Mr Speaker, would you permit me to address you very briefly in terms of Standing Order 108(a) on a question of privilege?

Yes, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I do this at this stage because it is the earliest possible stage at which I can do it and because I am, in a sense, merely reserving my rights. I think it only fair to the hon the Minister of Law and Order that I first consult the Hansard. My attention has however, been drawn to a report in this morning’s Die Burger in which it is reported that the hon the Minister stated that the hon member for Walmer, by name Mr Andrew Savage, had stood under the communist and ANC flag. I intend to raise this matter formally, as a question of privilege, once I have consulted the Hansard. At this stage, however, I merely raise it so that my rights are not prejudiced.

Yes, that is the correct procedure because under no circumstances would I have been able to give any ruling now. I quite agree with the procedure followed by the hon Chief Whip. I think it is the correct procedure.

Mr Speaker, I wish to tell the hon Chief Whip that I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with him should it transpire that the funeral in question, which the hon member for Walmer attended, was not held under a communist flag. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with the hon Chief Whip, and I am also quite prepared to rectify it in the correct way. The hon member need not worry about that.

Well, Mr Speaker, we can go into that later, but that is not the question at issue.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has asked me whether he may make a statement this morning. It is in connection with the reply which was furnished a short while ago to a question asked by the hon member for Pine-town.

†Although Friday is not Question Day, I consider it in the interests of all parties concerned that I allow the hon the Minister to make this statement today. I feel it may also be in the interests of the hon member for Pinetown. He may, for instance, be using the reply in regard to something which he is working on, and this additional statement may clear matters up immediately. I there fore allow the hon the Minister to make this statement. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, in response to a remark made by the hon member for Pine-town following my answer on 8 April 1986 to a question for oral reply, own affairs: Question 5(2), I wish to give the following information.

The information which had been given to me which I gave in my response must be qualified. It is correct that no residential college of education in Natal has enrolled members of other population groups. However, since 1978 teletuition by way of study guides and assignments has been offered by the Natal College for Further Education. In accordance with an interim arrangement entered into with the Director of Education: Coloured Affairs, this service is also offered to Coloured teachers. This year 63 Coloured teachers are availing themselves of this service.

I now lay the revised reply to the question upon the Table.

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was indicating how, in its effort to bring about a unitary state in which the principles of freedom and equality apply to all inhabitants, but in which the political power is not yet shared with everyone, the Government is the root of the problem we have to contend with at present.

It is significant that unrest, strife and bloody violence broke out the moment the present Constitution was implemented. According to the University of Pretoria’s Institute for Strategic Studies, damage to the value of R138 million has been caused—noticeably since September 1984. Black education has become a useful pretext for instigators of revolution. A militant, socialist-orientated education structure is developing under the very eyes and authority of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. With every concession to the demands of the SPCC and the NECC, for example, new demands are made. The Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid was reported as follows in Die Burger of 22 March 1986:

What were those demands? New school buildings were to be erected to replace old ones that had been destroyed; examinations were to be postponed until March; teachers and pupils who were being detained in accordance with emergency measures were to be released and the state of emergency was to be lifted. The Government has already complied with all these demands. The hon the Deputy Minister then mentioned what immense damage had already taken place there.

The hon members on that side of the House must accept that it is the purpose of the present Black unrest and violence to overthrow the present political authority in the whole country and to replace it with Black political authority.

In his speech on 11 March the hon member for Lichtenburg indicated in this House how parallel administrations and judicial hierarchies are coming into being in Black areas. The choice of a unitary state with eventual Black control is the logical consequence of the Government policy.

Do the hon members on the opposite side really still think that the reservation of the post of State President for a White person is feasible in the long run? The remark of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in that regard was logical.

The hon members of the NP cannot object to the establishment of majority rule. That is their policy. At most they can protest against the method that is used. The only disagreement among them, therefore, is on the eventual form of the state and government and the course that must be taken to get there.

This Government is capitulating; hence its movement in the direction of the remodelling of the existing order in a peaceful way. Yesterday I read a report in Die Vaderland which said that the State President abhorred apartheid. According to the report, Pres Ronald Reagan came out in support of Pres Botha and described him as a man who found the system of apartheid abhorrent. This report quotes Pres Reagan as saying:

That is the verkrampte group. Surely Pres Reagan is someone who should know what is happening in South Africa these days.

Foreign powers, on the other hand, which support the violent onslaught financially and morally, find violence an acceptable means to attaining this objective. Economic pressure is applied with increasing effectiveness on a government which is moving in the direction of majority rule.

In addition the Government has to deal with pressure from the White sectors of which Pres Reagan spoke. This is the Pik Botha and Wynand Malan faction. Dr Jan Marais, a former NP House of Assembly member, unequivocally criticised the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act on television the other night for example, and said they should be abolished. He foresees a class difference in South Africa rather than a separation on the grounds of race and people. There are hon members on that side of the House who agree with him wholeheartedly on that point. In addition the Government has to deal with left-wing academics and clergymen which are pressurising it, as well as influential business associations which are constantly pleading for the quick progress of constitutional reform to prevent an economic disaster in South Africa.

The dilemma of the Government is this: It would be quite unacceptable to the radicals if it were to initiate deliberations to write a new Constitution for this country with the moderate leaders who would renounce violence. Surely the anxiety and unease which result from this furnish the poorest climate for any economy to flourish in.

What has the Government therefore achieved with the new dispensation in South Africa? Instead of stability, peace, security and economic prosperity, precisely the opposite has taken place. The Constitution of 1983 has deprived the Afrikaner of his claim to sovereignty under his own authority in his own country.

Separate development does not come from 1948 or 1836, but from the time of the original settlement itself. Measures to protect our people—I am speaking of our people whom we are representing here— against mixing with and assimilation into other peoples, in particular into Africa’s Black sea of peoples, have been taken since the earliest times. [Interjections.] This is not a new invention from this side of the House; it has been there for centuries.

You cannot be serious!

In a unitary society such as that accepted now by this Government, the Whites simply have to come off second best and eventually disappear totally from the political scene in this country. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education has now said in his reply to the Budget for Own Affairs that Coloureds and Indians in the country have used their right of self-determination and have said they did not want independence. Let that be so, they have every right to do so, but the Afrikaner’s yearning for freedom and right of self-determination may not be handicapped by that. What the hon the Minister is doing now, is to subordinate the will and endeavour of his own people to the will and the wishes of strange peoples. Surely that is what it amounts to, and that may not happen. Afrikaners yearned for freedom under British domination and they will probably be able to experience it again if they are exposed to denigration, humiliation and Black domination.

A people’s spiritual inclination to control its State and to maintain its religion, language, literature, history and traditions in an unrestricted way, causes it incessantly—yes, and with every means at its disposal—to fight such a threat.

The solution therefore lies in the first place in envisaging in principle, beside the seven Black nation-states which have been established since 1966, an Afrikaner nationstate in which Afrikaners—these are Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking people—can accomplish their full political expression in a spirit of freedom with justice. International borders are the only guarantee for self-determination.

The duty of a Christian government is to apply the power of the sword and to end the unrest and lawlessness. It is its duty to maintain justice and order and it may not flinch from doing so. If the action of the SA Police is not constantly questioned, and in fact they are not hampered in their task, justice and order can be recovered under a Government which is prepared to govern. It will have to be a Government which is imbued with the spirit of conservatism.

Mr Speaker, I shall return to the hon member for Pietersburg and his party during the course of my speech.

I looked at the Budget which was laid on the Table, and tested it against the background of the national objectives stated in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. I should like to quote two of those national objectives this morning. The first reads as follows:

The second objective I want to quote reads as follows:

I should also like to refer to the speech of the State President during the No-confidence debate on 7 February 1986. He referred to the cornerstones for future security in South Africa. On the first cornerstone, to him the most important one, the State President said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 407):

Later in his speech the State President said the following:

If I test the Budget against that background I have no problem in supporting it. The hon the Minister of Finance and the Government deserve the highest appreciation for the Budget.

I also want to refer to the introductory paragraph of the hon the Minister’s Budget speech. He said the following:

I should like to dwell on that point this morning after expressing my appreciation for the Budget on my own behalf and that of 23 000 White South African voters whom I represent in this legislative meeting.

Everyone who is concerned about the future of our beautiful country must realise that not only is Christianity in South Africa faced by an enormous challenge, but in fact it is experiencing an hour of crisis. The task facing Christianity is that of regulating this heterogeneously structured unitary society and guiding it towards justice and love. One thing does our country credit, viz the clarity of the realisation that a Christian solution must be found for the extremely complicated situation in which we in this country find ourselves. Church and political leaders know that, and we have accepted this as the good fight.

If it is clear anywhere in the world how strongly the political leadership is dependent on the light of God’s Word and the guidelines in the Scripture, it is here in South Africa. Neither apartheid nor integration offers a peaceful solution in South Africa.

An emergency meeting is being held at Harare by the World Council of Churches, at the end of which a statement will be issued, the so-called Kairos Document. Member churches of the World Council of Churches are committing themselves to working towards extended sanctions against South Africa. That document goes even further and commits the member churches to supporting guerilla forces opposed by the South African Government, and in addition to granting support to the ANC, the PAC, the South African Communist Party and the UDF. Christianity in South Africa must guard against this. Christian churches will have to speak as one, particularly if one takes into account that 76,6% of South Africa’s total population belongs to Christian churches. There are certain church leaders in South Africa who are promoting the objectives of communism in this country. I want to issue a warning today that this will contribute to a split in some of the largest churches in the Republic of South Africa.

I hesitate today to put the question in this highest legislative meeting of our country: Have some of the churches become part of the search for solutions to the problems in South Africa, or have they become part of the problems we have to contend with? South Africa is being threatened today by powers that want to create chaos and make the country ungovernable in preparation for a communist takeover by means of polarisation, fear, hate, revolution and economic deterioration. The political, social and economic problems in our country can be solved if we approach them through the wisdom and insight of God, while mistakes of the past are recognised and rectified and purged from our society. The true struggle in South Africa is a struggle between light and darkness in which a lack of communication as well as misapprehensions and mistrust, is being exploited to fuel revolution in our beautiful country. It is a matter of urgency for peace to be recovered in our country to prevent violence from becoming a way of life and to create a favourable climate for reconciliation and negotiation. Reconciliation must take place in meaningful relationships, based on the forgiveness and love of Christ. It must be established among the population groups to promote mutual understanding and trust. The church must function separately from the State and the Government must endorse the Christian principles and apply them in the management of the country. The free economy must be promoted.

