Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are hon members of the PFP permitted to enter the Council Chamber to have their presence recorded in order to obtain their money and then to walk out again for the rest of the day? [Interjections.]

Order! I put the question. I call upon the hon member for Nigel to speak.

Mr Chairman, permit me to say right at the outset that the CP rejects the PFP amendments. I should just like to broach another point; I think it is also criticism of the PFP amendments. It involves what I regard as unfair criticism as such which was expressed in the debate a day or two ago. It deals with certain improvements to the Bill itself which were proposed during the debate.

The hon the Minister saw fit to formulate certain statements, then to criticise them and to allege that I had proposed them. To confirm what I now want to say, I want to quote briefly what the hon the Minister said with a view to indicating that his criticism of me was unfair. I said that a further improvement which we proposed dealt with the definition of a “nuisance” in the clause on the definition of words. I should like the hon the Minister to listen to this because, although he referred to it, I think further improvement of the definition is possible. That is why I contend that we should read the definition of “nuisance” in conjunction with clause 2(b) which reads as follows:

I then added that the Minister could not do anything unless it was first determined that such a nuisance did exist. A nuisance can exist only if the local authority says it does. In its turn, a local authority can render clause 2(b) powerless merely by telling the Minister concerned that something which that Minister regards as a nuisance cannot be regarded as such in their opinion and can therefore ignore his request to some extent.

Although this problem is partly obviated in the new amendments, as incorporated in clause 11(1), as regards default or obstruction, by the powers which are assigned to the Minister under certain circumstances, the declaration of a nuisance—I repeat that the Bill states “the declaration”—is a problem which can be manipulated by local governing bodies to suit their own objectives.

That is why it is important for the Minister to be able to determine whether a nuisance exists. We therefore recommend that clause 1(iii) be amended to include after the word “opinion” in line 18 just the following four words, namely “of the Minister or”. In other words, the clause will then read—

… and what follows. We should like the hon the Minister to examine this clause, because we believe that this recommendation could be an improvement to the Bill.

It is clear that I neither criticised nor rejected the legislation. My argument dealt purely with how the determination of what constitutes a nuisance could be manipulated by various local authorities; this is a strong possibility because the values and norms in a White area, a Coloured area, an Indian area and also a Black area can and will differ fundamentally. This could influence the determination of what constitutes a nuisance.

The hon the Minister said in his reply to the debate:

I want to make it very clear that the powers as contained in the new amendment, clause 11(1), can obviate the problem partially, but that determining what constitutes a nuisance could be approached differently by various local authorities.

In our opinion the recommendation that those four words be inserted in clause 1(iii) so that the Minister has the discretion to determine that a nuisance must be removed is an improvement.

The hon the Minister alleged a second time that the hon member doubted whether the Minister could take action. I repeat that I have already acknowledged in my speech that the Minister may have those powers in terms of clause 12(1) but the point at issue is the determination of what constitutes a nuisance. In all modesty I put this forward to indicate that I think the Minister could also help to improve the legislation under those circumstances by inserting those words.

It is clear to me that the amendments, as proposed by the PFP and considered by the House Committee, do not contribute to the improvement of this Slums Bill at all. The amendments proposed by the PFP, especially as regards clause 3, which deals with the termination of a nuisance, provide for the institution and composition of a slum clearance court. In other words, we are reverting to the old Slums Act with its outdated methods which in no way keep pace with contemporary conditions and circumstances. We are reverting to the red tape of the past while conditions demand urgent solutions.

The CP cannot support the PFP amendments and also voted against them and rejected them in the House Committee. The CP repeats that the new amending Bill is far better equipped to deal with problem situations, and we therefore reject the PFP amendments.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Nigel and I want to thank hon members of the Official Opposition for joining the Government in rejecting the PFP amendments for the reasons which the hon member set out. The amendments amount to the mere fact that the sections of the old Slums Act of 1979 are being repeated and as a result the committee also rejected these amendments.

The hon member referred to the amendment which they proposed to the clause on the definition of words because they were of the opinion that a condition constituting a “nuisance” was insufficiently defined to empower the Minister to intervene too if the local authority should be unwilling to acknowledge the nuisance.

I now want to tell the hon member that this is obviously a point of interpretation which one could consider, but I am of the opinion that, if the hon member also looked at the regulatory provisions in clause 10 in terms of which the regulations are to be drawn up in consultation with the Minister, he would find that this matter could certainly be examined and that problem could possibly be obviated.

I think that the hon member is wise and is doing the right thing by bringing this aspect to the attention of the House and the hon the Minister.

I think, however, that it is a question of interpretation at this stage. I am convinced that the regulations which have to be approved by the hon the Minister provide for this.

I also thank hon members of the Official Opposition for their support for this Bill in all its facets.

Mr Chairman, in amplification of what the hon member for Uitenhage said, I want to react further to the arguments which were raised by the hon member for Nigel.

I suggested at the end of my speech that, if the hon member had any doubts, I wanted to point out to him that this legislation was to be discussed again in a committee and one could take the argument further there. Apparently the opportunity was not used. I am not implying criticism of the hon member, but I did extend the invitation to him.

But I could not, because only the PFP amendments were discussed by the committee.

But in that case the hon member could have drawn up an amendment in good time and he could certainly have argued it there.

It could only have been a recommendation.

Let us close the subject.

The hon member said that I had misunderstood him regarding this entire matter. The hon member argued that the definition of a nuisance laid down that only a local authority had the power to decide whether a nuisance was a nuisance or not. The hon member’s anxiety is centred on the fact that the Minister does not have the power to declare a nuisance to be a nuisance if a local authority should refuse to admit or not agree that it is a nuisance.

Whether through malice or fear of intimidation, nothing would be done about that nuisance. [Interjections.] Sir, I am merely repeating the hon member’s argument. The hon member said in his own words that the Minister could not request anything before it had been determined that a nuisance existed. A nuisance could only exist if the local authority declared it to be such. Those were the hon member’s own words. The hon member raised questions on the point regarding a local authority’s being unwilling to give its co-operation to declare a slum a slum area. I think that is the crux of the matter. That is why the Minister is granted the power and the Minister may only exercise that power if the local authority does not find the area to be a slum.

Then the hon member said: “That was not my question to you at all! You were sitting talking! You were not listening to me!”

Order! I do not follow the hon the Minister very well. Is he discussing the amendments which were proposed by the PFP or a speech which was held at a different stage? Strictly speaking, only the PFP amendments are at issue at the moment. [Interjections.]

My submission to you, Sir, is that I am reacting to the arguments which were raised by the hon member for Nigel. The hon member for Nigel raised these arguments in accordance with an amendment which he did not propose. I should just like to react to that now to set the record straight.

Order! The hon the Minister is making it rather difficult for me by reacting to an amendment which was not proposed, because—if I understand this correctly—we should only argue amendments which were in fact proposed.

Yes, Sir, with respect, the hon member’s argument was precisely about this amendment which he did not propose. He said that he proposed that the legislation could be improved by broadening the definition; that was the entire argument. That was the hon member’s point and I want to react to that again—with respect, Sir.

Order! It would be fair for you to react. [Interjections.]

The hon member then said that that was not his question, but I want to repeat the hon member’s own words briefly:

I told the hon member with respect that that was his problem but I differed with him on that point, because I thought the legislation did empower the Minister to take action and to declare a nuisance to be a nuisance even if the local authority was not prepared to agree. I want to refer here to clause 11 in the Bill which states that—

and this is not qualified anywhere—

Then clause 11(2) states:

I think this is adequate proof, but I have taken note of the hon member’s argument. I think some weight can be lent to that argument, but I am of the opinion that this aspect is adequately dealt with in clause 11 of the legislation.

I want to thank hon members again for their participation and their contributions. That will have to suffice.

Mr Chairman, we have moved an amendment here relating to which persons are competent to serve on a specific board—in this case the Free Settlement Board. There is a provision in the Bill to the effect that if someone were an unrehabilitated insolvent, this would prove to be an obstacle and he would be incompetent to serve on such a board.

Our standpoint in this regard was that this type of provision actually seemed to appear in numerous pieces of legislation by force of habit, and for that reason was in many cases meaningless and in no way related to whether the person serving on a specific board was actually incompetent, because there was no connection between the fact of his insolvency and the question of his competence to serve on the board.

Our standpoint in this connection is that in the case of every specific Act it should be determined whether, in a specific case, the question of a person’s insolvency is, in fact, of any importance when determining his competence.

The amendment has been moved because in this particular case it would be meaningless to disqualify someone because he was regarded as incompetent during the period of his insolvency. That is the basis on which we moved this amendment.

Mr Chairman, the question at issue here is whether someone who is an unrehabilitated insolvent should be disqualified from serving on the Free Settlement Board. This is a general provision that frequently occurs in legislation, and for that reason we on this side of the House argued that if one wanted to deal with this point, it should be done elsewhere.

In regard to assessing whether a person is suited or unsuited to serve on such a board, let me mention that this is a general disqualification which, as the hon member for Ermelo himself acknowledged, occurs in various places in different pieces of legislation, and for that reason we were not prepared to accept the amendment in regard to this specific legislation. We therefore did not assess the merits of the case as such, it being our opinion that this was not the place to argue this specific point. For that reason we were not prepared to accept the amendment and therefore rejected it.

Mr Chairman, the CP rejects the Free Settlement Areas Bill and is voting against it, because it is a clear deviation from the principle of the separation of residential areas, as embodied in the Group Areas Act of 1966.

It is going to lead to mixed residential areas and schools and also to claims for representation in higher tiers of government on a joint franchise basis.

The vested rights and wishes of the inhabitants of local authority areas will be disregarded and not satisfactorily allowed to come into their own.

The Government has not obtained any proper mandate from the South African electorate to make any amendments whatsoever to the Group Areas Act or to make inroads into this legislation in the way in which the Bill before the House is doing.

The danger exists that such free settlement areas are going to come into being in conflict with recognised and accepted living patterns in the country and that this will lead to racial friction and conflict, as previously experienced in the Republic and as manifested in cities overseas. What is more, they will lead to urban decay.

That is because they are based on the false and unmotivated supposition that there are people in South Africa who want to live in mixed areas, on the basis of so-called free association which, in point of fact, assumes that there is a mutual rapprochement which is probably not present in South Africa at all.

Moreover, the efforts which aim at compensation for economic damage suffered, are unsatisfactory and inadequate.

A further reason is that White land in particular throughout the RSA in particular, will endlessly be placed at risk because of potential investigation with a view to the establishment of free settlement areas.

Lastly, the proposed mixed Free Settlement Board, which has to make incisive decisions about the fate of White land, will be dominated by non-Whites.

Mr Chairman, judging by the adaptive process which forms part and parcel of stability, in my opinion the Bill before us represents one of the most important steps we have taken. The fact remains that if a state or government is not in a position to administer the adaptive processes of a country in accordance with the needs of communities, such a state will not be in a position to maintain order and stability.

Secondly, this legislation represents specific choices that are being presented to communities. Consequently this Bill does not force certain choices upon communities, but makes provision for the fact that the choices made by communities are reflected in the country’s legislation. That being true …

As in Hillbrow.

Hillbrow came into being under the existing legislation.

Order! I am asking the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis to stop his interjections. The hon the Minister has a very limited period of time for his declaration of vote, and if he is interrupted, I am quite sure this will also be done to speakers of the Official Opposition. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The legislation does not deprive anyone of the right to exercise a choice. On the contrary, it confirms the right to make choices, both in regard to where people may live and the form in which they may locally exercise their franchise.

If it could truthfully be argued that there was not a growing need in South African society to make a choice, on the basis of free association, about where they would live, as the hon member for Ermelo argued, no one would make use of the legislation. The legislation will therefore be the touchstone for the speculative argument put forward by the hon member in this specific connection.

I wonder whether we all understand the sensitivity in all communities about legislation which has an ethnic, colour or racial connotation. It remains a fact that everyone in the House—any difference is merely a difference of degree— accepts that whatever political philosophy is adopted in the country, there will always be members of other peoples in the area of jurisdiction of a specific people, or vice versa. As a result of the acceptance of that fact, provision must also be made in respect of residential, commercial and industrial areas for lebensraum for those communities.

The House divided:

AYES—107: Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Blanche, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J.

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

NOES—20: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this report concerns a number of amendments which were submitted by the PFP and by the Government itself under the auspices of the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Before I come to the amendments, the CP wants to place on record that even though we can understand that the Government has great difficulty in keeping the framework of the constitutional dispensation intact, we view the position as untenable, considering when members were notified of the meetings of the House Committee concerning these amendments. The representatives of the CP were only notified at 16h30 on Thursday afternoon of a meeting of the House Committee which was to take place at 09h30 the next morning. The second meeting also took place at very short notice, and we want to record our objection to the fact that even though it has problems, the Government is dealing with the administration of the country in this manner when it comes to considering amendments to a

Bill.

I should also like to enquire about the Government’s point of view with regard to the amendments proposed by the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If the hon member is engaged in a declaration of vote, I just want to …

Order! No, the hon member is discussing the report. [Interjections.]

When we look at the amendments which the Government proposed under the auspices of the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, we see a whole series of amendments in the minutes of the House Committee concerned, for example to clause 9 in regard to which the hon the Deputy Minister proposed that “illegal” be omitted and substituted by “noxious”. This also applies to a number of other amendments which I need not discuss in detail now.

Our question to the hon the Deputy Minister is why the Government does not take steps to pass amendments which it introduces in the House. When one looks at the report of the House Committee concerned, one sees that all the amendments were rejected. In other words, the Government also rejected its own amendments which it had proposed or wished to propose. We simply cannot understand the Government’s ambiguous attitude. The Government has a standpoint about the amendments, but then it simply relinquishes that standpoint. That is exactly how this country is being run at present— with an indecisive attitude which does not befit a strong government!

Mr Chairman, I want to place on record that I took the trouble that afternoon, after it was decided to deal with these measures in accordance with the own affairs procedure, to ask the hon the Chief Whip of the CP whether the two CP committee members were here. The hon the Chief Whip indicated that they were here, but he did not want to accept the responsibility of notifying them. I then asked the clerk to notify them and they were notified that afternoon to attend a meeting the next morning.

At what time? At what time?

That morning the hon member for Losberg arrived at the meeting just after we had finished. All he had to do was to get up fifteen minutes earlier to get to the meeting on time. Notice was given, however, and the hon member did arrive there.

The second point I want to make is in response to why we agreed to or rejected the amendments. If the hon member had done his duty as a member of this Parliament and arrived at the meeting on time, he would have known what it was all about.

The NP members were not present either because they, too, had not been notified.

All the NP members were present at the meeting. I do not even want to argue with the hon member about that.

The hon member for Houghton did not even attend with a view to putting the PFP’s amendments which were on the Order Paper. Nevertheless we did not take that into consideration.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, we are voting against this Bill because the provisions of clauses 9 and 10 will result in the unacceptable question that squatters will determine where, when and how residential areas should be demarcated into zones. A situation of this kind is in conflict with recognised township development principles.

Secondly we are voting against this legislation because, in terms of the Bill, action is not going to be taken against significant forms of squatting, since the Government is opposed to forced removals.

Thirdly, we are voting against this Bill because it actually encourages and legalises squatting, since the larger the number of squatters, the greater the chances that the area they are living in will become a transit area in terms of clause 9 and then be upgraded to a residential area in terms of clause 10. Once again the squatters determine that the place at which they are squatting must become a residential area. The CP regards this as a completely unacceptable situation, which will not discourage squatting, but in fact encourage it.

But that is not true.

The hon member does not understand the Bill; that is why he made that remark.

Order! The hon member for Parow must please take into account that the hon member for Losberg has very limited time. The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

In the fourth place we are voting against the Bill because we do not agree that the control of squatting should be placed in the hands of mixed executive committees of provincial administrations. I say this with particular reference to the situation in the Transvaal, where Mr Mavuso is responsible for squatting, and where we maintain an insufferable situation is being created.

Lastly, we are voting against this legislation because the voters are being misled, in that they believe, for example, that squatters at a large squatter camp such as Weiler’s Farm in the Losberg constituency will be removed. The Deputy Minister of Law and Order promised at a meeting that they would be removed, and in terms of this legislation that cannot happen, because the Government is opposed to forced removals.

