estimated that the selling commission, excluding other expenses, would have been R60 500. Therefore by process of Mr Rajbansi’s intervention, the sellers benefited to the extent of approximately R160 500. There is not the slightest doubt that the sellers of the property would have been exceedingly grateful both to Mr Rajbansi and to Dr Nair. It is inevitable, given the facts, that grave disquiet remains and that serious suspicions abound.
38. 35. All witnesses, except Mr Rajbansi, were of the opinion that the property, as it stands, is not suitable for purposes of a cultural centre. Witnesses agreed that the property is not ideally situated and therefore not easily accessible to the community it is supposed to serve. The lack of sufficient parking facilities was also pointed out as a further disadvantage. There was consensus among all concerned that a cultural centre for metropolitan Durban should be best situated near the city centre, and that if such a centre should be established for Chatsworth alone, the Chatsworth town centre near the law courts was best suited for the purpose.
39. 36. It is important to note that the Odeon Cinema Complex has not yet been utilized as a cultural centre and that no preparations in this regard have been made up to now. Due to the lease contract stipulations of certain present tenants of the complex, it is unlikely that such preparations can be proceeded with within three years. In the meantime, alternative venues for cultural activities will have to be rented, something which has been done without problems up to now.
40. 37. In view of the aforegoing, your Committee wishes to express its dismay at the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex and at the manner in which the whole transaction was conducted. Your Committee is of the opinion that if undue pressure had not been put on the officials concerned, more suitable premises or property for the development of a cultural centre could have been found.
41. 38. On the basis of the evidence, your Committee is satisfied that there was and is no justification whatever for the purchase of the Odeon Cinema property. Secondary schools which have multipurpose facilities provide venues for use on a localised basis. For metropolitan Durban only one centrally situated culture centre is indicated and even this could be obviated by the subsidization of existing private cultural facilities or those established by non-profit community organisations or a mixture of both. Since such facilities already exist in many, possibly most, areas where there is need, that may well be the best course to follow. It is not the intention of the Department of Education and Culture to enter into the cinema business. Hence the property designed for cinema purposes is, as Dr Nair admitted, a white elephant, which draws the limited resources of the Administration. It is recommended that the property be sold. The petrol service station is situated in very awkward terrain and is not of the same high value as are those which are better situated. Perhaps the firm of P L Maharaj and Sons, upon whose offer such reliance was placed by Dr Nair, will purchase it if their offer was genuine. In any event, the property should be disposed of, preferably separately under sectional title, but in any event by public auction, so as to eliminate any further possibility of maladministration.

Mr Chairman, purely to clear my mind again, I want to say that yesterday in this House we heard all the evidence submitted …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With regard to the question raised yesterday in respect of evidence, there is a distinct difference between evidence that is taken at a committee and a report that is placed before the House. Therefore, the draft resolution before the House yesterday was merely to submit all evidence taken. The draft resolution that is now being moved by the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs merely serves as a further draft resolution to submit that report to the James Commission which is sitting at present. It is therefore perfectly in order. I do not think we should split hairs here.

Order! I think the explanation given by the hon member Mr Thaver is adequate in this regard and we shall now continue according to the list of speakers. The hon member Mr Nowbath may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am very, very grateful to the hon member Mr Thaver for clearing up something which I, in the thickness of my head, failed to understand clearly when it was moved by the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I am quite happy that not only is the evidence to go before the James Commission but that this report is also to go to the James Commission. In view of that, I shall not take up much of the House’s time. I did, in fact, have a note here in front of me to the effect that I wanted the report to be referred to the James Commission in addition to the evidence.

There was voluminous evidence before the committee which is not before the House. However, before I proceed to say one or two things, may I say with regard to the objections that I raised earlier when the hon member Mr Thaver was proposing what he called alterations and amendments, that I now realise, in the light of the explanation and the details which he has furnished, that the hon member Mr Thaver’s English is not his forte or his metier, and therefore I withdraw any objections I may have had to what he was saying at the time.

The reason which gave rise to the appointment of this House Committee was the allegation that somebody had made R500 000 on that deal. It was that which impelled those people who asked for this committee to ask for it. Who made R500 000? I believe that if anyone is prepared to check Hansard he will find that one hon member of this House in fact interjected to say, “who pocketed R400 000?” It has now been shown very clearly before the James Commission that no one pocketed anything.

The hon member for Red Hill when giving evidence, finally summarised his view of the matter. He described the question of someone making R500 000 on the deal as a consensus of general opinion. To this the hon Chairman of that commission, a very eminent judge and no less than that, said that the commission was not interested in any general consensus of opinion, but that it was interested in hard facts. The hon member for Red Hill was therefore constrained to admit that he did not have any evidence and that disposed of the whole thing.

It so happened that that result was anticipated by the majority of the members on this House Committee. They anticipated that they could not pin anything to an allegation of anybody pocketin g money out of any deal.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member not aware of the maxim that when a man and a woman are closeted together in a locked room for some considerable time, it is not to be presumed that they are saying their pater nosters? [Interjections.]

I bow to the superior experience of the hon member for Reservoir Hills if he has been in that situation. My morals never allow me to do that kind of thing. He speaks from experience.

I want to get back to what I was talking about. The members of that committee—and I refer to the majority of the members—having on the very first day discovered by the evidence that was led by the officials who had been called in to give evidence that they could not succeed or that there was no substance to the allegations of who pocketed R400 000 or who made R500 000 on the deal, then decided to go for the approach which permeates this report. The whole thing was based on the fact that there was no need to purchase this. It simply meant that not being able to prove an allegation, the majority—it was a game of numbers and of who was in the chair—said that this complex was not necessary and therefore its purchase was an act of maladministration. That is what the whole report has come down to. At one point in their report they say that they question, and I quote:

that is letters by P L Maharaj and Sons—

It was very, very simple. Any one of those members of your Committee that held that opinion could simply have subpoenaed P L Maharaj to come to that Committee and asked him: “Is your offer genuine?” That was all; it was as simple as that. Why was that not done by the majority of the hon members of the Committee?

It may well be argued that I was on the Committee, but I should like to point out that on the very first day I requested the Chairman to arrange for one witness to be subpoenaed. He is still being subpoenaed. That is the approach of the Chairman.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Camperdown just to listen. He may learn something if he listens.

[Inaudible.]

When the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs was reading this into the record I did not say anything; I kept quiet. I expect—I hope I can expect—to be allowed to proceed to say what I want to say. The speakers who want to interrupt have the right to get up after me and say what they want to say.

As I was saying, I should like to know why that simple step was not taken, since they do come to the conclusion that perhaps the firm of P L Maharaj and Sons can be called upon to buy this. This is what one calls trading around with opinions, views, “I believe”, “I expect”, “I think”— but a commission of inquiry which is headed by a hard-headed man with long judicial experience will not—and in fact did not—allow this kind of thing, when the hon member for Red Hill said: “It is a consensus of general opinion.” What we want is facts. This report is peppered with oblique statements, with references to opinions and views. However, this is what one might call just verbosity and hot air.