The church as an institution can play an important part in the promotion of greater reasonableness in South Africa. Perhaps this applies particularly to churches that have submissively watched preachers of Christian churches officiating under communist banners at funeral services. How can a Christian church reconcile itself with that or keep quiet about it? A united Christianity can become an impregnable fortress against the onslaught of communism, enslavement and anarchy in the time in which we are living.

Political parties also have a responsibility when there is talk of peace in South Africa. I read the speech of the former Leader of the PFP and listened attentively yesterday afternoon to the speech of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. He made mention of the damage to property and the loss of life as a result of unrest in our country, but neither he nor his predecessor mentioned that the ANC has accepted responsibility for 398 acts of terror in South Africa. He did not mention that. The ANC has accepted responsibility for seven landmine attacks and 37 limpet mine attacks, but those hon members keep quiet about this. I want to warn them this morning that the people whose company they are keeping, are those who do not promote peace. Hon members can read on page 2 of this morning’s Die Burger where the two gentlemen who left this Parliament are. They are in the company of those people who are not prepared to work towards peace in South Africa.

The CP also has a responsibility, however, and this morning I am addressing the theologians in the CP in particular—the hon members for Waterberg, Rissik and Koedoespoort. Those hon members are opposed to power-sharing in South Africa. They tell the public at large that the NP is prepared to share power with non-Christians in this country. I want to ask the theologians in the CP this morning whether or not they are prepared to share power with fellow-Christians in South Africa, regardless of their race or colour. They must give us an answer to that question during the course of this session of Parliament. [Interjections.]

They say no.

The hon members of the CP must say that in a speech so that it can be recorded in Hansard. [Interjections.]

The supporters of the HNP say they are ready for war. The AWB says they are coming with an attack. [Interjections.]

Each of us has a responsibility. Let us fulfil our duty for the sake of our beautiful country, South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I should like to make a categorical statement on behalf of the PFP. The PFP believes that Parliament is relevant and will play an important and crucial part in reform.

I wonder, however, whether the hon members of the Cabinet believe Parliament to be relevant. Where are they, Mr Speaker? Where are the members of the NP Cabinet who are supposed to be here in order to listen to and participate in the debate and to answer to the Parliament of South Africa? They treat the Parliament of South Africa with contempt, because they are not here to discharge their obligation to the representatives of the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Because it is a weekend! [Interjections.]

The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning asked an important question, namely what the members of Parliament have committed themselves to? I should like to tell the hon members of Parliament what the PFP commits itself to. As far as South Africa and all its peoples are concerned we commit ourselves to equal citizenship, to the abolition of all aspects of apartheid, to the removal of all discrimination based on race, colour or religion, to ensure justice for all South Africans and to do everything in our power to maintain and expand democracy and the free enterprise system. We are committed to the protection of the individual as well as of groups and to bring about all reform and change by means of discussion and consensus. The question of what we commit ourselves to as far as revolution and violence are concerned is frequently put to us. Unambiguously, inexorably, and without reservations the PFP condemns most strongly all violence and revolutionary elements in our society. We will fight tooth and nail against those on the far left in South Africa who want to transform this country into a Marxist one-party state, in which there will be no freedom of the Press, no freedom of the individual nor an impartial judiciary. The same applies to the lunatic fringe elements of the right wing in South Africa, the people who want to resort to violence in order to impose their views on South Africa. They must take note that we shall also fight them tooth and nail, in the interests of South Africa and all its people. The elected Government in terms of the present Constitution of South Africa will also be fought if they are guilty of mismanagement, if they procrastinate over the abolition of apartheid, or if they try to preserve or perpetuate apartheid. Under those circumstances they can expect us to fight them with everything we have. When this Government is guilty of irregularities and improper conduct, we will fight it. When the Government obstructs South Africa’s interests we will fight it. If this Government endangers the safety of South Africa we will fight it. We commit ourselves to that.

When this Government, however, undertakes positive reform and abolishes apartheid in a positive way, they can rely on the help and support of the PFP in this House and in South Africa. This Government can also depend on us in the struggle against the real enemies of South Africa and its people. [Interjections.] The PFP will always put the interests of South Africa first. The Government as well as the people of South Africa need have no doubt about that. The PFP will do everything in its power for the mobilisation of a moderate middle ground in South African politics.

As far as all group, leaders and organisations in South Africa are concerned— everyone who is prepared to commit themselves to a broad programme of principles for justice for all South Africans and the abolition of apartheid and discrimination as well as the retention of democracy—we in the PFP will do everything in our power to bring together all those groups, people, leaders and political parties of all races in South Africa who are prepared to commit themselves to that programme of principles and to mobilise them into a powerful and effective bulwark against revolution and violence—whether from the right or from the left. [Interjections.]

In the NP there are many people who over the last few years have moved in the direction of such a broad programme of principles. There are people who have reached a point where they are quite close to the philosophies and the principles of the PFP; people who can identify themselves with an extensive political middle ground in South Africa and who can make a contribution to it. [Interjections.] These people, who would be prepared to commit themselves to peaceful change and who are also opposed to all revolution and violence, include 90% of all South Africans. I said this in the last edition of Rapport towards the end of last year. Ninety percent of all South Africans could find themselves in such a grouping.

At the moment there is no unity, no unanimity, no organisation. The people have not found each other yet, and they are still not working together. They have still not allied themselves into such a bulwark against violence and revolution. [Interjections.] However, it must not merely be a bulwark against violence and revolution. It must be a powerful and effective movement to bring about real and significant reform in South Africa and to extend the values which we uphold to the other population groups in South Africa as well.

There is a fundamental decision which the NP will therefore have to take, for at this stage the NP as a Government does not find itself part of that grouping. It finds itself in the 10% which is opposed to that grouping because the NP is still trying to preserve certain aspects of apartheid. The NP will therefore have to decide whether they want to remain with the 10% who are obstructing the 90% of South Africans or whether they want to be part of the 90% of South Africans who want to bring about constructive and peaceful reform in South Africa in the interests of a peaceful, stable society for our whole country. The NP can in fact be part of that 90%. They are close to it. All it needs is a little courage and endurance to finally cross the Rubicon. The NP can do it, but then there are a few things which they will have to do very soon.

In the first place they must eliminate the ignorance concerning the realities which exist in South Africa. The majority of NP members do not have the vaguest idea of the realities of our situation in South Africa. They live in an impenetrable cocoon of ignorance, blissfully unaware of the realities in South Africa! Their decision-making is based on invalid premises which testify to boundless ignorance and primordial prejudices and myths.

They must get rid of this very soon, and my advice to them is to do what a lot of us are doing: Walk through the streets of the Black areas, visit the people in their homes, knock on the doors, speak to the workers, speak to the housewives, the scholars, the teachers and the community leaders. Speak to them and listen to them. Listen to their fears and aspirations. A whole new world will then open up for hon members, a world of new perspectives and new stimulating ideas.

Listen as well to a number of the courageous young members in the ranks of the NP itself, who have already done this. [Interjections.] Listen to them, because they have acquired personal experience. A radical shift has taken place in them as far as their attitudes and approach are concerned.

Understanding is necessary. Evidently the NP cannot understand what is going on in South Africa. They cannot understand it. It is pathetic, Sir. Has the NP forgotten its own past? Have they forgotten how it was when they felt they were being unfairly treated in their own country by the English? The NP must remember its past in order to understand the present.

Hon members ask why the Blacks are opposed to capitalism, but the NP and its Press created the Hoggenheimer bogy when they hated capitalism. In 1948 this Government argued in a manifesto that it would nationalise all mines in South Africa. The Government cannot understand why the Blacks are in collusion with communism. In 1920 the NP conspired with the South African Communist Party and teamed up together against the government of the day.

Then there is the question of socialism. This Government introduced State interference on a broad basis in South Africa. The NP was involved in the violence of the Osse-wabrandwag movement against the government of the day, and did so while that government was fighting a war.

And the courts? This Government scrapped the entrenched section which guaranteed Coloured rights in South Africa. This Government nullified the power of the courts in order to circumvent that entrenched article.

The NP also used funerals for political purposes. Just think of Jopie Fourie and cases as far back in the past as the incident at Slagtersnek. [Interjections.] Think of the emotions aroused in the nationalists of that time as a result of those incidents.

And the churches? During the Second World War men in uniform could not enter many Afrikaner churches; I know about that, because I saw it happening with my own eyes. [Interjections.] Even today, there are Afrikaans church services on the border to which Black South African soldiers are not admitted because they are Black. [Interjections.]

And what about consumer boycotts? The NP Government cannot understand the consumer boycotts. Over the years the NP organised consumer boycotts against Indians in virtually every country town in the Transvaal in order to force them out. [Interjections.]

What is the position with schools and teachers? The indoctrination in schools by teachers that took place in the years when the NP was on its way to the Government benches is something I can still remember today.

The Government must grasp the realities in South Africa. It is pathetic listening to hon members and realising that they cannot understand these things. The Government must abolish apartheid by launching an effective and dramatic reform programme. It must introduce equal citizenship for all South Africans without reservation. It must launch and carry out its urbanisation programme effectively. Cannot the Government decide that a house in which a Black family has been living for more than ten years should be given to a family according to a freehold system? The Government can decide that a house which is worth less than R3 000 can be given to the Black people who live in it, so that we can have thousands of Black families owning their own house and their own piece of land. The Government can also decide that local communities and local governments must themselves decide whether or not there will be open residential areas in their urban areas. That will serve as a safety valve for the alleviation of the tension, emotions and the hatred. Can the Government not decide to open all tertiary educational institutions to all South Africans? Can it not establish an open department of education so that local parent/ teacher organisations themselves can decide whether or not they want their schools open? Cannot the Government for example introduce habeas corpus and fire the hon the Minister of Law and Order? That would be the greatest favour the Government could do South Africa and its peoples. [Interjections.]

As soon as the Government does all these things, they will be part of the future of South Africa. Then the Government can play a leading and influential role in the lives of 90% of South Africans who strive for peaceful change and justice to ensure a stable future for our country. As soon as the Government has done that we can all negotiate for a new constitution for South Africa. The Government will then find that all groups and all leaders will be prepared to sit down with the Government around the same conference table to negotiate for a new, stable, peaceful and great future for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, before I move that we adjourn the debate, I should like to extend a word of most sincere thanks to hon members on both sides of the House who tried to make a constructive contribution to the debate.

If we look back over the debate during the past week, we see that very interesting contributions were made. Interesting contributions were made by hon members who are struggling to find solutions to the realities of the problems South Africa is experiencing today. Those speeches also give both the Government and the country as a whole plenty of food for thought.

This debate was also interesting from another angle. There were speeches and interjections which really had absolutely nothing to do with the reality in South Africa. A great deal has been said about the relevance of this House. This House and Parliament can only remain relevant to the solutions of South Africa’s problems if it understands them, if it analyses them in the light of the realities and the facts, and if it tries to devise and negotiate solutions which are really going to solve them.