Mr Chairman, ultimately the issue in South Africa is order or chaos. This country knows order under the NP Government. We on this side of the House have clearly chosen order and orderly government. This measure is proof of that, also in respect of orderly settlement and orderly urbanisation. We therefore support this measure for the following reasons:

In the first place this measure tackles a fundamental problem incisively. Secondly the measure recognises existing squatter camps as transit areas and brings them under control. Thirdly the measure provides for designated areas for orderly settlement, even on an informal basis, with upgrading as a point of departure. In the fourth place the measure provides that statutory action can be taken against owners and/or squatters who are deliberately either squatting or occupying land illegally or deriving financial benefit from the distress of others. Lastly, the measure ensures the protection of established rights.

In conclusion, we support this measure because we accept the bona fides of the hon the Deputy Minister, the hon the Minister and the Government, as well as of the MEC entrusted with this aspect, Mr John Mavuso, that this measure will be implemented in a humane fashion and that the provision of land for those people will be dealt with expeditiously.

The House divided:

AYES—104: Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Blanche, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J.

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

NOES—20: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the proposed Bill only has two aspects. One is to amend the existing Act to bring it into line with the present constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.]

Order!

This concerns the definition of the Minister concerned as the Minister of Education and Culture: Administration: House of Assembly. In terms of clause 2, the executive power in respect of the chancellor is, at the request of the council, being entrusted to the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly.

Order! Hon members are talking too loudly.

The proposed amendments in clause 3 deal with the composition of the council of the university, firstly with regard to the enlargement of the council by means of the addition of two members elected by the convocation. Hon members will understand that the convocation has grown over the years and that a considerable number of people have an interest in and are familiar with the university. It is therefore desirable that they have a say in the election of council members.

Furthermore there is an enlargement of the senate component in the council in that an additional member is being elected by the senate. The increase of three council members, which is being proposed here, brings the total number of council members to 20.

The divisional councils which are mentioned in clause 3(f) are being replaced by an agricultural union, because the university authorities consider it desirable for the farming community also to gain representation on the council. Since the divisional councils have fallen away, it is desirable to allow the agricultural union to have a representative.

There is one more amendment, as contained in clause 3(b), namely that council members are no longer appointed by the State President but by the Minister of Education and Culture.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Walmer, who this afternoon is introducing a private amending Bill, is a former rector of the university of Port Elizabeth. He served the university in this capacity from 1981 to 1985 and I therefore think it is appropriate that he is introducing this measure in the House this afternoon.

The CP supports the amending Bill before the House. It makes provision for a few minor changes in the existing Act, as the hon member for Walmer has explained.

The University of Port Elizabeth was established 24 years ago. Like all other universities, it had a humble beginning. On 1 March 1965, 320 students enrolled for the first academic year. They received tuition from 18 professors, 8 senior lecturers and 7 lecturers. Since then the university has grown to approximately 4 500 students last year. Up to and including the autumn graduation ceremony of 1987, 10 567 degrees, diplomas and certificates have been obtained at this university by students throughout the country.

Besides being the most southerly university in the country, one of its most outstanding features is its beautiful campus. Visitors to Port Elizabeth are struck by its exceptional location. The campus is situated near the sea and covers approximately 850 hectares so that, as far as I know, it is one of the largest if not the largest campuses in the world.

I went and paged through the university year book and I was impressed by the particularly strict discipline maintained at this university. The following general rules apply to the students. The general appearance and conduct of students must be acceptable to educated members of the general public and are determined by tidy, suitable and becoming dress, hairstyle and behaviour. The following is specified in terms of the mass conduct by students. The council has accepted the policy that students may not make use of petitions or any form of mass conduct in order to bring complaints, grievances or requests to the attention of the university authorities. Participants in such petitions or unauthorised conduct will be punished regardless of whether large numbers of students were involved or not.

It is clear, and praiseworthy, that this university sets great store by discipline and does not tolerate student conduct which is not worthy of the university. As far as I can remember, when some universities were put to shame by the conduct of their students last year, there were no incidents worthy of mention at the University of Port Elizabeth. The discipline which is being maintained there enhances the image of the university and is exemplary.

We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the proposed amendments.

Mr Chairman, for me as the representative of Stellenbosch, where one of the considerably older universities in the country is situated, it is a gratifying privilege to speak in support of the Bill before us.

As I said, the University of Port Elizabeth is a young university. It came into existence because of the idealism and faith of the people in the Eastern Cape who identified a need in this regard and did not flinch from the obstacles confronting them. The ideal of the founders was continued by their dedicated staff of whom the hon member for Walmer, who introduced the Bill here, was a leader. In this House we have several products of that university. Among those who were involved in that institution, besides the hon member for Walmer, there is the young hon member for Sundays River. [Interjections.] I am of the opinion that when we consider their contributions here, we have conclusive proof of the quality of the university involved, as well as of the people connected with that institution.

Within a short space of time the University of Port Elizabeth has become an institution for tertiary education of which all South Africans can be justifiably proud. At the moment the convocation of this university consists of approximately 10 000 members, which means that there are 10 000 leaders in South Africa who were formed at that institution. One of the reasons we have this measure before us today is to make provision for them and to give them a greater say in the administration of the University.

In pledging my support as well as the support of this side of the House to this Bill, I am making our humble contribution towards assisting in the further promotion of that worthy institution.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a unique circumstance when a former rector or principal of a university introduces a Bill here in Parliament. I believe in the House Committee we gave due cognisance to this, and I think here in the House of Assembly we should also give the hon member for Walmer his proper due for bringing this Bill before this institution.

There is certainly also something else which is unique about the University of Port Elizabeth and which has not yet been mentioned by my hon colleagues in the other parties, ie it is the only bilingual university in South Africa. This is a very important facet of the life of the University of Port Elizabeth. It is one that, we believe, makes for very much better contact between students and the various educational philosophies among the students on that campus. My hon colleague in the CP pointed out that there were about 4 500 students. It is interesting to note the make-up of the student body last year. There were 49 Black students, 30 Asian students, 269 Coloured students and 4 016 White students. It is a campus which does cater for the whole community, and we believe it will in years to come cater far more extensively for the community in the Algoa Bay area.

We will be supporting the measure, but before giving it our final support I must draw attention to two aspects of the Bill that bear relation to the constitutional situation in South Africa. The first is the substitution of “Minister of Education and Culture: Administration: House of Assembly” for “Minister of National Education” in terms of clause 1 of the Bill. This is a clause I voted against in the House Committee. It is, however, a de facto and de jure situation which already exists, and that could not lead to our opposing the measure as a whole. The second aspect—it is another interesting one—is that following the abolition of the divisional councils in the Eastern Cape there is no inclusion in this Bill of a regional services council, which would be the logical successor to the divisional council, but which happens to be a mixed body. Therefore our understanding of it is that by the consent and by the desire of the university, the executive of the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union will in future elect or appoint one person to the council, as the hon member for Walmer indicated.

With these few words, and because this is a private member’s motion in relation to which there is consensus, we will be supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members who spoke in support of the legislation under discussion. In lighter vein, I want to add that it seems to me that I was not aware of the importance of the moment as far as I myself was concerned. I also thank them for having brought this to my attention as well as that of the House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, certain financiers, especially those financing motor vehicles, have interpreted the definition of “leasing transaction” as excluding transactions of which the period and the sum of the lease payments are apparently indeterminable. This interpretation has resulted in the situation where, in the case of rental agreements, the prescriptions of the Usury Act have not been complied with in practice.

To establish beyond doubt that all recent transactions in regard to movables entered into for a period in excess of three months, and in terms of which finance charges are being levied, fall within the ambit of the Act, the definition of “leasing transaction” is being suitably amended.

Similarly, the definition of “credit transaction” is also being amended so as to avoid the use of the words “stated” or “determinable” which caused difficulties of interpretation.

*Furthermore the Bill makes it clear that where agreement is reached upon a variable or nonvariable rate, which at that stage complies with the requirements of the Usury Act, the rate shall apply for the duration of the finance agreement.

In addition the Bill states clearly that when a variable rate has been or is agreed upon in a finance agreement, such a rate may never exceed the maximum prescribed rate. The recovery of certain charges in respect of moneylending, credit and leasing transactions is already provided for in the Act. In the Joint Committee on Finance it was proposed that the Banking Act be amended to enable banks legally to recover certain expenses with regard to security on fixed property in respect of moneylending transactions not covered by the Usury Act.

The Joint Committee on Finance recommended, however, that this matter be dealt with in the Usury Amendment Bill and extended to the creditors with regard to the three kinds of transactions provided for in the Usury Act. Provision is now made for this as well.

There are numerous kinds of leasing transactions. The full implementation of the legislation creates problems in certain cases, and the Minister should be given the power to exempt certain categories of leasing transactions from the provisions of the Act, subject to such conditions as he may deem fit.

On account of the problems experienced by the Registrar of Financial Institutions with regard to the enforcement of the requirements of the Act, it has become necessary to adjust the penalties imposed by the court.

Mr Chairman, this Bill was first submitted as Bill B95-88 and was thoroughly discussed in the Joint Committee on Finance. Unanimity was reached on a number of amendments proposed during those discussions. What must also be placed on record is the fact that the hon the Minister gave the committee the assurance that a further investigation would take place regarding possible further amendments. In view of this we on this side of the House will be supporting this Bill as an urgent interim measure.

The increase in penalties as set out in clause 9 from a fine of R1 000 to a fine of R10 000, or an increased period of imprisonment from two years to three years, should act as a deterrent to intending usurers and will provide increased and necessary protection for the consumer. We in the Official Opposition therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for his support of this Bill on behalf of the Official Opposition.

In his short speech he mentioned that further amendments should be effected in this Bill, and I merely want to give him the assurance that this Government has its finger on the pulse of economic affairs, and that as soon as it becomes necessary, the necessary amendments will be made.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the principal Act, which was originally known as the HirePurchase Act, because hire-purchase transactions made up the major part of credit transactions at that time. Since there were so many other credit transactions later which were also brought under the control of the Act, the name of the Act was changed to the Usury Act in 1968. If the hon member takes the trouble to look at the amendments in the preamble to this Bill, he will see that this Act has been amended every year, or at least every second year, since it was introduced in 1968.

I want to say, therefore, that this Government always wants to arrange the affairs between lender and borrower in the best interests of both, and therefore he need have no fear that those amendments would not be effected once again should it become necessary.

Make the most of it, Oom Piet! Make the most of it!

When one looks at the amendments to this legislation, one will see that sometimes amendments were effected every year, as I said, and sometimes every second year. In the case of the new Bill, we now have definitions which did not exist before, such as new definitions for credit transaction, leasing transaction, variable finance charges and non-variable finance charges and so on. In the end the penalties with regard to offenders are also being increased considerably.

Whether or not one wants to accept this, credit transactions in a multitude of forms have become an integral part of our present economic system. The old norms of cash sales or cash purchases are almost the exception today, and credit transactions and a legion of other transactions, such as lend-lease, have become the order of the day.

I think the earliest warning against this kind of moneylending transaction appears in The Merchant of Venice. The moral in this play is that one should not lend one’s money, because that leads to trouble. These old norms are making way for new ones, however. In our Afrikaans literature, I think Dr A G Visser expressed the old norms best in his poem Toe die wêreld nog jonk was. When Methuselah, the old patriarch, decided that he was going to leave the farm to his children and settle in town, his closing words to his children were:

Cash transactions are in the minority today, and we live in a world of credit. Even the Government has realised the value of these credit transactions in the Treasury, and uses it as one of the instruments to encourage or hold back the economy. Credit has really become an integral part of our economy.

We on this side of the House support this amending Bill wholeheartedly because it effects the necessary amendments to the Act to bring certain people within the provisions of this legislation and to discipline others and warn them against violating the provisions of this Act.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman made reference to The Merchant of Venice. He is always quoting, if I may say so, from the classics, and perhaps it is not inappropriate to point out that there are some very important lessons to be learnt from The Merchant of Venice, because in the Middle Ages certain people were debarred from following occupations of their choice, were limited as to the work that they could do and were also limited in respect of the ownership of land. As a result, that particular group of people turned towards moneylending as being one of the few occupations that they were allowed to follow.

There is a lesson in that which I am sure is not lost on the hon member for Kuruman, and I hope that he will bear that in mind in applying himself to other activities which he will be involved in and which affect the community, because when people cannot do certain things, they are sometimes forced to do others. That is something we need to remember.

One of the important things about this Bill is the fact that it is actually virtually the product of the joint committee, because this Bill has appeared in a number of different forms and is completely different to the rather short form it had when it first appeared before the joint committee. Most of what is contained herein came about as a result of the activities and suggestions of the Joint Committee on Finance. I think it is to the credit not only of the committee but also of the hon the Deputy Minister and of his officials that they were prepared to accept constructive and important suggestions when they were made.

I always say that this committee works well. I think the chairman is entitled to substantial credit for that, but it shows how one can actually create important legislation when consensus is reached in a committee of that nature.

The second point that I want to make is that it is quite wrong to say that the Government is going to look at other provisions of this Bill in isolation. What is actually happening, and I think the public should know this, is that the Law Commission is examining the whole issue of the Usury Act. We hope that the Law Commission is going to come up with a completely new measure to be introduced and obviously I hope that the public, being aware of this, will make their input in regard to that particular measure.

What of course happens, which is a very unfortunate situation, is that normally the input only comes from the lenders of money and not from the borrowers of money. I would like to make the appeal today that the input into the Law Commission should also come from the borrowers of money, from the consumer organisations of various kinds, so that both sides of the picture can be fully canvassed before the Law Commission makes its recommendation.

The third issue which I would like to deal with is that in the present economic position in which we find ourselves, I think that stricter measures in respect of usury provisions are necessary. What is also necessary is that there should be even greater caution and warning to the public not to live beyond their means. South Africa as a country cannot live beyond its means, and we are finding that out when we deal with the problems of the balance of payments. The individual should not live beyond his means.

One of the difficulties which South Africa has encountered has been the excessive use of credit over the past six months and more. This is due not only to the consumer who has lived beyond his means because his disposable income has been inadequate, but because of what to my mind has been excessive competition which has sought to encourage people to get deeper and deeper into debt. This is one of the problems that has existed. When one looks at the money supply figures, one will see that the excessive growth in the money supply is largely due to excessive bank credit. This is one of the problems for which we now have to pay a price. In these circumstances, I think a warning should go out from this House to the public that they should not incur excessive credit and that they should seek to live within their means in the difficult times that are likely to lie ahead. This great encouragement of credit should not take place. One of the difficulties is that we all want competition. I want to give hon members an example of how competition could be bad. People are told to shop around for rates, not to enter into the first agreement and to see to it that they get the most competitive rate. I want to give hon members an example. An hon member of this House will be able to testify as to what happened to him in those circumstances. This is not an unsophisticated or uneducated person, but someone who listened and shopped around for rates. He found the most attractive rate with a particular financial institution, but there was a clause on the back of the form in terms of which that financial institution was entitled immediately to increase the rate. In no time at all, he found himself in the position that that institution, which was entitled to increase the rate, did just that—the rate that he had thought was attractive and unlinked to any increases in prime rates or bank rates.

The hon the Deputy Minister and I will both agree that that is an undesirable banking practice. The public have to be cautioned that when they look at competitive rates, they must not only look at the rates themselves but also at the terms of the contracts. They must not only look at the terms of the contracts, but when they are asked to sign things, they must look on the back of the forms they are asked to sign in order to make sure that there are not any conditions that bind them to things to which they would never otherwise have agreed.

I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that I think the time has come for us to take some steps regarding the kind of conditions that can be imposed on people where they have no bargaining power. It is the same as with the credit card transaction. If one wants to apply for a credit card, one must agree to the conditions that are imposed or one will not get a credit card. There is no bargaining power in these circumstances and therefore the State has to ensure that the conditions which are imposed between the various parties are fair.

Thirdly, I would like to deal specifically with the problems that arise from the Bill itself. It is obviously necessary to change the law because of the so-called Berman judgement in regard to the change of rates, and we now have a situation in which we can deal with fixed rates as well as variable rates.