We now come to this very significant statement, which is glossed over very, very fast, that the two Ministers concerned were afraid that they would lose their positions if they opposed the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I warn the hon members of this House to think carefully about that statement that a Minister holding office, whose function it is to protect the interests of the community, irrespective of the consequences to himself, concedes …

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

Mr Chairman, I am not answering questions, from him in particular.

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take questions.

Shame!

[Inaudible.]

There is another monkey.

You look like one.

Order! I want to appeal to hon members to give the speaker an unimpeded opportunity to continue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I crave your indulgence? Is the hon nominated member permitted to address another hon member in this House as a monkey?

He did not say that.

He did!

I did say it in response to what he did. But if he had not responded I would not have said it.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon member address those words to the hon member for Camperdown?

I addressed them to the hon member for Camperdown, Sir.

Order! Those words are unparliamentary. Will the hon member please withdraw the words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member for Camperdown stated that the hon member Mr Nowbath resembled a monkey. I submit that that is unparliamentary.

It is immaterial to me—I take it from where it comes. I am of more solid material than that. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Camperdown please withdraw those remarks.

Mr Chairman, I did not call him a monkey. I said that he resembled one.

Order! Will the hon member please withdraw those remarks.

I bow to your wise ruling, Mr Chairman, and withdraw them.

Mr Chairman, I have no objections to being called anything by anybody because anything that comes from the gutters does not worry me. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member Mr Nowbath is now indulging in unparliamentary language by referring to something that comes from the gutters.

Order! Those words are also unparliamentary. Will the hon member Mr Nowbath please withdraw those words?

Right, Mr Chairman, I withdraw them.

Order! I appeal to that hon member as well not to resort to the use of such language.

Mr Chairman, I am only engaging in repartee—I am not causing any of it. [Interjections.]

I would like to draw attention to what will be found in the evidence. When I was cross-examining the hon the Minister of Education and Culture the hon chairman of that committee, Mr Muthusami Thaver, said: “Mr Nowbath, you must accept what the hon the Minister is saying because he is speaking under oath.” At that stage I justifiably burst out laughing.

You are talking nonsense! [Interjections.]

I will continue, Mr Chairman, and I will not take any exception to that. The problem is that the chairman of the committee assumed that because a person was giving evidence under oath, I had to accept the statements and I could not question their validity or truth. I want to know of the hon members of this House if it is not so that if a Minister is prepared to compromise himself, his integrity and the mandate which he has been given to guard the interests of the community because he wants to hold a position, he does not deserve to be a Minister. The majority of the committee was by no means hostile to these Ministers, yet they came and said to this House and to the whole world that those two eminent Ministers gave in to the pressure exerted upon them by Mr Rajbansi, as he is mentioned in the report. What kind of men are these? Have they any moral integrity and moral stability? Are they honest people? Are they here to work or are they here to hold positions?

Ask that of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council!

They are here to hold positions and nothing else and that is what this report is telling the whole world. If we have that kind of approach in our public life …

You should also have served on the committee.

Order! I once again want to appeal to hon members and remind them that they will have the opportunity to make their observations in the debate. They must please give the speaker the opportunity to continue.

I do not think that I have to take up any more of the House’s time except to say that I look forward to the evaluation of the James Commission of the reports of the House Committee and the evidence before it. Before I resume my seat I should like to know what this House Committee has cost the Treasury.

Mr Chairman, I have listened with interest to what was said by the hon member Mr Nowbath. Having heard the submissions that he has made in the House this afternoon, I wish that a man with his background and training had stayed on that committee and even, if necessary, come out with a minority report.

Hear, hear!

Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition aware of the fact that no minority …

Order! Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition prepared to take a question?

No, Mr Chairman. I want to get on with my job. If Mr Nowbath had remained as a member of that committee and even if he did not subscribe to its findings, I would have been pleased to listen to him making his observations here because he was there throughout the hearing. I do not think that hon members of this House would have been unreasonable; they would have listened and paid attention to what this gentleman had to say. However, if he comes here and cries after having failed to avail himself of the opportunity that he had, it is totally unfair to expect hon members to listen to him.

Hon members must remember that the hon members of Parliament who were appointed to serve on this committee represented the Independent Party, the Peoples Party, the Progressive Federal Party and the NPP—not Solidarity. Solidarity is not a member of that commission. That should give the hon member some indication that we on this side of the House—particularly Solidarity—wanted a fair opportunity to be given to all who came before the committee as witnesses. We wanted the examination to be carried out in such a fashion that we, by our non-involvement, would have been objective in our assessment.

I think there is a message in the fact that Solidarity did not participate as a member of this commission. We were concerned. This was a serious charge and we wanted a report which would send out a message. I therefore want to reiterate the fact that I think the hon member Mr Nowbath did a great disservice to this House, to his party and to the people for whom he is speaking, by absenting himself.

I do not have to eat the whole egg to see if it is rotten.

The report is before us. [Interjections.] Gentlemen, please. The resolution of the House was to ask the committee to consider a whole series of matters. I think it is important that we do not just talk about commissions, because that was not the only thing that the committee could have examined or called for testimony on. However, what is important is the fact that hon Ministers who are on this side of the House have made admissions that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council went beyond them and interfered with the administration of their departments.

The hon Minister of Education and Culture said that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council went over his head and granted leave to school teachers to participate actively on election day in the election at Tongaat. What comes out in this report is that hon Ministers, who had certain reservations and were reluctant to move as speedily as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council might have wanted, were bypassed.

That is very, very clear. The Director-General of the House of Delegates becomes the mechanism or the machinery through whom goals are achieved. There is a letter on record, dated 2 March 1987 and addressed to Dr Gilliland. It says, and I quote:

He decided that it would be handled by the Director-General. I continue:

This refers to the Director-General. It goes further.

What is important, is that the first inspection started, I think, around 10 December and by 31 December the instruction was given that the deal must be completed. This is a major operation. A great number of people would have had to give their views. I was on the first inspection, and my view was that if the people who are competent to pass judgement on this building, after a proper assessment, come forward with a report stating that this is an ideal place, I do not think anybody would be against it. However, unfortunately, for this building to be turned into a cultural centre, according to the report, would cost R60 million. A quarter of R60 million is R15 million. Any alteration in terms of one or two million which is recorded here refers to revamping that building in order to have it operating as a cinema, not as a cultural hall.

You were a Minister!

I was a Minister, yes, but I can tell hon members that if I had been a Minister and there was something which I believed should not be done, I would have been prepared to sacrifice my job for such a thing. I would have done that, because I would never, under any circumstances, have allowed such a situation to continue. However, I can understand the circumstances under which the hon member for Red Hill and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture operated, because it was not only one matter. I think in due course a whole series of matters will come up for exhibition. Then hon members will realise the circumstances and the difficulties under which they operated and they will be answerable for themselves.

However, what we cannot accept is the distinct hurry to complete the deal by 31 March lest the surplus funds be taken away and lost to the Administration, when a senior official says that when they needed to buy land in Malakazi they did not have the money.

People are suffering up till today!

Sorry, if I knew the hon member was back, I would not have mentioned it. But there it is! It is on record here. It is evidence put forward by none other than Dr G K Nair, who is a senior official.

