Mr Chairman, I move:

The first full establishment year of the Administration: House of Assembly has come to an end. It was a year in which new conventions had to be established, in which unknown territory had to be explored, and in which, above all, a new administrative structure had to be created. To a great extent this has been successfully accomplished, thanks to the dedication of officials and colleagues, and to the understanding of the State President. A great deal of pioneering work still lies ahead, however, but we are well on the way to accomplishing one of the fundamental objectives of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, namely to establish and to ensure the full-fledged self-determination of the electorate of this House with regard to all matters specially or separately affecting their identify, way of life, culture, traditions and customs.

Surely that is apartheid! [Interjections.]

I shall elaborate on this in greater detail at a later stage. [Interjections.] For the 1986-87 financial year an amount of R4 836,720 million is required by the Administration: House of Assembly. This represents an increase of R2 486,396 million over the revised amount for 1985-86.

†In connection with the Estimate of Expenditure I should like to deal with some aspects in respect of the various individual Votes. Firstly, there is the Department of Health Services and Welfare. An amount of R716,643 million is being requested for the 1986-87 financial year, as against R679,970 million for the 1985-86 financial year. This represents an increase of 5,3%.

From the total of R716,643 million an amount of R657,280 million will be required for the promotion of welfare services. The preponderance of funds for the welfare component is caused by the fact that health services have not as yet been transferred, in terms of the new constitutional dispensation, to the own affairs administrations.

It is also significant that approximately 62% of the budget for this department will be expended on care for the aged. This signifies the importance the Ministers’ Council attaches to the care of our aged. Included in this is provision for old age pensions to the amount of R318,809 million, which will be paid to almost 143 000 aged people and for war veterans’ pensions payable to 12 731 ex-servicemen.

Expenditure on subsidies for the care of the aged constitutes 55% of the department’s total expenditure on subsidies. At present 395 homes, providing accommodation for 27 309 elderly citizens, and 75 service centres, with a total enrolment of 20 751, are being subsidised.

* Improvement of Social Pensions

On 17 March 1986 I announced how the social pensions and grants of that sector of the population for which the Ministers’ Council of the Administration: House of Assembly is responsible, would improve with effect from 1 October 1986. It is therefore not necessary to repeat this information.

During the 1985-86 financial year the Ministers’ Council was able to apply an amount of almost R15 million out of savings to improve auxiliary social aid schemes. These entail matters such as the admission of 240 additional subeconomic inhabitants to homes for the aged; the raising of the qualifying income limit for subsidy purposes from R300 to R450 in homes for the aged; the augmentation of deficits in respect of expenditure on social work posts at voluntary welfare organisations; and an improvement of the scheme for service centres in an effort to stimulate the construction of service centres.

In the coming financial year, if savings can be effected, the further application of such funds will have to be determined again. The choice in such a case lies between the further increase of social pensions and grants on the one hand, and the improvement of the auxiliary social services on the other.

At this stage the Ministers’ Council is of the opinion that, if any additional funds become available in the 1986-87 financial year, over and above the R26,5 million that has already been voted for the improvement of social pensions and grants, they should rather be employed for the improvement of auxiliary social aid schemes. At this stage it would seem that such a step would be of greater benefit to the community in its entirety than a further short-term increase in the monthly cash amount for social pensions and grants.

Department of Agriculture and Water Supply

For this Vote an amount of R529,203 million is being requested in the 1986-87 financial year.

In comparison with the 1985-86 financial year, for which R571,558 million was voted, this requisition represents a decrease of 7,4%. The decrease may be attributed partly to an expected levelling-off of financial assistance for drought aid.

As far as the estimated research expenditure is concerned, however, there is an increase in the provision to an amount of R68,383 million, compared with R64,944 million which was budgeted for during the previous financial year. This represents an increase of 5,29%.

The present general agricultural conditions once again emphasised the industry’s exceptional dependence upon climatic conditions. Some parts of the country experienced welcome relief from the drought as a result of good rains, while other parts, owing to a lack of sufficient follow-up rains, are once again facing a below-normal production season.

There is great understanding for this vulnerability of South African agriculture. The place of the farmer in the national economy, as producer of food and fibres, is of great importance. Ways and means will constantly have to be found to ensure the stability of the agricultural sector in an economically justifiable way. The Ministers’ Council is and remains committed to this.

In the agricultural sphere exceptional success has also been attained in regard to the creation of employment opportunities on farms. This effort forms part of the Government’s employment creation programme. To date 33 000 employment opportunities to the value of R4,5 million have already been created in this way. This programme will be continued in the 1986-87 financial year.

Recent events on the northern border of the Republic make it imperative that farming should be further stabilised, particularly in this area. It has consequently been decided that a special committee will examine this situation with a view to the intensification of the auxiliary measures.

In his Budget Speech the hon the Minister of Finance placed particular emphasis on the high premium which the Government accords to certain upliftment strategies for developing communities. In this connection he consequently announced specific programmes. The upliftment of the quality of life of farm labourers also ties in very closely with housing. The loan scheme for farm labourer housing, which was of necessity suspended in 1984, caused major backlogs to arise in this area.

The Ministers’ Council has now decided, pursuant to the declared policy of the Government on the social upliftment of lesser-privileged communities, to reactivate this programme with effect from 1 April 1986. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, will elaborate on this more fully during the present debate.

In the short and medium term the special objective of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply is to determine and lay down production norms and grazing capacities, as well as to improve production techniques for farming activities in the various relatively homogeneous farming areas.

Department of Education and Culture

An amount of R3 069 285 million is being requested for this Vote.

With the exclusion of the expenditure in respect of the provincial education components which are now being added, the appropriation shows a requisition for R1 091 155 million, compared with R996 357 million for the 1985-86 financial year, which represents an increase of 9,5%.

The amounts in respect of capital services for the provincial education components, are indicated under programme 5 of Vote 4, Department of Local Government, Housing and Works, and total R160 034 million.

As I announced when we were dealing with the Part Appropriation, the assimilation of the education components of the provincial administrations into the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly, is being effected as from 1 April 1986.

I want to give the assurance once again that the own character of provincial education departments and those traditions of their schools which are pedagogically justifiable will not be jeopardised by the new dispensation.

The Administration: House of Assembly is at present hard at work equipping the Department of Education and Culture in such a way that it will be able to deal with the additional responsibilities. Negotiations with the provincial administrations for the rendering of assistance in regard to auxiliary services and work components during the transitional phase have been very successful and testify to sound co-operation.

The announcement by my colleague, the Minister of Education and Culture, on the registration and subsidisation of private schools was made possible by increased provision of R15 million for this purpose. In order to make provision for these increased subsidies, the requisitions of the provincial components of the Department of Education and Culture will be augmented.

The promotion of the idea of partnership between the Government, the teaching profession, the parents and society as a whole in regard to education is being accorded the highest priority by the Department of Education and Culture. This objective will be embodied in legislation during the present session of Parliament.

Department of Local Government, Housing and Works

As indicated in the printed Estimates, the requirements for this financial year are being fixed at R271,487 million. Viewed against the Main Estimate of the 1986-87 financial year, which amounted to R81,436 million, this means an increase of 233,37%. This increase is primarily attributable to the increase in the capital services of the respective provincial education components which are now being transferred, in respect of which I have already mentioned the amount involved.

This department has to deal on the one hand with members of the community who simply cannot obtain accommodation that is within their means, and on the other, the natural tendency of people to try to acquire larger and more luxurious dwelling units than they can afford.

As regards the former group, the department has with great originality developed a new concept. What it amounts to is that the initial and small requirements of a family will be satisfied by means of a basic dwelling in an acceptable environment, which the owner is afterwards able to enlarge as his own requirements and his income increase. I hope that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, will soon find it possible to demonstrate how his department will be able to realise this approach in practice.

As regards the second group of the community, it is in the interests of everyone that people should be discouraged from acquiring more expensive dwellings than they can actually afford. In this connection a great responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the private sector, not only in regard to the provision of affordable housing, but also in regard to the provision of advice and assistance in the acquisition of existing housing. The role and duty of the private sector in this sphere cannot be over-emphasised.

†Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services

The request for the financial year 1986-87 amounts to R24,336 million, as against the R18,460 million for the financial year 1985-86. This constitutes an increase of 31,8%.

This increase is mainly the result of a more accurate provision for the needs regarding retirement benefits, as well as the inclusion of the total amount needed for postage by the administration on this department’s vote.

Improvement of Conditions of Service

An amount of R225,766 million for 1986-87 is requested as against R2,543 million for the main estimates of the previous year. This increase of R223,223 million is due mainly to the improvement of service conditions and includes the general salary increase for officers in the Public Service with effect from 1 April 1986.

Estimate of Revenue

I am budgeting for an increase of R81,945 million in revenue derived from own sources. This is mainly the result of the transfer of the provincial education function to the administration. This revenue will accrue from items such as hostel fees, bursary contract dues and examination fees.

In addition a supplementary amount of R4 498,009 million in terms of section 84(b) of the Constitution, plus an amount of R225,766 million from Vote 8 in terms of section 84(c) of the Constitution, for the financing of the Budget Account, will become available. Total income is therefore estimated at R4 836,720 million.

*ESTABLISHMENT OF OWN AFFAIRS

It may be asked what has been accomplished during the past year, apart from the normal line-function activities of departments, to establish and expand own affairs in general, and those of the Whites in particular. I should like to discuss this question briefly under a number of heads.

The handling of areas of contact between own affairs administrations

The establishment of own affairs administrations and the carrying out of the overall directive, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Constitution, had to be tackled from scratch without any previous experience. From this it inevitably follows that the respective administrations frequently had to address the same type of problem. The need for informal discussion therefore arose.

For this purpose two forums for discussion were created. Firstly there are the meetings of Chairmen of Ministers’ Councils. These meetings take place on a quarterly basis, under rotating chairmanship, to exchange knowledge on matters of policy, while taking into consideration the needs of each population group. Matters under discussion are inter alia the identification of areas of contact concerning the provision of personnel and the financing of own affairs; administrative choke-points; privatisation; political substructures and a basis of negotiation for the take-over of provincial functions in so far this has not yet been finalised.

Secondly, discussions on the part of line-function ministers are also taking place. There are also functional areas of contact in the portfolios of the hon the Ministers of the three Ministers’ Councils which require informal discussion from time to time. In particular these are concerned with health and welfare services, education, dealing with housing matters and aspects concerning local authorities.

These two forums have on several occasions played a significant role in the practising of consensus politics, without the autonomy of any of the Ministers’ Councils on the own affairs of its population group being affected in any way.

I also want to say something about political substructures. With the take-over of functions from the provinces and the envisaged change in the structure of the present provincial council system, a deficiency is foreseen in the political structures for own affairs on the sub-national level. The Government has already expressed itself strongly in favour of the maximum devolution and/or decentralisation of administrative and political decision-making.

Since a massive shift of activities to the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly will take place with the full take-over of all relevant provincial functions, consideration is at present being given to methods and systems for complying meaningfully with the premise of devolution and decentralisation. I hope that it will be possible to make further announcements in this regard later this session.

Today I want to make it clear that it is unthinkable to administer own affairs solely from Pretoria. There are historic and other considerations which necessitate recognition being given to the existence of regions, regional preferences and regional needs. That is why devolution, decentralisation and delegation of powers will be the basis on which future planning occurs.

Administrative Choke-points

The centralisation of all activities and decisions in regard to finances and personnel matters in the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, in accordance with the administrative models according to which the Administration: House of Assembly came into existence, presented specific advantages on paper. Consequently the successful implementation of this given model was purposefully pursued, but in practice certain problems emerged.

These problems were investigated within the Administration: House of Assembly and after negotiations with the Government Departments concerned, the following method of dealing with them was agreed upon. I am referring briefly to the main problems and their planned solution for the Administration: House of Assembly.

The administrative independence of departmental heads within this administration in respect of personnel and financing functions is very limited. To solve this problem it was decided that the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services would in future act primarily as a co-ordinating and controlling department, particularly as far as financial and personnel management functions were concerned. Line-function departments would be equipped to dispose of the day-to-day functional part of personnel and financial work within those departments themselves.

The second problem was that own accountability was not automatically accorded to own affairs departmental heads and could only be conferred by the central Treasury. To solve this problem the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, will have to be amended to confer this discretionary power upon own affairs administrations. This legislation is expected to be introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, during the present session.

These amendments will firstly enable the administrations for own affairs to decide for themselves about the designation of accountable officers for Votes or parts of Votes. Such power is necessary in view of the fact that own affairs as an entity distinguishes itself from general affairs.

It therefore follows that own affairs must be able to decide for themselves about the designation of accountable officers, who will be responsible to the respective Ministers’ Councils and to the Houses of Parliament.

Secondly the amendments will seek to define beyond any doubt the treasuries which have been established for the three own affairs administrations. In the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, as amended, the Directors General of the own affairs administrations are not included in the existing definition of “Treasury”. The proposed statutory amendments will now vest them, too, with the treasury function.

The practical consequence of these amendments is that it will be possible, on the instructions of treasuries for own affairs, to devolve accountability to the respective departmental heads within each administration in order to bring about greater administrative independence for each department. Conjointly with that they will reports on their votes to the respective Houses of Parliament.

The third problem was that departmental heads in charge of a department in the administration were unable to progress to the highest post level in the Public Service within their own departments. The principle is now recognised that heads of departments in the administration will be able to progress to the post level of director-general if the evaluation of the post concerned is indicative of such a post level.

The fourth problem is that the excessive centralisation of the functional personnel and financial functions sometimes led to long lines of communication. The lack of regional offices, as well as the centralisation of these functions in the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, was mainly responsible for this. On the one hand the functional part of the personnel and financial function is now being allocated to the line-function departments, and on the other hand this problem will be dealt with by the establishment of regional offices, particularly in the case of the departments that have not as yet decentralised adequately on a regional basis. Such a step is not only in line with the Government’s policy of decentralisation, but is probably the only way in which services can be undertaken effectively on a country-wide basis.

The Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, the service rendering activities of which are directed mainly at the internal services of the other four sister departments, will be decentralised in this way. In this way it will be possible to carry out its co-ordinating and controlling task in the sphere of finances and personnel and do so closer to the point where services are rendered.

Financing of Own Affairs

In my Part Appropriation speech of 20 February 1986 I mentioned that considerable work had already been done to give effect to the statutory formula allocations in terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution. In the negotiations held so far between the Administrations concerned and the Department of Finance, the following points of departure were accepted in the search for future financing of own affairs and the determination of the formula allocations.

With the exception of section 84(c) under expenditure, the credit balances which the Administrations have at their disposal at the end of a financial year must be fully transferrable, and it must be possible to utilise such surpluses for the building up of reserve funds.

South Africa has a dualistic economy which consists of both First and Third World components. This reality must be taken into consideration in the move towards equal opportunities in the provision of services. That is to say, the level on which parity can be afforded from the Treasury, will have to be affordable for the economy as a whole.

Furthermore, formula financing of specific services for Whites, Coloureds and Indians from the Exchequer cannot be done without also taking into consideration the financing requirements of the Black population in these spheres.

The formulae must be based on realistic, affordable and guaranteed minimum standards of service rendering. The formulae must be regularly reviewed and must take cognisance of the national priority which a specific service enjoys.

The respective Ministers’ Councils will soon consider the above points of departure and the formal proposals of the hon the Minister of Finance on the statutory formula allocations, after which it ought to be possible to finalise this important matter soon. Appropriate legislation will then be introduced in Parliament to give effect to this.

†Take-over of provincial functions

The allocation of own affairs functions, as identified in the Constitution, has been investigated by a project team of the Commission for Administration in conjunction with the own affairs administrations. Emanating from the recommendations submitted by the project team, I am now able to announce that besides education, the Cabinet has approved the transfer of those resorts, museums, libraries and auxiliary services, identified as own affairs of the White population group, to the Administration: House of Assembly as soon as possible after 1 April 1986.

Finality has not yet been reached regarding the division of health services and local affairs matters currently assigned to the provincial administrations. Sound progress has, however, been made with the identification of the own affairs aspects of these functions and it is trusted that finality will be reached during this session of Parliament.

Privatisation

Looking at the success already attained with the privatisation of state activities in the United Kingdom, the advantages of a programme of this nature are obvious. Our circumstances simply dictate that Government expenditure will have to be curtailed in many fields. The Ministers’ Council therefore, strongly supports any action aimed at the meaningful privatisation of activities within its ambit.