In my opinion, the majority of ordinary people will take fixed rates, but if there are variable rates we should look at another situation. I have been offered the following sound suggestion: One of the reasons why rates are often so high is that the good payer pays for the bad payer. If one could have a variable rate which would ensure a discount for promptness in making payment on due date, one would actually have the situation where people are encouraged to make their payments on due date and where the good payers do not always pay for the bad debts that are incurred. This door is now being opened by this legislation.

Not only is there a variable rate that can be linked to changes in the rates as they are in the market place, there can also be other variable rates. However, the public must be cautious before they actually enter into these transactions.

The next question concerns the existing position of the mortgage bonds. We transferred this from the Building Societies Act to the Usury Act where it correctly belonged and we made it apply to all mortgage bonds.

The issue is going to arise in the future as to whether we need not also review what can be recovered in regard to other transactions in the same manner as it applies to mortgage bonds. The door having been opened with this, I think the Law Commission needs to look into what really can be recovered in transactions which are credit transactions.

In this regard—we do not need to debate it at length—the reality is that there are not only these provisions but also dozens of others which the Law Commission is going to have to look at in order to turn out a better piece of legislation. Unfortunately, what happens is that where there is the possibility of overreaching people, where there is the possibility of exacting things from people by undue means, there are always people who seek to abuse. From time immemorial we have had usury legislation and laws, biblical and otherwise, which were designed to deal with this. We have to be strict in regard to this. There was a provision in the old Bill in terms of which administrative penalties could be imposed which could be subject to appeal in the courts and which for technical reasons have now fallen away.

I would like to suggest that we reconsider that matter. As long as there are appeals so that people are not left remediless, matters will be expedited. At the moment, if there is a transgression of these rules and it is found, for example, that a financial institution has contravened and overcharged in ten thousand cases, there will have to be ten thousand counts in court in order to charge them. This is an impossible situation. Obviously we have to have some way of dealing with this in a more expeditious and fair manner. I hope that we will in fact reconsider this to make it a more practical proposition for the future.

I want to say one last word and that is that I think that when we look at this type of legislation we have to look at the fact that people unfortunately do not have equality of bargaining power in the market place. It is all very well to speak about free competition. The reality is that there is no equality of bargaining power. When there is no equality of bargaining power it is the function of the State to seek to bring about that equality of bargaining power. I believe that this is what this legislation is seeking to do and that is why one supports it with pleasure.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the support of all the parties. We started with The Merchant of Venice. I will come back to The Merchant of Venice, but if I may summarise, the Law Commission, as the hon member, Mr Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Yeoville mentioned, is investigating the whole question of the Usury Act. I think that it is time for us to give more attention to this Act because we all know, as I think the hon member for Yeoville has mentioned, that we have thousands of cases of financial institutions breaking the law. In this country where we have a large percentage of Third World people it is of the utmost importance that we have, as the hon member for Yeoville has mentioned, equality of bargaining.

I would like to mention to the hon member for Yeoville that, according to our information, in the informal sector in Soweto and these places today we also have people like the Merchant of Venice. This is part of the privatisation and private entrepreneurship that is going on in these towns. According to our information there is a lot of breaking of the rules, especially the Usury Act. We are in a difficult position as this is the beginning of a capitalistic system. Sometimes one must be careful not to apply all the First World laws to a Third World economy. I am thinking of the Merchant of Venice in the old world, where there was no Usury Act. That was, however, the beginning of capitalism.

I hope the Law Commission is going to find a way to give a fair deal to those people who cannot bargain—there should be equality of bargaining—but at the same time consider the fact that we must assist these small bankers who already exist in some of our Black towns.

The hon member for Yeoville also mentioned another very important point, namely that where the Law Commission is investigating this Act at present, we must now ask the borrowers to come and give evidence because otherwise all the evidence will come from the lenders, and as they are all the financial institutions that have greater bargaining power and experts to prepare memorandums, the poor borrower may again come off second best.

I also agree that in South Africa we have a tendency to live beyond our means. That is quite correct. When one analyses the M3—the increase in the money supply—one sees that we planned for between 12% and 16%, but effectively it moved up to 24%-25%. The trouble is that we spent most of the credit on imported products and especially on video equipment and goods of that nature. We cannot afford it, and the worst thing of all is that when we analyze the situation, I think we will find that most of the buyers paid more than what we have prescribed in the Usury Act.

The hon member for Yeoville made a very interesting point concerning the terms of contract. He is quite correct. Most of us do not study the documents we sign, and perhaps we have to investigate the possibility of having a very elementary, simple type of contract one can understand. It must be possible. Why have two pages of small print? I do not think it is necessary, and perhaps this is something we can refer to the Law Commission for consideration.

*I now want to refer to variable rates. I should like to mention the following aspects in order to avoid the possibility of certain newspapers saying once again that I am always retrospective in respect of my decisions.

†I would like to point out now that offences with regard to the whole question of hire-purchase will apply from today onwards. We will attend to the matter retrospectively if we have problems getting this Bill passed. If the Bill is only passed next year, we will make it retrospective from today, the first day of September, a beautiful spring day.

*I agree with the hon member for Yeoville, however. Every financial institution makes use of two rates. Certain people prefer to pay a fixed rate whereas others prefer to pay a variable rate. It is also to the advantage of the financial institution to have a package of variable and fixed rates.

The hon member also mentioned another very interesting point. Perhaps we should also make adjustments for the person who can pay more quickly. I want to point out the following to the hon member. We should be careful. There are certain packages on the market—called the “achiever’s package”—in which one can borrow money at a much lower interest rate.

†They then obtain the additional funds from the lower end of the market, and I think that there again the lower income groups are exploited to a certain extent.

*Lastly I should like to thank the joint committee for its good work. In my last speech last year I said that the hon member for Yeoville read legislation the way one reads a poem. During the election he then went and read out what I had said in his praise. I want to tell him once again that he has made a significant contribution. He is still reading legislation the way one reads poetry. He can use this during the municipal elections, because I still think that he is good.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I have examined the unrevised Hansard of a debate that took place here yesterday in which I used the words, “You are lying and you know you are lying”. The first part of this Hansard, which unfortunately does not reflect gestures, but only words, may create the impression that I was referring specifically to the hon member for Standerton or the hon members over there. I want to make it very clear that that is not what I was doing and that I was not referring to them as such. I had the CP’s Munisipale Nuus, the August 1988 edition, in my hand and I was referring specifically to the newspaper. I had my finger on the report when I said they were lying.

It also appears from Hansard that I said yesterday—I am quoting:

I want to make it very clear, therefore, that I was not referring specifically to the hon member for Standerton or the hon members in the House as such, but to the newspaper report. [Interjections.]

Order! Normally one accepts a personal explanation without any comment.

This brings us to the end of the business for today, but in the uncertainty we are experiencing, I provisionally, if not finally, want to wish hon members a very pleasant recess.

Mr Speaker, having regard to the fact that the report which forms the subject matter of this afternoon’s debate involves the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, an objective and dispassionate evaluation of the findings would have been facilitated had the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council indicated at the commencement of this debate his reasons for saying that the report was politically prejudiced. I make this point because we have the report before us and unless one knows what factors contained in this report the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council finds objectionable, a free and fair debate will be virtually impossible. It does not make the task of those participating in this debate any easier. I would have preferred to have listened to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, to take note of what he had to say and to have our debate on that basis. That would have enabled us to discuss this matter more purposefully in the light of the submissions made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. However, in view of the fact that that is not to be so, I wish to proceed with the discussion of the report.

In the report reference is made to a question which was put in the House by the hon member for Brickfield in regard to garage or service station sites. According to the report, the replies were furnished by the officials for delivery in this Chamber. Unfortunately, however, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is the Minister of Housing, saw fit to change the replies that had been furnished to him for delivery here with the result that he in fact lied to the hon members of the House present at that debate. The evidence is attached to this document and is recorded on page 73 of this report. Notwithstanding anything else contained in this report, I want to say that if a member of the Cabinet—a Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and a Minister holding a portfolio in the Ministers’ Council—can descend to this low level, it has brought disgrace not only to this House, but to all of us who have been associated with this House as members of Parliament, as well as to the parliamentary system as a whole in this country. Nobody who can descend to this low level should be allowed to participate in public life at any stage at all. Such actions do not demonstrate qualities of leadership and they do not instil in others who are present the need to conduct themselves in any office with honesty, dignity and decorum, which are some of the fundamental requirements of public office.

It is developments of this nature that are making it extremely difficult for well-meaning people who want to participate and who want to support and lend us a hand to help us over our difficulties in order to make the House of Delegates a body which is truly representative of the Indian community. We would like to get a wide measure of support, even from those people who were initially opposed to this system, because I think they realise that many matters affecting the Indian community, and the country as a whole, are debated here and we get the opportunity to make our inputs. However, this kind of example does us no good. What is more, any person in any office who can descend to this level, should pack up and go home without being asked to do so.

That is an opinion.

It is not an opinion; it is a statement of fact. [Interjections.] That is why I said at the outset that I would have preferred to listen to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council …

Then why do you not sit down and let me talk?

I am prepared to sit down.

Order! The hon member must proceed with his speech. If the hon member sits down, he will forfeit his chance to proceed with his speech later on, unless the Whips can make some or other arrangement. He must therefore proceed with his speech.

Mr Speaker, I would like to proceed with the next item, namely paragraphs 34.8 and 34.9 which deal with the Checkers drama in Chatsworth. What worries me is the fact that, as the report states, the lapse of time between when the property was purchased and when it was finally dealt with cost the State a considerable sum of money and a figure of R1 227 963 is being reported as a loss in interest.

Mr Speaker, I believe that nobody holding a public office should allow the State to incur this kind of loss because ultimately that loss would deny some institution that sum of money. I think it is vitally important that when one assumes office and becomes a trustee of public funds, those funds should be taken care of and handled in a manner even more responsible than one would adopt when it comes to handling one’s own funds.

Mr Chairman, I left the James Commission of Inquiry for two main reasons. Firstly, because I hold the office of the Speaker of Parliament, whoever may occupy that position, in the highest esteem. I do not think any House of Parliament should take negatively any suggestion from a person who occupies that office. I am going to deal with this later on in my speech, especially in respect of another committee that is simultaneously dealing with the same matter.

For the benefit of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I want to say that the Ministers’ Council did not deal with the interest issue in regard to the Checkers deal. I took the necessary steps in order to safeguard that aspect. If questions were put by their House Committee, if they were interested in the truth and if there was a fair and balanced investigation, then I ask the Director-General to go and see the Auditor-General. Whatever decision was taken in respect of the interest, was taken in full consultation with, and on the advice of, the Auditor-General. We took that precaution.

Contrary to what some people say, the office of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not that of a figurehead. I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to know that when Dr Gilliland was appointed Director-General of the Administration: House of Delegates, and also in respect of his successor, I, in my capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, indicated to both Directors-General that, no matter what decision any department with a political arm takes, they are the custodians of the rules of the Government as far as the Treasury regulations are concerned. That is a standing directive from me. Not even a Minister can overrule the chief executive officer of an administration when it comes to financial matters. I hope I have answered the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition adequately. Of course, such matters were discussed by the House Committee, but I gained the impression that they were not interested in the truth.

The second reason for my being here—and that is why I wear this carnation—is the tremendous spirit which my party has shown. Despite attempts to reduce the number on our side in my absence, they have shown their strength and determination as never before. I also want to say that outside in the field where we do the footslogging, our support has increased. [Interjections.] Let us not worry about laughs. We have never been afraid of putting the problems of this House to the test of the electorate. As far as this report is concerned, and whatever other discussions are taking place, this side of the House is ready for an election at any time.

This House, or should I say the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, backed by the hon member for Stanger, the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills, has always asked the hon the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry.

Which you resisted!

Which I have supported! [Interjections.] My colleagues in the Ministers’ Council can confirm that when we met the hon the State President I even mentioned there that I supported a substantiated request for the appointment of a commission of inquiry. I did not block a commission of inquiry like the hon member for South Natal did after 5 May when he had the numbers to adopt a resolution. What he did after 5 May was to use the numbers to give precedence to items when there was an item on the Order Paper about the appointment of a commission of inquiry. The hon member for South Natal is giving us a blue book. He was advised not to go for a commission of inquiry, but to go for a House Committee instead, because a House Committee comprises politicians. He was told that the results of a House Committee can be determined by numbers. However, where is the cry? Where is the cry after 5 May? The bluff was called. Between 28 August 1984 and 5 May 1988 the blame was laid at the door of the NPP and the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House.

However, who was in a deep slumber from 5 May until the time the hon the State President announced the appointment of this commission of inquiry? Could anybody blame the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? Or could anybody blame hon members of this House for the fact that there was no resolution from this House to request the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry?

I am aware of a discussion of the high command of Solidarity in Durban as to why they should not use their numbers to call for a commission of inquiry. The day the hon the State President announced the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry there was disbelief in the eyes of those who had demanded it. As I said at the James Commission, the evening the former leader of Russia, Mr Nikita Khruschev, made an announcement his advisers were shocked. He told his advisers: “We must tell the world we are supporting this, and if we do not get it, we must always blame President Kennedy.” That is the situation in which this House is placed.

However, I want to say that this House must respect the values which Parliament has established and protected. One would have expected, after the many Press statements that have poured out, especially from the national chairman of Solidarity, that those who made allegations in this House and were interested in seeing to it that the commission of inquiry established the truth, would have repeated the allegations outside this House. However, in spite of many taunts they refused to repeat them outside this House and to take the necessary action, through the legal process, to lay criminal charges against people who may have committed wrongs.

However, the appointment of the James Commission of Inquiry has called the bluff of many people. Those who were the main accusers in this House owed it to the public to have been first in line with affidavits of complaints against hon members of this House or members of the Ministers’ Council of this House. I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to know that I made photocopies of all the allegations that were made against me, even by himself, and submitted them to the Advocate-General. Twice I referred allegations made against me to the Minister of Law and Order, so that there could be criminal investigations. In addition to that I have even written letters, calling accusers certain names which I cannot mention, because it will constitute unparliamentary language. I was waiting to be sued for defamation in a court of law in this country, but there was no response. I, as a politician, took up the gauntlet that was thrown at me.

I want to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that bribery and corruption were used in all the by-elections. What was the response of the people who decide? Did they look at us negatively? What was the response?

I would have expected the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to have submitted a complaint against me regarding a report which appeared in the Sunday Tribune in respect of an allegation made against me in 1985 in the noconfidence debate about the appointment of an inspector. That article hurt me. It troubled me. One must not think that it does not affect me as a human being. However, I want to say that at the James Commission I am not hiding anything.

You cannot hide anything.

Nobody can hide. I will let the hon member for Phoenix know, when I have finished my speech, who will have red faces.

I want hon members of this House to know that I am not losing one minute’s sleep. I know who is losing sleep, and I know what is happening to that so-called alliance. I know that there were moves to take five of our members away. [Interjections.]

However, this is the last chance. I do not want to, and indeed cannot, pre-empt the findings of that commission of inquiry. I have to show a tremendous measure of restraint in making my contribution this afternoon on matters relating to this House Committee’s report, because allegations made here have also been mentioned by witnesses at the James Commission of Inquiry, and I have yet to take the witness stand. I want hon members to understand that that is why I cannot go into this report in great detail. The dictum “forewarned is forearmed” is appropriate, especially with reference to a statement made by a man called Mr Shan Maharaj. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Phoenix should know. [Interjections.] He appeared to be quite active, but the finest contribution he could make this afternoon would be to urge his colleagues to suit their actions to their words. They ought to join the queue at the James Commission of Inquiry and translate the allegations that appear in Hansard into sworn statements.

Those who were the main actors in making allegations against me or members of the Ministers’ Council or casting aspersions on others are conspicious by their absence, and they owe it to their constituencies, to society and to the South African nation to remove the locks from the postboxes, unlock the safes, and divulge the names of their informants in respect of the allegations made in this House. They should do so before the commission of inquiry ends its work.

It should go on record that it was a tremendously sad day for this House when this House Committee failed—there can be no justifiable reason for this—to consider favourably a request by the Speaker of Parliament that they should ask to be discharged from service and request that all the evidence they had collected up to that stage be referred to the James Commission of Inquiry.