I do not want to delve into this report, because we need to adopt it here, and thereafter I am certain that the matter will also be made available to the James Commission for whatever purpose may be necessary. I do not want to delve deeply into the material contained in this report, except to say that it is clear that for some or other reason a building which was not suitable for the purpose for which it was intended was purchased, the purchase was done in a tremendous hurry, the money that was used for the purchase of that cinema could have been used more profitably for the purchase of a piece of ground for the building of a school, and in some way or another it is very clear that the two hon Ministers involved were somewhat reluctant participants in the exercise.

Therefore I intend moving that this House, having considered the second interim report of the House Committee on Allegations of Maladministration, should resolve to adopt the said report, and that it should deplore the conduct of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in being responsible for the squandering of public funds and censor him thereupon. This House should further support the recommendation of the said committee that the Odeon Cinema property be sold by public auction so that the funds may be put to public use for the purposes intended.

Mr Chairman, it is a sad day for us as hon members of Parliament in the House of Delegates because within such a short period of time—it will be four years next week— so much corruption has prevailed … [Interjections.] I mean maladministration. In this report there is glaring evidence of maladministration and this report is indeed true and correct. [Interjections.] On analysing the evidence, the only conclusion to be drawn from the report is that there has been connivance between certain senior officials and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on certain issues and deals.

I refer in particular to the report by the committee on Dr G K Nair and his evasive and contradictory evidence on various aspects. Can we afford to retain him in his present position? In the course of his duties to promote education he was, in fact, supporting a Minister who, according to the report, had succumbed to malpractice.

On page W67, paragraph 20 he claims that the valuation of the property called …

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon member for Havenside whether the word malpractice appears in the report.

Mr Chairman, the hon nominated member Mr Nowbath seems to be very concerned, so deeply concerned that I do not know whether the report itself has disturbed his mind to a certain extent. [Interjections.] Does he, in fact, support the report when very clearly the evidence before this commission indicates the inefficiency of certain people and the connivance of certain people …

Answer the question!

[Inaudible.]

My hon colleague is trying to help me here. For the benefit of the hon nominated member Mr Nowbath I will read from paragraph 15. I quote Dr J Gilliland:

And where is the word malpractice?

What is the difference?

Go and study English, man. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Nowbath has not been very successful generally, neither was he a very successful lecturer. Therefore he is sitting here as an hon member of Parliament, simply because he is not very successful elsewhere. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is casting aspersions and is assailing the dignity of the hon member Mr Nowbath. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am only trying to state the facts. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it dignified for hon members to shout when I rise on a point of order? [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to observe dignity in the House and not to shout unnecessarily. The hon member for Havenside may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. There seem to be a lot of interjections from my hon colleague on the other side. I hope he gets a little cooler under the collar, because I am not picking on him. I am only trying to debate with my good learned friend here, who happens to have been a lawyer. I am pleased that …

Order! Will the hon member for Havenside please address the subject.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to page W67, paragraph 20 in particular. This is where claims are made concerning the valuation. I am quite surprised. I refer to Dr G K Nair when he claims that the valuation of the Odeon Cinema, which was valued by a sworn valuator at a market price of R730 000, was too low. I would like to know what right this man had to repudiate this valuation by a sworn valuator.

I would like to know whether this was not detrimental to the House of Delegates, its administration and us generally. There was a transaction, and if the owners of the Odeon Cinema were quite prepared to sell it for R730 000, do hon members not think that it would have been beneficial to us and to the community at large? But here a man who is an educationist, not a property salesman, goes and determines that the valuation of a property is too low.

This is what brought about the sale of this property for R1,1 million. I would like to know what knowledge this man had about the valuation. My examination leads me to believe that the only reason for upgrading the valuation to R1,1 million was in fact monetary gain for somebody. Somebody gained, and there is a big question mark over who it was who gained. I think Dr G K Nair should have stayed out of the valuation of this property.

What about the planning?

I do not know whether he is a good planner as an educationist. I do not think so, because he confessed and admitted to his incompetence.

In paragraph 28 the committee reports that Dr G K Nair “confessed both to professional incompetence and to gross negligence” in his role in the purchase of the Odeon Cinema. In view of the fact that he is a chief director responsible for planning, his confession of professional incompetence leads me to believe that the position he holds was bestowed upon him not on merit but by—you know by whom, Sir. He has himself confessed before this committee to his incompetence.

In his submission, he stated and agreed that the Odeon Cinema site was not suitable. Why then did he submit a rosy memorandum in favour of the acquisition of the cinema for cultural purposes when he agreed that the acoustics and other facilities did not meet the requirements for such functions? In fact, he ended up by agreeing that the purchase was a blunder. For an intellectual, a person holding so many degrees, to make such a big blunder at the expense of the taxpayer and to the detriment of the community gives rise to a very large question mark.

I am of the opinion that this man worked hand in hand with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the purchase of the cinema, not for the benefit of the community, but for the benefit of a certain person or persons at the expense of the taxpayer. He appears to have collaborated with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council against the wishes of senior officials of the department and Ministers when this deal was pushed through.

There seems to be a great measure of understanding between these two personalities, and there can be no doubt of this if one goes back some years. Many hon colleagues were in the South African Indian Council, and they will not deny that this is a fact. Dr G K Nair was appointed as rector of the teachers’ training college by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who was then chairman of the executive of the SAIC. This was only made possible by means of the amendment of a regulation which was pushed through before the nominations for that appointment were made. This was in some measure a reward.

He had in fact amended the regulation to make this possible. Does this not make his involvement in this deal seem possible? I say it is very obvious that these two people projected themselves for the sale of this cinema which, as Dr G K Nair eventually agreed, was a blunder.

My call this afternoon is directed towards the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. He should take very serious steps to eliminate those persons whom he deems to be either irresponsible or inefficient in the discharge of their duties. In this case Dr G K Nair himself has confessed, in his evidence in chief, to his professional incompetence and his gross negligence in handling the sale of the Odeon Cinema, and I believe that some dramatic action must be taken as a matter of urgency before there is any further corrosion within the department.

First of all, Mr Chairman, I should like to place on record my compliments and congratulations to the Chairman of the House Committee, namely the hon member Mr M Thaver for the very able manner in which he conducted the entire inquiry. He was at all times fair to all witnesses. He was hard on the members of the committee in questioning and his performance was at all times beyond reproach. Perhaps certain heartless hon members, more particularly one speaker who closely resembles his prehistoric ancestors, gave rise to the fact that the chairman did not allow enough latitude for questioning. [Interjections.]

When the hon member for Havenside mentioned that the entire exercise of the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema had been riddled with malpractices, he was challenged to say where in this report there was any mention of malpractice. However, Sir, I also say without fear of contradiction that the entire exercise of the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema was riddled with malpractices.