It is of no avail for this House to try to create a world for itself and carry on debates here which have nothing to do with burning, hungry and terrified people of all population groups. History will also eventually judge this debate from these interesting points of view. As matters are developing in South Africa today, we shall never again be able to conduct debates in this precise set of circumstances—economic, financial and also political and social. History will ask us whether we made use of the opportunity which this debate afforded us, in terms of the challenges and the problems of this particular time, to try to solve those problems.

On this side of the House I should like to address a word of very sincere thanks to my hon colleagues who spoke about finance and economic matters in particular. Many of those speeches made a significant contribution towards a better understanding of the anatomy of the appropriation. This will undoubtedly mean that people studying the appropriation will understand it far better, and will also be able to take business decisions more logically on the strength of this.

Mr Speaker, I now move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Sections 26(3) and (3A) of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act impose a duty on the auditor of an undertaking to report, in the manner prescribed in these sections, if he “is satisfied or has reason to believe” that in the conduct of the affairs of an undertaking a material irregularity has taken place.

It is, however, apparently possible to attach contradictory interpretations to the relevant sections since some auditors, supported by legal opinion, submit that only information obtained during the auditing of the business of an undertaking may be taken into consideration for this purpose, whilst others again are convinced that all information, including information obtained from sources outside the undertaking—for example during the auditing of the business of another client in respect of whom an auditor has a duty of confidentiality—should be taken into consideration when such an irregularity comes to an auditor’s attention.

It is essential that no uncertainty should exist regarding the precise scope of this important duty imposed by the legislator on the audit profession, and it is therefore proposed that a new subsection (3B) be inserted in section 26 of the Act to make it clear that the auditor of an undertaking shall take into consideration all information, from whatever source, in the execution of this duty that rests upon his shoulders.

Mr Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance has recommended certain amendments to the proposed clause. I accept these recommendations.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, this Bill was discussed in the Standing Committee on Finance. Amendments were made to the Bill, and it was later passed unanimously. Previously there was some uncertainty about what information an auditor could take into account in disclosing an irregularity in the way an undertaking was conducting its affairs.

This Bill now clarifies the issue. An auditor can now take note of information emanating from outside sources. He is not obliged to act on that information, but he can take note of it. I think this clarifies an uncertainty in that regard.

Such information can be very important. For instance, we have the case at the moment of a company quoted on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The share prices of that company rose quite dramatically because of news about an export order. It subsequently transpired that that export order had not come to fruition, and of course the company’s listing has now been terminated. I am not suggesting that there were any irregularities in that. What I am saying, however, is that that sort of information would be important to an auditor if he knew about it—I am not suggesting that the auditor knew about it in this case—because his knowledge of it could play an important part in his assessment of the company’s accounts.

The role of an auditor is, I think, a very important one. In the United States, for example, there have been some massive court cases where people have sued auditors because they thought that the auditors’ assessments did not correctly reflect the financial statements of their companies. We have not had anything like that in South Africa, however, and I hope we never do.

Our role as financial legislators is, in my view, to enable auditors to do their jobs as effectively as possible. I think this amending Bill will help the auditors to do that. The matter is now up to them. The public actually place quite a high value on an audited set of statements. To the public an audited set of statements signifies that the particular company is sound, solid and that the auditor’s assessment is a true reflection of what is going on in that company.

I would, therefore, just call upon the auditors to ensure that they perform their function to the benefit of the general public. After all, their function is an important one; and it is an essential one.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon member for Edenvale supports the measure at present before the House.

This matter was discussed at length by the Standing Committee on Finance, and I think that the professions involved here, had ample opportunity to give evidence, to submit memoranda and to put their case in other ways. The fact that they did have the opportunity to put their case was further proof of how important a standing committee was. The relevant professional body, and indeed the profession as such, was afforded an opportunity to put its case to the Government in Parliament with reference to legislation which it—the body or the profession—had to regulate and control.

The hon member for Edenvale rightly referred to the importance of the auditors’ profession in South Africa. It is important for an auditor to have a proper picture in front of him before he can report accordingly. When talking about making a report, I should like to refer to section 26, and specifically to section (3A), of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951, which places a great responsibility on the auditor.

The auditors’ profession in South Africa is an honourable profession and must at all times have the best possible legislation at its disposal to assist it in the great and weighty task resting on its shoulders. Most of us present here have in the past made use of the services of an accountant or auditor and consequently know how extensive their task is.

I believe that an auditor or an accountant—every person who sits with a financial statement in front of him, which he must process and glean information from to convey to certain people and bodies—is actually the watchdog of the public. I believe that certain matters which are not clear are being rectified this legislation, and in future the auditors and accountants in South Africa will have more certainty on these aspects.

We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the measure, and I wish the auditors’ profession in South Africa everything of the best.

Mr Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the audit profession and what it entails.

When a person wants to enrol as an auditor’s clerk, after passing matric he must work for five years as a clerk, attend lectures and classes and be properly trained. I think this should actually apply throughout life, even here in this Parliament. I think that when a man comes here as a newcomer, he should sit here quietly for a few years. This morning when the hon member for Springs became so voluble there in the back benches, I sat and thought what would have happened to him if he had been my clerk and if, after a few weeks of his first year with me, we went to discuss financial statements with the manager of a large company and while we were discussing those matters, he became as noisy as he was this morning as a backbencher. I would have dismissed him immediately.

He is a very presumptious little backbencher.

Jan, I would not have worked for you. [Interjections.]

There is another backbencher with something to say. [Interjections.] There is no discipline in the NP and I think the NP should go back to the days when I came to this House. Just like an articled clerk I was seen but not heard here, and I did my work and was not allowed to become as rowdy as happened here. [Interjections.]

In such a firm of auditors these people undergo thorough training. That is why, when that clerk is qualified—when he has passed his CTA examination and then his entrance examination—under all circumstances he must command regard and respect in public practice. As a chartered accountant he has then gained his CA. Every person or organisation in this life—whether it be the shareholders of a company, a person who wants to invest money in a company, the Stock Exchange or the Receiver of Revenue—must be prepared to accept the signature and the authority of the auditor. That is also why the junior work in the firm is done by juniors and the senior work by seniors.

It is after all customary that when problems crop up the firm of auditors may not hesitate to take action against the board of directors or the company, even if this were to mean that he would lose his client as a result. I myself, just a week after I had been appointed an auditor, began an investigation because the information which came to my attention indicated that there was corruption in that company. This must be the attitude and the approach of every auditing business. One must do one’s work with dedication and not think of one’s client or of money. One must think of the whole of South Africa.

This applies to clause 1 of the Bill, which further amends section 26 of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, and deals with the powers and obligations of auditors. If an auditing business does not act according to the duties and obligations entrusted to it in terms of the Act, and is negligent, and I am of the opinion that an auditor who is suspended, should never be allowed to enter the profession again. As a young politician I myself came across such a case. I had been in this House about two years when an auditor came to see me because he had been suspended. He wanted me to use my influence to arrange through Parliament for him to practise again. I looked him in the eye and said: “Sir, thank you very much for coming to me, but as far as I am concerned, you must remain suspended for ever. Once you have violated that position of trust, you may never again in your life work with any trust money or be in a position in a firm of auditors where you have the confidence of everyone in the country.” That auditor had embezzled trust money.

Tremendous demands are made of a firm of auditors. The Receiver of Revenue also places great emphasis on the fact that they rely on a certificate from a firm of auditors. When a firm of auditors does certain audits and acquires certain information—it may come from another client or from any other source—then it must not be possible for him to be compelled to disclose where he got the information from. It must be confidential. He may have heard it in a conversation during a function. One evening in the course of a conversation he may hear that the firm of which he is the auditor, has embezzled money or misspent it. I think that the very next morning he should start with that company’s audit. If he comes across anything he can impartially and without prejudice ascertain whether or not what he heard was true. If it is not true he can forget about the matter and know that he has done the country a service by checking whether or not there was such an irregularity.

We support the clause entirely as it stands here. I think that it is very good addition to section 26 of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Sunnyside and I thank him for his support. Nevertheless I want to ask the hon member why he made such a long speech about such a short clause, although everyone agreed on it and we were also in agreement on it in the standing committee.

The hon member was quite right when he said that the auditors’ profession was a particularly responsible profession. It is not surprising that it is the best paid profession in the country. One cannot earn more money for one’s inputs anywhere else. Now I find it strange that the hon member—I am saying this to him in a friendly way—who was an auditor for a long time, and if I am not mistaken, was even the head of a firm of auditors, preferred to come here and bear four times as much responsibility as an auditor for a quarter of the pay. The hon member referred to his principles and perhaps that was the reason why he made that choice.

It is a pleasure to support the legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Speaker, the Bill before us is a very small Bill in itself but it is of considerable importance in the protection of the creditors, shareholders and potential shareholders of a company that the doubt that has existed as to what an auditor should or should not bring into consideration, should be clarified.

The original amendment before it went through the standing committee, made the Bill somewhat more onerous than was necessary insofar as auditors are concerned, and we are very happy about the amendment to the original Bill.

Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we are perfectly happy to accept the Bill as it is before us without any further ado.

Mr Speaker, I apologise to the hon member for Umbilo; I could not see him properly, I am also in a bit of a hurry to increase productivity by disposing of this Bill.

I should very much like to thank all the hon members who supported this Bill and in particular the chief spokesmen of the various parties and their study groups who supported it.

I should just like to say a few words about the value of the standing committee. If there is really a sphere in which the system of standing committees has very great value, it is indeed the financial sphere. As is the case with all good ideas, once one has introduced it and is reaping the benefits one finds it hard to imagine why one did not think of it before. That is how I feel about the work of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Today as a political functionary with this responsibility I can with very great confidence rise to my feet in this House because, as far as technical legislation is concerned, interested parties have also had access to the standing committee, and because there was really an opportunity during the deliberations of the standing committee to discuss the relevant matter in depth. That is why I am very pleased that we can bring this and other pieces of legislation which concern finance to this House by way of the standing committee. I am quite certain that in this way we are placing better legislation on the Statute Book than we would otherwise have done. I should also very much like to thank the standing committee for the extremely responsible way in which they dealt with this particular piece of legislation. I thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill contains several proposed amendments to the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, 1968, and the purpose of the amendments is to streamline and clarify certain provisions of the Act in order to improve the implementation of the Act in practice.