When this is over, we must learn certain lessons from the whole exercise. One is that this side of the House, when it had the numbers—I am sure it will have those numbers again—did not take advantage of its numbers. As far as I personally, am concerned, another lesson is that nobody, when I retire, will be able to say that I stabbed anyone in the back or ditched anyone.

I know what the situation was when the unity was dissolved, and I know who ran to me wanting to get rid of a Minister, but on this side of the House there is such a thing as honour. I know capital is made of the fact that at the time of the formation of the unity, a Minister had to leave the Ministers’ Council. A lot of people contributed to that, but I indicated to that Minister subsequently that I took full responsibility for the decision.

One of the lessons we must learn—and we must learn from the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives—is that in order to avoid criticism in respect of our unfairness and subjectivity, in future any investigation of this type should be conducted by a joint committee of Parliament if one is to avoid criticism and if there is to be fairness.

We should follow the golden rule of deciding on the format of our Order Paper according to the valued traditions of Parliament. We should not suddenly move for the suspension of any hon member. We should not throw a dagger at his back when he is walking away. I want this House to take cognisance that there was an occasion when our House debated a matter concerning the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The hon member for Springfield then came across to me and informed me that that hon member was not in Cape Town at the time. We then stood up and adjourned the debate to ensure that that hon member would be present.

There are no rules concerning accusers sitting in judgement, but there are rules which state that one cannot take part in or contribute to a debate where one has a direct financial interest. Accusations have been made against me and against the former hon Minister of Housing by a person from Lenasia called K Kistasamy. I have been accused by people from the Transvaal, as well as Stanger and Durban. However, the source of these allegations consists of one group of people. Before the House Committee I mentioned that the affidavit which was submitted by Dashanya to the Advocate-General and which was used by this House Committee, was drawn up by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I told the House Committee that Mr K Kistasamy from Lenasia visited my office and in the presence of a witness told me that he had been taken for a big ride by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I am merely conveying what he told me; I am not saying that it is true or false.

At the James Commission very interesting evidence was led by Adv Lapping. It was a public hearing, so I may mention what was reported. In respect of Mr G V Pillay’s affidavit—and this was not mentioned by others—the first person who telephoned me about the drawing up of this document was the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Adv Lapping made that statement. Therefore one finds that an impression may be created that arrows are coming at me from east, west, north and south. In fact those arrows are coming from a very small group of people in the Indian community. However, a different impression is being created, namely that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Something is. We will find out.

The hon member for Phoenix says that we will find out.

We will find out the truth, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

We will find out when I have finished my speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I wonder if the investigation by the House Committee was selective. Were the hon members of the House Committee wearing blinkers so that they could not see in other directions? Were they so conditioned by the words “blame the Chairman for everything”? I am surprised and even at the James Commission of Inquiry I was dumbfounded. People who have retired are now saying that they did so because of me. I am not worried about the type of story that appeared in the Citizen today about a former chairman of the Housing Development Board.

I am not worried about the one-sided report in the Natal Mercury. I want to suggest to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he get the verbatim recording of what Mr Marais stated when I cross-examined him. I did not shout at him and I want to suggest to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, if we are interested in justice and the truth, that this is not a report that represents facts and a balanced investigation. There is one golden rule which the James Commission is applying, as is the custom, and that is that if any statement is made against a man, that full statement is put to the man. That never happened in this House Committee.

I will deal later with a man called Shan Maharaj, but there is another statement I want to make about allegations made against me in particular, and that is that there is not a single allegation made in South Africa with which a politician is not associated. There is not a single allegation— verbal or written—in the way of a sworn statement where there has been no attachment to a politician, even in the case of Shan Maharaj. Hon members should study the evidence of that witness to find out at what date that witness decided to come, which hon member of Parliament this witness met a few days after somebody returned from hadj.

I am a politician. I am not a chancer. [Interjections.] We are not like a straw in the wind. We on this side of the House do not stand up here to read statements or reports prepared by others. If we on this side of the House have a view then it is a view which comes from us. We are not apologetic. If I stood in this House and was known to South Africa as a man regularly accusing individuals and if I drafted an affidavit on behalf of somebody else, I would never have sat on that House Committee. This is not the House Committee’s report. This is the report of one individual.

It was an indictment of the others.

What I am going to say will be indictments, because when the hon member for Lenasia East mentioned the allocation of houses in Lenasia, the blood pressure rose. If anybody’s blood pressure should rise in South Africa it is mine, but hon members can take me to the finest physician in the country and he will prove that my blood pressure is A-1 and it will remain A-1. None of those arrows have any truth in them. I want to give hon members an example. This report contains one fact, namely that in Chatsworth and Phoenix, Procor Homes had been allocated about 350 plots at the instigation or insistence of a man called Mr A Rajbansi. When and how were these plots allocated and who were they allocated by? I quote from the report of the House Committee, page 31, par 33.8:

If that is an allegation against me, I do not want to use this whole report but I do want to ask a question in accordance with the golden dictum: audi alteram partem. Can the hon the chairman of the House Committee say in his speech whether this …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: There is a correction to that. [Interjections.] The secretaries have been advised of the administrative corrections to the report, and that is one of the items in respect of which the secretaries are attending to the corrections. [Interjections.]

Order! The Chair presently has this report in its possession. Is the hon member telling me that there is an addition to paragraph 33.8 that has not been brought to my attention?

Yes, Sir. The secretaries were advised of the administrative corrections.

Order! The matter is not on the Table at present. The hon member may proceed.

A great disservice has been done to the Housing Board. A great disservice has been done to me. A great disservice has been done to this House, because this incorrect data was published conspicuously in many newspapers throughout the country, even today.

Let us take a reference made in this report to the report on a question of privilege, where reference was made to Citiplan Contractors. I want to ask the hon members of this House whether that statement or evidence was put to me when I appeared before the committee. Let us be fair, Mr Speaker. This could apply to any hon member of this House. If a report is submitted against one; if an allegation is made against one, one cannot pass judgment until such time as the allegation is put to the hon member concerned. It was never put to me.

I also think the chairman of that House Committee owes it to me to ensure that that statement is corrected in every newspaper in which this incorrect report appears, because it is a slur on our administration. In connection with that, I want to say that this is a matter that was raised yesterday at the James Commission of Inquiry.

I should like hon members even to contact the Director of Housing. I first concurred with one official about certain allocations, and there was a reason for my doing so. The utility housing companies were restricted to 45 plots. The plots in Phoenix were bad plots. The city council tried to sell them individually, but without success. Half the Chatsworth sites are bad plots. However, when the Director of Housing wanted to draw up his submission, he did so without any knowledge of my input. He did so together with his officials, and the suggested figure for Clarion was 93—80 plus 13—terrible plots. I made only one alteration, in my own handwriting, namely to reduce Clarion’s allocation by 20. The Director of Housing can be contacted. I told the Chairman of the Housing Board that the view had been expressed by the hon the State President that utility companies and the small man should be encouraged.

I also suggested to the Director of Housing and to the Deputy Director that a check should be made on the utility companies to ensure that they were functioning properly as utility companies. If that message did not reach the Chairman of the Housing Board, must the Minister of Housing be blamed for being insistent that the matter be finalised as quickly as possible?

I say let our country not misunderstand that we had officials who paid obeisance to the former Secretary for Community Development whose declared ambition was that the destruction of the Indian trader was the realisation of a life-long dream. We had officials who were responsible to a different set of values and overnight had to change in order to be responsible to another set of values. They applied the provisions of the Community Development Act for another purpose—in our eyes, in our constituency, to destroy the Indians. To implement a policy, for example, that Indian areas should be outside a 20 km radius of Durban, was not enshrined in the Act. However, it was the policy of the Ministers and the Government at the time.

Hon members are aware that letters went out from our administration concerning the identification of land, letters which could be regarded as coming from right-wing elements. Such letters have gone out from our administration as late as one month ago and we cannot be held responsible for that. That is why the intervention of the political arm is necessary.

The hon member for Red Hill made the allocations in Lenasia Extension 1. The hon member for Laudium and most of the hon members from the Transvaal were present at the meeting and this was not according to parties. We called a meeting of all the Transvaal members when someone queried the Lenasia allocation and when we discovered that the two contractors had been allocated sites before the deadline for applications had expired. I made alterations to only one. I suspected that Gori’s Investment was connected to a member of Parliament. I suspected this, but I had no proof. However, what does this report state? It hangs the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for something he has not done, but if the member of my Ministers’ Council did this in 1985 I, as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, take full responsibility for that decision. If a Minister handled the allocation at that time he was justified in doing so because we had suspect officials in that particular regional office. The Chairman of the former Housing Development Board agreed yesterday that I advised him accordingly to be suspicious about certain submissions coming from a certain regional office.

In the Pretoria area we have our own properties where members of the public are constructing buildings on properties that do not belong to them. We were told that they were given verbal permission by members of the former Department of Community Development and we were legally bound by that permission. There is an allegation made by hon members from the Transvaal that in the early stages of the formation of our administration our own officials gave permission without the knowledge of the head office. Hon members on both sides of the House queried the question of the allocation of shops in Pretoria and in other Transvaal platteland towns. They wanted to know from the political arm why this tenancy was changed when we had absolutely nothing to do with it. Therefore when one queries that it is called pressure and interference.

I want to say this afternoon that I received representations—and that is something which is contained in this report—to consider applications for staff employment on compassionate grounds, but I want to ask which hon member of the Ministers’ Council did not. Yet one man must be crucified.

However, I also want to say that my administrative secretary has a record of these submissions, and the success rate from my office does not exceed 4%. I asked a question of a witness. He said: “I resigned at the age of 60 because the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council interfered.” So I asked him to read a letter, and in that letter the word “conceded” appeared. I mention this because interference is referred to in this report. I asked him a question: “Is the word ‘conceded’ an instruction?” His answer was “no”.

So the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must be controlled. Ministers must be controlled. We had a lot of meetings with the Administrators of the provinces. We are one administration. We have one political head, whoever occupies that position. We have one Director-General. If an MP writes to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and he refers a matter to an official who is actually doing the job, it is not liked. I will say that I am the first to concede that a Minister has a particular role, and that there has to be a clear dividing line between the administrative section and the political arm.

We did not have parliamentary representation for 75 years. We did not have Indian Ministers in this country.

Thank God, sometimes.

The hon member says “Thank God”. Reddy’s Corner House once belonged to the Department of Community Development. However, nobody checked that. I do not say that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition used a front; I am not saying that. I am stating a fact, namely, that the land on which Reddy’s Corner House is built was once Government property.

Mr Speaker, that is a serious statement. He has got the deeds on which, in 1985 …

Order! The hon member will have an opportunity to address the House.

But will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition accept the fact that I allocated land to Bazaria and Lenasia? That statement is made in Mr Kessa Thambi’s affidavit. [Interjections.] It is contained in this report. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition meets him privately. [Interjections.] However, it is contained in the report as an allegation against me. I put the second question of audi alterem partem. Was it put to me in that House Committee?

Ask your members.

It was not asked by members. I want the hon members of this House to release the tapes of that House Committee—not the verbatim recording—to show the manner in which witnesses were treated. An attempt was made to do the same to me, but I was not other witnesses.

Nobody shouts at the witnesses at the James Commission of Inquiry. Witnesses who could not give the type of answers they required were recalled two or three times. If this House Committee is worried about State expenditure, excluding the time—if we had to attach a value to the time of the people who were brought here, and I believe some witnesses were brought here and not called—then what about the travelling expenses and the hotel expenses?

I believe some of the witnesses were called and slept at the home of the chairman of this committee. I do not know whether they claimed any hotel allowances for that. It is wrong to ask witnesses to come and sleep at the home of the chairman of this committee. When I appeared, I learned from witnesses subsequently that they were not allowed to put their points of view. They were told “Answer the question”.

I want to confirm that I was not allowed to put the facts that I wanted to this committee. I want the House to consider this. I was told just to answer the questions. Two of my hon members, namely the hon member Mr Nowbath and the hon member for Laudium, indicated that it would be a waste of time to continue sitting in that committee because it had already decided what it was looking for. One only has to look at the recordings of this House Committee Report to see that one person was interested. There was no democracy as far as witnesses were concerned. When the hon member for Moorcross asked a question, he was cut short. But the hon member for Reservoir Hills was given all the freedom he wanted. He shouted at me and I shouted back at him. [Interjections.] The written records do not show that.

I have already cited two examples in this report where these things were not put to me. I now want to come to another one. The former Chief Director of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services was brought in. He was asked whether he was aware of a Minister—not Minister Rajbansi— personally recommending candidates for positions in this department. Mr J A du Toit answered: “Yes, I was told that a former Minister in the person of Mr Dookie did make recommendations.” However, they were not interested in that. I did not see any follow-up questions coming from the hon member for Reservoir Hills. However, if the answer had been “Yes, Mr Rajbansi” there would have been another 15 pages of questioning by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Were there any references made to the former Minister of Housing in this report?

Let us be fair. The hon member for Red Hill quite correctly had grievances and it was his right to have the matters investigated. He sent them to the Advocate-General and he complained to this House that a person called Mr Rajbansi did not want to allow a commission of inquiry. The hon the State President announced that what was put to the Advocate-General would, with his permission, be investigated by the commission. The hon member for Red Hill brought his documents to the House Committee and in his statement to this House Committee he built his entire case on what officials had reported to him. I will read parts from the record of evidence. It was said that I told an official that if his Minister did not do certain things, I would sack him. In other words, we are getting a lot of lies. I must be careful now—one may hear somebody say that Mr Rajbansi did say these things. [Interjections.] If that is the truth I am not fit to occupy this position.

In his entire sworn statement the hon member for Red Hill said that Backer told him this and Backer told him that. I want to quote the hon member for Red Hill on page 13 and 14:

The hon member for Red Hill urges that House Committee to call him. I hope the hon member for Isipingo is listening.

He is not here—he has gone home!

I quote further:

That cruel Chairman who tells an official to go and tell his Minister what to do. Then the chairman asked the hon member for Red Hill a question. It is on page 2 of 3 and it reads:

According to the record Mr Dookie replied: “Yes”. There is another answer from the hon member for Red Hill where he says:

He also said:

He further stated on page 1 of 16 of the record of evidence:

On the chairman’s question “What do you mean ‘apparently’?” he said: “Well, Mr Backer advised me.”

The hon member for Red Hill said:

So the whole argument in regard to the affidavit was built on officials’ evidence. I want to quote the chairman again when he asked:

The answer was: “Yes, in respect of many others.” Then there was another question where the hon member for Reservoir Hills asked:

They have both acted the same. And here I am giving hon members information from the record of evidence. The hon member for Reservoir Hills went on to say:

The answer was:

I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills thought that now the fish was caught. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is finished. Let us fly Mr Backer, who has been promoted to a position in South West Africa, down to Cape Town and the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will be destroyed. As the hon member for Red Hill has stated, once Mr Backer concurs, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is destroyed.

We had the evidence from another official in the James Commission’s inquiry where I went to another official asking him: “Which building did I ask you to buy?” They could not find it. We will deal with that. I asked him: “Does suggestion mean instruction?” to which he replied: “No”. However, that official was part of the James Commission of Inquiry. The hon member for Red Hill also gave evidence in this regard. However, there is a reason why he said Backer went upstairs. I know that the hon member for Reservoir Hills, after having listened to the hon member for Red Hill, thought that they had now succeeded in nailing the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council when the great official, Mr Backer, arrived. I will quote him. On page 5 of 15 Mr Backer replies to a question:

This is not my recording. It is an official recording of the House Committee. The Chairman asked:

The Chairman asked Mr Backer another question. He wanted to know if I had at any stage threatened to sack him if he failed to sign that document. Mr Backer said I never said so. According to the evidence that the hon member for Red Hill had recorded at the James Commission, Mr Backer stated that he was a former magistrate and would not lie. On the question of lying to a committee of Parliament, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may now have to swallow his words.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills asked another question, but I will not read the full question, because it is quite lengthy:

Mr Backer said:

Mr Speaker, this forms the pillar of the allegations, even in front of the James Commission. That is why, at the James Commission, the hon member for Red Hill was recalled by this House Committee after Mr Backer had given evidence. This was put to the hon member for Red Hill. I do not have to read that. That is why, at the James Commission, the hon member for Red Hill did not say that Mr Backer came to me. The hon member for Red Hill kept on saying “the 11th floor” and avoided the word “Rajbansi” even after I had cross-examined him. However, what I would have expected in the report was that 80% of this report would be based on this fabrication. These are not my words. These words are the recordings of the Secretary to Parliament, and his recordings can be afforded the highest respect.