Let us take the question of the Chief Director: Professional Planning Services, Department of Education and Culture, Dr G K Nair, who deemed it fit to challenge sworn appraisers’ valuations of the Odeon Cinema. According to evidence before the committee, he stormed into the office of the Director of Local Government and Housing and said: “This valuation is ridiculously too low; it could be updated”. That evidence was corroborated by a fellow senior official. Furthermore, in his defence, Dr Nair denied that, which I consider—I would not be allowed to use the word that I want to use—to be an absolute untruth. He was an unreliable witness.

Furthermore, why did Dr Nair insist that the valuation be increased from R730 000 to R1,25 million? If that is not malpractice, Sir, then my learned friend who spoke before me, namely the hon member for Havenside, must find his own answers to that. As a result of that insistence and the instruction from some higher powers, the officials were reluctantly forced to accept an untrue or a fictitious valuation of R1,25 million, on which figure the eventual purchase of the Odeon Cinema was based.

In his speech, the hon member Mr Nowbath said that the committee had attempted in the initial stages to pin the misappropriation of R400 000, and he said we had failed. The committee has not failed, Sir. This is what the committee established. A property that had been valued by sworn appraisers at R700 000 and R730 000 respectively was purchased for R1,1 million.

Undoubtedly almost R400 000 of taxpayers’ money was squandered or given as a gift to a favoured friend of some official—not some official, but a favoured friend of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—who was ably assisted by the Chief Director of Planning: Education and Culture. I should like any succeeding speaker from our side to speak to the fact that the hon member Mr R S Nowbath said that the committee has failed to establish that the loss or theft of R400 000 was wrong. That hon member’s courage has failed him. Of the 72 days for which the committee sat he was present for only five because he knew that if he were to serve on the whole pile of committees he would not be able to come here and offload that big load of codswallop he attempted to offload today.

I want to go back to Dr G K Nair who vainly attempted to defend the indefensible, malpractice, maladministration and interference by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his bypassing the Ministers concerned and giving instructions to officials who hold posts junior to those of the Ministers. Apparently he himself came into the picture. Not even the Acting Executive Director received instructions, and he was second in command to the Minister of Education and Culture.

The hon Mr R S Nowbath also raised the question of his trying to examine the Minister of Education and Culture, whereupon the chairman told him that the Minister had spoken the truth. I recall that and I also agree. Mr Nowbath’s question to the Minister was why did he submit to the pressure put on him by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and I now ask the hon member either to get another pair of spectacles or look more closely at page W68, paragraph 22 of the report. The committee also took cognisance of the fact, and it states here:

However, they hastened to add—

I also took cognisance of the fact that these two Ministers were pushed into positions to act for or to give into the pressure exerted by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This is all very human. Even that hon member, if tomorrow the persons who nominated him to Parliament were to say, “if you do not do this for me I will see that I get you out,” I am quite sure he would do it.

To err is human, but one cannot fault the chairman—I am coming to the defence of the chairman of the Committee; I am not defending the Ministers. We have said what we had to say about them. When the chairman of that committee refused further examination on that particular point, we were satisfied that those Ministers gave in to something which they should not have given in to. Again, they had good reasons. A clear example was set when, for no rhyme or reason, a colleague of theirs was dismissed from the Ministers’ Council. Therefore nobody should attach any blame as regards the manner in which these Ministers acted.

I now turn to the hon the Minister of Education … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the report of the select committee, in the light of the seriousness of its contents, needs to be given proper attention by this House, irrespective of the political party to which one belongs. What is important here is the credibility and the image of the House of Delegates and, as such, of Parliament as a whole.

I want to say that the factors that precipitated the appointment of the select committee were consequent upon many allegations that were made here from the first day of our arrival in Parliament.

[Inaudible.]

What was also of paramount importance was the Auditor-General’s report to the Committee on Public Accounts to the effect that there was unauthorised expenditure in the House of Delegates in relation to the Odeon Cinema. The explanation given to the Committee on Public Accounts by the Director-General at the time—the present Director-General—was his honest and sincere opinion as expressed to the Committee on Public Accounts, namely that he himself would not have allowed an expenditure of that nature. Therefore we in this House, having the report before us, deemed it expedient and wise that this select committee be appointed to enquire and report back.

Now, in this investigation and in this report, all the evidence collected by the select committee, one will find features—unhappily, dark features—that have emerged. Certainly, as I said earlier, we must not consider this report lightly. I believe that the contents of this report—the factual situation—must now also be brought to the attention of the Auditor-General who, in the first instance, came upon this unauthorised expenditure.

If this should be so, the Auditor-General himself will then hand this over to the Advocate-General for investigation. I believe that this is just one aspect of what is being done, since the James Commission is also looking into the whole issue of the Odeon complex. What this will do is to strengthen and perhaps complement the evidence before the James Commission in relation to the Odeon Cinema. Arising from the Odeon Cinema issue, this House gave further instructions to the select committee to look at the alienation of other properties owned, as it were, by the House of Delegates and property over which the House of Delegates had authority. However, this whole unhappy episode in the House of Delegates has revolved around the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his position also as the hon the Minister of Housing.

It is unheard of that a Minister who holds these powers should bypass officials in his endeavour and enthusiasm, particularly to buy and dispose of State property. This is the feature that is most disturbing and distressing. When I speak in this vein, I have at heart—as other hon members— the image and the reputation of our House. The image of the Indian community at large is what we should be looking at.

The image of South Africa!

Yes, South Africa. I agree with the hon member for Isipingo. The participation of honourable men in the highest forum of this country is being questioned as a result of these kinds of actions.

Therefore I believe that this report has come to us at an appropriate time. As I said earlier, the contents of the report must receive the attention of the Auditor-General, who reported this unauthorised expenditure in the first instance. He must then take the necessary action as he deems fit. This certainly throws further light on the enquiry of the James Commission that is taking place at the moment. If we are going to adopt the resolution that all the reports, papers and evidence must go before the James Commission, I believe that they are already there as a result of the affidavits and the memoranda of Mr Dookie, the former Minister of Local Government and Housing, before the James Commission.

As I said earlier, I do believe that this report will complement and add to certain aspects of certain evidence which the James Commission has perhaps not had but which the House Committee has had. I would like to conclude by saying that we must not become dispassionate over this issue. We must look at it logically and realistically, and ask ourselves whether we do not have a responsibility. Have we not a responsibility to the electorate who put us here? If we recognise our responsibility and our duty, we must say to the hon the State President that over the years that allegations were made, everything that came to him did not receive the attention that it should have received. My plea would therefore be that the hon the State President should take full cognisance of this interim report. When such a finger is pointed in any government, the honourable thing to do is to retire temporarily from a position so that there can be no likelihood of any instructions being given as part of the duties of a Minister to officials in certain positions who are doing their jobs. I think it is the moral obligation of the hon the Minister of Housing …

What obligation?

A moral obligation—I cannot describe it otherwise. The honourable thing for the hon the Minister to do is to ask the hon the State President to suspend him from his position until the report of the James Commission and this report are fully …

… investigated.

No, not investigated—they are already investigated. I want to say “implemented”.

Mr Chairman, I rise this afternoon with a very heavy heart. It is heavy for many reasons. This report had to be brought out into the open before people could come to their senses and realise that there were things they were indulging in which were wrong. They should have gracefully stepped down a long time ago. We who know our guilt must accept the fact that we must admit it, no matter what the pain or the consequences are. That is the situation which I see over here. There are certain parties who have been guilty of total maladministration. I shall deal with some aspects emanating from this report.