It is heartening indeed that this programme is now beginning to take shape and that pertinent guidelines have been determined. Certain services, which could possibly be privatised, have been identified within the Departments of Agriculture and Water Supply, Health Services and Welfare and Local Government, Housing and Works. The Commission for Administration, in co-operation with this administration, is conducting an incisive investigation in this regard. We are looking forward to the benefits which may be derived from the successful implementation of this programme.

CONCLUSION

I referred in my opening remarks to self-determination through the concept of own management of own affairs as one of the basic objectives of our Constitution. In the ensuing debate this will, no doubt, again form the subject of discussion. I sincerely believe that the key to peaceful co-existence in South Africa lies in this concept. This has been proved in other multi-cultural societies such as in Belgium, Switzerland and other countries. Unless one succeeds in offering credible safeguards against group domination and certainty with regard to group identity, sound intergroup relations and co-operation will remain difficult.

*We must get away from the erroneous image which radicals and propagandists have created of group protection—the erroneous image that measures in this connection are intended to benefit some groups at the expense of others. This is simply not true.

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

No, not now. A week-long debate lies ahead.

In intention and in its actions the Government is committed to the optimum promotion of the interests of all population groups, as well as the elimination of backlogs as soon as possible. In this connection words are being converted into deeds.

Simultaneously we are convinced that the leaders of a specific population group will be able to attain the best results for their groups precisely by means of the recognition of decision-making powers over own affairs.

Because this is our conviction we shall continue to give full expression to the Constitution. The interests of those whom we in this House represent will be looked after scrupulously, but always with understanding for the particular problems of other population groups. The welfare of the Whites does not lie in being prejudicial to anyone else. Similarly the welfare of other population groups does not lie in the disruption of vested White interests.

And the interests of the Whites as well as those of the other population groups can best be assured within the framework of the maximum self-determination.

In conclusion I should like to refer to an announcement of which hon members have probably not yet taken cognisance, and which was made this morning by the Administrator of the Transvaal. It is that Mr André Cornelissen, the Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly, has been appointed Provincial Secretary of the Transvaal Province with effect from 1 June 1986.

Hear, hear!

This post is equal to the other in rank. It may well be asked why this competent and dedicated official is being asked, so soon after he commenced his duties here, to accept new duties in the Transvaal? I should like to point out today that we in the Administration: House of Assembly found in Mr Cornelissen an official of great competence, who accepted the challenge of breaking new ground with drive and originality. He laid foundations here on which one can build with confidence in the years which lie ahead. He worked day and night, and devoted all his energies, despite very difficult circumstances, to bring us to the stage we have reached today. For what he has done in carrying out the directive of the Constitution I should like to thank him sincerely today on behalf of the entire House.

A new dispensation is again being envisaged in the provinces now, a dispensation which will require tremendous adjustments there and will present great challenges and call for creative suggestions. I know of no one better equipped than Mr Cornelissen to place his previous experience on provincial level in the Orange Free State and his skill and experience which he acquired here in respect of the establishment of new administrative systems at the disposal of the largest province of the country so that the innovations there can take place as smoothly as possible and in the most effective way. We should like to wish him and his wife everything of the best in their new work environment. We know that there, too, he will make his considerable talents available to our country and of all its people, and with the same beneficial results.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has indicated this is the beginning of a new era in the sense that it is the first full year of own affairs in the House of Assembly. It is of course a significant fact that, unlike when other Budget Speeches are presented, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, like perhaps the analogy of No Orchids for Miss Blandish, had no flower in his lapel when he came to address us today. [Interjections.] This is perhaps a significant fact in the analysis that we have to perform.

I am a plain and simple man. [Interjections.]

It is a very significant fact and he will pardon me for pointing out to him that that may well be something which we can attach some importance to.

I want to point out a number of very significant things. Firstly, in regard to Mr Cornelissen, I want to associate myself with the remarks made in respect of him by the hon the Minister. I also want to say to him that all good things either come from the Transvaal or go to the Transvaal. [Interjections.] Hon members will understand that in that context we are very happy that from administering own affairs he now comes to the Province of the Transvaal. We therefore welcome him and will, as a matter of fact, exchange him for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I think it must be said right at the outset that the PFP is not satisfied with the financial efficacy of the system which is being administered in respect of own affairs, let alone being satisfied as to its political acceptability or practicability. Much will have to be said in the days that follow and perhaps in the years ahead in regard to that matter because eventually it will be shown that it is not a practical system that is being applied at present. [Interjections.]

Thirdly we will also have to debate at length the question of the correct formula because we still do not have the formula. We do have certain guidelines which will be debated but we do not have even the basis of a formula.

It is equally significant that we have not been told on what principle the funds have been apportioned between the three own affairs administrations during the current year. Nobody knows what principle, if any, has been applied to that apportionment.

We in these benches are certainly also not satisfied in regard to the position of the pensioners to whom the hon the Minister referred or of the position of the war veterans particularly those of World War II. [Interjections.] I believe they are becoming forgotten men in this country except by those of us who have reason not to forget them. South Africa should also certainly not forget them.

We are not in a position to debate this matter fully now because we have not even been given the printed estimates. As we have not yet received them, I have no alternative but to move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, as there are no new principles in this Bill we have no problem on that score. The purpose is to make a number of simple amendments to the existing Act which will make it more practical and workable.

Order! Hon members must not converse quite so loudly. The hon member may proceed.

The more important aspects of the Bill are to remove the automatic liability of former members of a close corporation should the corporation be deregistered as appropriate protection is given to creditors elsewhere in the Act.

The second aspect is to give proper authority and responsibility to majority shareholders instead of there being a situation where a larger number of minority shareholders have excessive authority and responsibility over the real owners of the shares.

A further aspect is to make proper provision for voting in close corporations. This was omitted from the original Bill.

We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Umbilo both for his remarks and his support of the legislation. I also thank the hon members for Nelspruit and Kempton Park, as well as the hon member for Edenvale with whose comments I agree. He said that we were refining and improving the legislation; and I confirm that that is indeed the case.

*I should like to pause for a moment at what the hon member for Langlaagte said. In his Second Reading speech that hon member said a few things which one cannot allow to go unanswered. He said inter alia that our decisions on legislation of this kind were too hasty. He also alleged that we did not give enough consideration to these matters, with the result that one had to effect amendments at a later stage. However, that is not the case. That hon member is probably well aware of the fact that work on the drawing up of the Bill had been in progress since 1981, before it was tabled in this House last year.

†The Bill was with the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law and also enjoyed the attention of every other interested party conceivable. In fact, these interested parties were consulted over a number of years. The legislation was carefully constructed. All over South Africa, public meetings were held with interested parties, meetings which the Registrar and members of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law attended.

Moreover, to convey the impression that the fact that we are proposing amendments is an indication that the Act was in some way faulty, is of course nonsense.

They were all in the mood for change but they did not study the law. All those committees were Government oriented. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member is talking absolute nonsense. The fact of the matter is that every organised body with any experience that could make an input in respect of this legislation, was consulted and did in fact make that input.

Subsequent to the provisions of the Bill— it is a profound measure—being implemented, somewhere in the region of 16 000 close corporations were formed last year. I am referring to both companies incorporated and close corporations registered. In the first two months of this year, 5 500 close corporations were either registered or incorporated. [Interjections.]

In the light of that experience, I think it is a tribute to those people who constructed this legislation that the amendments that we have had to make have been so few in number and so insubstantial in nature. They are refinements and improvements. With those few words, I thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In terms of the provisions of the repealed Copyright Act of 1965, the owner of a copyright retained his legal remedies simultaneously with such remedies which an exclusive licensee had in the case where the owner granted a licence in respect of such copyright to an exclusive licensee. It was never the intention to change that situation in any way, and when the Copyright Act of 1978 was passed by Parliament, the relevant provisions were retained in section 25 of the new Act.

Although the wording of the present section 25 differs from the wording of the repealed Act, the principle involved remains unaltered. Unfortunately section 25 is somewhat ambiguous. It has given rise to the interpretation in some quarters, that when a copyright owner grants an exclusive licence, he loses his own rights of actions and remedies. This point, together with the question of the position of exclusive sub-licensees, was dealt with in the Paramount Pictures versus Video Parktown North case. Both in the courts of the first instance and in the appeal it was not specifically held that a copyright owner does not lose his right of action when he grants an exclusive licence. However, in some legal circles the issue is not regarded as having been resolved definitively.

The object with the proposed Bill is to eliminate any uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the section concerned and at the same time to avoid any unnecessary future litigation.

Mr Chairman, this is a particularly short Bill. In fact, it comprises two clauses, one of which is the title. Therefore, I am going to break from parliamentary procedure by talking on it not for 20 minutes but for only a few minutes.

Some years ago, the British Parliament actually looked into the entire question of patents and copyrights. It is particularly interesting because when someone steals one’s motorcar, radio, or something of that nature, one takes umbrage at it and society rejects it completely. When someone takes another man’s idea, something that his expertise has built up, however, it does not seem to carry the same stigma as stealing actual goods.

To take someone else’s idea, his expertise, something he has worked on, is in fact a form of theft. It is very important for us to protect people who use their expertise to develop new ideas and concepts. I think they should indeed be protected, and that they are entitled to know that they will be able to derive the financial benefit from the ideas that they have developed. This has become very important. The hon the Deputy Minister will know that when one looks at the situation in many other countries, one finds that much of the economic growth is taking place in the areas of bio-techniques and microbiology—in those areas where people are not selling manufactured goods so much but expertise and services.

When we discussed this particular Bill we encountered the uncertainty in the case of a copyright owner who has granted an exclusive licence to another, where it was felt by some of the members of the standing committee that if this was actually done, the copyright owner was debarred from taking legal action. There was some doubt as to whether this was a true interpretation of the provision or not. One of the things that this Bill will achieve—and that is its primary objective—is that it will clarify the position. Someone who has granted an exclusive licence to somebody else, will have the right to take legal action. We believe it is a good principle and therefore we will be supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Edenvale for his support in this connection. As he said, this is a very short amending Bill. It is also a very technical matter which has already given rise to two court cases in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, the one before only one judge and the other before a full bench.

As a result of the expansion of the video industry it is essential that the rights and remedies at the disposal of owners of copyrights on the one hand and licensees and sub-licensees on the other, are unambiguous and clear. This matter is set out clearly in the amending Bill, and I do not think it is necessary to motivate it further. I take pleasure in supporting the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, as the hon members have just put the case, it looks very simple. The mere fact that so many court cases have arisen in this regard, is in my opinion sufficient proof that there must be another side to the matter. In other words, different people interpret the legislation in different ways. If a person sells a copyright and forfeits it, it is not very clear to me what he retains. What is retained if one has in actual fact sold one’s copyright? The mere fact that such cases had to be taken as far as the Appeal Court, gives one the idea that the buyers of that right were totally under the wrong impression. The amending Bill now makes it quite clear what is meant in the Act.

However, this was not clear to previous buyers when they bought such licences. The hon the Deputy Minister must not take it amiss when I say that sometimes things are done in haste. Even if people examine it, such mistakes crop up. It is particularly apparent from conversations with video licence holders that they were always under the impression that after purchasing this licence or sub-licence they had a right—one could almost say an exclusive right—to that material.

When one checks up on these things and one sees that legislation is being repealed, I think that the change being made today, is quite correct. The fact that several court cases arose, made one ask oneself yet again whether the legislation was clear enough from the outset. Which people are actually being prejudiced? A person who thought he had an exclusive right would in any case have paid far more for such a right.

For that reason we are glad that this Act is now being made correct and very clear. I again ask the hon the Minister not to get excited when we say that legislation should not be placed on the Statute Book overhastily and that one must adopt a serious approach when one is dealing with the rights of people. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, there does not seem to be much disputation about this proposed amendment, and I shall perhaps refer back briefly to something the hon member for Langlaagte said.

I think it is important to note that this amendment does not introduce a new principle, but merely restores the position of exclusive licensees and exclusive sub-licensees to what it was prior to 1978. Without a doubt the proposed amendment reinstates the protection of the rights of the original owner of the copyright. This measure is to be welcomed for various reasons.

When one talks about copyright, one is dealing in particular with cultural and intellectual works. The establishment of such rights is a very complex and even elusive subject. That is why legislation must endeavour to be as clear as possible, and I think that this measure has in fact endeavoured to meet that requirement.

I now come to the speech of the hon member for Langlaagte. Throughout history it has been apparent that the original creator of these artistic works is the most vulnerable person in the chain of commercial activities linked to his work. And that is why I feel that he deserves special protection.

Reference was also made to the many court cases which have arisen in this connection. In my opinion the high legal costs involved make it essential for this measure to be passed. Consequently we welcome it.

A final important reason why, in my opinion, it is to be welcomed also in order to avoid court cases, is the fact that in this modern life the rewards to be gained from artistic works are sometimes so fleeting. Consequently high legal costs can skim off most of that cream and cause one to pass up the opportunity to enjoy those rewards. For that reason I take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, as far as I am concerned there seems to be no point in wasting too much time in this debate because this Bill does not appear to seek any change in the intention of the Act. Its function is merely to remove an apparent ambiguity in the Act. It appears that the Bill stems from a court case where a question was raised on the question of a copyright owner losing his right when he grants exclusive rights or sub-rights. As this was never intended in the first place this Bill merely places the situation as far as the Act is concerned beyond any question of doubt. I support the Bill.

I thank the hon member for Umbilo who put the case so clearly and succinctly. All that this measure does is to attempt to get rid of ambiguities which may exist or may be thought to exist.

*I therefore thank all the hon members who participated in this debate and I thank them for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Estate Agents Act, 1976 (Act 112 of 1976), which came into effect during August 1977, has shown that it is, in practice, an instrument whereby the Estate Agents Board, which was established in terms of this Act with a high degree of success, can exercise control over the estate agency industry in general.

Certain practical problems do, however, still exist which to a certain extent hamper the Estate Agents Board in the effective execution of its duties. By means of relatively less important and chiefly technical amendments it is intended to eliminate these problems.

*I should now like to elaborate on certain of the more important amendments.

It happens, from time to time, that an estate agent fails to have his accounting records audited, as prescribed by the Act, and that the Estate Agents Board is then compelled to instruct an auditor to undertake the necessary audit. In order to enable the board to recover the costs of such an audit from the estate agent concerned, section 9 of the Act is being amended as set out in clause 1 of the amending Bill.

In the light of the continuing effects of inflation it is understandable that a claimant claiming against the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund could experience a depreciation in the value of such a claim in cases where it has taken a considerable time to finalise such claims. With a view to this problem, it is regarded as essential to amend section 19(3) of the Act to grant the board the discretion to pay interest, subject to certain limitations on the amount of such interest and the period for which the interest will be payable, on claims admitted against the Fund. This amendment is contained in clause 4 of the amending Bill.

Clause 5 of the amending Bill contains two amendments to section 26 of the Act, amendments which relate to an independent contractor estate agent employed by an estate agent.

As hon members are aware, an employee is normally considered to be a person who is subject to the direct control of an employer. An independent contractor, on the other hand, is not subject to such control. He acts on his own initiative, subject only to the broad, overlapping control of the person he represents.

In law the traditional estate agent is regarded as an independent contractor who normally operates partially or chiefly on a commission basis. On this basis an estate agent may not, in terms of the first of the amendments to section 26, perform any act as an estate agent unless a valid fidelity fund certificate has been issued to him. Such a certificate must also be issued to each estate agent in his employ, including an independent contractor estate agent.

†The reason for the proposed amendment is that at present there exists a large degree of uncertainty in respect of the status of an estate agent’s employee. It could be argued by a defendant, in the event of being prosecuted under section 26 that a particular person in his employ is not an employee but rather an independent contractor, and he would therefore not be obliged to ensure that such person had a fidelity fund certificate. On the other hand an estate agent is presently obliged to take out fidelity insurance with respect to all his employees.

The second amendment to section 26 makes provision for an estate agent who employs an independent contractor. Such an estate agent is not obliged to take out such cover in respect of that independent contractor. The reason for this provision is that it has been shown in practice that an estate agent who normally has nothing to do with the day to day administration of his employer’s office, seldom causes loss to such an employer through theft. It is therefore felt that an estate agent as an employer should be exempted from incurring the additional costs of insurance which should be borne by the independent contractor himself.

Section 28 of the Act presently provides that in the event of an estate agent committing any act which disqualifies him from holding a fidelity fund certificate in terms of section 27, the board can only take action against such an estate agent by withdrawing his fidelity fund certificate. This is done once it has become aware of the estate agent’s incapacity. This provision has proved to be ineffectual and impractical. Often only long after the event has taken place, does the board become aware of the situation. In order to overcome this problem an amendment to section 28(1) of the Act is necessary. Henceforth the onus is placed on the estate agent, who becomes disqualified in terms of section 27, to take it upon himself forthwith to cease to perform any act as an estate agent. He then must also return his fidelity fund certificate to the board.