I hope South Africa is listening to this debate. I am sure South Africa is going to listen. I hope South Africa is informed that the damage done in respect of Procor Homes, will be rectified. I hope that those who were responsible for the error will ensure that the harm that has been done to our administration will be rectified.

However, if the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council appears before this committee and makes statements to the effect that the DirectorGeneral can certify this, and if the DirectorGeneral then comes and says he never discussed it with the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council then today I would be hanging from the ceiling of this House—politically finished. On the strength of this type of report, Mr John MacLennan of the Sunday Tribune says: “The End of the Raj”. If hon members on the other side of the House are interested in this revelation, the first revelation is that things were not put to me.

If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was indicted and he proved that these allegations were not put to him, this House could not consider that report. However, what has happened? Because the hon member for Red Hill was sitting on the other side when he was recalled, he received very mild treatment. I want the media and hon members of this House to read what mild treatment he received. Who lied before the House Committee—the former Minister of Housing or a former magistrate? I know the former magistrate gave evidence before the James Commission the other day. I am not going to say he lied. I will say he misunderstood a conversation I had with him. However, at the James Commission of Inquiry, everything was built on what officials reported.

I want to say that if one Minister says something bad about another Minister to his officials, he is not fit to be a Minister, whoever he is. I am glad Mr Backer clarified this. What is worse, it is said that I told Mr Backer not to give information to his Minister at the time. On the basis of this I will convince the House beyond all reasonable doubt that this report is prejudiced.

What we would have had in this report would be a lengthy chapter, saying that the whole report was based on an affidavit submitted to the James Commission by the hon member for Red Hill. A former senior official came and called the bluff. However, there is not a paragraph or a word— the hon member for Isipingo must listen—about this if we look at what Mr Backer said.

I want to mention the Odeon report, but before I do that, I want to say something regarding another allegation that was made by a person called Mr Shan Maharaj. I had made a statement. I want to quote the chairman of the House Committee and make another revelation. The chairman said, and I quote:

I hope the hon member for Reservoir Hills is listening. I continue:

The statement made by Mr Shan Maharaj is serious.

Appoint an attorney-general.

I have done that before, for the benefit of the hon member for Isipingo. I wrote a letter to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, dated 15 August, which I will read. I quote:

What was the date of that letter?

It is dated 15 August 1988. I continue:

I wrote this to the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

I come to the third point. I could refer to many points, and I hope the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is listening. Mr Maharaj’s statements were not put to me. What was fair at the hearing? What is the reason for Mr Maharaj’s statement to be attached as an annexure? I gave this House Committee a sworn statement regarding the investigation of allegations concerning land matters when the hon member for Red Hill was the Minister of Housing. I gained the impression that my sworn statement went into the wastepaper-basket. Where is my sworn statement as an annexure to this? I gained the impression at that meeting of the House Committee that they were not interested and wore blinkers.

I want to say that to attach Mr Maharaj’s statement as an annexure, when my denial was accepted, when the statement was not read to me, when the charges were not put to me, and when it was recorded in the record of evidence that my denial was accepted, was the dirtiest political act to which an hon member of this House could be subjected. It was not put to me. If it had been put to me and investigated properly with all possible objectivity and fairness, I would not have any complaint this afternoon. Can this report, then, be considered?

In a statement to the House Committee I said that Mr Maharaj had tried to get in touch with me, and he cast an aspersion on an hon member of this House. Whether I agree with an hon member or not, I will not see a person if he wants to see me because he has an allegation against that member.

What do others do, however? [Interjections.] What did Mr Maharaj state in his evidence? He contacted the hon member for Stanger:

This is a revelation by Mr Shan Maharaj. [Interjections.] As to whether or not it is a lie, I have said in this House that not a single allegation has been made against me without a politician being associated with it by assisting either in drawing up documents or in fabrication.

I want to tell every hon member on the other side of this House—my wife was born after her father died—not to ask or assist people to make statements and send them to attorneys in order to involve my wife.

It is the dirtiest thing anyone could do!

It is the dirtiest piece of documentation ever fabricated in this country. [Interjections.]

I will not deal with the details, because that would make the man wiser, but if there is a single truth in it, if one sentence in that statement is true, I will resign instantly, and not merely as a Minister, but from Parliament altogether.

I want to say with all the humility at my disposal, that I could afford a motor car for the first time in my life in 1979. Yet it is said that I bought someone a motor car in 1968.

If anybody comes to me and says he wants to make allegations against a member, I will tell them to find an attorney. I do not want to arrange attorneys.

Mr Maharaj also states the following:

This is on another occasion—

So it was not only on one occasion. I looked at the date and I saw that the man came from Stanger. The hon member had returned from hadj only one week previously. The hon member for Stanger cannot deny that he has not seen that statement. [Interjections.] Yet lies are told about a man, and furthermore about an MP’s wife, whose children had never seen the walls of a cinema, who puts in 20 hours a week, whose children never see their father and whose wife has to see to the children alone. A person is taken to an attorney to draw up a statement involving a man’s wife, when I have never met this man in my life. I do not know this man. I do not want to say what I know about him. If I say where I lived in 1967, he would become wise.

I help people. The hon member for Havenside got angry with me when he wanted me to allocate a shop, Shop 15 in Mobeni Heights, to an illegal tenant. I agreed with him, because there were no tenants in that shopping centre and it was a struggle to allocate shops, but circumstances differ. I agreed with the hon member, but the chairman of the board might say that because the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council expressed a view, it should be called pressure. Nowadays there is a different concept.

When an hon Minister of the House of Assembly telephones the same chairman, it is all right. It is perfectly normal. When the Minister of Housing of the House of Delegates telephones him, it is called pressure and interference.

On 28 August 1984 I described our people when I said that “the soul of a long-suffering nation has found utterance”. They want us to put seventyfive years of struggle right overnight. How many hon members of this House have contacted me about land matters? The Chairman of the Housing Development Board dealt with a matter when the hon member for Reservoir Hills sent me a note about the price of religious sites. R200 000 was asked for a religious site in Marlboro. We also cannot solve the problem in Standerton. The Chairman of the Housing Development Board would indicate that when I reminded him about the political implications it was pressure and interference. In Marlboro the House of Delegates will not even obtain a quarter percent poll and our administration must realise that. The hon members of Parliament and the hon Ministers are the ones who look at the one factor which the officials do not look at, namely the political implications of decisions. In Standerton and Marlboro we will not even obtain a quarter percent poll. Even the hon members from the other side reminded me about this. However, when one talks to a junior official nowadays, the tail wants to wag the head.

We went to the Administrators of various provinces and on deputations to hon Ministers. Did we always find the head of the department there? When the present hon Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications was still the Administrator of Natal, I witnessed him calling a junior official who worked out on the road. The MEC in charge of roads was not there and neither was the head of the department of roads. However, nowadays as regards the Civil Service, people want to dictate to me how one should run one’s affairs. I would like to suggest that this may be the last straw for certain people. The end of the Raj will come when the Raj decides. [Interjections.] The tiger always jumps back until you kill it.

Cowboys do not cry.

I am not crying.

[Inaudible.]

My blood pressure never has risen. It will never rise. [Interjections.]

It is frozen.

It will never rise. In the SAIC and even now, there was never a single meeting by the NPP that was closed down by leftist forces. I cannot say that of the other parties. We were never closed down. Hon members will be surprised to hear that only yesterday at the court 15 White attorneys surrounded me saying: “Mr Rajbansi, we are your fans.’*They spent about 20 minutes outside and they said: “We are your fans. We know what is happening.” [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

We have asked for a commission of inquiry, but when such a committee is appointed people do not want to wait for their findings. Lot 8282 was mentioned and plots were mentioned. This is now exploding in some people’s faces and the pattern of the conspiracy is unfolding. However, people know that in the political arena Mr Rajbansi cannot be defeated. Therefore they now drag in the civil servants. I had a Chief Director of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services amongst my senior officials. Can anyone find one instance where I gave an instruction to a junior official? A request is not an instruction. Hon members from the other side also refer matters to me and when I in turn refer these to the attention of the personnel section, is that an instruction? I have not given any official, I repeat any official, other than my own officials any instructions as to what to do. However, if I say to an official that he must acknowledge receipt of a letter, is that an instruction? Must the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council be a dummy? Are all the Administrators of the provinces figureheads or dummies?

Serious allegations were made against the hon member for Red Hill. The Director-General of our Administration submitted the most valuable report on the Odeon Cinema. He also sent a copy to the House Committee for Public Accounts. This copy should be the no 1 document attached to the annexure to prove that the purchase of the Odeon Cinema was perfectly legal. Why was this document not attached as an annexure? Why was a letter from a valuator of the Department of Public Works not attached to the report, giving the valuation as R1,5 and R1,6 million and the municipal valuation as R1,8 million?

There were two valuations.

I am a politician. That hon member is worried about two valuations, and the fact that there was a valuation of R750 000. Let us accept there were two valuations. What about Copes Folley and Dunveria? There were two valuations. Some 340 ha of land was valued at R3,5 million by an experienced valuator. Who instructed a second valuation? Certain hon members have complaints about the Odeon Cinema because there were two valuations and because our department did the right thing to go to the Department of Public Works for another opinion and the Director-General of our Administration, who is highly respected in financial matters, sealed all questions. The question is now being asked whether it was necessary.

I have dealt with pressure. I have revealed to the hon member for Red Hills beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr Backer said he had not discussed this matter with me.

I want to come back to the report of the DirectorGeneral and the complaint concerning the price. The Director-General has now cleared up the matter. I want to request that the House Committee on Public Accounts reconvene. I want to say something else. All the negative publicity and smear against the House of Delegates is a result of the facts submitted to the House Committee on Public Accounts by the officials of our Administration. They went there half-baked and without checking the files. I do not think it was filed properly in their files. If a Minister checks certain files which are not filed properly and then puts them in the “out” basket and gives them back to that official, a great play is made of that. The problems on the Odeon Cinema were created by the negligence of the officials who went to the House Committee without the necessary facts. However, when they saw the facts in the files, they were surprised. The facts were not altered. They did not check the documents and they did not consult the officials. It is because of the negligence of those officials who went to the House Committee on Public Accounts that the House of Delegates got such bad publicity on the Odeon Cinema.

I want to come back to Copes Folley and Dunveria. Hon members complain about two valuations—and let us accept that there were two valuations and an independent opinion—but who gave the instructions for a second valuation? However, 340 ha of land was valued at R3,5 million, 100 ha of unusable land was declared usable and another R5 million added because of that. We were told that the hon the Minister of Housing at the time signed the expropriation himself but in this case, who allowed a junior official to sign the expropriation? As far as the acquisition of Copes Folley and Dunveria is concerned, it may be said it was the only land available but what did we do on the East Rand? We told the man he could keep his land if his price was too high. There were complaints from Pietermaritzburg that this was disastrous and scandalous but did the House Committee look at that matter? They did not look at it because it appeared a certain person called Mr Rajbansi was not involved. In all other matters what Mr Du Toit or Mr Backer said was relevant, but as far as Copes Folley and Dunveria were concerned, a person called Mr Rajbansi was not involved.

The Thursday before Mr Choonara died he made a confession to two hon members of this House, namely the hon member for Moorcross and myself. He said it was correct that the hon member for Red Hill had allocated him plots on condition that he said that every time it was on instructions from the Chairman.

Dead men tell no tales.

When did the hon member for Red Hill do anything without the instruction of the Chairman? He said: “It was allocated to me on condition that I needle you.” He said: “In all the Press articles where it says NPP members have no confidence in their leader, I was responsible, and I ask for forgiveness.”

That late hon member also said that Lot 8282 and another 40 plots had been promised to him by the hon member for Red Hill. The more the hon member for Red Hill opens his mouth, the deeper he puts his foot in it. [Interjections.] I know he is dead, but others are alive. [Interjections.] Others are alive to tell the tale. If only the hon member for Southern Natal would open his mouth. They were business partners. Forty plots were to be allocated and Lot 8282 was to be given. The hon member for Eastern Transvaal will know that the late Mr A Choonara demanded Lot 8282. Why, then, did the hon member for Red Hill telephone this man from the Transvaal and why did he telephone the hon member for Laudium and tell him to dodge the James Commission of Inquiry? [Interjections.] The hon member for Red Hill has appealed to the hon member for Laudium and another person from the Transvaal to hide from the James Commission of Inquiry because that revelation … [Interjections.] Hon members must not hit the roof. They must not let their blood pressure rise. The revelation about Lot 8282 is going to shock people. However, when an allegation was made that a former hon Minister allocated land to an MP, that allegation was thrown into the wastepaper-basket by this House Committee.

I now come to Mr Kessa Thambi. He was dissatisfied with his allocation. The Chairman was blamed. When he submitted a memorandum, I received a telex from the hospital in Pretoria. The telex was leaked to the Sunday Times and finally it was said that there was a misunderstanding; that the Ministers’ Council had decided this. Every time I trapped the hon member for Red Hill, he moved the goal-posts. When I scored a goal through his legs, he moved the goal-posts. [Interjections.] He moved the goal-posts. Who was blamed in this House Committee? Who was blamed? The man who scored the goals did not get the trophy. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the hon chairman of this committee. A sworn statement has been made by a witness, a statement which cannot be ignored. When we ask for an allegation, we ask for a sworn statement. The statement is to the effect that on 22 July the hon chairman of this House Committee took Mr Paraw Seebran and M Seebran, witnesses who were supposed to be staying in a hotel, to stay at his house, and that there they discussed certain things. On 22 July the chairman of this House Committee allegedly went to the office of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and there they discussed the draft interim report on the Odeon Cinema. I am not saying it is correct, but we have a sworn statement and documents were handed to Mr Paraw Seebran. There is a link, because Mr Paraw Seebran has made a court application with confidential documents from the files of the House Committee and here a witness is satisfied that he saw the chairman handing them over.

I make the allegation this afternoon that the chairman of the House Committee demanded that I buy a certain property in Isipingo because he said he had an option on another man’s name. The chairman of the House Committee demanded that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and I manipulate a promotion to get his son promoted in the office of the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. When we were reluctant to do so …

When was that?

I suggest to the hon member for Southern Natal that he put his foot where his mouth is. [Interjections.] I want to state that what is needed, is an investigation into the conduct of the chairman of this House Committee, who used the filthiest language imaginable against me. [Interjections.] Last Sunday the chairman of this House Committee used filthy language on the telephone against the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and a complaint has been made to the Newark police.

There is also an allegation that the chairman of this House Committee telephoned a reporter of the SABC and said: “Rajbansi is finished, can you report it?” There is also an allegation that the chairman of the House Committee told the hon member for Umzinto at the airport at Umzinto that when he had finished I should be put in prison. These are allegations from hon members of Parliament. The manner in which vulgar, filthy and foul language has been used against hon members of this House cannot go unremarked upon. Every hon member of this House must be concerned. If a sworn statement is made it is an indictment of this House Committee.

I received a resolution of that House Committee. When the hon member for Red Hill goes and says the Chairman said this and that, a resolution is adopted which is worded in such a way as to embarrass me and it is released to the Press. However, I want to notify this House that I have acted on the resolution adopted by this House last Monday. I want to confirm that I have asked the Chief Director to consult our legal advisers if we have any legal problems with the resolution of this House. I did not disregard the resolution of this House as far as the people connected to the six petrol service stations were concerned. However, who is demanding this from me? The hon member Mr M Thaver has given me an affidavit about Mr Ramlall and has worried me about Mr

V M Naicker, but the report says differently. I am concerned that Mr V M Naicker did not own a petrol service station, but I said that his application should be considered on compassionate grounds. I asked that it go to the board, which approved it. Can anyone therefore accuse me? Much has been said about the appointment of a so-called special committee, but I do not know about this special committee.