Let me start off by saying that anybody in public office—whether he be a member of Parliament, the secretary of a civic association or a Minister of State—holds a position of trust, and more so, a Minister of State holds a heavy responsibility insofar as the question of trust is concerned. When one’s trust is questioned in that particular role, one must gracefully step down. I believe that this report has shown quite clearly that people in charge of other people’s money— public money—did not administer those funds correctly. This is maladministration.

I would like to ask what hon Minister, official or Chief Director of Planning would squander their own money. Would they pay R400 000 or more for an asset if they were to utilise their own funds? Can they be so reckless with the funds that come from the public coffers? No, Mr Chairman. I think someday somebody will pay a heavy price for that. I think the day of reckoning is drawing near.

I would also like to say that this report is objective in the sense that it was not merely critical of one individual. It examined all the facts. Even the former Minister of Housing came in for some criticism because he capitulated. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has come in for some criticism. I have no problems with that. The hon member Mr Nowbath now wants to make political capital out of it. I do not want to make political capital out of it. All I am saying is that the report has examined the evidence. It has been critical and objective. The hon member Mr Nowbath should acknowledge that, rather than complain that he could not function very well in that committee. What utter nonsense, Mr Chairman! When it comes to nailing other people, the hon member Mr Nowbath functions most effectively.

Sometimes he does not function.

When he spoke about conventions not so long ago, when he spoke about the integrity of Parliament, he was an example of one of those persons who has brought the image of this Parliament right down by his very mannerisms, conduct and the way in which he has been talking during the past two days. I trust that he will come to his senses and spare us the humiliation. These types of reports are bringing down the dignity of this House.

Our community in the work place—especially the Indian community, because they are so compartmentalised in South Africa—are looked upon as if they cannot be trusted. Have we any feeling for those people? Do we have any feeling for the larger community? Must we look at our self-centered interests all the time? Must our participation here merely be materialistically inclined, just to protect our own interests?

I also want to make certain other observations. Since when did the chief planner register with the South African Council for Valuers? That is now a profession. Those who engage in the valuation of property, to arrive at a fairly equitable value, are people who have to register with the South African Council for Valuers. No Tom, Dick or Harry can suck figures out of their thumbs.

It seems to me that if the chief planner and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council do not have that qualification, they will not understand …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Stanger admit that he is a sworn appraiser?

Mr Chairman, I am a sworn appraiser and a member of the South African Council for Valuers and there are no restrictions on what I can value. I might even evaluate the hon member some day.

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to the issue. When it comes to valuation, it is very easy to take one aspect and say that the replacement cost is so much. However, have we forgotten that ever since the video-machine industry has entered the open market the cinema business has declined? We do not have to be very clever to know that. I think even the hon member for Brickfield can come to that conclusion.

I would like to say that this is absolute abuse. To use replacement costs is merely a mechanism and a method to justify a valuation and ignores other factors that determine valuation, such as utility, return on capital and these factors. What about the question of renovations running into R2,3 million? An alarming thing that also comes out clearly in the report is that nobody gave any consideration to the establishment of cultural centres. Yet there was this cast-iron hurry to obtain this property at that high price, within three months, and to ignore the normal norms of using valuation as a factor. Also, the advice of the chief director that Cato Manor might perhaps be more suitable for cultural activity was ignored. It is absurd to me. It is absurd how two people can ride roughshod over good advice in such a way, unless there is an ulterior motive.

I want to say that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I am not saying in what way. A parliamentary select committee can be appointed if hon members so desire, and I will say in what way. I know that this type of thing has taken place elsewhere. I know for a fact that over ten years, the taxpayers of this country will be called upon to pay from their coffers almost R1 million in excess, which they could have saved, had they listened to good advice in the public interest. That will be the subject matter of another commission, another inquiry, I trust. I will make that submission. Again it is interference and maladministration which is going to cost us R1 million.

I am not prepared to sit back and let people go around doing this kind of damage to the economy of this country and to the integrity of my community for their own selfish ulterior motives, making us all look like a bunch of thieves. I would therefore like to say that we in this House need to take serious note of these things.

I would also like to say that the hon the State President can no longer sit back and hide behind constitutional mechanisms and constraints, as it were. He makes the appointments of Ministers and if he finds that things are not correct, I believe he has the capacity to act thereon. We are at least asking for a suspension, if this is not done through the James Commission. Why suspend the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from the main Cabinet and not from this House? It is strange to me that whilst such an inquiry is going on, the documents and the very evidence that one wants are in the custody of the person who is being investigated. It is unheard of. I do not know by what stretch of the imagination one could justify such a situation. It could only happen in South Africa where all the abnormal things take place.

In the House of Delegates!

Not only in the House of Delegates, but in the House of Delegates in partnership with other people from other Houses as well.

I would like to say that we in this House should now adopt this report and the recommendations and combine the motions moved by the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I think the public at large must know that we are serious. We must be seen to be serious when we talk about clean administration and not just pay lip service. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in response to what the hon member for Stanger stated, I want to state that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was not dismissed from the Cabinet. It is on record that he asked to be relieved while the inquiry was taking place.

I want to express my disgust that a public servant, Dr G K Nair, has been dragged into the debate on this report and that he has been so extensively criticised by hon members. He cannot defend himself here and for that reason alone, I believe he should not have been dragged into these affairs concerning this report.

I am pleased that the House has taken a decision that the evidence, and obviously the findings of the committee, are to be submitted to the James Commission, which we all know as an impartial commission. The appointment of this House Committee emanated, inter alia, from a report of the Public Accounts Committee. I quote from this report under the heading—“Unauthorised Expenditure”:

In pursuance of this, I would like to read a few extracts from a letter by Mr R P Wronsley, Director-General of the House of Delegates, addressed to The Chairman, House Committee Investigating Allegations of Maladministration (House of Delegates):

I will read a few more extracts to expedite this …

Please give us the date as …

The letter is dated 12 July 1988 and it is indeed a privileged document given to the committee. I am quoting this in terms of Rule 44 of the Standing Rules and Orders.

I would be obliged if I could be presented with a copy.

It will be a pleasure. I continue:

Mr Chairman, Mr Wronsley has stated that he now departs from his earlier submission that there was something irregular, incorrect or inconsistent in this regard. In response to the utterances of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …

[Inaudible.]

No, it was another matter in the debate. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stated that no members of Solidarity were represented on that committee. However, I also want to state that, with the exception of the hon member for Red Hill, who was involved in these inquiries, no members of Solidarity made any submissions whatsoever to the committee. Yet his party made a lot of allegations in this House and I anticipated at least some submissions to have been made formally by Solidarity to the House Committee.

The report is sufficient! There is no need for that! It speaks for itself!

I now come to the matter of valuations …

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

No, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] Richard Ellis submitted a valuation of R730 000, but a significant part of the valuation was not mentioned in this report, and I would like to quote from it:

Read about the Alhambra at the same time!