Section 32(1) presently states that every estate agent should open trust accounts and keep such accounts separately. All moneys held or received by him on account of any person should be deposited therein. In view of the fact that leasing agents especially, find it unnecessary to keep more than one trust account, the said section is being amended to provide for a multiple trust account being opened by a particular estate agent. This is contained in clause 8 of the Bill.

*It has always been the intention that this provision should only apply to someone in his capacity as estate agent and not in any other capacity. Therefore section 32(1) is also being amended to clarify this aspect. This amendment is also contained in clause 8 of the amending Bill.

A final amendment in the amending Bill is contained in clause 10. It makes provision for the inclusion of a new section in the Act, ie section 34A. The purpose of this amendment is to obtain certainty about whether an estate agent who contravenes the provisions of section 26(a) is entitled to the commission pertaining to the relevant transaction. Section 26(a) requires every estate agent and director to be in possession of a valid fidelity fund certificate before he may perform any act as an estate agent. The Supreme Court has given various interpretations of this aspect. The object of the Act would be defeated if an estate agent who is guilty of a contravention, or who has failed to comply with the provisions of section 26(a), were nevertheless entitled to receive a commission. Section 34A therefore provides that under such circumstances an estate agent would not be entitled to commission.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, estate agents, I think we will all appreciate, play a very important role in the commerce of South Africa in regard to the sale of property, collections of rents, the administration of rent control, shareblock control and sectional title. A lot revolves around the estate agents. Therefore, it was pertinent and important that Parliament as long ago as 1976—10 years ago—passed the Estate Agents Act. However, it was only later, a year afterwards, that the Act actually came into force and the Estate Agents Board was appointed by the Minister in terms of the Act.

The legislation before us does not cause much difficulty to this side of the House, and we are happy to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we will support the amendments he has proposed. These amendments are necessary and have been approved by the board. When it comes to the question of recovering the costs of the auditor, there was a gap in the legislation. If an estate agent has neglected to keep his books properly and an auditor is appointed, I think it is only right and proper that the costs should be recovered.

An argument is also advanced as far as inflation is concerned. That means that a claim may take some time to be settled, and by the time it is settled the amount has escalated by the inflationary costs. Therefore discretion will be given to the board to pay interest which will cover the inflationary period.

The amendments in clause 5 deal with difficulties that have arisen as a result of court cases concerning independent contractors. Independent contractors as well as estate agents have to obtain fidelity fund certificates. The question as to whether an estate agent should take out the fidelity fund certificate not only for every single agent he employs but also the independent contractor, is removed here. The independent contractor is obliged accordingly to take out his own fidelity fund certificate. I think that is a good thing too. I should like to refer to the fidelity fund again at a later stage though.

Furthermore, there is the question of insurance exemption. That poses us no problem at all. In relation to the amendments proposed to section 28 of the Act of 1976, however, I should like to make a few remarks. In terms of this stipulation the board can withdraw a fidelity fund certificate when the agent is no longer able to act and therefore becomes disqualified. The onus is now being placed on the particular agent who becomes disqualified to return the fidelity fund certificate. If he does not do so, the provisions of this proposed new section 28 have to be applied, otherwise it will be very difficult to force the disqualified agent to return the fidelity fund certificate if he does not want to do it. If he becomes disqualified because he has left the country, then there are of course various problems which can arise. Nevertheless, as it stands in the Bill, the measure causes us no serious problems and we will therefore not oppose it.

In connection with the deposits I should like to point out that a lot of money—it must be millions of rand—goes through the hands of estate agents every year. Very often the deposit involved in a single transaction amounts to 10% of the purchase price of a property. Add to that the rentals collected by estate agents and we must be talking here of literally millions upon millions of rand going through the trust accounts of estate agents. I believe hon members of this House who are legal practitioners will fully understand what trust accounts are all about. Therefore they will certainly also understand what fidelity funds are all about.

The remedy proposed to be applied in connection with this matter is that where there are multiple accounts deposits can be made at different banks by way of several banking accounts.

Clause 10 of the Bill provides for the insertion of a new section 34A in the principal Act. The purpose of this amendment is to provide clarity in connection with possible contraventions of the provisions of the Act. It also entitles estate agents to receive commissions. Of course, once an agent has forfeited his fidelity fund certificate he is no longer entitled to any commission. Here we are dealing with people who are acting illegally. This will to a certain extent take care of it to begin with. Although I see a problem I think it is necessary for us to have this Bill and to clarify the differentiation in the interpretation which was given by the Supreme Court.

I now just want to leave the Bill alone for the moment. I think the hon the Deputy Minister must be aware of the memorandum that was submitted to the standing committee by the Estate Agents Board. We cannot move any amendments to the Bill before us…

[Inaudible.]

We cannot move amendments because the difficulties which were placed before the standing committee deal with provisions which are not before us.

That, unfortunately, is the problem. However, I want respectfully to direct the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to this matter and perhaps he will give consideration to it at the earliest opportunity. Although I am not going through all the many, many points that were raised in the memorandum I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to a few of them which I think are very important. The most important one is the question of the fidelity fund.

Whose memorandum is that?

This is a memorandum submitted to the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry in respect of the draft Estate Agents Amendment Bill of 1986. [Interjections.] It was submitted by the manager of the Estate Agents Board.

The most important question is that of the fidelity fund. We appreciate, particularly in the legal profession, the importance of a fidelity fund. The public must at all times be protected. However, the attorneys do not make the fidelity fund available to a person who is not an attorney in practice. I think that is a principle that we must accept as far as estate agents are concerned. When however, one looks at the original definition of estate agent one finds that any person who purports to act as an estate agent is an estate agent. If such a person therefore practises as an estate agent and he defaults in respect of the money that is given to him in trust—even though he has not taken out a fidelity fund certificate—the submission is made that the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund is responsible for the money that he has stolen or misappropriated.

I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to comment on that. He should consider providing that only registered estate agents should be involved in this provision. This may require an amendment to section 18 by adding after the words “estate agent” the words “who is in possession of a valid fidelity fund certificate.” As an alternative to this he may consider amending the original definition of “estate agent”.

An object of the Estate Agents Board is, inter alia, to maintain and promote the integrity of estate agents. It is felt that the real object of the board should be to protect the interests of the public and not simply those of the estate agents. Perhaps the objects of the board could be amended to take this into consideration.

Then there is the question of education and training. It is submitted by the board that better provision should be made for the national development of the board’s education programme especially as education methods and techniques need to remain flexible in the dynamic field of education. The board itself would like to have the power to establish the minimum standards of education and training for estate agents and to encourage and promote the continuing improvement of the level of education of the estate agents as well as the level of the services rendered by them.

There are also a number of niggly little provisions in the Act which the hon the Deputy Minister might like to look at. An example of this is the fact that the hon the Minister has to approve the banks that the estate agents use. I do not feel that this is necessary. I feel that banks and building societies act properly in terms of the laws in South Africa and, if trust money is lodged with either a bona fide commercial bank or a building society, I do not think it is necessary for the hon the Minister to have to go to the trouble of specifying which banks and building societies the estate agents may actually invest in.

It is also considered unnecessary for the financial year of the board to have to be approved by the Minister.

As I have said, there are a number of submissions that have been made. If the hon the Deputy Minister is not in possession of the memorandum, I am prepared to make it available to him.

One other point which I think could be of significance, relates to the powers of the board. The board does not have the power to suspend a fine. I feel that the board should be granted this power. The various bodies controlling the numerous professions in South Africa have the power to both impose a fine and suspend that fine. Perhaps this is just a shortcoming in the administration of the Act which could be rectified. I believe the Estate Agents Board should be granted that power.

I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will take those few comments into consideration. We would have liked to move amendments, but we cannot do so procedurally because of the fact that those few sections are not before us. In any event, we no longer have a Committee Stage in respect of this type of legislation. Those circumstances notwithstanding, we in the Official Opposition support the amending Bill before the House.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Hillbrow for his support for this Bill. As he indicated when he referred to the memorandum in his possession, many of the matters contained in the memorandum did not refer to any of the clauses dealt with in this Bill. Consequently I shall not refer or react to it at this stage.

To get back to the amending Bill now before us, for the man in the street the purchase or sale of a property is probably the biggest transaction he will conclude in his life. Because all people are not equally knowledgeable about these matters, it is important to look after the interests of the public. That is also why the Estate Agents Act, 1976, was introduced.

When the Estate Agents Act was discussed in 1976, an appeal was made to the estate agents profession to be better trained in order to improve their standard. The objective in establishing the Estate Agents Board, was also, inter alia, to draw up a code of conduct to improve the standard of these services.

I believe that hon members will agree with me today that during the past few years great progress has been made and that as a result of better control and training the standard of estate agents is far higher. On the other hand, in my opinion, we must also guard against setting the standard and requirements for estate agents so high that small estate agencies and persons rendering this service on a part-time basis cannot meet the requirements. That is why, in my opinion, it is very important to maintain a sound balance between protection on the one hand and the freedom of movement of estate agents on the other.

I am very glad to say that this Bill in fact makes provision for both these matters. On the one hand it endeavours to give the public maximum protection without completely ignoring the freedom of movement of the estate agents on the other. As hon members who also served on the standing committee dealing with deregulation will attest, it is very difficult to deregulate once measures and standards have been introduced which are so high that one must endeavour to deregulate again.

I now want to refer to some of the amendments in this amending Bill which make the legislation more streamlined. Section 9(2)(b) is amended to provide that under certain circumstances the board may pay audit fees from its funds to an estate agent and thereafter recover such fees from the estate agent concerned.

Another important amendment deals with the fidelity fund certificates, to which the hon member for Hillbrow also referred. Firstly the amendment to section 26(a) places the responsibility on an estate agent to ensure that an independent contractor in his employ is in possession of a fidelity fund certificate. Secondly the new section 28(5) places the onus on an estate agent of his own accord immediately to cease operating as an estate agent in the event of his becoming disqualified in terms of section 27 and to return his fidelity fund certificate to the board.

As I have said before, a good balance is being maintained, and there are a number of amendments which make life easier for the estate agent. An example of this is the deletion of section 30(1)(f), and what this amounts to is that when an estate agent merely commits a deed of insolvency without being declared insolvent, this is not considered to be improper conduct. The amendment to section 32 makes it possible for an estate agent to operate more than one separate trust account at a bank or building society.

I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill because it makes the principal Act more streamlined without placing an unnecessary extra burden on estate agents.

Mr Chairman, during the past few years since the inception of the Estate Agents Board, great improvements have come arisen about in the selling of property as well as in the treatment of clients. I think these improvements have in some cases also caused the cost involved in sales to increase to a certain extent. This is something that we must oppose with all our might.

It is heartening to see that the Board regards infringements in such a serious light that when someone commits an offence the Board can, for example, withdraw an estate agent’s fidelity fund certificate, or the estate agent is obliged to return that certificate to the Board. I want to ask the hon the Minister today whether he also feels that when the laws of the country are actually being contravened, the fidelity fund certificate of such an estate agent should be withdrawn. I wonder if the hon the Deputy Minister would indicate whether he agrees by nodding his head.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but why not give me an answer? I shall tell hon members why the hon the Deputy Minister will not give me an answer. We have estate agents in this country who make use of unlawful practices on a daily basis but who have not yet been called to order by this Board, this hon Deputy Minister or anyone else in this country. Advertisements are placed in newspapers according to which any non-White may buy property in a White group area. This is a blatant contravention of the Act. If, in the second place, a court case is instituted against the seller of the property, this could lead to legal proceedings and he could possibly lose his house. If the government in power were to keep its word and were to place the legislation which it promised this House in September 1981 on the Statute Books, not only the seller, but also the new owner and the estate agent would be prosecuted. Who would then assume responsibility for the purchaser who is perhaps innocent if houses in in white areas are being sold to non-Whites? Would the fidelity fund cover this problem? I ask this of the hon the Deputy Minister.

And he writes!

No, I think the hon the Deputy Minister is aware of this problem.

If the Estate Agents Board may inspect an agent’s books in connection with minor cases, for example if an auditor’s report is just a week late, then he does in fact have the necessary right to do so. I am concerned about the fact that many members of the Board are also estate agents and that they could sometimes act in their own interest by having another agent’s books audited and going through the information themselves.

Where in the Bill do you find what you are now talking about?

No, I just want to prevent it. We should read the wider implications of the Bill rather than merely the words contained in it. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister must not run away now. He has a responsibility in this House.

†He just said that a certain young man was talking nonsense. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if it is indeed nonsense that people in this country are selling property illegally in certain group areas and that the hon the Deputy Minister and his Government allow them to do so.

Those laws must change.

Wait a minute! The law has not changed, whether or not certain people are contemplating changing it. I want the hon the Deputy Minister to tell us today what he is going to do about it.

What has it got to do with the law?

I know that the hon member for Hillbrow also knows that a lot of the people he sometimes represents are advertising houses in White areas. [Interjections.] I say it is illegal.

*The Estate Agents Board should take action against those people and should withdraw their fidelity fund certificates because they are not acting in the interests of estate agents.

Did they not do this in the case of Corlett Drive?

Who is the hon member who has just asked me something? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must continue with his speech.

Hon members must listen carefully to what I am saying. If there is a fidelity fund certificate, other agents are also implicated, because if there is a big loss it is paid out of a central fund. An agency such as Symonds in Mayfair simply informs people that they have Indian and Black buyers and that they have to sell their properties to those people. If the inhabitants of the house do not want to move, the agent just refuses to take their rent. Eventually those people are evicted because they allegedly have not paid their rent. The people who do this kind of thing say they are estate agents, but although they are guilty of defeating the ends of justice, the Estate Agents Board does not take action against them.

With regard to everything that I have said here today, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if he is prepared to take action and at least give notice that agents who behave in this way are contravening the law and that action will be taken against them. We support this Bill because the amendments contained in it are essential, but we ask that the hon the Deputy Minister pays attention to the matters I have mentioned.

Mr Chairman, I have listened very attentively to what the hon member for Langlaagte said in connection with this whole matter. The hon member, with all due respect, is trying to present a simple legal principle in political terms. It is as simple as this: If someone acts in a way that goes against the law of the land, it is an illegal transaction.

The house does not take action against it.

Surely the hon member knows that transfer of that property cannot be taken. He does know this. Regardless of the purchase contract, if that property falls within a certain group area, transfer can only be granted to someone who qualifies in terms of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] If estate agents do this, it is my opinion that the powers of the Estate Agents Board are wide enough for them to take action against that kind of behaviour. [Interjections.] I will concede that the hon member is correct, but why does he want to pretend that this side of the House does not want to take action in such cases? It is after all not true.

Legal resources do exist for someone who has landed up in such a situation to take action, by means of the common law, or by means of this House where he can lodge a complaint. Now, however, a little political capital is made out of this by telling the people of Langlaagte that this side of the House does not mind if Coloureds, Indians and Blacks buy property in White residential areas. This is not true, is it?

Do you mind?

Of course, we on this side of the House stand for own residential areas for the separate population groups. We are really not ashamed to say so. It is the policy of this side of the House.

You are a right-wing member.

No, I have never yet been a member of a wing as that hon member has. I am simply a Nationalist. [Interjections.] That hon member knows of wings, and I understand that he is a member of the left wing of the CP at the moment. He may just as well leave our wings, because we know how to deal with wings—to tell the truth we were fortunate to get rid of some wings.

Hear, hear!

To the great joy of this side of the House. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Hillbrow correctly pointed out that as far back as 1976 legislation on the control of estate agents was introduced to regulate this profession and to exercise a certain measure of control over it. This was essential because large sums of money were involved. Where large sums of money are involved malpractices can arise.

People could only take recourse to common law. But this did not provide sufficient protection. If it was the aim of the legislators to call this profession to order and to control it, I think we have succeeded. Today I want to praise the Estate Agents Board for the very important role it has played in creating confidence amongst the public, as far as this profession is concerned.

It is interesting to see that the golden thread running through all these statutory amendments aims at creating greater confidence amongst members of the public in the profession of estate agents. Firstly the fidelity fund will now also be in a position to pay interest to claimants. We all know that administration time is lost in the recognition, the investigation etc of claims, while the person who has lost money or who has paid money and is claiming it back, loses interest on it. The fidelity fund is even prepared to go so far as to state that it will pay interest. I think this really creates confidence. An estate agent’s certificate should really engender confidence. When someone walks into an office and sees that certificate, they should be able to count on it. That is why it is essential that if an agent’s right to that certificate falls away, it should be withdrawn.