I want to come to something else. If they are worried about a person called Mr Rajbansi, I want to say I know the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a lot of sacrifices by leaving his business. I want to suggest to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he finds out why the size of his party has dwindled and why there is a resistance against him becoming Chairman of the Ministers’ Council if they can topple me.

The hon member for Isipingo is not here. When there was a serious problem between the former Minister of Transport and I over the second access road, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—and the hon member for Isipingo can confirm this—came to my office and told me to go slow with Hendrik. I was told this privately in my office. When we were dealing with the Ministers’ Council decision on the sale of the properties to Checkers and there was phase 1 and 2 he called me into his office and told me to keep phase 2 for the individual tenderers. I did not realise that one or two of the individual tenderers were his sons. There was no investigation of the allocation of plots to Sea, Land and Air in Richards Bay. When Sea, Land and Air was not in Richards Bay and when the people of Richards Bay should have been given priority there was no investigation by this House Committee of the allocation of homes to the firm of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Nowhere in the history of South African housing have readymade homes been allocated on a preferential basis to the employees of a particular firm. I know that land was allocated in exceptional circumstances.

I was given no homes there.

Your friend was given homes.

No!

When the hon member for Lenasia East made a statement he hit the roof. Let us not have high blood pressure because I have blood flowing in my veins too.

We made a statement in the SAIC and in this House in 1985 that Mr S F Kotzé said that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition came to his house and his office privately and secretly to say that there was no need for the Government to spend a single cent on Cato Manor as there were enough big boys in the Indian community who could develop Cato Manor.

Nonsense!

Call Mr S F Kotzé.

Bring him along!

Why did you not say “bring him along” in the past? The House Committee did not have this. If Rajbansi did this then this report would have been another 100 pages long. I want to suggest that we compare the businesses of people who entered the SAIC; we should draw a graph. I said in 1985 that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was a genius in business. If he is worth R40 million today, why was he not worth R40 million when he joined the SAIC?

Who is worth R40 million?

I said “if’. However, if anyone has risen in business, the first prize goes to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He is very friendly with finance officials and he is too friendly with commerce and industry officials, trade and industry officials and customs and excise officials. I say that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has made sacrifices by not being in business, but I would say that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is worth more to his business when remaining in Cape Town.

As far as the harbour clearance licences are concerned I accept that they may be fairly allocated.

May be?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in the Sunday Times Extra that he was having difficulty with the Transport Commission, so he approached the Director-General of Transport. If that is correct, the DirectorGeneral of Transport was requested to interfere with another body to allocate harbour clearance licences and permits which nobody in South Africa could get for 30 years.

[Inaudible.]

Please, my blood pressure is not rising.

Nor is mine. [Interjections.]

That is why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is friendly with the Director-General of Transport. He is too friendly; he is spending too much time there when there are debates here. We know that he runs to this gallery to be friendly with the officials who are in charge of taking decisions on transport matters, customs and excise matters, etc. Then I want to suggest …

You are a fabricator.

Oh, I am a fabricator? Others are not fabricators.

You are an experienced one.

No. It seems we are not human. The trouble is that we treated the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with kid gloves all these years. There will be no more kid-glove treatment. Let everyone be treated alike!

Exactly.

I want to say that I received requests. In Verulam we are suffering from the lack of a welfare office. The people of Verulam are suffering. A member of my Ministers’ Council who has financial interests in a property, has obstructed it so far. I know that he says that he declared that he had a financial interest, but he only declared it after the James Commission was appointed. I received a document about W G Brown’s building from a member of my ministry in the Ministers’ Council after I was called to tea at Kingsgate.

You are a liar.

I was given this.

Order! The hon the Minister should know better than that.

Mr Speaker, I tender my apologies, but I cannot tolerate an untruth.

Mr Speaker, when I talk to my official, I am alone. When my Minister meets me, we are alone. However, he cannot deny that he has given me something about this, and his actual words to me were: “Work a plan with this building for the House of Delegates.” Those were his actual words. If it is a matter between the hon the Minister and me, then let me deal with another matter.

I shall reply to you.

You have trouble in the Verulam mosque. Can you deny asking officials about arranging transfers? This is the way staff matters are dealt with.

I deny it.

The hon the Minister denies that he asked hon officials to transfer certain members of the Muslim community who disagreed on the Verulam mosque issue.

I deny that.

Does he deny it? Let us put the matter to the James Commission.

I should be very happy to do so.

Let us place this before the James Commission. If what I say is wrong, we have an official here.

Your official!

No, not my officials—the officials of the administration. So these officials are wrong.

Certainly!

The pattern of this conspiracy is unfolding. [Interjections.] Let us look at the question of audi alteram partem. I want to say that 98% of what is contained in this report was not put to me.

Why did you take three days then?

It was not my fault that I took three days. I was told only to answer questions. I want to say that I have not done anything wrong. The finest thing that this House can do is to look at the statements which I have made in this House with all the fairness and objectivity at our disposal. I have made reference to the sworn statement, namely that things were planned according to the sworn statement in the office of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in Durban. There was confirmation that other things were planned in that office. Affidavits were polished and reshaped and the person who signed the affidavits was not allowed to read the sworn statements.

I want to make an appeal that the politicians should fight it out. If we have to knock each other out, let us do it ourselves. Let us not drag the Public Service into it. Nobody must drag the Public Service into this fight—I am not saying that anybody is doing so. I want to say that it is an arena in which they are treading very dangerously. We may suffer temporary setbacks but we will be back after a general election. [Interjections.] I expect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to be at the commission giving evidence straight away. He must publicly declare whether he has publicly submitted any complaints to the commission.

You are not my boss!

But you have made allegations against me!

When you get hanged …

No, I will never get hanged.

You may die a natural death before that.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that I may die a natural death before that. That is the statement of a weak man. That is the statement of a person who is like a straw in the wind. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, like the hon the member for Reservoir Hills said, wants to keep his hands clean.

My affidavits are all there.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to keep his hands clean. He always uses others.

They are clean.

Whether they are clean or not, I want to say that he is of more value to his firm remaining here.

Why are you jealous?

I want to say to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that there are many matters in this report that overlap with the James Commission. I would have expected the hon member for Reservoir Hills to have played an active role in these matters before the James Commission of Inquiry.

A lot has been said about staff matters. I made mention of the hon member for Reservoir Hills when Mr Du Toit mentioned his name. Which hon member of Parliament can say that he does not receive representations? Tasa is giving evidence on education today. I understand that some hon members of Parliament are implicated in the evidence. However, only Mr Rajbansi deals with these representations—the others do not deal with it. Only one person gets singled out.

I want to say that a person who has only been in our administration for six months does not know the facts. He is not experienced enough to know the facts in regard to what has happened because we had difficult years. Officials were used to a different set of values. In the Department of Community Development they were used to destroying and we must use the same laws to rebuild for destroying is conditioned in the mind. I am not restricting this to Whites only. Even amongst the Indians one finds the extreme left who might have been prepared to go along with us. However, if anybody is now using the Civil Service, my message to them would be to stop doing that. If the Civil Service want to enter the political arena, they will get their fingers burnt. My message to them is clear: Keep out of the arena where politicians are fighting each other. Leave that fight to politicians. They are not the judge and they should not be king makers. As long as I am Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, no Civil Service will control any Minister in my Council.

Mr Speaker, lots of leakages in regard to highly confidential information have taken place since the beginning of this year. This has never happened before. Such information has regularly been leaked to members of the Opposition and to the Press. I want to mention this in public. However, I cannot deal with many of these matters. I have dealt with the untruths contained in this report. I have dealt with Mr Backer, with staff matters and with other allegations. I mentioned examples where these allegations were not put to me. How can a report then be submitted? We must be fair. I was not consulted on the question in regard to Mr Maharaj, Clarion Homes, or Extension 1. These matters were not put to me. The records are there to prove this. If a charge is not laid against a person, can he be accused of anything? Can he be found guilty?

The best place this report can go to, is the James Commission which is investigating these matters. The James Commission does not take sides. It is not a political commission. It cannot and does not take sides. That is where justice will be done. Aspersions have been cast. I am saying this as a politician because when things were held against me, I accepted it with broad shoulders. I accepted what I said in good faith.

However, as I said earlier on, the pattern of the conspiracy is now unfolding. I know some people are getting butterflies in their stomachs. As the Bible says: Do to others what you want them to do to you. My party is strong; the spirit in my party is higher than it has ever been before. It is excellent.

With due respect to the office of Mr Speaker, I treat this report with the contempt it deserves because it does not follow certain golden rules such as laying charges against a person. Where charges against certain individuals came to light, they were bypassed because those individuals were not Mr Rajbansi. At all times, when certain things were happening, it was said: “Blame the hon member for Isipingo. He is doing it; we are not doing it.” I am forced to say this because certain hon members of this House want to have a clean slate with me. They do not want to be seen doing these things, but I know they are the main plotters behind my back. That is why I was forced to reveal today what I have revealed.

Stay on. Do not go away when we speak.

The hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must know that I am not here because they wanted me here. They did not give me a chance. Somebody had to remind them of certain values. I have had serious arguments with the hon member for Reservoir Hills, but the day on which he was debated he was absent and it was I who stood up and stopped the debate. That is a golden rule. I want to propose that if anyone wants investigations of this sort, there should be a joint select committee where no fingers can be pointed and where no majority in a House can manipulate things. As far as Shan Maharaj is concerned, I hope he is going to divulge …

[Inaudible.]

It is in his evidence. The hon member will have to answer him. He does not have to answer me. The fact is that the House Committee has realised this. They have accepted my denial. They did not put that statement to me.

Mr Speaker, is it fair that my wife should be dragged in? The statement was not put to me. I was not given a copy of that statement. However, the statement was attached as an annexure for one reason only. It was for the benefit of the Press. The Press in Durban even had the last report on the Odeon Cinema. There was a massive publicity campaign.

I, as a politician, believe that one should not dodge a storm when it comes. However, when the storm subsides, there is always a calmness and a seasoned politician rises in that calmness. There are certain values that politicians should respect. Even if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is indicted in the manner in which I am indicted here, I will stand up and say that it is not fair. One should put a charge to a man. I can assure this House of one thing: I have been present at the James Commission. What appears in today’s edition of the Natal Mercury is nonsense.

I want hon members to read my cross-examination of Mr Marais. I want them to read what Mr Marais had to say when I cross-examined him. I want to make an appeal to the Civil Service. We have had a difficult time in structuring this administration. I, as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, have shown tolerance when Indian expectations were high. If we believe in justice and fair play, we should leave this report to the James Commission. After all, this is what hon members on the other side have demanded. It is a fact. It is a reality. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker … [Interjections.]

This was expected. They are running away!

Thief! Thief!

He is going to jail! Guilty conscience!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition called somebody on this side a thief. I want to submit that that is unparliamentary.

Order! What did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say?

Chief! Chief!

Order! Did he say chief or thief?

Mr Speaker, he said someone on this side was a thief.

Order! Did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say that?

Sir, if I said something wrong, I withdraw it. My apologies.

Mr Speaker, I must record some grudging admiration for the histrionic ability of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and for the extraordinary ability he showed this afternoon in speaking for something like 105 minutes without really touching upon the issue before the House.

Of course, he referred to the apparent friendship which he claimed the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had with senior officials of State, as if there was something wrong with that. With great respect. I cannot see anything wrong with that. I think everyone knows that on a personal basis, outside this House, I am very friendly with the Speaker of Parliament. However, I think everyone also knows that I always catch it from the Speaker of Parliament in the House. Being friendly does not necessarily mean the granting or the receiving of any kind of special privilege.

Mr Speaker, what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council failed to deal with, were the real issues raised in this report, which were based entirely on sworn testimony given before the House Committee appointed by this House. First of all, I must deal with the statement he has made in regard to the recommendation of the advice given to the committee by Mr Speaker via the Secretary to Parliament. With respect, I believe that Mr Speaker did the right thing. Indeed, Mr Speaker had an obligation to give such advice to the committee as he deemed fit. However, the committee was of course within its rights to consider the advice. The committee came to the conclusion that because it had a deadline by which it had to complete its work, and although there was a degree of overlap between the terms of reference of the James Commission and the terms of reference of the committee, there was not complete overlapping. For these and other reasons the work had to continue.

The fact that the committee continued its work turned out to the disadvantage of a particular individual, but indeed it turned out to the advantage of this House and of Parliament. Therefore, on balance, I believe that the committee did the right thing in proceeding with its enquiry and in submitting the report.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has not given any explanation whatsoever, either before the committee when he was afforded the opportunity or to the House this afternoon, as to why he personally was responsible for using State funds to buy commercial property from the Durban City Council and to resell that property at a loss to the State. He gave no explanation whatsoever. However, there is evidence before the committee that the Checkers group and a certain Mr Paul Fox offered a consideration of R1 million to the consortium involved. There is no evidence involving the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council directly in that offer, but it appears that there was indeed an offer of R1 million. At whose expense was this? It was at the expense of the State and the taxpayer, and since the poorest of the poor are taxpayers, it was at the expense of the poorest of the poor in this country. That kind of situation is completely insupportable. Indeed, it is insufferable.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has not given any explanation whatsoever for favouring—and this has been amply proved—the wife of a person who was described by a witness before the committee as the bodyguard of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The name of that alleged bodyguard was Tony Adams, who is the husband of Irene Patricia Hoover, whose application for a service station site was written in the handwriting of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at the time when he was the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Indian Council.

That application was pushed forward assiduously by the same person while he was Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Later, after the previous Minister responsible for housing was dismissed from that portfolio and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had become Minister of Housing, and notwithstanding the fact that permanent officials had, for something like four years, consistently come to the conclusion that that applicant was not entitled to that site in terms of the norms previously established by the Department of Community Development in respect of displaced persons, it was the instruction given personally by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in his capacity as the Minister of Housing, that made it possible for that land to be allocated to Irene Patricia Hoover.

The remarkable thing is that the same hon Minister later instructed that the land be alienated to Mrs M L Hoover, who had never applied for that land. [Interjections.] Strangely, that land was transferred during the tenure of the hon the Minister of Housing for a price of R221 000 to a company called Fairchance Service Station (Pty) Ltd … [Interjections] … a close corporation.

In the same community housing scheme called Phoenix, a petrol service station site was sold by the Durban City Council at a public auction for R1,9 million. A public auction is one of the best methods of establishing market value.

So we have proof that the possible market value of this property was considerably higher than R221 000. Who suffers the loss? The State and therefore the taxpayers suffer the loss, and we are supposed to be the custodians of the taxpayers who will also become, we hope, the voters.

The hon the Minister of Housing has given no explanation of his extraordinary conduct in similarly directing that a service station site be allocated to one Jivan Seebran who, it emerged in testimony before the committee—this came in en passant, really, from Mr Seebran himself—was a business associate of the hon the Minister of Housing. He had formed a consortium together with the hon the Minister of Housing in a certain business transaction. Although the hon the Minister at first denied that Jivan Seebran was his close friend, he later admitted that the man was a friend of long standing.

Incidentally, the application of Jivan Seebran was also written out by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his own handwriting. Jivan Seebran, like Irene Patricia Hoover, did not qualify. Indeed, there is reason to believe and there is evidence which suggests that the applications of Irene Patricia Hoover and Jivan Seebran contained information which was false, and that the applicants may—I am not saying that they necessarily will—have to face and answer allegations of falsitas or fraud.

Those are the serious allegations clearly set out in this report. The transcript of the evidence was available for examination by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—the fact that he read excerpts proves that he had access to it—but he did not deal with those matters.