Two committees, namely the Committee of Inquiry into Statutory Restrictions on Non-Cash Transactions and the Technical Committee on Banking and Building Society Legislation, have during the past 30-odd months carefully looked into certain aspects relating to the existing Act. Several of the amendments embodied in the Bill arise from the investigations and recommendations of these committees. A number of other proposed amendments stem from representations made directly to the Registrar of Financial Institutions, or emanate from the Registrar himself. Mr Speaker, I shall confine my remarks to the more important amendments contained in the amending Bill.

†It is considered necessary to amend the definitions of “credit card scheme”, “ledger fee”, “money-lending transaction” and “principal debt” to place beyond doubt the fact that all credit card schemes, in whatever form, fall within the ambit of the Act; to provide for the levying of a card fee by credit card managers for the initial issue of a credit card; to exempt the sale of immovable property, where the purchase price is payable in full upon transfer of the property into the name of the purchaser, from the provisions of the Act; and to put money-lending transactions on a par with credit transactions and leasing transactions insofar as the payment by a moneylender on behalf of a borrower of certain specified costs are concerned.

The proposed clause 2(1)(c) which amends section 2(4)(a) of the Act is aimed at adapting the Minister’s power relating to the format in which finance charge rate tables are to be published. It is envisaged to publish the tables in a simplified and hence more practical form in future for which banking institutions and organised commerce have given their full support. Provision has been made for the implementation of this amendment on a date to be determined by proclamation in order to give the department concerned the opportunity of preparing the new tables.

Furthermore, an amendment to section 2(9) of the present Act is proposed in clause 2(1)(d) which provides that in the case of a bond over movable or immovable property which is to be registered in a deeds office, it will no longer be compulsory to disclose the finance charges in the mortgage deed concerned. Such bonds are already exempted from certain other disclosure requirements of the Act. The reason for this amendment is that the provisions create practical problems in that such mortgage deeds are legally executed by the borrower, credit receiver or lessee and not by the money-lender, credit grantor or lessor on whom the Act places the disclosure requirements. It is also proposed that the required instrument of debt may be executed by an authorised representative of a moneylender, credit grantor or lessor. These proposed amendments will eliminate considerable practical difficulties without impairing the original intent of the Act with regard to disclosure.

*Section 3 of the Act obliges a moneylender, credit grantor or lessor to furnish on demand, before the conclusion of a money-lending, credit or leasing transaction on which finance charges are payable, the prescribed information such as the amount of the principal debt or finance charges to the prospective borrower, credit receiver or lessee. In line with the recommendation of the Technical Committee on Banking and Building Society Legislation, the borrower, credit receiver or lessee may now also require that the relevant information be furnished to him in writing.

In accordance with the provisions of the present Act, where a loan is to be secured by a bond over immovable property, the moneylender may, by agreement between the parties concerned, levy finance charges from the date of approval of the loan until the date immediately preceding the date on which the money is paid to, or is paid on behalf of, the borrower. The relevant rate at which such interim finance charges may be levied is the difference between the finance charge rate stipulated in the instrument of debt in question and the annual interest rate applicable to monies invested, on the date of approval of the loan, with the National Finance Corporation of South Africa by way of call deposit money. As the National Finance Corporation has been dissolved, it is proposed in clause 3 that in future the rate in question be coupled to the Treasury Bill rate, which is determined weekly and is readily available.

Section 4 of the existing Act allows a money lender, credit grantor or lessor, in the case of default or deferment of payment, to levy additional finance charges on the arrear amount and finance charges. The purpose of the amendment proposed in clause 5 is to make it clear that in the case where an agreement contains a provision for interest escalation and default of timeous payment occurs, the rate at which additional finance charges may be levied may also be increased.

In terms of the present provisions of section 6K(3) of the Act it is not permissible for a lessor of moveable property to apply setoff in respect of an amount owing by him to a lessee in terms of a leasing transaction against an amount which is in arrear in respect of another transaction. Representations were made to the Committee of Inquiry into Statutory Restrictions on Noncash Transactions to the effect that such an arrangement was unfair to the lessor. It is therefore proposed in clause 7(b) that this anomaly be removed by deleting the words “in terms of such transaction” in the relative section which would result in the rules of our contract law regarding set-off also applying to such transactions.

†The Standing Committee on Finance, which I want to thank for the work they have done, recommended various amendments to the Bill. I am prepared to accept all the amendments proposed by the standing committee.

In conclusion I wish to state that the standing committee made a further interesting recommendation with regard to the compulsory disclosure of commissions payable by suppliers to credit card managers and the current interest rates levied under credit card schemes. I accept this recommendation and shall issue an instruction that the investigation called for receives attention.

I now ask the support of this House for the Bill.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, it was interesting to hear the title of the Bill because I was under the impression that the name was to be changed to the Finance Charges Bill, but I think that will be decided during the Committee Stage.

This is a very technical Bill which was also discussed in detail by the Standing Committee on Finance. Once again we were able to reach unanimity.

I think we must accept that, in a rapidly changing financial world, technical legislation like this will have to be changed from time to time. Because many of the changes are technical, it is particularly useful to be able to receive the input from the private sector, particularly those who have to work with the legislation from day to day.

As financial legislators, our job is to make sure that Bills can be implemented effectively and efficiently. The input of the professions which have to implement the provisions of Bills is particularly useful.

We also have to ensure that we look after the interests of the general public. I am convinced that this has been done in the case of this Bill, and we therefore support it.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Edenvale for his support of this Bill. I do not think he was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance at the stage when we dealt with the Bill but it is clear that he soon became conversant with its content.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon the Minister of Finance said a short while ago on a previous Bill when he praised the activities of the Standing Committee on Finance. I should also like to repeat what I did earlier this week in congratulating the chairman of the standing committee heartily and thanking him for his guidance there. This Bill provides further proof, as did the previous one, of the effectiveness of this committee. It is a technical Bill, as the hon member for Edenvale remarked with justification, and is the result of the work of two committees who attended to the matter over a period of almost three years. I wish to thank the officials involved in the matter and should like to mention the name of the two committees, that of the technical committee on bank and building society legislation and the committee of inquiry into statutory limitations on non-cash transactions.

The standing committee itself attended to a considerable amount of written and oral evidence inter alia from the Association of General Banks, the South African Association for Clearing Banks as well as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. I am mentioning this in proof that there were really important contributions from various spheres.

I should like to refer to four aspects of this Bill. There is provision in the legislation for the extension of ledger fees to provide for the issue of bank credit cards. I should like to air a few ideas on credit cards as such. Firstly, I wish to say that the original scrap of legislation before the standing committee gave a bank the right to demand a levy for the issue of a bank credit card. The Standing Committee on Finance changed this so that a bank may demand a levy only at the initial issue of a credit card. This was a very good decision taken by the standing committee and the hon the Minister accepted it as well. Nevertheless to my mind it directs the spotlight on the entire question of credit cards.

It is a fact that in this country today we are moving away from the use of cheques and cash; we are becoming a cashless society in South Africa.

Especially the MPs.

The hon member for Innesdal is quite right—this applies especially to MPs. I should like to request today that MPs—you could do this too, Mr Speaker—take out their wallets and see how many credit cards they contain. [Interjections.] It is part of our capitalistic system that we are becoming a cashless society and it is precisely against this I wish to issue a warning. These credit cards are made available by banks, business undertakings and car-hire firms—you name them—and we are inundated with plastic money; with plastic cards. I am intensely concerned about the effect this situation will ultimately have on our economy as a whole.

To someone who is irresponsible—even in this House there may be irresponsible people—the issue of this plastic money is truly a time bomb. Especially in our economy today, in which we do not desire further encouragement of demand inflation, the excessive issue of plastic money, or credit cards, is really a great danger.

Let us see how many Karel has.

Mr Speaker, two hon members sitting here each has at least ten of the things in his pocket.

But they have money as well!

As I know some of these hon members, they are going to abuse their many credit cards. [Interjections.] These men are going to land in trouble on the salaries they earn. [Interjections.] That is why I want to say this plastic money is manna to the irresponsible consumer. I assume it is not practicable but we shall have to consider central credit archives very seriously for this country to protect people against themselves. There was a recommendation in the standing committee that the circumstances of commission and interest on credit card debt should be investigated in toto. I am very grateful that the hon the Minister said at the conclusion of his introductory speech that he would attend to that. I wish to ask the hon the Minister, however, to take the matter even further and investigate the entire question of the issue of credit cards and the debt our people run up in consequence.

A second matter to which I should like to refer is reasonably technical but I should very much like to draw members’ attention to it. The removal from the definition of money-lending transactions as defined in the Act, of transactions in which immovable property is sold and in which the final payment of the purchase price takes place on registration is to be welcomed. In my opinion this leads to a clearer demarcation of the difference between the purchase transaction as such and the normal, attendant mortgage transaction. This deals with the sale of immovable property. This clearer definition assists in eliminating confusion which exists especially among purchasers and in making them aware under what precise heads their obligations of payment arise on the purchase of fixed property. In particular the generally prevailing confusion between the so-called possessory interest and finance charges will be eliminated.

I also wish to make a third point. The current wording in section 2 contains identical subsequent references that a credit grantor or a lessor shall not stipulate for, demand or receive finance charges at an annual finance charge rate in excess of the percentage as prescribed from time to time. I do not find this absolutely clear and I should appreciate clarification on this from the hon the Minister or the officials. The problem arising from this wording lies in the fact that it would appear that the statutorily prescribed rate also affects transactions from time to time which were negotiated at rates at a stage when the maximum rate for the relevant transaction was in excess of the subsequently announced rate. A transaction is concluded for instance at an interest rate of 30% at a stage when the maximum permissible rate for that category of transaction amounts to 32%. Then it is quite in order. During the course of that transaction, however, the maximum permissible rate for the identical category of transaction is decreased to 24%. It would therefore appear that the decrease in such a case would also apply to existing transactions. This poses financial institutions with the problem that the validity of retrospectiveness is in doubt as existing rights are affected by it. It is also contrary to the existing principle of the interpretation of statutes. I should appreciate the hon the Minister’s providing clarification on that point as it is of paramount importance to the financial world.

A fourth aspect on which I want to concentrate is the proposed name of the Act and the hon member for Edenvale also referred to this. The original name of the Act is very long, namely in Afrikaans “Wet op die Beperking en Bekendmaking van Finansieringskoste”. It is actually better known in English as the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act. It is generally termed Ladofca in the financial world. People speak of transactions within and outside Ladofca. For the first time since joining Parliament I am speaking on behalf of the minority. There was a feeling in the standing committee—which was adopted by a majority decision—that the name of the Act should now revert from Ladofca to the original name, in Afrikaans “Woekerwet” and in English it is known as the “Usury Act”. I wish to say to hon members that, although this name of Ladofca is long, it is actually a most descriptive one because it describes precisely what the Act is about, namely the limitation and disclosure of finance charges.