As far as the trust account is concerned, I think it is very important that it should be firmly controlled. Practice has taught us that certain advantages may be obtained from the institution at which trust money is invested. Estate agents are to a very great extent dependent on bonds made available by building societies and banks; that is to say on the arrangement of finance for their clients. By judiciously investing money in building societies, they gain certain advantages when the institutions involved grant loans. That is why I think that even the hon member for Langlaagte, who knows the property world, would agree with me that absolute control over trust money is of prime importance to prevent people from enriching themselves by investing that money.

Another important point which in my view indicates that this is a real attempt to establish the profession of estate agents on firmer ground in the eyes of the general public, is the fact that someone will no longer be entitled to commission after his certificate has been withdrawn. This is an important aspect. In the property world we use the expression “fly-by-night”, which applies to someone who just registers so that he can receive one big sum of commission and then leaves the business. This is a definite attempt at putting a stop to these “fly-by-night” activities. The amendment that is being introduced is therefore one that once again engenders confidence.

I want to conclude by directing a request to the Estate Agents Board. During the past few years the public sector has really made an effort to take steps to reduce the prices of land and houses. It is very important that we do this. I want to ask if the Estate Agents Board would not consider whether their tariffs are not perhaps too high. Commission of R1 000 to R2 000 on a house is a lot of money. I know I am now treading on dangerous ground, particularly in the light of the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister has to reply to my speech. The hon the Deputy Minister is a man who knows a lot about these things. To tell the truth, before he became Deputy Minister, he himself was fairly extensively involved in this field. So let me immediately say that he most probably knows more about this matter than I do. Members of the public have the impression, however, that if one compares the fees of attorneys and quantity surveyors to that of estate agents, the fees of the latter are too high. [Interjections.] I therefore want to lodge an urgent appeal for the Estate Agents Board to look into this, because in my opinion high fees are too easily established.

It is with great approbation that we on this side of the House support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, this rather fruitful piece of legislation has had most of the juice sucked out of it by the hon members who preceded me; in fact, so much so that the hon member for Langlaagte found another piece of fruit—perhaps a lemon—and started sucking that as well, and the hon member for Parow decided he would like to have a suck at the same piece of fruit.

However, I do not really believe that this dealt with the legislation because whether non-Whites move in to White areas or not does not appear to relate to the Bill which is before us at the present moment.

As far as I can see this Bill primarily gives authority to estate agents to spend money from the fidelity fund for specific purposes and, where necessary, to reclaim that payment from the individual estate agent involved. The Bill also imposes certain responsibilities on estate agents in respect of fidelity funds and in respect of becoming disqualified in terms of the Act.

I would say that generally this Bill goes a long way towards closing any gaps in respect of the protection that the public requires, and imposing upon the estate agent a sense of responsibility. There is no question about it that estate agents do occupy a very important position in the business community of South Africa, and they are also in a very important position of trust. Consequently it is important that it be ensured that they, being human beings, are not placed in a position where temptation can be damaging to the client. This Bill assists in this regard. Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his observations and support.

The hon member for Parow requested us to give attention to the tariffs that estate agents charge their clients. I should like to remind the hon member that the Board does not lay down the tariffs. They are laid down by the institutes, which in turn give advice to members and lay down guidelines for the fixing of tariffs. The Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act provides that estate agents may not force people to adhere to proposed tariffs. They may lay down guidelines, but they may not force their members to adhere to those guidelines. Therefore a kind of price maintenance in regard to estate agents does not exist. Moreover, the Board does not determine tariffs; that is done by the institutes. However, I do follow the argument of the hon member for Parow, because one always takes all the factors into consideration which could increase the cost of housing, and one never hesitates to ask the institutes to deal with this matter in a sensible way, and to realise what impact their fees also have on the prices of property in general.

†I would like to tell the hon member that I have on occasion telephoned some of the institutes asking if it was really necessary for them to adjust their tariffs and telling them the public service had not been granted salary increases, like last year. Was it right for the institute to review its tariffs and should it not also make a gesture and perhaps consider not reviewing its tariffs?

However, when all is said and done, we cannot and we do not want to be in a position where we also become the referees on what the tariffs of estate agents ought to be or ought not to be.

*I think the hon member for Parow gave the hon member for Langlaagte a good reply. I am not prepared to let this debate degenerate into a debate on the Group Areas Act.

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

I cannot reply to the hon member now, but should questions arise later on, I shall gladly reply to him then. The fact of the matter is that if there are estate agents who do not adhere to the code of conduct or do not comply with the rules of the Board, the hon member can submit those names to me or to the Board. I am sure the Board will take steps against such members. When someone transgresses a law of the country, the remedy is obvious. The police may be summoned, and they would know how to deal with such an offender or alleged offender. With regard to the matter which the hon member raised once again, I happen to know that he discussed it with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning a few weeks ago. The hon the Minister will reply to him on that matter in due course, if he has not done so already. The hon member did at least say that major improvements had been effected in the legislation, but he added that things were now more expensive; not cheaper. I do not know what it is that is more expensive now. As far as the fees of the Board itself are concerned, there was, in fact, a decrease. There was no increase whatsoever. Moreover, the decrease was considerable in contrast to the high fees which were being levied only two years ago. I am referring specifically to the fees of the Board; not those of estate agents. The Board itself has nothing to do with that. In fact, I expect the fees of the Board to decrease even further next year, because I think the Board now has sufficient financial backing to defend itself and its members in the case of any lawsuits which may arise.

†In that connection I should like to refer briefly to what the hon member for Hillbrow said. He made more remarks in connection with the memorandum than the Bill before us. He did, however, refer to money being stolen or embezzled or otherwise alienated by people not registered as estate agents. He asked, I believe, why estate agents who were registered in terms of the Act and who had paid their fidelity fund contributions, insurance and so on, should be penalised as a result of the actions of people who do not contribute to the fund. I hope I understood him correctly.

Yes, that is quite correct.

Well, I agree with the hon member. I believe that in principle he is right. I am in fact looking into that. I hope that we will be able—perhaps next year—to revise the principal Act again. Then we should perhaps devote some attention to this aspect too. I should, however, like to tell the hon member why it has not been done yet. The reason is that when this legislation was introduced some years ago the intention was to give the public a feeling of safety and a sense of security in their dealings with estate agents. It was felt that it would be in the interests of the estate agents as well as of the public that they should feel secure in the knowledge that the money they might have paid over would be safe, and that in the event of anything going wrong, they would have recourse to this fund for the refunding of moneys they had already paid over. I believe the idea was originally to try to develop that sense of security as far as the public was concerned until such time as the board was quite satisfied that they had registered everybody, that they had closed all the loopholes and that they had regulated the whole of the estate agents industry. That has probably been accomplished now. The board is operating throughout the country. It has offices everywhere. It is, I believe, in complete control of the situation. Perhaps the time has come now for us to address that very problem.

The hon member might find it interesting to note that as far as losses are concerned— for instance, thefts committed by people posing as estate agents, but without fidelity fund certificates—an amount of R507 000 has been paid out already towards losses suffered as a result of such actions. There have been some 14 such cases over the past four or five years. The largest sum paid to date has been R400 000 paid in respect of a company called Cumberland Estates. The other claims were less substantial. Over the years, however, something like R507 000 has been paid out on behalf of people who were not registered estate agents. This shows that the hon member for Hillbrow definitely has a point.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Deputy Minister tell the House what the financial strength of the fund is at the moment?

Yes, certainly. At the moment the fund stands at roughly R26 million. I am speaking from memory but give or take a few thousand rand, I am probably correct. The question has also been asked about the number of claims lodged to date. I cannot remember the exact figure but I can look at the relevant particulars. I might have the number of claims here in fact. The number of claims lodged since 1977 amounts to R8,08 million; the number of claims paid since 1977 amounts to R2,6 million; the number of claims rejected since 1977 amounts to R4,1 million and the number of claims under consideration amounts to R1,3 million. The number of claims which were paid, therefore, amounts to R2,6 million and the fund stands at R26 million. In my view therefore the fund is now sufficiently substantial for the rates to come down quite steeply as far as the fees that estate agents pay are concerned. Indeed, as I have said earlier, in the past few years the fees have come down quite considerably. However, I think there is room for them to come down even further. I would not like to see—and I have told the Estate Agents Board this—another magnificent head office built in Pretoria by the Estate Agents Board, adding yet another grand building built by boards in that great city. I am sure that it will not happen and whilst I have this function delegated to me, I can assure hon members that it will not happen. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon members for Springs and Edenvale who have paid tribute to the work of the estate agents. I do not think that there is anything more to which I must react.

*I would just like to say to the hon member for Langlaagte that if he knows of people who have either violated the code or broken the law, he should submit the names and the violation to me and then I shall gladly bring the matter to the attention of the Board. With these few words I thank the hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

It is obvious from the wording of the motion that we are referring here to the positive action taken by the Government. If there is one purpose that I hope will be served by this motion, as discussed by me, by my hon colleagues and by other members of the House who will be participating in this debate today, it is that hon members will not leave here without being informed on what has been done during the past 9 to 12 months in South Africa in regard to creating employment and the training of our labour force.

To keep the discussions as concise and to the point as possible, I should like to keep to the period from 1 March 1985 to the end of February 1986. The Appropriation for the 1985-86 financial year made provision for R128 million for the Department of Manpower. This was a normal Appropriation. It very quickly became clear, however, that this amount would not be sufficient to help the large numbers of unemployed and to combat the problem of unemployment.

At that stage, as far back as June 1985, there were approximately 8 000 posts per month that had either been abolished or were not filled again. Hon members are surely aware of these hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of workers who became unemployed because factories and industries curtailed or completely ceased their production. The question of what one was to do in these circumstances immediately arose. If hon members could think back to approximately nine months ago, to June or July 1985, I should like us to look at the background against which the Department of Manpower, the Minister involved and the Cabinet had to take decisions.

We were then entering a period where we had been bowed down by oppressive droughts in our summer rainfall areas. These droughts had a secondary effect on industries. It had a depressing effect on everything and everyone. The private sector contended with tremendous economic problems and could not pay attention to the creation of job opportunities. The value of the rand at that stage dropped to 36,95 American cents.

During that period we could of course export basic raw materials. We could conclude good contracts for coal and iron ore, but we had to pay most dearly for the goods we needed badly and had to import.

The price of gold, our greatest source of foreign exchange, dropped to $309 per fine ounce. Have hon members ever made a calculation to determine what the difference is between $350 and $309 per fine ounce? Last year we produced 670 tons of gold. Now multiply 670 by 2 000, and then by 16 and then by 40. Hon members will see what difference $350 per fine ounce and $309 makes to the foreign currency earnings. The difference is R857,6 million. This was the reality in which the Cabinet had to make decisions at that stage.

Bankruptcies have been the order of the day since 1983. Hon members would know that one is sometimes afraid to ask an ordinary businessman how things are, because the answer is written on his face.

On 28 August 1985 the capital markets in South Africa were closed down. On 1 September a debt repayment standstill came into operation. This was something which was totally unfamiliar to most of us and of which we have only just heard about.

Let us take a further look. Boycotts and threats to boycott, threats of disinvestment and actual disinvestments were the order of the day. This was the case to such an extent that one of my voters asked me if we could not ask the SABC to refrain from broadcasting American music or programmes over the radio and TV for a week. [Interjections.] Our people have grown tired of hearing every day that there is a new yankee expert or a group of them who know how to solve our problems.

These crusaders with their so-called good intentions undertook their crusades to South Africa to come and tell us how to solve our problems and to see to it that we did it to their satisfaction. There have been clergymen, senate representatives, Euromark representatives and even the “has-beens” of the Commonwealth.

This is the scenario in terms of which and the background against which I now ask hon members to evaluate the 1985-86 operation involving training and the creation of employment. I do not want to drag politics into it, because it does not belong here. I just want us to look at the facts.

By the middle of last year, the official figure of registered unemployed was 100 000, but we do know that it was a great deal higher. It was said in Tucsa’s official journal in June last year that one and a quarter million were de facto and de jure unemployed. This was the de facto situation, but something like this does have repercussions and a greater secondary effect.

Not one of us can say that we do not know about the unemployed. We see them in the streets and they come to our back and front doors. They come up to the gates of the factories, but there are signs saying “no vacancies” and in large letters “sorry”.

But the worst was still to come. The Government was aware of the fact that every year a quarter million Blacks enter the labour market. Also, more than 20 000 of our young men return annually from the border and the Defence Force. They go to university or have to be absorbed in the economic stream. What about the school-leavers? There are tens of thousands of White, Coloured, Asian and Black school-leavers. Also, what about the people who have completed their studies at the universities?

This matter had to receive attention during a state of emergency in 36 magisterial districts. It was essential that the Government’s priorities be examined once again. In July last year we received R100 million for training etc. We thought it was a lot of money. We could certainly do something with R100 million; but what does R100 million really amount to? At that stage we could have tried to involve the Department of Foreign Affairs. This we certainly did. We gave R10 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs to pay attention to the creation of jobs as well. We had to take a look at the independent and self-governing national states. It is after all they who have the commuters. They are the ones who provide the migrant labour. Their people were also affected by the drought. That is why their situation also had to be taken into account.

The problem is that even if one has the best intentions in the world and one can get one’s priorities right, it does not help at all if one does not have the funding. It was in September last year—hon members must remember that we then had a debt repayment standstill lasting a month—that the Government had to take another look at this. This may perhaps be of little significance to some members but it is not of little significance to those hon members in the House who deal with manpower and labour matters, because it forms part of their area of interest. When the Government allocated R500 million for creating employment and training, many of us gave a sigh of relief. Hon members must remember that at that stage the hon the Minister of Finance received a visit every day from someone who wanted even more money, someone who wanted another slice of the budget cake.

On the other hand, the hon the Minister of Law and Order is saddled with hundreds and thousands of unemployed people who are not his responsibility, but who create a breeding ground for disobedience, lawlessness and disorderliness. The hon the Minister of Manpower stands between these two hon Ministers in the scrum. He may very well not be the tallest member in the Cabinet, but he is in fact the hooker between these two hon Ministers; and history will prove whether he hooked the ball or not. Interjections.]

This hon the Minister quietly got on with the job. A work committee for the creation of employment was established with its only terms of reference being to make the most of this opportunity, that is to say to achieve the best for most of the people and, even more important, the absolute best for South Africa.

I do not want to go into detail about how the R530 million which was allocated was divided. Other hon members will refer to that. When that money was made available to us, the local authorities as well as the development boards could become involved in this matter. We could also bolster the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the tune of R75 million. On top of that we could do it at a stage when the Unemployment Insurance Fund was paying out more than it had collected! This is actually still the case at present. Even with increased contributions, the Unemployment Insurance Fund collects something in the order of R29 million per month. However, it spends something in the order of R32 million per month on payments. We are therefore speaking of a loss of between R35 million and R40 million if things were to continue in this way. That loss will have to be made good either with Government assistance or by selling assets owned by the Fund.

The terms of reference of this employment creating committee was fourfold. In the first instance it had to place people in jobs or keep them in jobs. In the second instance it had to train or re-train people. In the third instance it had to provide people with food in emergency cases. More than one million people were provided with food, and R22 million of these funds were spent on that alone. In the fourth instance it is meant to bolster the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

This period also included Christmas and New Year. Hon members themselves are aware of what then happens in factories. How does one create employment when no work is normally done? How do you train people when all the training centres are usually closed? Nonetheless it had to be done.

At present it is still too early to speak about results. Let us just look at a few preliminary results. At the end of this month—March 1986—more than half a million people will be placed in employment. Just think of the secondary effect if those 500 000 people were to be breadwinners. Just think of what a ripple effect it could have in regard to next-of-kin and so forth.

As far as training is concerned, by the end of this month there will be approximately 264 000 people who have been re-trained in one connection or another. The person who is involved with this, Mr Dirk Thiart of the department, tells me that they are training people in 180 different disciplines. This means 180 different kinds of work. Now one can imagine that one has to have the facilities for this. You do after all have to have the personnel who can train these people. Apart from this, there is also something else I am struck by and that is the spontaneity of the unemployed, of the untrained people to come to the fore to be trained. It is not forced labour. It is not forced training. On the contrary, it is spontaneous. There are people in Cape Town who walk up to 20 km per day to and from the training centre in Goodwood to be trained.

They told me that a bus arrived at the training centre the other morning without a windscreen and without any windows. They were all knocked out by stonethrowers. Nonetheless the bus was fully loaded with students. It was full of people who wanted to come to learn; who wanted to be trained. This is the spirit.