I quote further:

Market value and replacement value are …

It goes on to say:

Another valuator quoted a figure of, I think, R1,5 million.

No. P L Maharaj tendered …

I am referring to certified valuators. The municipal valuation is somewhere in the region of R1,8 million. [Interjections.]

Quote us the Alhambra’s evaluation!

I do not have time to go into this for the benefit of the hon member for Camperdown. [Interjections.]

You are quoting out of context!

I take exception to the remark that I am quoting out of context.

Give us the Alhambra’s too!

To quote this whole report would take me the better part of an hour. [Interjections.] I do not have the time for that. I want to come to a few points in the report. I would like to quote a passage which someone dwelt on:

I would like this letter to be quoted in the House and attached to the report. In fact this letter from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council requests Dr Gilliland to ensure that he handles all transactions in this matter.

What about the Minister?

There was nothing sinister about this letter.

What about the Minister?

I do not want to enter a running debate with the hon member for Camperdown. I wish to request that he afford me the same courtesy that I showed by not interjecting when he spoke.

But you speak nonsense!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would like the hon member to read the very last paragraph of the letter.

Order! I appeal to hon members to allow the hon member for Moorcross to be heard. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I would love to accede to the request of the hon member Mr Thaver but I am afraid I do not have the letter.

I will furnish you with it.

I would like to come to another part of the report, which implicates the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the former Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. What is important here is that these two Ministers approved the purchase of the Odeon Cinema, and it is my submission that if they had had any reservations, they should have expressed them there and then, even at a meeting of the Ministers’ Council, or else in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member referred to decisions taken by the Ministers’ Council. We cannot reveal details of Ministers’ Council decisions, but our opposition was made absolutely clear there. The hon member was a member of that House Committee, and he knows from my submissions in what circumstances we gave in. I signed the document on the last day of that financial year, when I was told: “If you don’t do it, the consequences are yours.”

I would like to confirm that the hon the Minister did indicate that to the committee, Mr Chairman.

I would like to quote from the letter in question, a copy of which has been given to me by an hon member. The last paragraph reads as follows:

[Interjections.] It is a question of interpretation. [Interjections.]

Dr Gilliland was asked to enter into negotiations and to see to the acquisition of a cinema, and there was a misunderstanding that if this complex were not purchased by 31 March 1987, the money would be returned to the Treasury. [Interjections.]

In respect of paragraph 33 …

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

No, Sir, due to time constraints, I cannot take a question. As far as the involvement of the Rev Michael Henry’s Christian Mission is concerned, I want to say that Mr Rajbansi stated what he knew. In fact, it was Mr Rajbansi … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when the resolution to set up the House Committee was adopted in this House, all hon members, irrespective of which party they may have belonged to, gave this resolution their blessing. That can not be denied. There was no dissension whatsoever. The hon members on the other side of this House had the majority of members serving on that committee. I want to make the following observation: Is it not now imperative that they exercise their responsibility in considering the report?

There have been several instances of their giving way to sentiments and bias instead of viewing and discussing the report factually and objectively. I want to emphasise that the outside world, both today and tomorrow, will evaluate the views which each and every hon member expresses on this report, because the electorate expects from each of us that kind of objectivity and responsibility, especially in regard to a matter such as this. I do not think any hon member should be found wanting in that regard.

What is more, transactions such as this one have cast an undeserved stigma on the Indian community. I do not think our community deserves this. I do not think our fathers and grandfathers, who strove so hard over the years, despite many obstacles and difficulties, deserve it either. In the name of justice, fair play and clean administration, I think each of us must bear this in mind in discussing this report, especially when we are discussing the final report. I think we must conduct ourselves as hon members of Parliament, as responsible, mature men. I want to make this appeal on behalf of all of us in this House.

The acquisition of the Odeon Cinema as a cultural centre was totally unimaginative and illconceived, to say the least, and I think the report contains abundant evidence of this. There was no need for this cultural centre. There was no need for it whatsoever. Such a luxury is regrettable, when viewed in terms of our wants. The Department of Education and Culture: House of Delegates was not to become a theatrical company. If the Department of Education and Culture wants to promote a theatrical company it is a different story altogether. To some extent some of them have become so comical that by their own folly they have shown themselves to be so, and I say what a pity.

Most schools will be provided with halls; some high schools already have halls. It was a contentious issue in this House when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was instrumental in providing an extraordinary hall in his constituency, as we have pointed out in this House, adjoining the Arena Park School and therefore to go and acquire what this committee has termed a grandiose centre, indeed a luxury centre, was uncalled for.

I ask hon members, who is going to make use of it? Where are the people going to come from? How are they going to come? Will they fly? What costs are going to be involved? If one considers the distances that will have to be travelled one wonders what viability exercise was carried out before this decision was made. Which committee took the decision? I want to say this for future reference, I am not condoning any Minister or Ministers although the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council might have been instrumental in, shall I say, forcing this issue because each and every Minister had a responsibility to this House and the community at large. They had recourse. Yesterday this House took a magnificent step in the interests of the community when it opposed the largest ruling party in this country. Nobody should begrudge us this. I think the Ministers had that responsibility and they owed it to the people to at least protest to the Ministers’ Council. They should not have become yes-men or sat around like puppets. I am mentioning this because this must not go on.

I want to be forthright. On one occasion I myself resigned from the executive of the SAIC and I was unique in that respect, but I want to say no more at this stage.

You left many parliaments, not only one.

Earlier on the hon nominated member Mr R S Nowbath was aptly described by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as having done gross disservice to that committee to which he was appointed. If he felt that he was not fit enough he should have resigned at the appropriate time and that is on the day he was actually nominated by his party. Then he had the audacity not to concede who it was after all who decided the hon nominated member Mr M Thaver should be appointed as chairman. It was his party and he was a party to it. Therefore to come here now and to throw these things at us is unbecoming of any hon member who claims to be a member of Parliament in this House. These facts must be taken note of.

Let us hope that we can now put an end to this puerile and distasteful nonsense. If the people outside tell us that we are turning this House into a comical scenario it is because we have nominated people of this calibre to this House.

As regards that Odeon Cinema I felt thrilled when I heard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say the thing that any sensible person would do. That Odeon Cinema should be put up for sale; it should be advertised tomorrow by the Ministers’ Council and sold at the first opportunity.

Cut your losses. [Interjections.]

We do not want that. It is a serious indictment of this House and of those hon members who came before the committee as witnesses and who said that if they had had an opportunity and if they had a little more time, they would certainly not have chosen the Odeon Cinema, but rather some other venue.

What do we want from reports that we have read? We told these people who do not have the knowledge or the background or any modicum of culture that we must really promote culture on a regional basis. One does not want Newcastle to come to Durban, and the same goes for Pietermaritzburg and Rylands. What nonsense that they should go to Chatsworth, to the Odeon Cinema! How can people be so irresponsible? I do not wish to say any more. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, one might almost say that the name of the cinema ought to be changed to Odious Cinema! I am sorry that the hon member for Moorcross has left the House, since he raised a red herring—a rather smelly red herring—dealing with the alleged value of the land, or of the property concerned.