In conclusion I wish to state my interests to the Minister and inform him of my concern about them. I am concerned about the effect this name will have on the image of the financial world.

The Afrikaans word “woeker” has a totally different meaning from the English “usury”. The Afrikaans “woeker” means to be zealous and one should like all of us in this House actually to be zealous. To have the name of the Act revert to “Woekerwet”, however, and in so doing almost create the impression that all financial institutions do nothing but levy usurious profits worries me. Nevertheless this is only a personal thought. I take great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mnr Speaker, I am not as fortunate as the hon member for Paarl who has a number of people in front of him.

I am sitting here with three rows of benches in front of me on which are only three people. Nevertheless I shall address the empty benches. [Interjections.] I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Paarl who raised a number of matters I do not wish to repeat. I shall get to the name of the Act.

Firstly, I wish to bring it to the attention of the House that we met in Pretoria in November to discuss this legislation. We had the amended Bill in our hands but not one of us had this red book containing the old Act. The hon member for Yeoville cast about and attempted borrowing one at the Union Buildings. He obtained one from the Department of Foreign Affairs but it was not current. The only copy of the Act we had there was that belonging to the officials. We cannot make laws in South Africa in this way.

We meet in Pretoria during the recess and when we are away from here we do not have any of the original Acts with us. We therefore have to struggle there to take turns at borrowing the Acts from the officials. That is the farce of this new dispensation that we have to act in this way and I think the Government should investigate it. If we have to proceed in this way, we can err and not produce any proper, significant legislation. We cannot all fly to Cape Town to fetch the information here and then return.

As regards this Bill, I should like to comment on one point and that is the disclosure of finance costs. It is a fact that when one has dealings with the business world by means of some contract or other to be signed, whether it is a life assurance contract or any other, there is always fine print on the document concerned. This fine print is of such a nature that one actually requires a magnifying glass to be able to read it and that is not fair to anyone in this country and especially not toward older people whose sight is no longer so sharp. Even in the case of the younger generation, although they may be able to read and decipher it, they do not have the time to sit and peruse it because it contains a wealth of detail. This is something which should be investigated in the disclosure of finance charges. It should appear obviously and clearly in decent print. One also sometimes finds in cases in which printing is in different coloured inks that, although the print is not too small, the colour of the ink causes the text to be semiillegible. It would be preferable to print it all in black but in a manner that one is able to read it properly.

I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Paarl as regards the name of the legislation. I think we should change the name back to the “Usury Act” or “Woekerwinswet”. If the names “Usury Act” or “Woekerwinswet” applied, the consumer would be more at ease because he would know it called for careful examination. On the other hand the businessman, or whoever, wants to put his money to use; he wants to make a profit; he wants to make money. He does not mind how, when or where this happens. Without being dishonest he simply wants to make money.

I say the man who has to pay should also be made aware that he should be careful. If any couple goes to buy furniture when they start setting up house, they buy by hire-purchase or something similar. The man who becomes entangled in financial problems borrows money. When such a person encounters problems and is in dire straits, he is inclined to give in and buy, thinking he will be able to keep his head above water later. The interests of the consumer definitely require more watching.

In examining this Bill, I find it good from the point of view of the businessman and of those who lend money, such as a bank or building society. If I range myself with the consumer, however, I say one should be careful because the consumer may be involved in a situation over which he may possibly lose control. Consequently I am pleased that clause 4 provides that under all circumstances the consumer should be furnished with more information on the nature of the agreements he is entering into.

There are a few other matters one should examine. I am thinking for instance of ledger fees dealt with in clause 1(b). The question of credit cards is also involved here. A few years ago I read a booklet dealing with credit cards. This has actually come a long way—from the vicinity of Moscow. Ultimately one will only be a number in this world. This is already the case with these credit cards in which everything works by numbers. It has come to the pass that one may sit at home and order goods by radio, television or whatever, merely on the strength of a number and then have them delivered to one’s house.

This recalls the story doing the rounds during the Second World War that the Germans had become so clever that, if they telephoned one, wherever it was in the world, they could shoot one.

Matters have gone so far that everything will ultimately work purely on the basis of a number. I think every person wishes to avoid having everything work merely by numbers. Many people will sacrifice their identity and personality through this.

In the memorandum on the objects of the Bill the following is said about clause 2:

In this respect I wish to convey our thanks to the department and to the Registrar of Financial Institutions for the trouble they took and for the way in which this legislation was handled. Whether it concerned the interests of businessmen, banking institutions or organised trade and industry, or those of the consumer, the impression I gained of the entire discussion was that thorough consultation had been conducted with all parties. Representatives of these departments even sometimes opposed amendments the standing committee considered introducing. This convinced me that thorough work had been done from that side. I think I am speaking on behalf of all in this House in expressing my thanks for the service rendered there.

Nevertheless I also want to tell the hon the Minister now that, where he will have to use his discretion, he will have to take care that it is based on a thorough, well-deliberated and well-considered opinion in all respects.

But that is always the case.

No, it was not the case in this Budget. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member why he is speaking such a long time about nothing again? [Interjections.]

I am speaking about this because this Bill is important and, secondly, because I do not think there is other legislation pressing us so that I have to abbreviate my speech. I have 30 minutes’ time although I shall not avail myself of the entire 30 minutes. [Interjections.]

I also wish to refer to clause 6 of the Bill. This includes the levying of certain additional fees in cases in which fees not levied before may now also inter alia be levied for services rendered as contemplated in section 2(H)(b). Abuse can take place there. When a man is on his knees and all these further fees may be recovered from a person who cannot pay, this could lead to abuse. There is no indication in this of the degree to which it may be limited.

I have no proposal to make in this regard but am nevertheless concerned. Someone who wishes to sell his soul and see only how much money he can extract out of such a person could recover the money ad infinitum or to such a degree that it would be unfair. This concerns me somewhat. I have no proposal in this regard but I hope the hon the Minister can examine it again in the future if it cannot be done now. Further, we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the hon member for Sunnyside, and I am sure he will agree with me that in our deliberations in the Standing Committee on Finance we were able to obtain a very diverse set of opinions and attitudes in regard to the contents of the Bill which we had to debate.

I am sure the hon member will also agree that we came up with the best decisions under the circumstances. I was therefore rather disappointed that he started off his speech by referring to the fact that when we arrived in Pretoria there were no copies of the existing Act available to us. I agree with him that this did create certain difficulties for us. We are thankful that the hon member for Yeoville was able to find a copy of the Act which enabled us to continue with our work. However, we discussed that fully in the committee, we discussed it with the officials, and it was agreed that in future that would not happen. It was the first time that this committee had ever met in Pretoria and it was just one of those little gremlins that sometimes turn up. However, I do not believe that this was the time for him to have raised that particular matter.

I am sure the hon member will agree that the way that this new legislature works, the new parliamentary system, has really opened up a new era in lawmaking in South Africa. I am sure he must agree. Firstly, this new system of standing committees gives the public direct access to the lawmakers when it comes to making new laws. This is completely new, certainly in my experience of 12 years in this House.

This system affords people from a very diverse section of our community an opportunity to discuss their problems with the lawmakers, that is the members of the committee. I think we all benefit in this regard. There is still a lot of ignorance on the part of the public about this new system. I was sitting at lunch recently with some very prominent businessmen, together with some of my colleagues, and I was rather amazed that even they—these people were in the banking sector—were not fully aware of exactly what is available to them as far as the standing committee system is concerned.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether it is not true that in the past, under the previous dispensation, we referred Bills to select committees, and that they did precisely what we are now doing in Pretoria? [Interjections.]

It is correct that a Bill could go to a select committee under the old system. However, I would like to ask the hon member—he has been here longer than I—how many Bills that came before this House in the past went to a select committee despite many requests from the Opposition for such select committees? Today every Bill concerning general affairs has to go to a standing committee. The hon member therefore must agree that there is an improvement, and he should welcome it.

I would like to come back to the people in the banking sector. They were not aware of the opportunities open to them and to the public in general under the new system. I would therefore like the media to give more attention to this and to inform the public that they now have an opportunity to go directly to the lawmakers in the standing committees on the subjects that concern them directly. It is for this reason that I consider this system to be far more democratic than the old one. I believe it leads to better lawmaking because it expands the public’s rights and it creates opportunities for them to contribute directly to the lawmaking system.

I believe that the new system has also achieved a second objective in that it has brought about greater consensus among lawmakers. Let us face it, Sir, we now have three Chambers and many parties, and this new system has certainly led to the achievement of greater consensus than was achieved in the past.

As I have said, the Bill before us generated tremendous discussion within the standing committee. As we know, the principal Act is the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act and it concerns one of the most important problems which the average member of the public has to deal with in his everyday commercial life, namely his rights and his protection when he obtains credit. Whether it is simple credit that he is granted by means of his plastic credit card— we heard about this earlier—or whether it is credit in the purchase of a motorcar or even a home, his rights and protection remain very important concerns of the man in the street. This Act contains provisions in respect of the lending of money, the repayment of money borrowed, and the interest on the principal amount borrowed.

This brings me to another question I should like to raise, namely the name of the Act. My colleague, the hon member for Paarl, mentioned that as far as the title clause of the Bill is concerned the standing committee agreed to change the name of the Act to the Usury Act. I must say that after listening to the debate in the standing committee I realised that the matters we were discussing—matters concerning money transactions—had a very long history. They go right back to biblical times even before the birth of Christ. When one thinks about the history of moneylending, one realises that moneylending has both good aspects and also some very bad aspects about it. In fact, way back in biblical times and also now, in present times, the term that was used when reference was made to this matter of the lending and borrowing of money and the charging of interest was the word “usury.” In the past, this word was fully understood by the ordinary man in the street. I regret to say, however, that the people of this modern age—perhaps it is because of our changed circumstances—have forgotten what the word “usury” means. So I went to the library and looked up the definition of it. The source I used defines “usury” as:

Perhaps that is why it was so important in the minds of our fathers and certainly our grandfathers that the practice of usury was something people had to be wary about. Not only was it against the law but it was against their religious laws as well. So I again consulted a work in the library where I found a very good encyclopaedia on religious terminology. I quote from one of these references where it says:

In another reference, this is taken further. I quote:

I think it behoves all of us to look back at the historical connotation of the word “usury”. I think those hon members here who sit on that committee will agree with me that when we were discussing this matter with members of the other Houses such as the House of Delegates, some of their members felt very strongly about the use of the word “usury”. I believe the Muslims today do not believe in the taking of interest on loans. In fact there is a bank in Natal where no interest at all is charged.

What is its name?