Mr Thiart was telling me that in Durban there is a lady who is in charge of the trainee typists. There are White, Asian and Black typists. She is 22 years old. She radiates such enthusiasm that they have received hundreds of letters from people who just want to say thanks for the opportunity they were given.

Can hon members imagine that an aspiring typist could progress within a period of a mere three weeks from basic typing lessons to a point where she at least has a passable knowledge of a word processor, even though she cannot operate it expertly? She at least knows how a telex machine works as well. This is the kind of training that is given.

Time does not allow me to dwell on everything. I do just want to say that we are not turning people out of a sausage machine who could perhaps only lay bricks or sew with a sewing machine or use a typewriter. We are also teaching people in other ways. It not only concerns their standard of living, but also the quality of life of these people. These people ask us: “Please do not give me only one certificate at the end of my training. Give me two. I want to frame one to hang on my wall and the second I want to carry around in my pocket to prove that I underwent the training.”

This also has to do with secondary training. These people hardly take a lunchbreak. During lunchtime they watch videos on closed circuit TV to find out how one should really live. Hygiene, dietetics and family planning are part of the additional training which they receive.

I want to conclude by saying that I think the Government has succeeded in doing something which none of us would have thought possible, by means of shock therapy—almost by means of an instant package. I think everyone in this House wants to tell the hon the Minister of Manpower that we have seen what can be done and that we should also like him to make the best possible use the R235 million that has now been allocated by the hon the Minister of Finance in the Appropriation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodeplaat devoted the first part of his speech to sketching the background to the 1985 unemployment situation. He mentioned inter alia that the reasons for our serious unemployment position were very clear. He mentioned that there had been an oppressive drought for three years, that the value of the Rand had dropped, that American crusaders had come to visit us in order to solve our problems and that there had been many bankruptcies. Does the hon member really believe that those facts that he mentioned were the cause of the serious unemployment situation we are now experiencing in South Africa and which we experienced in 1985?

I never mentioned causes! I sketched the background!

We hope that the hon member will go into the causes of the unemployment so that perhaps we can have a healthy debate on the matter to see if there is any possibility of reducing the unemployment figure. I did not notice the hon member discussing such aspects.

†Mr Chairman, the Department of Manpower has often been seen as the one Government department which tries to adopt a realistic approach towards its particular area of jurisdiction. Over the past few years it has introduced with a marked degree of success forward-moving labour legislation, and it is one of the very few Government departments, as I see it, which tries to consult as widely as possible with people who are going to be directly affected by its decisions. Unfortunately this department is headed by a Minister who is a member of the Cabinet and who therefore takes responsibility with the Cabinet and the Government for the way in which the Government runs the country and the economy as a whole. Therefore the hon the Minister is co-responsible for the economic and political mismanagement we have experienced over the past years and which is the direct cause of the unemployment situation. We accept, however, that factors such as the drought did play a role.

Government policies, therefore, played a large role in creating the situation in which we find ourselves. We on this side of the House see no reason why the Government deserves any thanks for now trying to patch up some of the damage which it itself has caused. Therefore we cannot support the motion in the form in which it stands, and I will move an amendment later on during my speech.

We on this side of the House obviously welcomed the measures taken in 1985 and the amount of money that was made available to alleviate the situation, and we are still very pleased about the steps which were taken at that stage. The hon member for Roodeplaat has correctly indicated that by the end of March approximately 500 000 people will have been employed at one stage or another as a result of these projects. That is a welcome and necessary development. However, we need to look at the overall unemployment figure and at the prospects which face us, in order to see how significant even a figure of 500 000 is.

The hon member correctly indicated that the official unemployment figure of approximately 750 000 is widely off course and unrealistic. Prof Keenan of Witwatersrand University has suggested that the number of people presently unemployed is approximately four million. Cosatu, a trade union movement, believes that the figure is more than three million. When we look at this kind of figure, we realise that the assistance given to these 500 000 people, significant as it is, is still a drop in the ocean. The necessary steps which the department took in 1985 amounts, therefore, to a patching-up of some cracks in the wall while the foundation is shaking and crumbling. Until the foundation is attended to, further cracks will appear in the wall and further attempts will be made to patch or even fill them.

One needs to examine the root causes of the unemployment situation in order to see whether they can be tackled effectively. In that light, Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) real dynamic growth takes place; and
2. (2) the Government takes urgent steps to transform South Africa’s discredited political structures into structures supported by the majority of South Africans.”.

My amendment concerns structural unemployment. Cyclical unemployment can, one hopes, be dealt with through the up and down cycles of economic growth, but the structural unemployment we are experiencing now seems as if it will always be with us. Estimates suggest that even if our gross domestic product were to grow at an average annual rate of 3% over the next 15 years, an additional demand for only 3,8 million workers would be created while an additional 7 million unskilled and relatively uneducated workers would be coming onto the market. So even with that growth rate, a serious structural unemployment factor would exist.

We should also look at the unemployment situation in the homelands, which is in many cases far from us in our constituencies and often ignored. Research indicates that in homelands and independent states such as Ciskei, Bophuthatswana, Lebowa, Gazankulu and kwaZulu, more than 50% of the potential workers are unemployed. There is no indication that this figure can be drastically reduced unless drastic steps are taken by the Government.

Structural unemployment therefore seems to be with us. How can it be tackled? In our amendment we suggest that it is not something which the Department of Manpower can deal with successfully on its own and on an ad hoc basis, but that the Government has the responsibility to tackle the underlying political causes which are responsible for the need for unemployment projects. I am referring to the restrictive laws which prevent the free movement of labour, the refusal of the Government to accommodate the normal urbanisation process and the slack way in which it has dealt with the informal sector. These are aspects which need to be looked at.

Those are ancient!

We should be debating matters such as land allocation. Farming enterprises have always been large employers of labour. There is a tendency in the farming industry for large farmers to move very swiftly into mechanisation to the detriment of employment. There is also a tendency in big business to employ hightech management and production techniques in order to reduce the number of employees in the hope that they will be able to avoid labour disputes or wage demands. That is a shortsighted approach altogether towards South Africa’s structural unemployment problem—it will have a backlash.

Other factors which the Government needs to look into—some of them will be gone into by my hon colleagues—relate to job reservation which is still being practised on the mines. They relate to the failure to address the political and constitutional demands of fellow South Africans which has resulted in a serious disinvestment threat and the threat of boycotts. These are political issues which need to be dealt with. There have been suggestions that the Income Tax Act needs to be looked at because at the moment it appears to reward big business for being big, rather than to reward smaller businesses employing a large number of workers. These are aspects which need to be looked at. It is the political side of this matter that we need to debate.

If one accepts the fact that structural unemployment will continue to be with us, the second question I want to ask is: How can one alleviate the situation in which those unemployed find themselves? That needs to be done by taking a comprehensive look at a social security system. What I mean is that an ad hoc approach will not work. At the moment a select committee is looking into the whole question of how pensions can be dealt with—whether by means of enforced contributions and transferability etc. However, it is quite clear that that is only one aspect of a social security system which could affect workers. The Unemployment Insurance Fund as well as the Workmen’s Compensation Act need to be looked at. Unless one looks at all three of those aspects— unemployment insurance, workmen’s compensation and pensions—at the same time in order to devise a co-ordinated system with a co-ordinated approach, these ad hoc attempts to do something about pensions or to patch up the Unemployment Insurance Fund will continue. This is actually happening now because we know the fund is running out of money. Therefore I ask for a comprehensive look into those three aspects of social security at one and the same time by the same body.

Unemployment insurance is being looked at at the moment on an ad hoc basis—assets are being sold, loans are being made and increased payments are being requested from industry. That is not a long-term solution to those problems. Unemployment needs to fit into the whole pension pattern as well, because unless unemployment benefits are paid out effectively and quickly, it will not be possible, as I see it, to introduce any sort of pension dispensation in which there is a degree of transferability or compulsory payment. We have the situation where, in numerous cases, unemployment payments are made at a stage when one, two, three or even six months have elapsed after the application was made. It is not possible to continue with that system, unless one wants to jeopardise the pension proposals altogether.

A comprehensive social security system in which the State, the employees and the employers have a stake, needs to be looked at as well as the political factors underlying our serious unemployment crisis.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the hon member for Durban Central, it is very clear to me why we need have absolutely no fear that the PFP will ever come into power in this country. That party is suffering from tunnel vision, and if the hon member does not understand that, he must ask the hon member for Parktown what it means. The hon member for Durban Central is suffering from tunnel vision; he does not see anything else. I would advise him to spend more time generating an emotion regarding the positive things that are taking place in this country, rather than driving around stirring up emotions in connection with the negative things, and collecting sworn statements about the unrest and everything connected with it. [Interjections.]

In his first few words, the hon member for Durban Central suggested here that unemployment was a problem unique to this country. He spoke as if there was no suggestion of unemployment in the rest of the world. He did not elaborate on this, but merely made the point as if this problem was only being wrestled with here in South Africa.

One could argue that a motion of thanks, as it is worded and printed in the name of the hon member for Roodeplaat, should only be discussed after what it deals has been completed. [Interjections.] But for obvious reason we are dealing with something completely different here. I should like to support the motion for a number of reasons, of which I shall only mention a few.

I support the motion because, in the first place, I want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister and the Government for their concerted efforts to overcome this enormous problem. I also want to express my thanks to the officials, with a person like the Director General of Manpower at the helm, including officials from other departments who are working enthusiastically and purposefully to implement this plan in practice.

I also support the motion because I believe that we must make use of every possible opportunity—I think we had such an opportunity here, which the Official Opposition could also have made use of—to tell the outside world that we have a Government that does care about its people. We must be able to say this to the world, which is constantly and aggressively intent on emphasising only the negative aspects of all Government strategies.

As regards this motion, every representative in this House—even the hon member for Sasolburg, as well as the hon members in the other Houses—has the opportunity to express a unanimous opinion. I am thinking specifically of the success we have already had in the training of Coloured people here in the Western Cape in particular. [Interjections.]

It is easy to point a finger at the Government and to maintain that this or that should have been done instead. It is unfortunately also true that time elapses from the stage when issues, snags or problems are identified through the planning and implementation phase, to the stage when the problem is finally addressed. It is equally true that a government must guard against doing one thing and neglecting to do the other. The Government cannot drop everything and only work on formulating and implementing a constitution. It cannot use all available money from the Treasury for consolidation purposes, or for assistance to the farming sector; it simply does not work like that. To make sound judgements and take the right decision at the right time one needs to keep one’s eyes and ears open and to use one’s common sense. After all we have proof of sound judgements made by the Government of the day. I am thinking of the amendments made to the labour legislation at that stage.

After all we saw that the growing awareness of the non-White section of the population of our country was not being satisfied in the existing system. Because the Government has its finger on the pulse it knows that the growing need in the labour sphere is a reality we cannot get away from. It is as real as the acts of violence and terrorism which we hear about on the radio and see on the television screen almost every day as part of our news coverage.

The question is why we should train our people as part of this project. The answer is comprehensive. At all costs we must prevent the quantity from threatening the quality of life. We must train people so that they will be able to cope with the new situation and the milieu in which they will find themselves one day.

We shall never be able to satisfy all the demands in this country, but we can endeavour and possibly succeed in satisfying the needs of the people in this country. Why is there hatred, unhappiness, bitterness and ill-feeling in the hearts of many people in this country? There are many reasons for this but I am of the opinion that the inequality which exists between groups and communities in this country, is one of the important reasons for this. We must first realise this. What is more, when we eliminate the inequality by means of an equalising process and meet the reasonable expectations of people, we will have saddled a winner. This is precisely what we want to achieve by means of training and the creating of employment as part of this programme.

Let us look at what is happening in practice. Every hon member in this House and in the other two Houses would be well advised to visit one of the 230 training centres in various parts of the country. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit the training centre at Goodwood. What an experience! What does one see there? I will first tell you what I did not see there. I did not see a single clenched fist. That is significant. I did not see a single clenched fist; only people who were as busy as bees during the training programme, which offers training in many fields. Everyone was interested, friendly and eager to carry out their tasks.

While I was watching those people, I wondered how many of them had last made contact with a White man when they ran foul of the law, while they were on the streets with nothing to do. Let us see how the plans are having a ripple effect by looking at what is going on in the Western Transvaal. When one thinks of training, one thinks involuntarily of training for a trade, expensive buildings, expensive apparatus, highly trained instructors, and so on.

Look what has happened in Potchefstroom. There the Western Transvaal Development Board identified 32 White housewives, took them to Potchefstroom for two days and trained them in how to train domestic servants in their turn. Those people went out and trained the servants in their own homes. Hon members should see the pile of letters written to the department by those people who were part of the training programme. I should like to pay tribute to those people for the work they did.

It is so easy for us to say that we do not have the opportunity to communicate with Black people. Have hon members ever considered what impact it can have, and indeed has—as is apparent from the letters—on those Black women when a White woman reads to them from the Bible and tells them in passing about population development and in the process trains them to become full-fledged workers in our country?

Mr Chairman, I should like to join the hon member for Rustenburg in paying tribute to the efficient administration of the Department of Manpower, which is performing an exceptional task in South Africa under very difficult circumstances and in very hard times. By no means the smallest task they are fulfilling, is of course that of training and retraining people in an effort to force down the unemployment figure. In his reply to the hon member for Durban Central, however, the hon member for Rustenburg accused him of being negative. Just as glibly, the hon member for Rustenburg also made certain statements before proceeding with his prepared speech. He said, inter alia, that the opposition parties in general acted as if there was no unemployment anywhere else in the world. He conceded that unemployment did in fact exist in the rest of the world.

However, in those countries which are our trading partners—those countries with which we have trade links—there is an extremely low inflation rate. They do have unemployment, but their inflation rate is low. In the midst of a state of unemployment, therefore, they have at least attained a certain objective. Of course, the hon member for Rustenburg made no reference whatsoever to that.

The hon member then went on to say— and I grant him this as well—that it is a good thing that we should be training people to enable them to hold their own in the situation that is developing in South Africa. However, does the hon member think that the economy is being stimulated, that South Africa is actually being stimulated and that the situation in South Africa is improving when what we are dealing with is training which lasts for from one to three weeks? [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are talking about! Take another look at it!

Moreover, there are figures which show that only 30% of those people are subsequently placed in jobs. Seventy per cent of them have not yet been re-employed.

And when the economy improves again, what then? [Interjections.]

Then we shall be in Government! [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir. When the economy improves—and this is precisely the point—those people will no longer be in want of a job. The entire benefit of this training hinges upon the persons concerned being placed in the economy immediately after completion of their short training period in order that they may apply the experience they have gained to the full advantage of themselves and their employers and in order that they may improve their skills at the same time.

Moreover, neither the hon member for Rustenburg nor the hon member for Roodeplaat provided us with any figures in relation to the improvement in productivity. I grant that the hon member for Roodeplaat did promise to furnish us with the figures; in fact he made repeated promises. However, he did not furnish us with any figures in relation to the improvement in productivity. I assume other Government spokesmen will furnish us with them in due course. I happen to have the 1984-85 annual report of the National Productivity Institute here with me, and it does not look very promising. I shall deal with that shortly. I do not know whether there has been an improvement since then.

It is still rising.

Well, that is excellent. Since the hon member for Roodeplaat has introduced this motion, I should just like to say that we know him as a resourceful thinker and as a propagator of original ideas. I do not believe that the hon member for Roodeplaat is in fact one of those hon members to whom the former Leader of the Official Opposition referred as mediocrities singing macabre ballads in the trenches. For that very reason, I find it strange that he should proffer a motion of thanks to the hon the Minister of Manpower. It is particularly strange in view of the fact that we discussed exactly the same motion in this House three years ago. It is not at all a very good advertisement for the productivity of this House for us again to be holding discussions here, three years later, as to what has been achieved through job training and through our unemployment relief programme etcetera. After all, there is a whole host of other subjects pertaining to our present labour situation which we could debate to great advantage. In this regard I think, for example, of a discussion of the Wiehahn Report after a period of 7 years or a study of the role of the unions in the eighties. By the way, Sir, I should also just like to draw the attention of the hon member for Roodeplaat to the fact that the figures for January and February 1986 have just been made available. According to those figures, we lost 324 536 man days during the first two months of this year as compared with 650 000 during the whole of 1985. We could have had a very productive discussion on the role and the functions of the industrial court, which is at present beset with so many problems.