I was a member of that committee, and the committee intentionally did not go fully into the question of how the valuation was arrived at, and for the following reasons: The transaction was a fait accompli. The price had been paid; public money had been squandered already. Unless it could be proved that the seller had acted dishonestly, there was no way in which the money could be taken back from the seller. There was no evidence at all which could lead the committee to believe or to establish that the seller acted dishonestly. Other people did, and there is clear evidence of that.

However, just to deal with the point raised by the hon member for Moorcross—I do this with some little knowledge of valuations of property since for many years I have earned a substantial part of my income from appearing before valuation courts—in terms of the Expropriation Act under which this property was expropriated and under section 12(1)(a)(ii) of that Act,—and I quote from the acknowledged authority on the law of expropriation in South Africa, Jacob, on page 73:

It is for that reason that the House Committee on Finance took the decision that the R400 000 which was seemingly overpaid—I believe it was overpaid—should be brought back into the Treasury. That is what the Act says.

When a property is expropriated, it is the market value of a property which should in fact be paid. That is what is referred to as the comparative or market data approach, in which a valuer takes into account comparable sales of similar property in the neighbourhood or, failing the immediate neighbourhood, in comparable neighbourhoods. That is the market value approach—the comparable sales method.

It is not always available. In this particular case the valuers were able to find only two instances of cinemas being sold, namely the Alhambra Theatre, which used to be a cinema and was subsequently converted into a theatre, and the Adams Cinema. They did not have any data on the Twin City Cinema which had apparently been sold in Chatsworth.

I am really surprised by the hon member for Moorcross who was a member of the House Committee and who—unlike two other members, namely the hon member Mr Nowbath and the hon member for Laudium, who attended only a few meetings—attended most of the meetings and participated in the consideration of all the oral as well as written evidence placed before the committee.

Richard Ellis was the first valuer employed by the department. The final paragraph of the first page of their report says, and I quote:

This site is comparable in extent to the Odeon Cinema site.

In a White area!

I continue:

This is prime property right in the centre of Durban. The report said further:

Here they obviously had regard to the comparability of location vis-à-vis the community which that particular complex was intended to serve. I continue:

The replacement cost is one of the methods which sworn valuers ought to take into calculation, but that is the very last resort. So what did Richard Ellis do? Richard Ellis gave a market value of R730 000 which a willing buyer would notionally have paid to a willing seller. He was cautious, however, and he made use of what is called the cost method or the replacement method by Jacobs. I quote from Jacobs, page 134:

It has never been applied in any court in South Africa because it is the very last method of resort. Jacobs, with respect, was not entirely correct in that he obviously took only ordinary courts into account. However, the Water Court in a Transvaal case paid heed to the replacement method. When the Department of Water Affairs expropriates land one obviously cannot have any kind of comparable approach.

The valuers took into account the second method of approach which is quite common, namely the income investment or economic approach. If the vendors had let the property at marginal rentals, they did so freely and voluntarily. Clearly, if there had been a great demand for the leasehold of that property, the vendors would have demanded higher rentals. There too market forces operated. The exception is the purchase price paid by the House of Delegates which was negotiated on a fictional basis, costed on an imaginary basis and the money paid on the date of expropriation.

That is the astonishing thing. The instructions for the acquisition were given by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The instructions that the money had to be paid by a fixed date were given by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Clearly no intelligent person will want to instruct his employees to conclude a sale of that magnitude within a matter of three months. If one obliges them to conclude a sale of that magnitude within that period, one is putting an almost insufferable burden upon the officials. When the officials—according to the evidence— realised that this is what the boss wanted, they felt obliged to give the boss what he wanted.

I hold responsible for this sad and disgusting state of affairs the hon the State President of this country, Mr P W Botha. At that time the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was a Minister of the hon the State President, in the same way every minister of every government is the minister of the sovereign head of that state. The sovereign head of our state is the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha. What is worse, if the hon the State President had heeded calls repeatedly made in this House four years ago, three years ago, two years ago for the appointment of a proper judicial commission of inquiry at that time, this travesty would not have occurred.

Public funds, belonging not only to every member of the public, not only to every taxpayer, but funds which ought to have been utilised for the betterment of the poor in this country, would not have been wasted and would not have gone into private pockets. Where did the amount of R400 000 go? It went into the private pockets of the vendors. There were mortgage bonds on that property to the extent of R879 200. No person who is holding a property, with debts upon that property of that magnitude, will want to hang on to the property. I say what the report says: This sale obviously came as a godsend to the vendors. That godsend came through the agency of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Mr A Rajbansi. Inevitably and obviously, the people who benefited to that extent and more, benefited to a greater extent because they got their money up front.

If they had sold to the Rev Michael Henry, they would have had to wait at least another eight or nine months before they would have received their money. If they had sold elsewhere, they may not have received their money for an even longer period. Incidentally, I must correct myself. In terms of a draft agreement of sale between the Michael Henry Group and the sellers, R250 000 of the selling price up to R1 million was to be paid in dribs and drabs over a long period. The sellers were therefore grateful. Who were they grateful to? They were grateful to the man who made it possible for the sellers to be enriched. How did they express that gratitude? Well, sir, it has been said that since the Phoenicians discovered money, gratitude can always be expressed in a way that the Phoenicians would indicate.

The hon member Mr Nowbath referred to a profit of R500 000. I heard of R400 000 and R160 500. I have heard of R500 000. Sir, this much I will say: If any employee of any business establishment behaved in the negligent—not indolent—and improper manner in which Dr G K Nair behaved, that person would even in terms of the Labour Relations Act be liable to dismissal. I believe that in terms of the Indian Education Act—I cannot recall immediately whether it is section 14 or 15—the Minister of Education has not only the power but the duty to charge any employee of his department who is guilty of misconduct.

In terms of the definition of, I think, section 14, the misconduct includes indolence and negligence. Here is a man who has admitted under oath that he was negligent. It is fiddlesticks for the hon member for Moorcross or anyone else to say that his name should not be mentioned. When a man perpetrates what I regard as such a serious offence, his name should be mentioned.

I am not here to make any excuses for the two hon Ministers who ought—in my respectful submission—to have stood their ground and refused to be browbeaten. However, there too one can understand their dilemma, because clearly it was the hon the State President of this country who was seen to be supporting the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It was the hon the State President of this country who connived with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in having the hon member for North Western Cape dismissed from his position. It was the hon the State President of this country who connived with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in removing the hon member for Red Hill from the Housing portfolio, although that hon member apparently warned the hon the State President that he was being removed simply because he was not prepared to carry out the instructions of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in performing things which were wrong. I will not put it stronger than wrong. The hon the State President had been warned. Nevertheless, the hon the State President removed that hon member from the housing portfolio and left him with the piffling little Local Government and Agriculture portfolios. Naturally the man, his pride and dignity wounded by the hon the State President, decided to resign from his post.

So who is the really culpable person? Vicariously I would say the hon the State President of this country is responsible and answerable to this country for the grievous and harmful acts of his minion. The hon the State President supported that man for one reason only, namely that that man is the best apologist for apartheid with a dark skin this country has ever seen. He is the only consistent ally the National Party has had in this country.