The name escapes me for the moment but it may be the Islamic Bank or the Muslim Bank or something else. Perhaps the hon member can help me. Is he not perhaps aware of it? However, there is a bank in Natal operated by the Muslim community where they do not charge interest. The hon members who are interested in banking should perhaps study their methods of conducting their business.

However, listening to the discussions in the committee I decided when the subject of the name of the Act came up that I was in agreement with them that perhaps we should get back to the old terminology of “usury”. I am prepared to concede that in today’s commercial world with all its very sophisticated money markets, with our modern forms of currency such as the computerised credit cards of which we have already heard and bank transfers and also the need for ready money in order to keep the wheels of industry and commerce turning, society has to have these things and has evolved a very complicated matrix of systems, arrangements, agreements, etc. The existing title of the Act—the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act—as the hon member for Paarl has said, is an all-embracing one but, having said that, I do believe that in changing the title from the old Usury Act to the present one, we may have lost sight of the real meaning of “usury” and society’s responsibility one to the other in terms of our historical and our religious backgrounds. For this reason and taking into consideration the attitudes of hon members of the other Houses, I agreed to support the title Usury Act as opposed to my colleague who wanted it to be changed to just the “Finance Charges Act”.

As has been said, this is a technical Bill but both this Bill and Act are there to protect the public. I believe the public of South Africa are very ignorant of their rights and their protections in many cases. There are many lambs who are led to the slaughter in the moneylending game and we heard much about this in the standing committee.

Clause 4 amends the Act to give greater clarity to the public’s rights whenever they borrow money. In brief, this clause provides that if a person goes to any business or an agent of a business and he wants to borrow money, he can demand that that agent, before the conclusion of any moneylending transaction in connection with finance charges that are or will be payable, furnish separately and distinctly in writing the terms of the transaction. Too many members of the public enter into agreements only to find afterwards that they were not given copies of the details of their transactions in writing.

I believe these technical amendments are good and they are there to protect the public and therefore I, like my hon colleagues on the standing committee, am only too pleased to support this measure.

Mr Speaker, we will be supporting this Bill because we believe that any Bill that protects the public against usurers etc is a sound measure. As the hon member for Sunnyside said, there are too many instances of not reading or being able to see the small print. This Bill does to a very large degree clarify the situation and make sure that people get a little more protection. Nobody can of course protect a fool from himself but, regardless of that, the Bill does assist to some degree.

As has been indicated by my hon colleagues in the other parties it is a more or less omnibus Bill covering a variety of clauses. I believe that this being the case there is not much point in my going over it again as other hon members have already done so.

There is one point that was made at some length by the hon member for Paarl that I would also like to take up. It is in respect of credit cards. As I said earlier, one cannot protect a fool from himself, and these credit cards that are so freely issued by so many institutions are creating fools who perhaps need to be protected even more than is the case in this particular Bill.

To start with I believe one of the effects of these credit cards is very similar to that of printing new money and getting too much money into circulation. People can use them strictly for credit purposes and get long-term credit for up to 18 months for the repaying of their accounts. It is fair enough if this is for the purchase of durable goods such as stoves, fridges and the like—there may be some advantage in it. I do know, however, that a number of people are using this credit card system for the buying of food. This is not a very clever thing to do; it is extremely bad housekeeping and I believe it is also highly inflationary.

In this House we everlastingly attack the Government when they put up the price of GST by 1%, 2% or 3%, and I join in the happy cacophony in opposing them in this regard. The people themselves, however, place themselves in a position where they pay very heavy percentages above and beyond even GST by getting credit on comestibles. I feel that people should be warned against this because not only do the issuers of the credit cards get their discount from the people who supply the goods but one also has the situation where they probably charge the heaviest rate of interest possible on any outstanding balances at the end of each month. [Interjections.] You know, Sir, there are such polite and charming people over there that I really wonder how they can bear to be in this House with us ordinary mortals! [Interjections.] They are shouting and screaming at one another when others are speaking—the height of good manners!

This is the situation with the credit card business and I really believe the public should be warned about these credit cards. The issuing of them has to a large degree in the past taken place even without any initial payment. I believe the initial issue of a credit card should be by payment for the card so that people know what they are letting themselves in for. There are certain credit card issuers that do charge fairly substantial fees but the comical part is that these credit cards are generally not used for obtaining credit. They are convenience cards. I refer particularly to a card like Diners where they charge perhaps R30 a year. I am not sure of the exact amount but it is something of that order. The person who has one of those cards has to pay that amount, and he knows that he is paying for a facility. That facility is not to obtain credit but for the convenience of not having to carry a great deal of money around all the time. The holder can also get a very substantial sum of money. It is, however, unfortunate that no charge is made for the issue of credit cards and I believe that it should not only be permissible but mandatory to charge for them. Applicants should have to fill in a form stating their credit situation so that it is known that they can, in fact, pay. Some people who have these cards renege on their payments. As a consequence, debts are incurred against the credit card issuer who then starts jacking up his interest rates so that the good payers have to pay for the bad payers. If the applicant had to pay for his card and be given a credit rating or status, it would help considerably.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti made a very big issue of the word “usury”. I believe that “usury” is the description of the ancient practice of moneylending. It is perfectly true that, according to Mosaic Law, it was considered sinful to charge one’s brethren interest but it was not considered sinful to charge anybody else interest at whatever rate one could get. As a consequence, one particular community in Shakespeare’s time built up quite a reputation in this regard. As a matter of interest, this community was very largely detested because of its moneylending activities and they were referred to as usurers. I like the old Shakespearean quotation which reads: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be, for lending oft both loses self and friend”. I hope I have helped the hon member for Amanzimtoti out with his librarian tactics! “Usury” is an old word which is virtually internationally understood. I am strongly in favour of retaining the use of that word.

Generally, we believe that the amendments contained in this particular Bill will offer the public protection, and so we support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, we have a very interesting Bill before us. Ons should actually view it in conjunction with the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, 1968. This Act protects the public against exploitation and misrepresentation. In terms of the principal Act all forms of the provision of credit—money-lending transactions, credit transactions, leasing transactions, credit cards and so on are included here to an amount of less than R50 000. This applies especially as regards finance charges levied. Now we get to the question of a name. Is it usury or what is it? Is a usurious profit being made or not? If one views the principal Act in conjunction with this Bill, the question arises whether we really require such an Act or Bill because the latest fashion is to promote the idea of a free market.

Under the NP Government of 1926 an Act was passed for the first time to protect the consumer against usurious profit. Now it is the NP Government again which is expanding further on this legislation to protect the consumer against excessive finance charges.

It is interesting that this Bill also provides for the cession to banks of the rights of a supplier in cases in which credit cards are used because there was a certain lack of clarity on this. Americans are currently much troubled by exploitation in the case of credit cards. They have no such federal Act against this and therefore one finds that the finance charges of credit cards have risen although the American government has reduced interest rates. In 1984 the amount spent on purchases by credit card in America exceeded $200 billion. Thirty per cent of people using credit cards had to pay interest on their credit. The amount of interest in the case of people exceeding their credit period amounted to $8,6 billion. Nevertheless we have had an Act here since 1926 protecting our public against exploitation whereas the federal government of the USA only now wants to introduce legislation in its Senate and its Congress to protect the public against this problem.

In examining the principal Act and the amendment, one should always bear in mind that we are dealing with contracts here. A contract is drawn up for everyone borrowing money or entering into a lease. Most of us have no knowledge of contractual law and this means that, if the purchaser is not given good information—this is the crux of the principal Act and of the Bill—so that he may establish what the influence of finance charges and interest will be on his instalments, abuse can take place. In addition we should remember that the one borrowing money is always in a weaker position of power than the credit grantor. Someone borrowing is a supplicant and therefore it is easy for the credit grantor to break the law. Consequently the principal Act and the amendment today demand that a credit grantor must make the facts known so that the consumer knows exactly where he stands with his instalments and his finance charges.

At the moment we are a country using credit on a large scale and there are also Third-World people purchasing increasingly on credit. Financial institutions are becoming more and more actively involved in the furnishing of credit. There is strong competition among them as it is profitable and in consequence they are continually searching out new techniques. A supplier can cede his rights to a bank. This is a new technique being used. That is why the principal Act of 1968 should be modified regularly so that suitable changes may be introduced. In future we shall have to introduce changes again. Although there is wide scope, we are continually encountering new practices and it is the Government’s function to protect the consumer.

In looking at the principal Act and the amendments, we should be very careful that we do not use them for monetary policy. I wish to mention this here because people in the business world have often gained the impression that the principal Act, with its maximum rates, is not only used to protect the consumer but also to execute monetary policy. It is very important that the difference between the maximum bank rate in the trade and that to be paid by the consumer should differ by a considerable margin. It has happened so often over the past few years since our floating or variable interest rates were introduced that the maximum rate and the bank rate have almost been the same. This has made life exceptionally difficult for financial institutions. On the other hand we should be careful that the gap is not too great because one then creates the possibility of exploitation of the credit grantor. Consequently, just as we have to amend the principal Act continually, we should continually adjust the fixing of the maximum rate to economic conditions. These amendments form part of the process of protecting the consumer and we can do no other than support them.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank hon members of the respective parties very much for their support of this measure. I also owe a word of thanks to hon members for the very interesting way in which they conducted the discussion concerned. An otherwise dry, technical piece of legislation was today subjected to the sort of light which made it worthwhile to take note of it. It will probably be very stimulating to take the discussion further at a later occasion and to review these speeches.

†Mr Speaker, the hon member for Edenvale apologised for his absence as he had a commitment that he could not postpone. In his absence I wish to thank him for his contribution. The same applies particularly for the hon member for Umbilo who gave his support for this measure. While I am referring to this hon member, I should like to comment on some of his very pertinent remarks.

He made some very interesting comments with regard to the possibility of mandatory levies on the occasion of issuing credit cards. I think these ideas can be discussed very constructively on the appropriate occasion by the Standing Committee on Finance. It can certainly contribute towards the exercising of a greater degree of responsibility with regard to the use of credit cards. The moment a card is used as an instrument of credit rather than an instrument of convenience it acquires a completely different connotation.

I must, however, tell the hon member that the experience of the large credit card operators in South Africa has been that bad debts in South Africa have so far been virtually negligible. Therefore, whatever measures one considers by way of a further amendment to this particular aspect of the Act, will have to be formulated against the background of factual information having been obtained from the major operators in the market itself. I certainly think, however, that the hon member’s ideas warrant further discussion.