Perhaps the most serious charge against the hon the Minister of Housing contained in this report, however, is the fact that on 18 March of this year, barely five months ago, the hon the Minister of Housing made a statement in this House which was completely, absolutely and totally untrue in material respects. In reply to questions as to whether service station sites were being allocated and questions for details of the allottees, the descriptions of the properties and the prices paid or to be paid for them, the officials who normally prepare the replies for Ministers had prepared truthful replies, giving full details which included the names of Mrs M L Hoover and Mr J Seebran. A site was allocated to Mrs Hoover of Palm View Road, Phoenix, and to J Seebran of Jayhurst Road, Chatsworth. The price for Mrs Hoover was R221 000 and for Mr J Seebran it was R401 000. These were factual details. This emerged in evidence and also from evidence given before the committee, abstracted from the official departmental record and the answer prepared for the hon the Minister to convey to this House. What did the hon the Minister do? He deleted all the material information and in reply to the question as to whether any site had been allocated he deleted the word “Two” and substituted “None. Some are being finalised.” That statement which he substituted was an untruth. The committee found that it was a deliberate untruth.

He also deleted the names of the persons to whom the allocations had been made. He deleted the position of the two sites and the prices stipulated in respect of those sites. The transfer of one of those properties to Mrs M L Hoover or Fairchance Service Station (Pty) Ltd in fact went through in June 1988. It is my conclusion, and I have not the least doubt that it is the only possible and irresistible conclusion anyone can come to, that the hon the Minister of Housing deliberately concealed the information from this House so that the alienation could be finalised before the facts were found out. Indeed, in one case that happened.

In the other case, notwithstanding a request from the committee that further alienation be suspended, he gave specific instruction in his own handwriting—the documents are available on record as part of the committee records—that the alienation to J Seebran continue at the price of R401 000. This property was purchased from the Durban City Council for a price of R400 000. We have reason to believe that this property would possibly fetch more than R1 million. I know one person who would be prepared to pay R1 million for this particular property. However, whether it is worth R1 million or more is, for the moment, not particularly relevant. What is relevant, is that this property was purchased and held by the State whereby the State lost what property developers call holding costs. The State does not get money for nothing, but borrows money from the Public Debt Commissioner, and in terms of issuing Treasury bonds the State pays interest to other people for money which it holds. The State lost money. Whether or not it could have made a profit on this transaction, the State lost money for the period that it held the property and it is continuing to lose money. That is not just irresponsibility and not just carelessness. There is an ugly word for it, which is why the committee feels that this and other transactions should be referred to the Attorney-General. If fraud was committed and if any person aided and abetted the commission of that fraud or an attempt at fraud, then any such person or persons ought to be dealt with with the utmost rigour of the law.

I want to deal with certain statements which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made concerning Shan Maharaj, and I refer to the unrevised transcript. The chairman asked the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council the following question, and I quote:

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council answered, and I quote:

The answer was:

Mr Speaker, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said somebody offered incriminating evidence against me but that he refused to see that person. My submission is that as a Minister of State, if there was someone with incriminating evidence against anyone, whether he was a member of Parliament or not, it was his duty to see that person, obtain a statement and refer that statement to the Attorney-General. At the very least he should have told that person to go to the police with the incriminating statement. Later I put a question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, asking whether it was his great integrity and great sense of honour which prevented him from seeing Mr Shan Marahaj. Unfortunately the witness did not see the satirical intent of the question and answered in the affirmative.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to an affidavit made by one C B Ramlall. All we know is what we have read in certain newspapers about affidavits and persons who appeared to have made such affidavits and then retracted their affidavits. Unfortunately, in three such instances, a particular hon member of Parliament and a particular Minister, to wit, the hon the Minister of Housing, somehow or other seems to be implicated in the recanting of affidavits which people have made. These are under enquiry. One such matter is quite definitely being investigated. I am aware of it, but the matter is sub judice and therefore I will not dwell on that.

As to the allegation that the investigation was selective, that is not the case, as would be apparent to anyone who takes the trouble to work through the evidence. Unfortunately the evidence is rather substantial. It comes to at least 18 inches high on my desk but if one went through the evidence, it would be found to be extremely instructive.

I want to deal very briefly with certain statements the hon the Minister of Housing made concerning my legal firm. It is true that my legal firm acted for Messrs Kistasamy and Naidoo professionally—it is well-known—in assisting them to prepare an affidavit which my legal firm, on behalf of Mr Naidoo, submitted to the Advocate-General. It is perfectly true that my legal firm acted for Mr B Dookie in briefing counsel. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, one cannot live on a parliamentary salary alone. One has to do other work. If one is professionally qualified or if one has professional assistants who are able to do the work, one has to see to it that the work is done. Similarly, Sir, the hon the Minister of Housing made much of Mr J V “Dave” Pillay. It is perfectly true that Mr J V “Dave” Pillay met me at lunch one day. He was brought by a client who happened to be an attorney who had problems with the hon the Minister of Housing and for whom I was preparing papers to make an application to the Supreme Court. My client not only paid me the consultation fee, he also paid for the lunch which was very enjoyable. Mr J V Pillay was to be a witness but in the event it transpired that he had brought about a settlement between the hon the Minister of Housing and my client, thereby depriving me of the opportunity of earning a bigger fee. Perhaps I should be a little bit cross with Mr J V Pillay.

I do not know whether any witness slept at the home of the chairman of the committee. If so, so what? If a man is hospitable to a witness, I do not see anything wrong with that.

It certainly is true that I put a question to the hon member for Red Hill, and that I believe it was a valid question. I asked him: “Did Mr Rajbansi hold a pistol to your head and force you to sign?” I believed then, and I still believe that as a Minister, the hon member for Red Hill should at that time have refused to sign that document, regardless of the consequences. Nobody can say that he was forced to sign that document. That is a criticism that I levelled against a colleague in this House, and he must take that criticism.

In regard to Shan Maharaj, the committee has taken the trouble in paragraph 26.7 of its report to insert a caveat, warning the reader of the report to be very wary of the evidence of Shan Maharaj simply because of his own past history. The committee decided it had to warn itself. It placed no reliance whatsoever upon the evidence of Mr Shan Maharaj, except for recording that it was rather strange that Mr Shan Maharaj was apparently in possession of information which he could not have obtained from this committee.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council appears to have had regular feedback about what was transpiring in the committee. Whence he received that feedback, we are not aware. We were not able to establish that. We were completely satisfied that he could not have obtained it from anyone on the committee itself, unless certain persons failed to honour their own obligations as members of that committee.

What does the hon member mean when he refers to the suspension of a member? I am fully aware that whilst I was away in Durban—I cannot recall why I was away in Durban at that time—the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made a long, vituperative attack on me personally in my absence.

That is right.

That is recorded in Hansard, and hon members know this, but of course, it is said that the tongue has no bone. That same tongue talks about 75 years.

It is true that since Union—for 74 years—members of what is known as the Indian community did not have franchise. That does not in any way mean that the kind of corruption that exists in parts of India should be imported into South Africa after they are given the franchise, after they are given the opportunity of becoming Ministers. [Interjections.] There is no reason why the system of dash, which applies in Nigeria, should be imported into this country. There is no reason whatsoever why the established system of what is known as line function in the administrative services should be thrown overboard.

We were appalled when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, sitting in the committee room, told us that he saw nothing wrong with his going behind the backs of senior officials right down to the junior clerk level and giving instructions to the junior clerks. He saw nothing wrong with that. Well, Sir, if that kind of maladministration continues, then we shall have absolute chaos.

One does not have to have studied the development of a bureaucracy, but unless the bureaucratic system is protected from being undermined, the administration of this country will go to the dogs, and if that happens all people in this country will suffer.

Let me just give hon members an example. When India became independent there was absolute chaos as a result of the rioting in which six million people were killed. The only thing that held that country together was the Indian civil service. If it had not been for the strength of the Indian civil service that country would have gone to complete rack and ruin.

In Nigeria during the Biafran War it was the civil service—the British trained civil service—that maintained that country. However, we know what happened in Uganda when the civil service went to pieces—we cannot have that kind of situation in any sector of this country.

Worse still, is when the hon the Minister of Housing telephones a committee clerk, who happened to be functioning at that time as a Secretary of the Housing Development Board, and orders that committee clerk to give instructions to Mr Willem Marais, who was the Chairman of the Housing Development Board—a man who has had more than 40 years of public service and who has a tremendous amount of experience in housing matters, having been the Chairman of the National Housing Commission—that unless he changes his mind he will have his mind changed for him by the Minister by virtue of the Minister acting in terms of section 10 and ordering the Housing Development Board to grant certain land to the applicant favoured by that very Minister. If that kind of thing happens then I would say that the entire system of administration has become completely corrupt.

When a Minister influences the granting of land to a company controlled by a person who donates R15 000 to the party of which that Minister is the leader then I say that that is corrupting the system of administration. I cannot say that the person himself is corrupt because Mr Speaker would order me to withdraw that statement, but I say the system was being corrupted by that kind of conduct. [Interjections.]

The hon Minister of Housing had 105 minutes to answer these and other grave charges made against him which were based on evidence gathered under oath. He failed completely—he failed miserably—to deal with any of those allegations. [Time expired.)

Mr Speaker, as the mover of the resolution that gave rise to the committee which investigated this matter and the report of which has now been tabled, I especially want to compliment the committee on the hard work done by them during the recess. While most of us were enjoying the recess they were under tremendous pressure because of the time constraint and they have come up with this report. If there are any minor errors I think we all understand that it is because of the pressure they and the staff that worked with them and drafted this report were under.

What is very important is that most of the findings in this report are not conclusive, and I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should have understood that. A lot of these matters have been recommendations that the Advocate-General or the South African Police investigate matters. Therefore it cannot be said that one can just deny them because they have not been finally completed.

The important thing here is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has levelled accusations at the opposition parties, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in particular, that the committee’s findings are biased, and on how they acted. However, I want to place it on record that I, as the mover of this resolution from Solidarity, want to make it very clear that there were three NPP members on that committee, one PFP member, two PPSA members and one Independent.

Therefore not one member of Solidarity was on that committee. If there had been—we made sure that we should not put any there—it would leave the matter completely in their hands. If there had been we would have had the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council speaking for another half an hour, accusing Solidarity of being biased. That being so, if his members did not take cognizance of what was happening—the evidence—then it is their fault, because this report was not issued in their absence or without their participation.

In addition, the chairman of the committee is none other than the person proposed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on one occasion to head a committee to investigate the privileges of this House. That was moved by him and supported by all of us. When we then proposed the same name, no one objected. Subsequently, however, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council enquired of me why I had proposed the hon the chairman’s name. I told him that if he had been good enough for him, then surely he must be good enough for me! That is why I moved it. Now he comes and complains about the chairman and about the members. I think that that is completely unwarranted.

As regards the issue of the purchase of the Odeon Cinema, I wish to say that I serve on the Committee on Public Accounts. Until the report of the Auditor-General came out disallowing that payment and terming it an unauthorised expenditure, we did not accuse anybody. Generally speaking, however, we felt long before that that the cinema should not have been bought for the purpose for which it was needed. However, after the Auditor-General’s report it became very clear to us that something was wrong somewhere. Up till today, as I stand here, that matter has not been rectified and brought to my notice, but there is speculation that it has been rectified. He has information about it. Therefore we did not make a wild charge, and I especially, serving on that committee, only raised the matter and included it in my resolution because the Auditor-General’s report was very clear and specific that this was an unauthorised amount. That was why I moved that that matter be investigated.

Several issues are raised in this report, some of them conclusive, others not. However, at this point, Mr Speaker, I want respectfully to thank you for bringing this to the notice of this House. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should be given an opportunity to defend himself, and I think that all of us would wish to place that on record as a very high mark of respect. He was given this opportunity, but instead of defending himself against the accusations he levelled wild charges left, right and centre.

This was sad, since he should have stayed here to listen to our point of view as well. We gave him an opportunity to defend himself and he should have stayed here to listen to what we had to say. It is a sad state of affairs that he should have walked out with his whole party. Well, he has the right to do so. We do not want to deny him that. However, we did not deny him the right to come here and defend himself.

Mr Speaker, I shall not go into much detail, except to say that what we are going to say now will go on record. However, it was necessary for him to stay here and listen to the debate.

Mr Chairman, I was very much hoping that the debate on the report this afternoon would have confined itself to the purpose of the report and what was stated in the report itself. Unhappily for us, and particularly for me, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council engaged in rhetoric. He came here and made counter-accusations instead of telling us in this House why he should not be found to be misusing or abusing in any way his position as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

It is fortunate in that in the past six months the Administration: House of Delegates has had the services of the present Director-General, Mr Wronsley, and in my Ministry the services of Mr Kruger as the Chief Director. These two, as well as the other senior officials in the Administration: House of Delegates, noticed that things were being done in the administration on the instructions and under the heavy pressure of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council with regard to line function, particularly the allocation of properties to people who were not deserving of these properties.

Therefore, to have said as he did in relation to the Checkers issue, that the Director-General had to go and see the Auditor-General on his instructions was an absolute untruth. It was the Director-General who picked up the issue of finding the interest due on the Checkers property. This will also come out in the investigation of the James Commission.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that he did not stab people in the back but if ever there was a backstabber, it is he. What he has done to his colleague in this debate today is absolutely despicable, to say the least. He said that I, as the Minister of the Budget, was responsible for the non-establishment of the regional offices at Verulam. However, the truth is far from that. The James Commission has an affidavit wherein it is alleged that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council asked for R20 000 from this man for a party fund. Only after that would he give his permission to establish the Verulam regional offices. [Interjections.] He was so brave as to tell this man that it was he who stopped the establishment of the regional offices at Verulam. The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is making allegations here today whereas it was he who was looking for R20 000. This is absolutely despicable.

Since 1982—this was even before the House of Delegates—the then Department of Indian Affairs was negotiating with this property holder at Verulam for the establishment of premises for our offices. This was in 1982, and hon members know that I only joined the Ministers’ Council in February 1986. When the question of whether we should have an office at Verulam was being discussed and a site and the name of the proprietor were mentioned, I told the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and my hon colleagues who are sitting here with me today that I could unfortunately not participate in the discussions because it could perhaps be construed that I was indirectly involved. I was not directly involved but it could perhaps be construed that I had an indirect financial interest and I was therefore not prepared to deliberate on the issue. That was the only time that I ever said anything about it. I never forced any hon members of the Ministers’ Council to give consideration to the Verulam property. On the contrary, I heard that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was negotiating with a group in Verulam for their property to be looked at for regional offices in Verulam. That is what I heard. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not here at the moment and it shows that he is not prepared to face the truth.

The officials in my department will prove that it was at the insistence of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council via the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture that they were told to negotiate with a certain property holder for the regional offices in Verulam. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is at all honourable he should be here to listen to the truth.

However, it will hurt him when he hears that he asked for R20 000. Here we have another blatant untruth from the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It is absolutely a blatant untruth. In December 1985 a member of my family who owns property in the CBD area of Durban was, along with ten other people, offered property to use as office sites by the House of Delegates. The letter was directed to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who, through his secretary, wrote to the family to acknowledge receipt of the letter. And what did he do? He said I discussed the matter with him over lunch. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is always looking for a free lunch. [Interjections.] When we were still members of the South African Indian Council, Mr Joosab used to take us for lunch after Jumah prayers. We normally have a special dish on such an occasion. The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council used to ask me if I enjoyed the dish and wanted to know if he might join us, and I told him that he might certainly join us. This is how the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council joined me for lunch after Friday prayers.

However, I never discussed property with him. It is a blatant lie when he says that I have discussed the Queen City property with him and he should be present to hear this. On the contrary, I am pleased to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council above all wanted to benefit himself and I refused to be a party in granting his requests. Every time the Ministers’ Council discussed Tasa or members of the teaching profession, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s pet obsession was that those members were radicals and that we should not deal with them. He used to say that we had to see to it that the radicals were sent far away from Durban. [Interjections.] This is what he said.

What did he tell me when I told him that I too had a similar problem in Durban—though it had nothing to do with politics? I only received information that certain teachers were using the classroom situation for propaganda purposes against me in my capacity as a Minister and as a member of Parliament. It was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who said: “You are going to report this to the Director of Education and see how he can assist you.” I said to him: “No, I am not going to speak to the Director of Education. The hon the Minister of Education and I were going to discuss it as colleagues.” He then said: “No, discuss it with a particular deputy director of education.” I said: “All right, if you are asking me to do so.” The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council sent this deputy director to me to ask me what my problem was. I then said: “This is the situation, but make your investigation please and should it prove something, I will leave it to you to take the disciplinary action.” I never asked for the transfer of teachers. Mr Chairman, this is it!