I want to refer just briefly to the 1983 motion, which was moved at the time by the hon member for Alberton. It was, of course, another one of those thank-the-Minister motions. He was that Minister who now, sadly, is no longer with us and who, tragically, has disappeared from the political scene altogether—namely Mr Fanie Botha. In that motion, we thanked the Minister for the sustained positive steps taken to better train South Africa’s labour force in order to increase productivity and fight unemployment. The wording is almost identical to that used today. [Interjections.] I should not like to fight with the hon the Minister today, because we were in the same place, and today we actually have reason for a minor celebration due to the great events which occurred at Loftus Versfeld last Saturday. [Interjections.] I mention that merely as an aside and I hope that as chairman, you did not suffer too much as a result of it.

He is suffering nicely.

What about the previous Saturday?

In the past, we have often felt as good as you are feeling now.

A second point I should like to make is that as far as the appropriation of funds is concerned—I am referring specifically to the widely publicised announcement in 1985 that R600 million was to be made available for a wide variety of purposes in the field of training, unemployment insurance and so forth—I asked the hon the Minister a question. I asked him how much of that money had already been spent as at 31 December 1985. At that stage, only R131,5 million of that money had been spent. That amount had been utilised for job creation projects, food aid, the training of unemployed persons, the creation and/or maintenance of job opportunities in the small business sector, and for ancillary aid to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I then asked the hon the Minister how much of the expended amount had been utilised in respect of the Whites and in respect of the other population groups respectively in South Africa. In answer to this question the hon the Minister said that job creation projects were open to all unemployed persons and that consequently, separate figures in respect of the individual population groups were not available. I do not believe that the answer which the hon the Minister gave, was correct.

It was a clever answer.

It was an unproductive answer.

Yes, it was apparently a very ingenious answer, but the point is that the hon the Minister—I want to tell him this—knows how many Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks benefited by it. However, he does not want to take this House into his confidence. The reason is that there is tremendous discrimination against the Whites. In 1983 an amount of R5,682 million earmarked for labour force training, could not be spent. The excuse at that time was that clear guidelines for the training of job hunters had first to be formulated, whereafter the whole matter would be thrashed out with the National Training Council, the Minister of Manpower and the Minister of Finance.

The second group of training centres for which provision had originally been made, still had to prepare for the courses. Candidates could only be accepted as State saving capacity became available. That was in 1983, however. We now know that in terms of the latest statement we have received various training facilities have been established. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give us the figures pertaining to the numbers of members of the various population groups who have been trained or retrained, and who have benefited by these training courses. He can do so because, when one fills in the application forms, one of the most important details one has to provide is one’s race or one’s identity number. Accordingly, the hon the Minister is in a position to answer this question.

It is with a touch of nostalgia that I look at this pamphlet which the NP Government distributed in the seventies. I came across it by chance over the weekend. The NP’s four cornerstones for industrial peace and harmony, are specified in the pamphlet:

In addition, the pamphlet contains tables with the following legend:

Those figures were furnished in the seventies. Further on in the pamphlet, the following statement appears:

When one looks at these documents, one really comprehends how the Government has turned its back on the White worker in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The White worker is going to turn his back on them too.

Yes, he has already done so.

It is important that we know how this R600 million is being spent. In this regard, I should just like to quote two examples. Someone paid a visit to a large Black residential area near Bloemfontein, an area in which there is also a high level of employment. There he saw four Black women sitting around a chair and sanding it down with small pieces of sandpaper. When he arrived, the four women looked up and for a few minutes took in what was happening, whereafter they slowly resumed the sanding operation. Is that the way in which this money is being spent? [Interjections.]

That is a real HNP story! [Interjections.]

Those are the facts. Those are events which some of our people experienced personally. [Interjections.]

I do not know how that portion of the R600 million which has been made available to farmers for labour training and the combating of unemployment, is being spent. What we do know, however, is that farmers in certain districts received a certain amount of money per hectare of scheduled land. They received the money on condition that they did not dismiss any of their workers.

In the particular district to which I am referring, every farmer has an average of eight workers. As a result of the subsidy which each farmer received in an effort to help him over his difficulties, he suffered an average loss of R400 every month because he had to ensure that the eight workers in his employ did in fact remain in his employ. That is by no means a productive utilisation of those funds for training, retraining and job creation.

We know that this training lasts for from one to three weeks. Who monitors this training? How is it evaluated? How is the money being spent? Despite the enormous amounts that have been earmarked for training and job creation, the unemployment figure is still rising at a phenomenal rate, as we have also just heard from other hon members. In today’s edition of Business Day, there is an article by a man called Reiner Gabler. He is a director of Manpower Training Administration Systems, which specialises in computerised training, administration and tax matters. He says:

He then goes further. In relation to the fact I mentioned earlier, namely that only 30% of the people trained in this fashion are placed in jobs, he says:

I should just like to make a further remark. This remark pertains to an article—it appears in the same newspaper—which was written by Dr Henry Fabian. I quote:

That is why we want to know what controls exist in respect of these subsidies, and also to what extent the hon the Minister is sure that these funds are in fact being utilised productively.

The hon member for Roodeplaat made mention of the background against which and the circumstances under which these funds are being disbursed at this stage. I should just like to stress the fact that apart from the drought, the blame for most of our present circumstances may be laid at the door of the NP Government. [Interjections.]

I am talking about job creation as well. We will shortly be dealing with the situation in respect of the regional services councils. An amount equivalent to 0,25% of the income of workers on an employer’s establishment will have to be paid as a form of a tax for the regional services councils. Does the hon member realise how much unemployment that is going to create? Does he realise to what extent mechanisation is going to replace those workers? For these reasons, I move the following as a further amendment to this motion:

It is quite in order that funds be spent under the difficult circumstances which South Africa is experiencing, but then there has to be higher productivity. Judging by the annual report of the NPI for the 1984-85 financial year, this would appear not to be the case. It does appear in fact that fewer people were employed and that productivity increased as a result. Our attitude, therefore, is that the funds should be made available for all these purposes but that economic growth must also then be promoted. Those funds must promote greater productivity and, above all, ensure security and a safe livelihood for the worker.

Mr Chairman, on occasion I felt sorry for the hon member for Brakpan this afternoon. It is difficult to criticise something when it cannot really be criticised. If one evaluates the hon member’s speech, one finds that he discussed a wide spectrum of matters without really saying anything.

The hon member asked why we were having a debate which we already had three years ago. This hon member made the same mistake as the hon member for Durban Central. Their mistake is connected to the White Paper on the creation of employment opportunities on which I should like to elaborate. I think that both the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Durban Central deliberately did not address this matter. I believe that those of us on this side of the House are making a positive contribution in respect of the creation of employment opportunities.

I should very much like to elaborate further on the White Paper which was published in order to establish a strategy for the creation of employment opportunities. In the said White Paper the promotion of the general welfare of all population groups, and linked to this the combating of unemployment, was set out as the highest priority of the Government. The Government also endorses the basic point of departure, namely that a strategy for the creation of employment opportunities must be developed within the framework of an employment orientated economic system and must therefore rely as much as possible on the role which the private sector can play in this regard.

Although the White Paper can only set out the standpoints of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, the unemployment problem must be dealt with in a Southern African context. An important point of departure is that as far as is possible in practice the problem must be addressed at its source by means of close co-operation between the states concerned. The new approach towards regional development in fact has such co-operation between the states concerned as its objective. I shall return to this aspect later.

Because even an average growth rate of 5% in the real gross domestic product will not bring down the existing unemployment rate significantly, the ability of the economy to create employment must be increased, so that more employment opportunities can be created for every percentage increase in the actual gross domestic product. These are aspects which the White Paper addressed.

Aspects to increase the ability of the economy to create employment and programmes implemented by the Government, are as follows: Rectifying measures which can result in the distortion of employment; promoting the small business sector; optimum regional development; and the education, training and effective utilisation of the country’s available manpower. I should like to elaborate on the last-mentioned two programmes for a while.

In the White Paper to which I have referred, the Government emphasised the fact that economic development in Southern Africa was characterised by a large concentration of economic activities in a few metropolitan areas and that in the rest of the area, regional development and consequently also the creation of employment, had to be addressed mainly in the context of co-operation. The regional economic initiatives taken up to now have, as a matter of fact, been undertaken jointly with the various states.

I should like, by means of a practical example, to draw the attention of this House to a statement issued today in consequence of a debate which took place in Ulundi. I am referring to a telex which I received in the course of the morning. I am quoting:

I am holding this up as an example of what can be done in a co-operation project with regard to the creation of employment opportunities.

As far as the development, utilisation and conservation of manpower is concerned, there is no doubt that a well-trained work force is of cardinal importance to achieve the national goals of the Government in the economic sphere. As mentioned, training not only involves manpower development, but also the optimum utilisation and conservation of the country’s manpower, irrespective of ethnic group, colour, sex or creed.

In this connection one can take cognisance with appreciation of the positive action of the Government. Examples of this are the establishment of the National Manpower Commission, which must advise the Government on all labour matters, the establishment of the National Training Board with an advisory function as regards training, the subsidising of all kinds of in-service training in the private sector, the creation of employment opportunities and the initiatives taken regarding the training of unemployed persons.

The creation of adequate employment opportunities and the effective implementation of a sensible population policy consequently remains one of the most important objectives of the Government to improve the “quality of life” of the entire work force. The economic recession on which the hon member for Roodeplaat elaborated, was responsible for the escalation in unemployment since October 1984, with the largest number of unemployed people being found in the Black population.

As was announced by the hon the Minister of Finance in the 1986 budget speech, in addition to the R70 million which was not spent, a further R90 million has been allocated this year for the creation of employment. This is indeed proof that the Government cares about the work force of South Africa. It is estimated that approximately half a million people will be accommodated in employment creation projects by the end of March of this year.

A particularly successful aspect of the employment creation project is the training programme for unemployed persons. Quite a bit has already been said about this. When the Government began training unemployed persons in conjunction with the private sector, it was probably not foreseen that it would be such a big success. It is estimated that approximately 204 000 unemployed persons will receive training up to the end of March of this year, in terms of 157 contracts with the private sector. In addition the various development boards will have trained 64 000 people by the same date. What is important and gratifying is that, contrary to what the hon member for Brakpan suggested here, in addition to the 30% of the unemployed persons who were able to find work after completing their training, some of them became involved in other industries in the private sector or began working as individual contractors.

I should like to express my thanks and appreciation for the work being done in this connection by the Natal Training Centre, as well as the Natalia Development Board, not only in Newcastle but in Natal.

I conclude with a quote from the 1986 budget speech of the hon the Minister of Finance. He said the following, inter alia:

I take pleasure in supporting this motion.

Mr Chairman, I find myself unable to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague sitting behind me, the hon member for Newcastle, and I cannot support this motion. I would in fact go as far as to say that the hon member for Roodeplaat is a typical example of members of the NP with a flair for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. I would really say that this motion is in somewhat bad taste at a time when there are still millions of people unemployed. It would have been well to have had it debated later in the session after there had been a new injection of funds into the efforts of the department, and once we had monitored the real effect of these efforts. We are really just at the beginning of a process, and we are still just scratching the surface of the matter.

I should like to say at the outset that we in these benches feel that the Department of Manpower is one that has made tremendous strides, both legislatively and in its approach. Practically speaking they are probably among the most experienced on-the-ground negotiators that we have at Government level. They have to deal with some very radical situations and circumstances and they are paving the way, as it were, for a new style of living where people can live together. When people work together for most of the day they will certainly develop ways and means of coming to terms with one another. For that reason we have nothing but commendation for the department and, as far as the new labour legislation is concerned, for the Government.

When one looks at Government announcements on TV, the one department that one looks forward to hearing and from whom one expects an enlightened and balanced view of matters and an open mind is the Department of Manpower. The present hon Minister has admittedly not appeared all that often, but I have gained this impression over some years. It is always a delight to listen to Prof Wiehahn as a participant in panel discussions or answering questions on current labour matters in South Africa.

I think the problem, however, is really in the Cabinet and in the Government. I believe that the department needed far more money to be able to make a real dent in the situation. Whilst this initial stage is obviously a pilot scheme, I think we are going to have to live with this scale of operation well into the future. I believe this, not because I do not expect the country to come out of its economic trough, but because of the scale of the problem. We have to bear in mind the number of people who are going to enter the labour market and the degree of unemployment that already existed prior to the downturn in the economy. To cope with these factors, we may well have to sustain the current measures.

These measures are, as I have already said, a little like a finger in the dyke. If a hole appears in a dyke, one obviously has to put a finger in it, but when I see how some of these people are employed I think that we are on the wrong track. Local authorities, in many cases, simply soak up some surplus labour. Workers are very unproductively employed and are really there just to earn a meal. That is not, however, the crisis in the country. We can, in fact, turn this problem into a triumph by employing vast numbers in the solution of our housing crisis. Black South Africans especially should be involved in a massive campaign of housing and social upliftment in their own areas.

We think that training schemes should be goal-oriented and have the spin-off of equipping people to contribute towards housing and social upliftment. Training schemes should not merely aim to make the unemployed more employable and then release them into the labour market. This simply allows them back into an economy which is already strained, whereas the concept of a campaign to solve the housing crisis on a regional and local basis in each township creates a momentum and generates consumer activity with regard to housing requirements, not only for basic materials but also for furnishings, no matter how simple. It is an ongoing process. Just as we are looking at deregulation programmes in order to allow the informal sector to become more active, I believe we should be directing and mobilising unemployment towards that type of action. Therefore we have a further amendment to the motion of the hon member for Roodeplaat which I wish to move, as follows:

1. (1) employing surplus skilled and unskilled capacity from the building trade in a functional and a training role, respectively, with the emphasis on self-help;
2. (2) expediting the sale of houses and the granting of freehold title in such townships;
3. (3) employing the capital received from the sale of houses as a source of funds for such a campaign; and
4. (4) making building sites available at nominal rates on a deferred basis.”.

The building trade itself is going through a very difficult phase. I heard only today about a nationally known company—I am not at liberty to divulge its name simply because I have not asked its permission—which has laid off 400 qualified engineers. Many of those people are going to leave the country and seek work elsewhere. Obviously this is repeated throughout the trade. The hon member for Roodeplaat sketched the background against which these training schemes which he put forward in his motion must be seen. It is a very difficult background against which they have to be put into operation. I should say that he really listed a very lengthy charge sheet against the Government. He listed all the charges and the only thing he did not mention, I think, was disinvestment.

He mentioned that as well.

Did he? I missed that. Under those circumstances we have to take urgent and drastic action, and I believe the action which has been taken so far—I think one can describe it as a pilot scheme— is inadequate. We have to look at the brain drain and at …

That is an NRP problem!

At least we have brains to drain, but they have a problem over there—if they do not have them how can they drain them? Mr Chairman, I see my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon member for Roodeplaat. In the first place I think that there is no doubt that in the Western world or the free world in which the capitalist system applies, it is not the task of the Government of the day to create employment. I think that this can be considered to be generally acceptable.

Because the hon member for Brakpan referred to the Western world and to our unemployment figure in comparison with it, and admitted that because there was large-scale unemployment in the Western world, it was perhaps to be expected that there would also be large-scale unemployment in South Africa, but drew attention to the difference in inflation, I wanted to tell him that he also overlooked two very important factors.

In the first place the growth rate of our population is considerably higher than that in any Western country. In the second place, and associated with this, there is also a lack of training. We have far greater numbers of untrained people than any other country in the Western world. [Interjections.] I can, for example, draw the attention of the hon member to the fact that only 3% of the Black people with a qualification higher than Matric were unemployed last year. Unemployment is consequently found mainly among unskilled people.

Consequently when one comes to the task of creating employment, one finds that last year in a debate the hon member for Pinelands said the following, inter alia (Hansard: Assembly, 1985, col 5114):

I should like to endorse that statement, and want to discuss the motion against that background. What does one find in this connection? We find that as early as 1981 the Government established the Small Business Development Corporation.

The 1985 annual report has just come to hand. On the basis of this I should like to draw the attention of hon members to a few matter which resulted from the existence of the Small Business Development Corporation. I must say that in my opinion it was an expert in the field of the creation of employment in the ranks of the PFP who said that the greatest hope in this connection was to be found in the small business sector.

The assistance programmes of the Small Business Development Corporation are grouped under specific headings. In the first place there are the “Infant enterprises”—by the way I think this is a very good name for them—in terms of which mini loans of up to R2 000 are allocated to individuals over a maximum period of 24 months. During the year under review—ie during 1984-85—872 loans were allocated, totalling R1,4 million. Home industries are mostly financed by this.