*I should like to refer briefly to a few matters raised by the hon member for Sunnyside. I certainly want to tell him I do not believe he can call the system a farce because of a small administrative problem. I think he will concede this is an exaggerated term. I think he will also agree that one should consider that the Standing Committee on Finance has done exceptionally fruitful work up to the present and that it still has to develop a modus operandi for itself as regards its activities during the recess. In other words it has to create a totally new culture for itself. I believe he will also concede that such a matter usually has teething troubles. To call it a farce in consequence of this, however, is a little exaggerated to my mind and I think the hon member would do well to review that term of his.

The hon member raised a point to which I wish to refer very briefly. If I heard him correctly, he had read a book which referred to the fear that a person would now become merely a cipher and that this book was connected with Moscow. I am no expert on consumer spending patterns in Moscow but I doubt very much whether there are credit cards there. Consequently to let the suggestion linger that this entire question of numbers—that a person is now becoming a numer—is linked either to a great conspiracy or a hidden danger of communism is really outrageous to my mind.

One of our children once attended a camp arranged by the Education Department. A CP supporter was present on that occasion as a teacher. She told the children that the bars one finds on products nowadays were the sign of the Beast and that this evil Government was enforcing this. [Interjections.] This links up with the 666 idea of the hon member for Waterberg. I want to say just this: Anyone who reads anything sinister into the fact that credit cards work by numbers or into the fact that bars appear on products knows nothing about modern technology. Further I really think that anyone who is afraid of it or reads anything into it other than merely good, modern administration, should have himself analysed because there is something wrong somewhere. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterberg is free to rise and to put a decent question if he wishes. Does the hon member wish to put a question? I am prepared to give him the opportunity.

All I want to say is that it also applies to the Nats.

Oh, but of course!

I have not yet heard of a single Nationalist with an idea in his head about a great conspiracy and of trilateral commissions and all such kinds of nonsense. I do not know such people but I know of many people supporting the CP who have been bitten by this bug. [Interjections.] Let me say just this: The hon member for Sunnyside should make a point of familiarising himself with the electronic funds transfer system idea which is decades old already. We can say what we like about credit cards; we can say they perhaps create too much debt but that is not true in South Africa. We may say they are starting to dominate trade but that is not true either. As I recall, they form a small omissible percentage of all trade. There is one fact we cannot argue away, however, and that is the improved form of credit and transaction handling as compared with what is possible by hand. If one has an on-line system, inserts one’s card and withdraws money, it is an immediate electronic transaction which can be programmed thousands of kilometres from one and the transaction is over.

This cannot be done with names which is why a credit card has a number. It is not my number, however; it is the number of the credit card and I am not afraid of a number! [Interjections.] Goodness! My date of birth is a number! My children also have numbers—one, two, three and four. [Interjections.] No, I am not prepared to develop a fear or in any way to bear in mind that type of argument about numbers or whatever when legislation like this is involved.

I should like to complete the little story I started a while back so that we may have clarity on it once and for all. If there is any teacher, male or female, who still harbours the thought in the Transvaal or elsewhere that the bars appearing on a product have anything to do with the mark of the Beast, a communist onslaught or a conspiracy of the Trilateral Commission, we want to remind those people that one of the greatest problems one has is inventory control. If those bars appear on a product and one draws a bar code reader over them, the figure is fed into the computer with complete accuracy and an immediate adjustment is made to the position of one’s inventories. One actually obtains an automatic generation of new orders from one’s computer system if inventory control is carried out in that way and it indicates that one has reached critical levels of inventories. The technological age, including numbers and bars on products, is here to make the world very much easier for us.

His telephone and his motorcar also have numbers.

That is right. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has reminded me that our motorcars and telephones have numbers. These things can no longer work with names because I am certain there are many J J B Van Zyls in South Africa for instance and one does perhaps not want to be taken for the other. [Interjections.]

The hon member mentioned we would all end up with numbers. I can think of quite a few chaps qualifying for the number nought! [Interjections.]

And you for 007! [Interjections.]

I want to say, however, I thank the hon member for Sunnyside for the way in which he supported this Bill and for his exposition of it—I appreciate this.

The hon member for Paarl referred to a few matters. I am pleased he is a democrat and that he can take a hiding because I think the name “Usury Act” is here to stay this time. When the recommendation in this regard came from the standing committee, I therefore declared myself prepared to support the name change.

The hon member put a very pertinent question to me. He asked whether the passing of this legislation now meant that existing transactions would be affected as regards interest rates if such rates showed a declining tendency. The reply to this is no. Existing transactions entered into on the basis of a higher interest rate pattern remain in force even after those interest rates have fallen.

†I just want to refer very briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Amanzimtoti. I think he made a very pertinent point. While in the past the select committee system was used, I fully support him in his observation that it was used very seldom. In fact, I can recall only very few occasions on which it was used insofar as financially oriented legislation was concerned. However, the fact that the public and all interested parties now have direct access to the details of every Bill that comes before Parliament, is to my mind a dramatic extension of democracy and I do believe it makes for better legislation. I thank the hon member for having pointed that out so particularly.

In conclusion I should like to refer to a misconception which prevails in the minds of the public. Often, when people enter into contracts, when the interests rates controlled by this particular piece of legislation come into the equation, consumers are told that it is the Government rate and that one has to pay this particular very high rate. I want to deny emphatically that there is any compulsion on any dealer of any kind to charge the rates mentioned by way of regulation or by way of the Act itself. The fact is that those are maximum rates.

*We should request our media, who assert in their columns and reporting that they wish to protect the consumer, to assist us in actually making the consumer understand that he does not have to pay this maximum percentage. In fact, it is his duty as a consumer to state that he will not accept it and that he is going to shop around for a lower rate elsewhere. That is the culture of competition. If consumers were prepared to adopt that standpoint, in spite of the fact that they are in a weaker position as indicated by the hon member for Waterkloof, we would find that the market mechanism would also function properly there. We would then see lower rates in contracts than the maximum prescribed.

In conclusion I should like to thank the hon member for Waterkloof for his exposition. I wish to mention to him in particular that I absolutely support what he said, which was that the gap between prevailing rates and those of Ladofca or the current usury rates should not become too great and that those rates should be adjusted more dynamically in order to follow the pattern of interest rates. The truth is unfortunately that we are living in a time in which interest rates fluctuate. I wish it could be otherwise but that is the world in which we live. In consequence of various new developments a greater measure of stability may follow worldwide which will broaden one’s horizons and place one in a better position to plan ahead. Until such time as this occurs and we have to live with fluctuating interest rates as regards banking, we shall also have to adjust the usury rates more dynamically. I thank the hon member for that point of view. I think I have replied to most questions, or hopefully the most important, and I take pleasure in thanking hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

1. 1. On page 7, from line 13, to omit paragraph (d) and to substitute:
2. (d)
   1. (i) to omit subparagraph (ddd) of paragraph (a)(iii)(aa) of the definition of “principal debt”;
   2. (ii) to omit the word “or” after sub-paragraph (ee) and by the addition to the said definition of the following subparagraphs:
      • “(ff) the costs actually paid by the money-lender to a person who practises as an attorney on his own account or as a partner in a firm of attorneys or as a member of a professional company in respect of the preparation of the documents, including the instrument of debt in question and other documents for the security of the loan, embodying the money-lending transaction in question;
      • “(gg) where the money loan is not wholly or partly secured by a mortgage bond over immovable property or a notarial bond over movable property, the taxes, charges, fees and premiums of the kind referred to in subparagraphs (a)(iii)(aa)(bbb) and (ccc) relating to the property which is the subject of the money loan and which were actually paid or are to be paid by the money-lender on behalf of the borrower; or”;
   3. (iii) by the substitution for subparagraph (ff) of paragraph (b)(iv) of the definition of “principal debt” of the following subparagraph:
      • “(ff) the costs actually paid by the credit grantor to a person who practises as an attorney on his own account or as a partner in a firm of attorneys or as a member of a professional company in respect of the preparation of the documents, including the instrument of debt in question and other documents for the security of the debt, embodying the credit transaction in question; or”; and
   4. (iv) by the substitution for subparagraph (ff) of paragraph (c)(iii) of the definition of “principal debt” of the following subparagraph:
      • “(ff) the costs actually paid by the lessor to a person who practises as an attorney on his own account or as a partner in a firm of attorneys or as a member of a professional company in respect of the preparation of the documents, including the instrument of debt in question and other documents for the security of the debt, embodying the leasing transaction in question;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the National Parks Act, No 57 of 1976 at present makes provision for the proclamation of two categories of national parks. Parks in the first category are those parks in which no prospecting or mining of any nature whatsoever may be undertaken. Such parks or parts thereof may not be deproclaimed without the permission of Parliament. In the case of the second category, an agreement is entered into with the owner, in terms of which other activities which may include prospecting and exploitation of minerals may actually take place. At present there are certain obstacles to the declaration of certain State land as a national park in either of the two categories.

Clause 3 of the Bill now makes provision for this, with the concurrence of other hon Ministers concerned. In this and other proposed amendments, provision is specifically made for comment by the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs where the issue of mineral rights or the possible exploitation of minerals are relevant. The legal position at present is that the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs may inter alia give State land situated outside a park, in exchange for private land for purposes of a park.

Clause 4 of the Bill envisages improving the situation as such. An exchange will henceforth only be possible with the concurrence of the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, thus giving the latter the opportunity to investigate the possible mineralisation of the land prior to the exchange taking place.

The powers and functions of the National Parks Board of Trustees in respect of State land which has been declared as a national park and on which no prospecting or mining may take place, are at present exercised in terms of section 12 of the Act. With a view to the extension of the provision for the establishment of parks as envisaged in Clause 3, it is necessary that the Board exercises its powers and functions in respect of these particular parks, with due observance, of and subject to, the legislation applicable to the nature reserves, wilderness areas or lake areas concerned, as well as the provisions of an agreement in terms of which an owner makes his land available for the purposes of a park. Clause 7 envisages amending the position accordingly.

Section 12A of the Act provides that land can only be acquired for the purposes of a park. The amendment proposed in clause 8 will make it possible for mineral rights also to be acquired for this particular purpose. At present land can only be acquired for the purposes of a park by way of the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund. With the proposed amendment of the Act it will also be possible to acquire mineral rights with money from the Fund.

Money paid over to the Director-General: Public Works and Land Affairs by the Board, for these purposes, is deposited in the State Revenue Fund, and unless there is specific budgeting for this purpose, problems are experienced in obtaining funds. As the Fund has been established for the specific purpose of acquiring land for the purpose of a national park, the amendment contained in clause 8 envisages granting the hon the Minister concerned the power to apply the money, on transfer, for the proposed acquisition of land or mineral rights for the purposes of the park. The effect of this is that it will not be necessary to budget specifically for such acquisition, as the money for the acquisition for these purposes will be available from the Fund itself.