The question is: Has there been corruption? There is no evidence that money actually changed hands, but I think one can draw certain conclusions … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I just want to make one observation on this report. Perhaps my explanation will assist the hon member for Havenside as well as the hon member for Camperdown. It concerns the reason why Dr Nair thought the valuation of this Odeon Cinema Complex was so low.

I think any business-minded person or any person serious about money today would agree with me that if they want to make an advance on any property, they will obviously advance less than the actual valuation of the property.

Paragraph 34 states clearly that there were mortgages on the property to the value of R879 200. The hon member for Reservoir Hills has just stated that as well. This makes us think. I, as an ordinary person, would also think that there definitely is something wrong with the valuation of the property when the mortgage is R879 200, which I would say is probably between 75% and 80% of the value of the property. In a similar light, I think Dr Nair must have thought that there was definitely something wrong with a mortgage of R879 200 on the property when a valuation of R730 000 had been submitted.

Mr Chairman …

Where is the dynamite?

The dynamite is coming. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, a select committee is a quasi-judicial committee. The little legal training I have—not as much as that of the hon member for Reservoir Hills—tells me that this committee ought to keep its findings intact until such time as that report is presented to the House.

We have heard so much this afternoon about honour, dignity, the responsibility of hon members of Parliament and so on. Everything is based on one single aim and that is to crucify the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and hon Minister of Housing.

Politics, I accept, is a matter of power. It concerns who is in control of the power. However, earlier on one hon member of the opposition shouted: “Dynamite!”. I would like the Chair’s permission, for the sake of the record, to read out the dynamite in the form of an affidavit which I have here in front of me. It was submitted by a Mr Choonilall Budhooramlall on 5 August 1988. I would like to read this so that hon members can judge for themselves whether or not this report is a true reflection. Hon members may then see for themselves whether …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If that affidavit was submitted to the James Commission, can it be discussed? I would like the Chair’s ruling on that. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to point out to the hon member for Southern Natal that the James Commission is a body totally independent of this House. It operates independently and this House is sovereign. An hon member of this House is entitled to quote from documents.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: My submission is that anybody can draw up a document outside this House. The validity of those documents has not been tested and to present them in this House …

Order! I would like to point out to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the hon member for Lenasia Central is merely quoting from some document here. I do not know what it is, but as far as the veracity of that document is concerned and whether or not it is acceptable, we know that the hon members will be voting on the report as such later on. This will reflect whether or not that document is in fact acceptable.

Mr Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that my question was: If that affidavit is part of an affidavit submitted to the James Commission and has as yet not been dealt with, can it be discussed here? [Interjections.]

Order! I just want to point out to the hon member that the fact that a commission of inquiry is presently enquiring into certain matters does not make such a document subject to the sub judice rule. The hon member for Lenasia Central may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I wish to make a very serious objection. [Interjections.] I was the presiding chairman of this House Committee and I know as such that if any affidavit that is to be used in this House could have been presented to the Committee as evidence …

What are you afraid of?

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, I have an objection.

Order! Unfortunately I cannot entertain the hon member’s objection. The hon member for Lenasia Central may proceed.

Mr Chairman, just to clear the air, I would like to state that a house committee does not supersede this particular House. The house committee is merely appointed by the House. It cannot object to anything unless this House so resolves.

This is the affidavit submitted by Mr Choonilall Budhooramlall, who states:

[Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central did not interject while other hon members were speaking. He must be permitted to read out the affidavit. The hon member for Lenasia Central may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I continue:

Order! I wish to ask the hon member for Lenasia Central what relevance that affidavit has to the subject under discussion.

Mr Chairman, this affidavit has a bearing on some of the issues contained in the report. [Interjections.]

Order! Can the hon member indicate to what extent it has a bearing on the subject matter?

The Odeon Cinema is mentioned here, Sir, and there is also mention in this affidavit of certain statements having been made as to redrafting certain paragraphs of this House Committee report.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The issues discussed in this affidavit are contained in a report which has yet to be tabled in this House. Until that report appears, the matter is subjudice. [Interjections.] Anything pertaining to the evidence in that report can not be discussed at this stage. [Interjections.] Garage matters are one of the issues discussed in the report which has not yet been tabled. [Interjections.]

Order! I think I should direct the attention of the hon member for Lenasia Central to Rule 44, which deals with matters that are still pending. I want to remind the hon member that, should his attempt to disclose certain facts at this stage anticipate a report which is still to be tabled, he may have to offer an explanation at that juncture. I want to request the hon member for Lenasia Central, if he wishes to proceed, to do so bearing in mind that he may be liable and accountable for his actions. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence. I am not going to read the entire affidavit, but I am going to read one particular paragraph and ask for your ruling as to whether or not it relates to this report. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may read out that particular paragraph.

I quote:

May I have your ruling, Sir, before I proceed?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That affidavit resulted in a call being made to me, and I filed a response to that document, because that statement was totally incorrect. The documents that I received, the documents that were involved, had been presented to the James Commission. This is yet another of the kite-flying exercises of the past four years aimed at misleading people.

The man who made that affidavit is going to find himself in trouble, because you will not be able to prove …

You are compounding his problem! [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Lenasia Central that what he read out, amounts to what one could term contempt on the part of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for the workings of this committee, and that in order to bring the Leader of the Official Opposition to book, this can only be done by way of a separate resolution before the House. Unfortunately, the hon member for Lenasia Central’s time has expired. [Interjections.]

I do not mind, Mr Chairman.

Order! I want to remind hon members that in future, no hon member will be permitted to proceed along those lines. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is unfair to me, as Leader of the Official Opposition, for some gentleman to come forward with an affidavit like that and make an accusation about my office. It is totally unfair. [Interjections.]

Order! I have given my ruling on this and the hon member for Lenasia Central has been advised that if he feels that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has acted in contempt of the committee’s activities, he will have to bring him to book by way of a separate resolution.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I just wish to inquire at this stage whether the person who signed that affidavit was not the same Mr Budhooramlall who had been convicted for fraudulently obtaining bus certificates. [Interjections.]

Order! I am afraid we cannot entertain that question.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Order! Before we proceed, I should like to inform the House that I have studied the alterations to the report as proposed by the hon member Mr Thaver. I am prepared to accept all of these as administrative changes and the correcting of typographical errors, except: (1) The insertion in paragraph 17, after the word “purchaser” of the words “save for the Rev Michael Henry”, and (2) the substitution in paragraph 34 of the amount “R160 500”, where it occurs for the first time, by the amount “R60 500”. I have established that these are not typographical errors but that the report as printed does, in fact, correctly reflect the original copy of the report as signed by the chairman, Mr M Thaver. To effect these changes the hon member will therefore have to move an amendment.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) By the insertion in paragraph 17, after ‘purchaser’ of the following words:
   , save for the Rev Michael Henry
2. (2) by omitting in the English text in paragraph 34, the first ‘R160 500’ and substituting ‘R60 500’,

Amendment agreed to.

Main question, as amended, agreed to (Majority Party dissenting).