In the second place there are the comprehensive assistance programmes for larger and more formal undertakings, for which the maximum financing totals R30 000. During the past year under review the number of loans allocated more than doubled, and a total amount of R2,7 million was lent out under this heading.

As far as suppliers guarantees are concerned, it goes without saying that the Small Business Development Corporation must guarantee payment for the goods which must be delivered by suppliers.

There is also general financing. A maximum loan of R300 000 per business is allocated. Under this programme 368 loans totalling R22 million were allocated during the year under review.

Then there are bank indemnity schemes for loans, and also guarantees on the same basis, which will enable entrepreneurs to erect premises. Agreements are entered into with most banks, in terms of which the arrangement is made that R150 000 is guaranteed per business. The banks then advance the money in some way or other and the Small Business Development Corporation indemnifies the specific bank against any loss which may possibly be suffered. In terms of this scheme R13 million was made available to 451 small entrepreneurs.

A final aspect concerns business premises. The total lettable space of business premises already erected throughout the country is approximately 50 000 m2. This was done at a total cost of R18,6 million.

All this proves to me that the Small Business Development Corporation is actively promoting the task for which it was established, that it is doing so successfully, and that in this way the Government is making an important contribution towards the creation of employment because it established the Small Business Development Corporation and is still supporting it.

In the present budget provision is again made for a contribution of R30 million, which is being invested in share capital. Like the former member for Pinelands, I believe that in the long run the greatest contribution towards the creation of employment in our country can be made in this way. It goes without saying that the Small Business Development Corporation does not discriminate on the basis of colour. I believe that the corporation can become the biggest single factor in the fight against unemployment in South Africa.

In the limited time at my disposal I want to draw attention to two further aspects. In the first place I see that the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs—I see the hon the Minister is also here—is undertaking building programmes. I should like to spotlight the part of the world I come from. These are the districts of Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. Building projects in Port Elizabeth have been speeded up. As a matter of fact the position is that tenders have already been invited to undertake building projects totalling R10,9 million. Those projects have been speeded up. In the near future, or in the course of the year, further tenders totalling R80 million will be invited—also to speed up building. In each of these cases it is a specification that as many people as possible must be employed, rather than making use of mechanical ways of carrying out the work. We must also thank the Government in this regard.

Then there are also the direct programmes of the Government. These are the training for and the creation of employment programmes. Again I should actually like to spotlight my part of the world, namely the Eastern Cape. We have the position there that approximately 27 300 unemployed persons have been trained, of whom approximately 38% have been employed. Large sums of money—approximately R50 million—have also been made available by development boards to encourage the creation of employment. I think that the Government definitely deserves thanks for what it is doing in this connection.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth North dealt with the importance of the small business sector. We agree with him. That is a major opportunity through which employment can be created. I think one must be careful not to consider it as a straw at which one grasps. There are other more important issues that arise in the economy, however important that particular one is.

In the light of the millions of unemployed in this country the motion before the House is worse than in shocking bad taste. I agree with the remark that the hon member for King William’s Town made in this regard. It displays such thickskinned insensitivity that one can hardly credit that even the NP would be able to find somebody who was prepared to move it. When one thinks of the millions of people who are currently unemployed, and we are asked—in some sort of crazy formal dance here—to pay tribute to and say “dank die Minister” in a ridiculous motion such as the one we have before the House, I think it is disgusting.

For years that party ignored the economy whilst it chased ideological castles in the air, and that was bad. As economic growth declined and unemployment grew it started to pay some attention to the economy, and that was even worse. [Interjections.] While the private sector had shown some ability to compensate for Government neglect it had no answer to Government interference. In the 1970s the economy showed totally inadequate growth except for those chaps there in Parliament. For five years since the beginning of the 1980s it has been totally static. [Interjections.]

Government economic measures can be classified as being of two types—the first is bad and the second is good. The first type of measure comprises all the sins of commission. It includes all apartheid legislation and, I believe, even the Government side of the House has grown to understand the economic impact of that sort of legislation. It includes restrictions on labour mobility, on the use of labour, on aspects of physical planning and on decentralisation measures. Furthermore, it is aimed at the regulation of enterprise by way of thousands of form-filling bureaucrats.

Measures of the second type are the good ones. These are initiatives for undoing the first type of measures—the bad ones. This is known as reform, and the Government feels very hurt if it does not get sufficient praise for removing the laws and restrictions which have wreaked so much havoc in the economy. It expects this acknowledgement twice—once when the announcement is made of this reform, and again five years later when the pressure of events forces it to take action in terms of its announcement.

So, Sir, we are expected to thank the Government because R600 million has been allocated to temporary job creation. People who are being given work under this rescue operation are pleased, I am sure, to get some food in their bellies but they have too much pride to thank the Government; on the contrary, they judge and condemn a system that has been unable to offer them opportunity or security. We in the Official Opposition condemn the Government and hold it responsible for bringing the free enterprise system and Western democratic, civilised values into such disrepute that they run the very real risk of total Black rejection. [Interjections.]

“Positive action”, in terms of this motion, is a euphemism for an attempt to stave off some of the consequences of their own gross mismanagement. As a kind of extenuating circumstance, the motion pleads “difficult circumstances”. Who created those difficult circumstances? The Government! [Interjections.] This R600 million is a rescue operation and must be seen as just that! It must also continue until rescue has been achieved but it must not be mistaken for employment creation. Temporarily it relieves the plight of thousands who have been unable to find work in an economy so badly managed that it has failed to expand.

The Government has failed to develop this economy despite the fact that it sits on a golden treasure trove; it has abundant reserves of precious metals, and it has the biggest resource of base metals anywhere in the world. It has unlimited labour as another factor of production, and it has many, many entrepreneurs anxious to move ahead if only the environment can be created by this Government to give them the opportunity of doing so. [Interjections.]

So, Sir, we are called upon to show gratitude for this ludicrously inadequate compensation for the profligate way in which the Government has destroyed jobs or has failed to create jobs by wrecking the South African economy in the name of its misguided ideology. It has drawn off the lifeblood of our economy and pumped it into moribund homelands. [Interjections.] It has strangled enterprise with red tape. It has uprooted people from places where they could make a living and dumped them in economic wastelands. [Interjections.] The bleak future which its ideology promises has so terrified those with the capital and the knowhow to create wealth that they and their money have fled the country.

One sees the problems of South Africa in microcosm in Port Elizabeth. Firstly, the House must get the dimensions of this tragedy into perspective. Of the 4 million people who live in Region D, 750 000 live in the metropolitan areas of Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. [Interjections.] Unemployment … Big joke! Big joke! [Interjections.] Unemployment in Port Elizabeth is currently estimated at 60%. [Interjections.] The region is a crucible of violent protest against Government injustice.

You need a few CP MPs in Port Elizabeth!

They could only do better. Government attempts to deal with the situation show neither understanding, imagination nor respect for civilised values. The forces of law and order unsuccessfully attempt to impose a measure of compliance with Government laws and institutions. Because the job is impossible their behaviour becomes increasingly harsh and counter-productive.

Government interference gives such areas as East London and King William’s Town advantages over Port Elizabeth through inordinate decentralisation benefits in which Port Elizabeth does not share. Business confidence evaporates and entrepreneurs leave or expand elsewhere. This is not necessarily the result of disinvestment but there is a measure of disinvestment in it. Unemployment rises; violence escalates; no new investment takes place; no growth takes place; unemployment rises again; people have nothing to do; and confrontation becomes increasingly violent in an inescapable circle. [Interjections.]

In these circumstances, the hon the Minister of Law and Order bans the most moderate Black leaders. When the dangers of employers leaving the area are described to him, what is his attitude? He says he has to apply law and order and his job is not to be concerned with individual companies.

If the Government cannot get the problems of Port Elizabeth sorted out, what chance has it of sorting out South Africa’s? It is exacerbating Port Elizabeth’s problems as it exacerbates South Africa’s by adherence to political concepts that make economic growth impossible. Can we afford to ignore that international companies have constituencies which demand an acceptable behaviour pattern from them? Do we not realise that apartheid is more repugnant to the people of those companies and their constituencies than communism is? In these circumstances an unprofitable little South African operation can so easily be closed, and that is the danger that we sit with at the moment in Port Elizabeth.

Does it make sense to leave critical decisions on matters like this, matters of life and death to an area like Port Elizabeth and to South Africa, to policemen who have neither the training nor the background to understand the implications of the policies that they are creating? There is no way in which we can pour out our money on unemployment relief indefinitely. It can only be considered a temporary thing. South Africa has to create the conditions for employment and for economic growth. These are incompatible with Government policy so that policy has got to change. I hope we are seeing in Port Elizabeth a dawning of awareness in the minds of its citizens that Government policy has been unable to deliver on any of its promises.

The Government has been very free with its promises in Port Elizabeth and it goes on making them while it is responsible for systematically destroying the economy of the area.

It only stays with promises.

Hon members must remember that I believe that one is seeing there in microcosm exactly what one is seeing nationally. I remember the promises that the Government made this time last year when its full-page advertisements—that was of course at the time of the election—talked about hundreds of millions of rand that were going to be spent. However, it has not been spent in Port Elizabeth.

You have a new “Piet Promises.”

However, that was at election time and one can get away with anything during election time, but they have lied too often in Port Elizabeth. We are fast approaching the time that any candidate for public office in Port Elizabeth will have to start by distancing himself from the NP. [Interjections.]

The importance of multinationals to Port Elizabeth is parallel with their importance to South Africa. They bring capital to the city and to the country; they bring technology; they create work and opportunity; they are a direct channel to changing industrial structures in a dynamic age; they create a host of domestically owned ancillary organisations which increase our industrial capacity; and they facilitate international trade and communication. The rest of the developing world would give their eye teeth for these multinational companies which we treat with arrogance born of ignorance.

If an industrial organisation like General Motors were to pull out of South Africa, what would the impact be on joblessness in Port Elizabeth? What would also be the impact on violence and security? What would the reaction be of customers and suppliers to us overseas?

Only through economic growth can we absorb the nearly 300 000 new entries to the job market annually. Only through economic growth can they become part of the body politic. Only through the creation of a just society to which citizens can feel loyalty and responsibility is economic growth going to be possible at all.

Mr Chairman, reference has yet to be made today to one of the major causes of unemployment. This is undoubtedly the biggest single factor contributing to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa are unemployed at the moment. This cause to which I am referring is the NP’s deviation from Dr Verwoerd’s principle—a principle also endorsed by the HNP—that Black people should not be trained for work for which there is no demand. This has been emphasised over the years and even the UN supported this principle—something which seldom happens.

In its report the Development Planning Committee of the UN said a few years ago: “Educate too many too much in the wrong skills and you are just manufacturing troublemakers.” There we have it. As far as this point is concerned the UN endorsed Dr Verwoerd’s standpoint.

The present NP, however, has abandoned everything. [Interjections.] The NP has simply opened the sluices and has brought masses of Black people into our economy without the necessary planning to ensure that they will have job opportunities.

The columnist Dawie of Die Burger wrote as follows on 19 March:

That is more specifically the White component:

Those are the Black people. How has this been done? It has been done without any planning whatsoever. An economy cannot do everything. Even South Africa’s economy cannot indefinitely absorb millions of Black people and train them for work that does not exist.

What is happening now? The Black people are passed through the schools until they reach such high standards that eventually they are trained for work that does not exist. They achieve a level of training and education for which the economy is not ready at this stage. [Interjections.] As a result they burn the books that they receive free of charge. They are also burning down the schools and universities.

Even Dr Koornhof confirmed a few evenings ago in London that the Whites pay for the Blacks to be trained for work that does not exist. The Whites have to carry this burden.

A man like Prof Boshoff who was at the head of Turfloop, the University of the North, said in 1975 after the unrest at Turfloop, according to a report in Rapport: “Wat ons hier aanskou het …”—these are the circumstances I have briefly sketched for the House—“… is naakte anti-Blanke rassistiese haat. Hulle kom so van die skole af.” [Interjections.]

Therefore the more South Africa continues willy-nilly, as it is at present, training the masses of Black people at school and in all the other institutions—I shall not go into the details now—for work that is not awaiting them, the worse they will fare. This is the amazing and shocking reality. The Whites pay, but the Black people are faring increasingly worse.

The Research Institute for Education and Planning of the University of the Orange Free State published a report in 1985 under the leadership of Prof Heysteck. He pointed out that there was a 73% pass rate among the Black pupils who wrote matric in 1978. In 1980 the pass rate declined to 52%. In 1982 it declined to 48,3%. In 1983 it was 48,2%. In 1984 it rose slightly to 49,2%; and last year there was chaos. And then the White people have to pay for that! The more Blacks that enrol for matric, the higher the percentage that do not pass—and the White people have to pay for that! Arson is committed, books, schools and universities are burnt, and so on.

I shall conclude by saying that these masses who are being trained for work that is not available, become the spearpoints of the communist onslaught on South Africa. They are the masses who are brought together. Indeed, they are brought together in the schools, and are there to hand for the communists and those other bodies that seek to overthrow order in South Africa and wish to create a revolutionary climate here. This one evil aspect, viz that there is no work for these masses who are being trained, results in a second evil, and all this is this Government’s fault.

Mr Chairman, I find it very difficult to respond to the hon member for Sasolburg. He apparently does not realise that there is no such thing as the Whites paying for somebody else’s education.

Piet Koornhof said so.

We are all in the same economy together. We all contribute to the same economy. We cannot operate without Blacks in this economy. It so happens that the Whites have reserved for themselves the top of the economic structure; so they are naturally going to pay the taxes. The economy cannot operate without those Black people on whose education that hon member begrudges our spending money.

Furthermore, the hon member does not appear to realise that for years and years reports from industry and commerce have identified one factor as being the most limiting factor for growth in this economy. That single factor is a lack of skilled manpower.

Yes, but they do not pass matric. [Interjections.]

Does the hon member still subscribe to Dr Verwoerd’s idea that we should educate Black people to be servants? Really, Mr Chairman, it is quite extraordinary.

Something else that that hon member does not seem to realise is that the single most explosive issue today in South Africa is the lack of equal educational opportunities for Black people. That is the most explosive issue with which we have to contend at the moment. Heaven alone knows what he wants to do about it. [Interjections.]

I turn now to the hon member for Rustenburg. Earlier today he accused my colleague the hon member for Durban Central of having tunnel vision. I must tell the hon member that we have no quarrel with training programmes. In fact, we are very much in favour of them. We may differ with the Government to a certain extent—as did the hon member for King William’s Town—on the direction the programmes take, on the emphasis which is placed on the programmes, but we are 100% in favour of the programmes as such. What we are saying, however, is that in a debate of this nature, with unemployment being the most serious problem facing us in South Africa today and threatening our whole future, we should actually be looking for the underlying causes of unemployment. It is only when we can attack those causes that we can put ourselves on the road to solving the problem.

At present there are some 11 million people in the country who are under the age of 15. A large proportion of these people will come onto the labour market by the year 2000. There are thus 7 million to 8 million people whom we are going to have to put into jobs.

Planning experts worldwide—in fact, the history in many countries shows this—have proved that poverty begets children. If we want to control our population growth rate, we have to make sure that those 11 million people can substantially improve their socioeconomic status. Improved living standards worldwide have decreased birth rates substantially.

Over the past year or so the Government has acquired a new buzzword called “orderly urbanisation”. Urbanisation here and in the rest of the world has substantially decreased birth rates. This is because urbanisation creates conditions for the socio-economic upliftment of people. It creates conditions for the flourishing of the informal sector. The economic pressures created cause people to strive towards other goals such as housing, education and better jobs. All this eventually results in lower birth rates.

For many, many years Government policy has been diametrically opposed to any type of urbanisation policy. Influx control has dumped millions of people in the homelands where it has been impossible, in the impoverished circumstances there, to take advantage of any type of benefits flowing from urbanisation. Environmental degradation has taken place in those areas. What has happened, is that we have built up a vicious circle of poverty in rural areas. The only way we can break that cycle is by embarking upon a policy of urbanisation, so as to reap the benefits that may flow from it.

What I would like to know, however— perhaps the hon the Minister could furnish me with an answer across the floor of the House today—is the following: We are told that Government policy is one of orderly urbanisation but what exactly does the Government mean by orderly urbanisation? So much mistrust has been built up over the years in this country that, quite frankly, people view orderly urbanisation as yet another guise for the implementation of some form of influx control. Perhaps the hon the Minister could tell me. Will free movement of people be allowed? … He is obviously not at all interested. Either that, or he does not know. [Interjections.] In terms of the policy of orderly urbanisation, will the free movement of people throughout South Africa be allowed? Will people be allowed to work, live and go where they like? [Interjections.] Will land be made readily available in all the urban areas, together with the necessary infrastructure to allow people to establish themselves and their families? Can the hon the Minister tell us that? … I see he is quiet now but perhaps he will tell us a little later in the course of his reply. [Interjections.]