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is so imbued by his derogatory actions that, today, when he sees officials rising to the challenges, saying that they are not prepared to do this for him, despite his instructions, he calls them anti-Indian.

He is anti-Indian.

This is what he is doing when justice needs to be done. He calls the senior officials in my department, who have had years of experience in government and public administration, anti-Indian and says he will put them in their place. [Interjections.] How can he put them in their place? [Interjections.] They will put him in his place! This is what will happen.

And he is going to his place—very slowly.

He is being derogatory all the time when he cannot have his own way. This is what he is doing.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council comes to the highest forum of this country, namely Parliament, and again misleads hon members. The report of the House Committee repeatedly points out how he has acted to serve his own interests. He says that journalists do not know what they are reporting on, but I believe they are only reporting on what has transpired at the James Commission.

This is the very member of the Cabinet, who has the responsibility of being Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who said that if he dangled carrots, he would get hon members to come back to him. The Press reported that, because it was unheard of that a Cabinet Minister should say these things. What did he do? He blamed the Press for it. He said he did not say it. He said the Press said it. Six journalists proved that this was said by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in their presence.

I ask hon members in this House: Who is misleading whom and who is telling deliberate untruths? Whatever the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said here, such untruths will not tax my integrity, nor that of hon members on this side.

He said we should please not involve his wife in these things. Is our memory so short? When the hon member for North Western Cape was removed as Minister by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the latter picked on Mrs Padayachy and said she was abusing privileges as the wife of a Minister. This is what he said. In fact, there was a battle in the Press between the two. Now he says his wife should not be picked on. Sure, I am not saying his wife should be picked on, but by his own wife’s admission in the Sunday Times he was a teacher at a school where she was his pupil. Because of an excuse that she did not know Latin very well, he … I do not know what he did, but the fact is that she went to him for private tuition. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council speaks of a set of values, but what are these values? Are his values such that he is the only one that is right, while everybody else is wrong? A friend of his of 25 years standing, the hon member for Isipingo, has given evidence before this committee. What does he say? The hon the Chairman of the Minister Council says—despite the fact that the hon member for Isipingo has been his friend for 25 years and more—that the hon member for Isipingo told lies to the committee. His attempts to break the alliance, sow suspicion amongst the members of the PPSA and break us, are absolutely despicable. I cannot describe them.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in the presence of hon members of the Ministers’ Council, highly placed officials, that a prominent member of the PPSA had said that the Director-General of the Administration: House of Delegates was anti-Indian. Is this the way one deals with people? We need their assistance! We need them for the success of the Administration: House of Delegates. When he was forced to say who this hon member of the PPSA was who had made this derogatory statement, it was pointed out that it was the hon member for Isipingo who had said that the Director-General was antiIndian. That very night I telephoned the hon member for Isipingo in Mecca where he was and checked with him whether he had said such a thing. The hon member for Isipingo denied that he had ever said anything about the DirectorGeneral or any other official of the Administration: House of Delegates.

Is this what one calls honesty? The senior officials of the administration do not look at who is a Muslim, a Tamil, a Hindu or a Christian. They have a list of applicants who need jobs, and merit is the criterion. After merit is used as the criterion and a list is compiled, it is a standing instruction that before anybody is employed by the administration, the list must be brought to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and he must vet it. When he is told who the people are who, according to merit and priority on the waiting list, need to be employed, he changes the list of names and makes so bold as to say that there are too many Tamil-speaking people on the list. He then places new names on the list. Is this the way the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is supposed to act?

I now come to the crux of the matter: Why is it that my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council and I rebelled against him? I want to confess today that it has reached my ears that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did everything in the name of the Ministers’ Council for his own benefit and interest. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a sad day, as was mentioned by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It is sad that we have to stand up and talk about the misdeeds mentioned in this report. The chief character that appears in this report is none other than the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I also say it is sad because there were days when I, as a member of the Ministers’ Council and a member of the NPP, stood up and praised the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from high platforms. I praised him to high heaven for his leadership qualities. I still maintain he has leadership qualities, but his intelligence has been misdirected in various ways and he has become materialistic in his outlook.

Before he left, he mentioned that arrows were being hurled at him from behind. That is not so. His going away from this House was very cleverly and carefully orchestrated so that it would frustrate this House in getting across the resolution we wanted to move. It is merely an excuse to say that we have thrown arrows at him from behind while he was leaving.

Why did he not stay and listen to us?

Yes, he could have stayed and avoided that. [Interjections.] I am not afraid; I am speaking the truth. We heard all the flowery language. I want to say that all the flowery language we heard this afternoon will not cover all the revelations of this report.

Lest I forget, I first want to compliment the members of this committee who have done a very fine job in drawing up the comprehensive report presented to this House and, in so doing, have brought to the fore many things which were under cover.

While the committee was investigating the various allegations brought before it. in its in-depth questioning and cross-questioning the committee made alarming revelations of maladministration in the House of Delegates by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’. As mentioned earlier, these allegations included the allocation of petrol service station sites to individuals who did not qualify as displaced people, at the direction of one person alone, which made a mockery of any constituted body set up to advise on such matters, as it was completely bypassed or ignored. It is also alarming that documentation drawn up by officials in reply to a question on the allocation of petrol sites was, as mentioned earlier, altered.

That alone, besides being fraudulent in the extreme, brings into question the nature and character of the person at the helm of the affairs of the entire Indian population. Not only that, but it tarnishes the reputation of the entire population at leadership level, wherever it might be. The stain left by the activities of this supposedly budding leader, who in the guise of clean administration and public accountability has led the people up the garden path, will be a talking point for generations to come.

A disservice of gigantic proportions has been done, and its effects cannot be easily eradicated. I am a very despondent and disappointed person, because I was very close to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and I feel let down.

There are certain sayings which conjure up visions in one’s mind. There is one which calls to mind the picture of a type of person who one feels is now corrupt. Corruption can progress to such an extent that one becomes absolutely corrupt. Reading through the report, I am so perturbed by the contents that I feel duty bound to give people who feel that they are going off track as far as corruption is concerned the following advice—I hope I will be able to translate the Hindi:

This can be translated as follows:

Mr Chairman, after hearing that particular saying in Hindi I want to coach the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who always said one would slip on one’s own banana peel. I think today at last he is slipping on his own banana peel. [Interjections.]

I want to make it very clear right at the outset— I intend to be brief—that the allegations of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that we are afraid to give evidence are totally nonsensical. I am not afraid to give any evidence before any committee or any commission. The commission and this committee sat while I was on leave, but I want to make a startling revelation here and now. I am aware of the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been accused of interfering with members of the Housing Board in respect of the allocation of property in Mountain Rise, Pietermaritzburg, to a firm known as Clarion Homes. I am prepared to repeat this outside this Chamber. I have evidence to prove that the hon the Chairman was responsible for interfering with that particular allocation. Due to time constraints, I will not go into more detail.

I also want to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, against the advice of Ministers, is responsible for taking premises on lease for the department at exorbitant rentals. I am in the process of calculating the effects of this. According to my information, when premises were available almost free, and when a welfare organisation was prepared to make premises available to the House of Delegates at a nominal rental, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council insisted on procuring premises at a much higher price. This will cost the taxpayer over R1 million by way of rentals, and it is, in my opinion, gross maladministration.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says, according to this report, that there is nothing wrong if he makes recommendations to the Housing Board. I would like to state that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has then misled this House by piloting and supporting the concept and the idea of the establishment of the Housing Board. The motivation for the establishing of a housing board was that the situation had to be depoliticised. We were sceptical right from the start, but when the then Minister of Housing gave us an assurance that that was indeed the intention, this side of the House then supported the idea after much negotiation and discussion. However, it is tragic that a board which was intended to be a non-political instrument has become so politicised by the interference of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I now want to refer briefly to the issue of Shan Maharaj. At the beginning of this year I received a telephone call here in Cape Town and one of my colleagues in Stanger informed me that Mr Shan Maharaj wanted to talk to me. This man spoke to me over the telephone and made some serious allegations about the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his association with him. I advised the man that I could not do anything from here and that if he had anything to say or do, he should go and see an attorney. He should ask that attorney to guide him because he was not sure whether it was incriminating or libellous for him to make such statements. I told him to go and see an attorney who would be the only one able to advise him. It is true that I suggested the name of a firm of attorneys to him. He then went and made his statement, which I have never seen. I spoke to that attorney subsequently, who told me that there was a statement made which was unsigned.

Upon my return from hadj this Mr Shan Maharaj contacted me again, saying that he was giving evidence before this committee. He wanted the copy of the statement which he had left with the attorneys and he asked me whether I could assist him in obtaining it. At that time I was ill and in bed. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare came to visit me and he will confirm this. [Interjections.] Therefore the extent to which I assisted Mr Shan Maharaj, was merely by advising the attorneys to give that particular affidavit or whatever document, which I had never seen or read, to him. However, what does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council do? He wishes to look for an escape in other people by trying to project his own type of behaviour pattern onto others. These others therefore become a mirror image of his behaviour pattern. I treat his comments with sheer contempt.

He made another serious allegation, namely that the hon member for Red Hill was interfering with the hon member for Laudium and keeping that hon member from giving evidence. What utter rubbish and trash. [Interjections.] Is the James Commission incapable of subpoenaing that hon member?

That is why he went away. He does not want to hear the truth.

This is absolute nonsense and I believe this particular report to be absolutely true and correct in content. It coincides with those behaviour patterns of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of which I am aware. Furthermore, I would like to confirm the incident when the hon the Deputy Minister was present in the office of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and when the then Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture was unhappy about the whole question of the appointment of ministerial representatives and the legislation relating thereto. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council threatened the then Minister and said: “If you do not support me, I will fire you.” I was a witness to that and so was the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. He will also confirm that. Therefore, there is no untruth in this report and to say that it is biased, is absolute nonsense and rubbish. I recommend that the report be adopted.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Chairman of the House for allowing me the opportunity to make some comments on the debate which has now been concluded. I promise to be very brief.

One cannot allow a comment made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to go unchallenged. I am referring to a comment made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council concerning the tradition of Parliament. It is most apposite that we discuss it this afternoon. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said this House should respect the tradition of Parliament. I cannot but agree with that wholeheartedly. I nevertheless want to remind the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that if he really believes in that, I would advise him …

Order! There are too many side discussions taking place. Hon members must please be quiet and allow the hon member for Springfield to complete his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I was merely making the point that if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council really believed that this House should respect the tradition of Parliament, he should in fact have taken the lead in that regard. As I understand the tradition of Parliament, whenever there is the slightest taint of any suspicion in the handling of a Ministerial matter, tradition demands that that hon Minister, without being pushed by Parliament, should himself tender his resignation to Parliament. Not only has this House demanded that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council resign, but it has, in fact, passed resolutions to that effect. Yet that hon gentleman persists in remaining as Minister of Housing in this Chamber.

The debate in the Chamber this afternoon, and certainly the report before us, vindicates the calls that have been made by several people—including myself and my benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills—for a judicial commission of enquiry into all cases of alleged irregularities relating to land affairs and other related matters. It is a matter of regret that the hon the State President did not react to these calls earlier.

In that regard I want to place on record that the hon the State President of this country is also responsible for the state of affairs that is reflected in this report. Had the hon the State President acted earlier, I believe that we would not have had the irregularity where, despite an interim report published by this committee, two pieces of land have been alienated to people at the cost of the community and this administration.

I would again like to highlight the point that in my view, it was grossly improper for the hon the State President to have relied only on the advice of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He should, in matters of such importance, have relied on the entire Ministers’ Council. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ministers’ Council of this Chamber ever discussed the question of a judicial commission of enquiry into land affairs and all other allegations relating to the alienation of land by this administration.

The other point to which I believe one should react, is the point made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who made the plea that politicans should not drag the public servants of this administration into their fights. We obviously agree with that. Let the record show, however, that it was he who began to berate the officials of this administration. [Interjections.]

If one were to consult Hansard, one would find that it has been recorded that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has previously lavished praise on all the officials in the administration. It is strange that after one or two individuals have been called to give evidence before the James Commission, officials who, in all honesty, reacted to the questions that were put to them in a truthful manner, and that because such evidence and testimony went against the character of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, he is now berating those officials in terms which I find particularly offensive. He calls them racists. He calls them anti-Indian, and I do not believe that the officials of this administration should be treated in such a matter. [Interjections.] I should like to suggest to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that in future deliberations of that commission, he restrain himself from using such language.

Finally, I should like to remind the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that this report does not deal with political interference per se. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council went to great lengths in his efforts to prove the point that other Ministers do, in fact, interfere with the decisions of the administration.

The brief of this committee that has reported to us was very simple and very clear. Its brief was to report on irregularities and maladministration within the House of Delegates, relating particularly to the alienation of land and to the alienation of petrol station service sites and other related matters. This is what this report is all about. I do not believe that the committee addressed itself to political interference per se. I do believe, and certainly the evidence seems to suggest, that this committee looked at maladministration. It has looked at irregularities and has reported on those matters.

I should therefore like to place on record my appreciation not only for the hard work that this committee has put into the formulation of the report, but also for the diligent manner in which it went about its task. It is certainly true that whilst some of us were either holidaying overseas or enjoying the recess elsewhere, the members of this committee spent many long days sitting here in Cape Town, away from their offices and their families, looking at important matters which concern not only the administration of this House but also the affairs of our community. I believe they should be praised for that and indeed, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to each and every hon member of that committee, including the hon members of the NPP.

Hear, hear!

I have not seen any mention in the report as to whether or not the NPP members are in full agreement with the report but certainly the evidence that I have read through indicates to me that the report reflects the evidence that was presented to the committee. This is what it is all about. In the final analysis, the evidence speaks for itself and all that the committee has done, has been to report to this House on what transpired in that committee. With those words, I should like to support the resolution.

Mr Chairman, having listened today to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I am satisfied that if the hon gentleman speaks the truth, it is by accident, because he has made serious allegations here that are totally unfounded.

Unfortunately he is not present here for us to answer these challenges. If a man becomes jealous of my business activities what does it have to do with this report? He is also trying to make money and I am trying to run a business to make a profit. We both have two chances, we either succeed or we go under, but if we follow the wrong path we can end up in jail. However, I am certainly not on that road.

Here we listened to the guidance of the Speaker of Parliament and afforded the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council an opportunity to state his case. However, when someone is not prepared to listen to the other side, which in this instance is this side of the House, then it is a serious indictment against the hon gentleman because he was reckless in his attack on hon members here and most of the things which he said were not based on facts. The question he did not answer was why he altered a reply that was presented in this Parliament. On that he is hanged. There is no place for him in this Parliament and there is no place for all those gentlemen who toed the line because they are going to one place and when they get inside the gates will close behind them for a long, long time. I want to make an appeal that they have the opportunity of changing the path which they are following, and I ask them for Heaven’s sake to take that decision as soon as possible because this man will take this community to one place only and that is to the end of a wall and we shall be hurt.

He made statements about civil servants and my being friendly with them. He said that was a crime on the one hand, but on the other hand he has demonstrated by his own statement that he does the opposite. He does the opposite because any civil servant who is not friendly to him or who is not prepared to accept his direction is the enemy of the Indian community.

I want to advise this House that because the allegations which the hon Mr Rajbansi has levelled against me have been bandied about at every meeting from Isinemba to Port Shepstone, I have filed all those documents—evidence of everything he has talked about—with the James Commission. The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture was given those same papers in 1985. These were deeds of properties. However, this man, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, was not speaking the truth today because if he had read those deeds in 1985 he would have known that what he said was not true. One cannot hide the truth and I have voluntarily submitted all these papers because allegations have been flying around at political meetings. Every detail, going back some 10 years, has gone to the James Commission. If I had anything to be afraid of, I would not have done that.

What I want to say is that this House Committee did a wonderful job. Just take one item, for example, the removing of documents from files. Ministers can come and Ministers can go but what remains is the file. Twenty-five years from today that file will still speak, and any man who wants to withdraw documents and throw them away, or introduce new documents, should be in jail because that is the only place for him, and I hope that this man will go there.