Turning away from population growth for the moment, I should like to take a very brief look at the economy. This subject has been dealt with by my colleague the hon member for Walmer but I should just like to raise a few points.

We need a growth rate of some 5% per annum in order to provide jobs for the new entrants onto the labour market. In addition, it is also true that over the past year or so, this country has become a capital-exporting country. We need capital, however, in order to provide investments and to create the jobs that are so desperately needed. The question we should be asking ourselves in this House today, is how we are going to achieve this annual growth rate of 5% in order to cope with the burgeoning armies of the unemployed. If we cannot do that, then we are sitting on a political time bomb.

As is the case with so many things in this country, the solution comes back to the political arena. It is only via a political solution that we can come to grips with many of the factors that are hindering our growth. For example, it is only an acceptable political solution that will resolve the hassle factor which so many overseas companies encounter in doing business with us. It is only a political solution that will encourage an inflow of new investment into South Africa. It will reverse the flow of capital and transform South Africa from the position of being a capital-exporting country to a position where capital flows back into the country. It is only a political solution that is going to stop the disinvestment campaign currently operating against this country. It is only a political solution that will put a stop to consumer boycotts and obtain the co-operation and the assistance of other groups in South Africa in working out solutions to our problems. Without a political solution, we will not receive the co-operation of those other groups.

I understand, for example, that one of the serious problems facing the population development programme right now—and we are in favour of the programme—is that the people implementing it are required to work through the administration boards and the thoroughly discredited local authorities which we have.

It is problems like these that we have to come to grips with. In the long run it is a political solution only which is going to bring an end to the violence which is currently busy destroying this country’s hopes for the future. As is the case with so many issues in this country, the solution lies rooted in a new political dispensation. It is only once we have a new political dispensation that there will be the investment, the confidence and the co-operation among all the different groups in this country to work together to solve our problems. If that does not happen, I am terribly worried about what the future holds for us.

As concerns a political dispensation, we in this party have always said that the very minimum condition is that all the citizens should have equal citizenship rights in this country.

With those few words I support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon member for Walmer.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to convey my thanks to the hon members who participated in this debate today, simply because they participated. Then I also want to thank some hon members for their contributions, because they made a contribution to this debate. To certain of the other hon members I want to say that I find it regrettable that when one is discussing such a sensitive matter, which ought to be completely outside the political arena and which affects the fortunes of unemployed people, the debate is used to get at the Government in the political sense.

I should like to make use of this opportunity to convey my special thanks to the members of the Department of Manpower, and in particular to the Director-General of the Department of Manpower, who served as chairman of the interdepartmental employment creation committee which succeeded so brilliantly in putting these projects into operation so quickly. I also want to express my special thanks and appreciation to the other officials of my department, as well as to other Government departments which were part of our successful strategy. I consider it my duty to the House to say that, because of the short time it took to put the programme into operation, people worked many hundreds and thousands of hours of overtime. People often worked all weekend. All our officials made a contribution in this connection, and on behalf of all of us I want to thank them for the work they did.

I want to go even further. From the very outset we involved members of the private sector in this major campaign. Those who participated went out of their way and also made a huge contribution towards alleviating the problem. To them too I wish to convey my thanks for their support.

Before I discuss this matter in general. I want to refer briefly to certain hon members. I want to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South because I observed no bitterness in his speech. Here and there he was critical, but never bitter. He has not fallen victim to frustration yet. I want to thank him because he can still discuss a matter positively here. I shall come back to the hon member’s speech later.

The speech which I enjoyed the most was that of the hon member for Sasolburg. I am so sorry he did not have more time, for the longer he spoke, the deeper he fled into the past. He is rapidly on his way into the past. What I found very interesting was that he received support from the CP side. Actually he is sétting the pace. He and Mr Jaap Marais are planting the beacons for them, and they eventually follow.

He is leading in the Comrades.

He is leading in the Comrades! The hon member said it was the principle of Dr Verwoerd and Dr Malan that Blacks should not be trained if there was no work for them.

No, I did not say that.

He said that Blacks should not be trained if there was no work. If I am wrong, we can look at his Hansard, but he said: “A Black person should not be trained if there is no work available for him”. I call this House to witness. [Interjections.] It is true. But I want to tell him today that if Dr Verwoerd or Dr Malan had to hear this, they would have turned in their graves.

Who was it who actually got Black education under way in this country? Under whose policy was Black education removed from the control of the mission schools, and those places, and placed on a sound foundation? It was Dr Verwoerd, but now this hon member comes along and says that if one is providing these Black people with a school education, but one does not have work for them, one is simply creating dissatisfied masses. It seems to me the hon member wants us to close the schools. Surely we must therefore stop providing the Blacks with school education, if we do not have work for them when they leave school. Not so? Surely that is only logical. [Interjections.] What I find very interesting is that the hon member does not want the Blacks to go to school, but the ANC and the UDF does not want them in the schools either. They are keeping them out of the schools today.

But the CP does not want them for President.

The hon member for Kuruman may as well remain calm. I shall give him a little attention in a moment. He will get his attention soon.

Today, in 1986, so help me, the hon member for Sasolburg came to this House and said that we should actually close down the Black schools. That is the implication of what he said here today. [Interjections.] We must therefore stop all education now, because there is no work for the people! [Interjections.] I could not believe my ears; actually I am very sorry that the hon member did not have more time so that he could have discussed this subject for a longer time. I think he would have fled even further into the past! [Interjections.]

Furthermore he made the outrageous allegation—this is not my domain, but one cannot let it go unanswered—that the Whites are paying for all this education.

Piet Koornhof said so.

Surely the hon member knows that that is not true. [Interjections.]

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

No, I did not interrupt the hon member when he was speaking.

Surely the hon member knows that this is not the case. If he understood what was happening in this House, he would not have thought that or have made such an allegation. The hon member for Sasolburg may now put his question.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister aware that on the 19th, in London, Dr Koornhof said that the Whites were paying for most of the education of the Blacks?

Sir, one thing to which I do not wish to react, is a rumour which the hon member heard somewhere about what Dr Koornhof ostensibly said in London. [Interjections.] That is a dangerous rumour to react to.

I come back to the fact that the hon member ought surely to know that it is not only the Whites who pay for it. Surely he ought to know that the Blacks also pay for their education. Apparently he has not yet heard about excise duty or about general sales tax. Apparently he is not aware that Black people are now paying income tax on the same scale as the Whites. He has not heard about these things yet! Now he comes here and says that the Whites are paying for everything. It is not true at all. [Interjections.]

I should like to come to the hon member for Roodeplaat and thank him for the motion which he moved in this House today. I think it gave us the opportunity to thank those who ought to be thanked, and to give a little emphasis to a very sound and deserving cause. He also created the opportunity today of not only focusing attention on the unemployment problem, but also on the success that has already been achieved in this connection. The hon member referred to the five subprogrammes. This entire strategy can be summarised under these five subprogrammes, namely training, employment creation, provision for the development of the small business sector and the informal sector, the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the provision of food. The hon member also correctly pointed out certain successes that have already been achieved.

I should also like to come to the hon member for Durban Central. He complimented the department, for which I thank him. The hon member also made the allegation that unemployment was the result of Government policy. I want to make this point categorically today: Unemployment is a world-wide problem.

At 50%?

Unemployment is a special problem in the Third World countries, and South Africa is a country with a large Third World component in its midst.

And now you want to make one of them President!

The hon member for Rissik now has the President complex. The hon member has now fled from Rissik; he is now in the Free State, and is now looking for a President there. [Interjections.] I am not fleeing from anything: Not from my party, not from my wife, and not from my business undertaking either. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon members of the CP must please be a little more calm.

I want to take the discussion further with the hon member for Durban Central. I want to tell him that the EEC countries, which are prosperous, have an unemployment rate of 11% to contend with. These countries tell us their unemployment is structural; they cannot create enough work to keep pace with the population increase one finds in those countries. In view of this, surely it is asking a lot of South Africa, that has a large population increase, to have full employment. In some EEC countries there is no population increase.

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

No, Sir, but I might have time at a later stage.

*If one thinks of the population increase in South Africa, which is one of the highest in the world, and one also considers the population increase in the EEC countries and in the USA, which itself has a considerable unemployment problem to contend with, it is understandable that we have structural unemployment in South Africa.

Let us consider the rest of Africa. Not only is there unemployment, but people are dying of hunger. There is an economic regression in Africa, and a decline in employment opportunities.

The hon member is now saying that the problems we have in South Africa are attributable solely to the policy of the Government.

99% of them!

I have already mentioned the population increase. It is being asked what the Government is doing about it, but surely everyone in this House is aware of the population development programme which exists and which is aimed at bringing the population increase under control. No country with a high population increase can continue to provide services such as education, hospitalisation and housing, and then still have capital left over to create employment opportunities.

I agree with hon members who made the point that the only long-term solution to the unemployment problem was a relatively high growth rate, which was reconcileable with the natural resources the country has at its disposal. With the present population increase we must grow at more than 5% per annum to be able to accommodate the new entrants to the labour market.

I come now to the hon member for Durban Central. I hear that the hon member has been elected chairman of the Manpower discussion group of the Official Opposition, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate him on his election. I hope that he will make a good contribution in this sphere in the House.

Initially the hon member said that everything was the Government’s fault, but in his own speech the hon member said that mechanisation, automation and wage demands had made a contribution to the decline in employment opportunities in South Africa.

It is indeed a fact that mechanisation and automation is taking place to an increasing extent. There are also some people who are pricing themselves out of the market. It is really not all the Government’s fault that there are not sufficient employment opportunities. There are other factors which are also playing a role. [Interjections.] Nevertheless the hon member alleged that the Government’s political policy was the cause of unemployment. That is the point he made. Then surely the unemployment in the USA, and also the 14% unemployment in the UK, must also be the result of the political policy of Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher?

Here in the ’seventies, and even at the beginning of the ’eighties, we suffered serious shortages of certain types of manpower in South Africa. Then we still had, relatively speaking, high growth rates. At that time, therefore, our politics were satisfactory, but now our politics are supposedly not satisfactory. The good or the bad of our politics therefore seems to follow the economic cycles. That is what the hon member’s argument amounted to, if one takes it to its logical conclusion. [Interjections.]

The hon member also made the point that unemployment insurance, pension schemes and employment provision should be investigated in unison.

As far as pension schemes are concerned, an investigation is at present being instituted into the provision of pensions. As far as unemployment insurance is concerned, there is a standing committee of the Unemployment Insurance Council which is giving ongoing attention to the situation. As far as employment provision is concerned, this matter is receiving attention from both the National Manpower Commission and the Economic Advisory Council. In 1984, in fact, we brought out a White Paper on a strategy for the creation of employment opportunities. This entire matter is receiving ongoing attention from this Government, and the National Manpower Commission is also monitoring how many employment opportunities are being created, what is happening in that sphere, and also what is being done about it.

Pursuant to what other hon members said here, I want to say that fundamentally it is not the task of the Government to create employment. The task of the Government is to create the infrastructure and the conditions. The actual creator of employment opportunities is the private section, which has to display the entrepreneurship to create the new opportunities.

You people are obstructing the private sector in this task.

We are doing our best. We are doing our best to make it favourable for the private sector to create employment opportunities and to establish new enterprises.

I also want to mention another very important aspect. This is an aspect to which passing reference was frequently made today, namely the role which the small business sector and the informal sector can and must play in the creation of new employment opportunities. In the United States the small business enterprises created the vast majority of employment opportunities. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a decrease in the number of the employment opportunities in large undertakings during the past eight years. The only growth in respect of employment opportunities took place in the small business sector.

That is why, in respect of the R600 million support programme, we earmarked an amount of R75 million for the Small Business Development Corporation, as well as R35 million for the Development Bank. The aim is also to help small business and to protect existing employment opportunities which ran the risk of being curtailed. This also seeks to bring about the creation of new employment opportunities.

I want to thank the hon member for Rustenburg for his support for this motion. That hon member was correct in saying that unemployment is a world-wide problem. That is indeed the case. The hon member pointed out the necessity of training. I now wish to make the point here that if there is one striking thing which emerged very clearly it is that the training was meaningful to those who underwent it. The training was admittedly for a short period. The courses varied from one to three weeks, and in exceptional cases provision was made for training over eight weeks.

I have letters of thanks here from people who received the training. It is interesting— in fact it is remarkable—that many of the people who received training as welders or as gardeners, for example, established their own undertakings. There is even a man who took the bookkeeping course and who wrote me a letter in which he said that after the course he had acquired six clients. Now he is able to stand on his own feet and look after himself.

What is significant and splendid about this training course is that one allows an unskilled person, who was perhaps an assistant in a certain job for a long time, to take a three week course in which certain knowledge is consolidated and in which he builds up self-confidence. He learns the basic principles of a certain job, which enable him to produce better quality work. He is even able to establish his own undertaking.

Our future job creation is situated primarily in the sphere of new small undertakings which are put into operation. Training is the best investment one can make in the future. The hon member for Rustenburg referred to the training which is taking place in the Western Transvaal. White women underwent a two-day crash training course, and subsequently trained Black women as domestic workers. Many of those people had not worked before or had not had any real contact with other population groups. Thanks to the contact which takes place there, an attitude and a point of contact is created which is anti-revolutionary. At the same time I wish to mention that this campaign contributed a great deal to keeping the unrest climate in South Africa under control I should like to quote from a letter from the Town Clerk of Bethal:

There are many such letters.

It takes very little to comfort you, Pietie! [Interjections.]

I can understand the bitterness of the hon members for Lichtenburg and Barberton. After all, this is success that was achieved. [Interjections.] For want of a political policy they have to play the part of scavengers here in order to score at least a few points in respect of race prejudice. [Interjections.] The success of this Government hurts and torments them. [Interjections.] They see that they are slipping and want to get off the slide. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan said that the other countries that had unemployment, at least had a low inflation rate. Surely we have not always had a high inflation rate. There was a time when Britain’s inflation rate was 25%, while South Africa’s inflation rate was in the region of 6% or 7%. We also know that there are special reasons why we are now experiencing such a high inflation rate.

The hon member said that training for a period of one to three weeks was ridiculous, because only 30% of the people were given employment. The training centres and organisations know about this 30% because those are people who report back. I wish to say, however, that in certain fields there was such a great demand for those type of people that up to 90% or more of the people were employed immediately after training. Scooter drivers, security guards and domestic servants are in tremendous demand in certain places. Some of the training centres tell us that it has happened already that employers came to them, placed an order and asked the centres to train 10 or 20 people in certain directions for them. One cannot therefore allege that one to three weeks’ training is ridiculous.

I could mention cases in which people with BA degrees went to these centres because they were unable to find work. Here I have letters from those people who were able to learn a basic typing skill within three weeks and were subsequently able to find work. [Interjections.] This training is therefore successful and fruitful. I think it is irresponsible to label this training as ridiculous.

He should rather go and learn to use his brains! [Interjections.]

I now wish to ask the hon member for Brakpan whether he has perhaps visited any of these training centres yet. Has he ever been to one of them?

I was at the one in Krugersdorp.

Well, I just want to say to the hon member that he should visit more of them, for surely one sees there what good work is being done. [Interjections.] One sees there how a person undergoes a metamorphosis, and how a person changes there within three weeks from a person who is really down and out, into a person who has self-respect and optimism again, and perhaps acquires a certificate—possibly for the first time in his or her life. [Interjections.] He is then in a better position to go out and find work.

What is stated on that certificate? [Interjections.]

If I understood the hon member correctly, he said that Whites were being discriminated against as far as this training was concerned. [Interjections.]

I did not say that. I said the hon the Minister did not want to furnish the figures because he was too busy discriminating.

Oh yes, I now come back to the point I wanted to make. When we are dealing with something like this training project, these people, for want of a policy, must always see whether they cannot find a racial connotation somewhere. The statistics on this training are not collected on a racial basis. The training centres, and the private organisations that provide training, do not in general keep statistics on a racial basis. [Interjections.] What we are interested in is that all the population groups must be able to benefit from these projects. [Interjections.]

Thank heaven, there are a few things which do not have a racial connotation or conflict potential.

Like the schools.

I want to ask hon members to please refrain from introducing conflict into these few matters as well. The situation at the moment is peaceful; they must please keep out of these things, so that peace can continue to prevail there. We must not try to scavenge political gain from a good cause. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.