In terms of section 18 of the Act, the National Parks Board of Trustees is exempted from rates or taxes on land or buildings situated within a park, which is vested in the State and occupied by the board or an officer or an employee. With a view to the acquisition of land by means of an agreement, the provision is amended by clause 10 so as to likewise exempt the owner of such land from rates and taxes in respect of land made available by him for the purposes of a park and which is not utilised by him. The right of entry into a park, to reside therein and to commit certain acts is provided for in section 21 of the Act. Problems could possibly be encountered in this regard in future because if the owner makes his land available for the purposes of a park, he may find himself in the position where he is legally restricted in respect of certain acts on his own land. In order to obviate this problem, clause 12 makes provision for the owner to protect his rights in this regard.

Mr Chairman, that broadly outlines the measure and all that it implies.

Mr Speaker, prior to its being tabled in the House and since it was submitted last November to the standing committee, this Bill has had a somewhat chequered career. I regret raising this matter Sir, but I think it important that it be placed on record that it was necessary to amend the original Bill in a fairly drastic way to correct a mistake which would have amended the Act in such a way that, as I understood it, it would have made it possible to mine in a Schedule I national park; that is, the purest form of national park such as the Kruger National Park. It is a little disturbing that such mistaken drafting could have slipped through the initial legal discussions and stages. Nevertheless, I am thankful to the department for having identified the problem and corrected it forthwith.

The second problem which arose in connection with the Bill was the fact that provision was made in terms of clause 3—more specifically in terms of the proposed section 2A(b)—and clause 7(a)—specifically, the substituted subsection (2)(c)—for a wilderness area presently protected under the Forest Act to be summarily taken over by the Parks Board by way of unilateral notice in the Government Gazette. The scrapping of that proposal also represents a somewhat narrow escape for conservation interests. Again, I regret to have to say that it is disturbing that the matter should have gone so far that it now requires to be amended by two last-minute amendments by the hon the Minister himself. I hope, therefore, that the hon the Minister will give us some assurance that future drafting will be somewhat better controlled and monitored before Bills are submitted to the standing committee. It is unnerving that two crucial environmental protections, namely the protection of wilderness areas and the prohibition of mining in a Schedule I national park, should come so close to being undermined by legislation as they were by this piece of legislation in its original form.

Having said that, I take the opportunity to welcome the fact that the hon the Minister has submitted two amendments to clauses 3 and 7 as reflected on the Order Paper. We on this side of the House will naturally support those two amendments. We are pleased that he has reacted timeously to the appeals submitted to him by various bodies, including the Botanical Society of South Africa and the Mountain Club, in regard to this matter. [Interjections.]

There are a number of clauses in this Bill to which I should briefly like to refer. Clause 3, which provides for the ministerial declaration of certain land as a national park, with the concurrence of other Ministers, is a development we welcome. There is, however, one matter on which I should like to get the hon the Minister’s assurance. It concerns the fact that, prior to the setting aside of land for national parks in terms of this clause the hon the Minister is now required to refer to any other Minister who may have an interest from the point of view of that Minister’s department in the land proposed to be set aside.

This requirement for prior consultation raises the possibility of an undue number of obstacles being placed in the way of the declaration of future parks. According to what test or tests could the Minister of another department have the right to place a stumbling-block in the way of a declaration of a future park? On what grounds, I must ask, will another Minister of another department be able to claim that he has a special potential future interest in a particular piece of land and thereby forestall its being declared a national park? After all, almost every State department has a potential interest in land. For example, the Departments of Housing, Agriculture, Public Works, Defence, Police and many departments in the other Houses as well, could, by some stretch of the imagination, claim potential interest in an enormous amount of land in South Africa. I should therefore like the hon the Minister’s assurance that this is not going to be a retrograde step whereby it becomes more problematical to surmount certain obstacles so that land can be set aside for new national parks.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides that State land situated outside of a park can be given in exchange for private land for purposes of a park, and this at face value seems to be a powerful provision which will give the hon the Minister a great deal of flexibility in what one might call wheeling and dealing with private owners with a view to creating new national parks.

In this connection, bearing in mind the history of certain parts of the Cape Peninsula, I would like to ask the hon the Minister to consider using the powers that he seems to gain under this clause, as I understand it, to set aside the Table Mountain Nature Area to include Sandy Bay and other private land within the Table Mountain and Peninsula Mountain Chain Nature Area as a new register national park. In terms of this clause he would seem to have the power to do some horsetrading with owners of private land within a nature area with a view to adequate compensation for taking over their land for such a national park. In the case of Sandy Bay in particular, which has been the subject of considerable controversy before in this House, this clause seems to give the hon the Minister together with his hon colleagues in the Departments of Communications and of Public Works, and Mineral and Energy Affairs the power to offer certain State land outside the area to the owners of land within the area in exchange for their land. In such circumstances, provided that this is all done aboveboard with independent valuators and under public scrutiny, we would in principle support the concept of some horsetrading to create an inviolable Table Mountain National Park which will include Sandy Bay, and we would support the principle of adequate compensation for the owners affected. Incidentally, should this involve the exchange of other State land in some areas— Robben Island is an example which comes to mind because it has been the subject of discussion in this particular connection—provided it is subject to the test of fair valuation in public, in principle I would be inclined to support that exchange. It is high time that Robben Island was used as a national asset in a positive and constructive way for the benefit of the South African public at large and as a major potential tourist attraction. It is high time that the dismal penal history of Robben Island was consigned to the history books.

The next clause I want to refer to, clause 7, concerns the exercise of the board’s powers and functions within a national park. This has caused some concern to certain elements in the conservation community—I refer specifically to the animal welfare interests—in that the provision of oceanariums in a national park could raise the possibility of using dolphins in confined artificial circumstances. I would like the hon the Minister please to advise the House what he particularly has in mind by including oceanariums in a national park in this particular instance.

I have received a letter from the Cape of Good Hope SPCA in this connection and I would just like to refer to some of the elements of the letter. I quote:

In another part of the letter they say:

They end their letter with:

I would like the hon the Minister to react to that point of oceanariums.

Clause 8 provides for the possibility of acquiring mineral rights as well as land through the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund, and that we will support happily, but I would like to come back to the issue of the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund towards the end of my speech.

Clause 10 provides for tax concessions to private owners of land who agree to their land being used for a national park, and we support wholeheartedly the principle of using tax concessions to encourage the setting aside of land and in general to encourage environmentalism and conservation across a wide front. We believe that this is a positive innovation which should be made more use of in promoting environmental objectives, as I have said before in this House.

In general this side of the House will be supporting this Bill and we will support the amendments to be moved at the Committee Stage. Having said that, however, I would like to touch on two elements of criticism which I would like to take the opportunity to raise in this debate.

Firstly, I would like to lend support to the view expressed by the Botanical Society of South Africa in a statement issued during March on the subject of this Bill. They were particularly concerned about the provisions relating to wilderness areas. That problem has been rectified as it was affected by this particular Bill. They do say, however, and I quote them:

It is my impression that the Botanical Society and other groups interested in wilderness areas are concerned that the National Parks Act has an orientation towards the development and exploitation of land areas as opposed to the conservation and protection thereof. It is only an impression one gains, it is a question of emphasis and perception. I do feel, however, that it needs to be looked at and considered and it is worth noting that this concern has been expressed.

To the extent that this National Parks Amendment Bill presented an opportunity to revise the definition of a national park and that that opportunity has been missed, it is worth nothing that that criticism has been expressed. When a further opportunity arises for us to look at further amendments to the National Parks Act let us bear that in mind. Furthermore, when the National Strategy for Conservation Areas in South Africa which is currently being circulated by the Council for the Environment is further considered, let us pay attention to this matter at that stage.

It is my personal view that we must take positive steps beyond the position which obtains at present to protect existing and potential wilderness areas so that whole ecosystems can be properly protected in South Africa. In general I feel that we need to consolidate wilderness protection in our law as a major next step in promoting environmentalism in this country.

Another criticism that I want to express on this occasion is the extent to which land has been set aside up to now. The extent to which the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund has been utilised for its purpose of setting aside land is inadequate, to say the least. The proposal which is being made in terms of clause 8 that land plus mineral rights can be obtained by this fund is welcomed with acclamation by this side of the House.

Let us look at the history of this fund. It can be traced back to the National Parks Amendment Act, No 60 of 1979, which this side of the House supported at the time. The Bill at that time was introduced with the correct intention that money should be set aside for the creation of new parks because the introducing Minister made the point that there was a pressing need that certain parks that were too small to be viable should be expanded and consolidated. This was another case of good intentions but disappointing results.

During the past few days I tabled a question similar to the question that I tabled in 1983. I am grateful to the department for having given me their reply so promptly. It reveals, however, that the total amount of money which this fund has managed to attract through bequests, subscriptions, donations, interest and allocations to it in the seven years of its operation amounts to R712 723 which is less than three quarters of R1 million. I am extremely disappointed that during the past three years since the last amendment was introduced by the former Minister responsible for environment affairs the amount set aside has only totalled R246 282. That is hardly more than the amount collected in the single year 1981-82 which amounted to R245 849. Therefore, although the legislation was introduced with good intentions in 1979 and amended with further good intentions in 1983, it has in practice led to very little as far as the setting aside of land for conservation purposes in South Africa is concerned. One must make reference to the fact that the Karoo National Park has been acquired by means of this fund, but that cannot really be called an enormous step forward.

To the extent that this latest amending Bill is going to add teeth to the fund and help it compile a proper programme of land acquisition by giving it the right to acquire mineral rights, we heartily support it. The amount of money in the kitty is, however, the real issue. We agree on what the fund should do with the money but the problem lies in the amount it receives. We must act more vigorously and effectively in this regard.

To spur us on, let us consider the standing of South Africa in relation to other countries in the Western World and in Southern Africa. I regret to say that they put us to shame. South Africa is the richest and most well-endowed part of the subcontinent, and yet our standing could even be described as pitiful.

Let us make some comparisons. According to my statistics, Kenya sets aside 11,16% of its land for national parks. Botswana has 14% set aside, Tanzania 8,5%, Zambia almost 8% and Zimbabwe 5,7%. South Africa, on the other hand, has set aside only 2,4% for national parks. I know that provincial parks and park areas enlarge that figure somewhat, but the other countries are way ahead of us.

We in South Africa have set aside only two national parks of more than 100 000 ha. Most of the countries of the Western World put us to shame in that regard too. The United States has 16 such parks, the USSR 15, Australia 12 and Zambia 10. Japan, a small island nation, has eight national parks with an area of over 100 000 ha. These figures were provided by the Wild Life Society.

Let us also consider the fact that South Africa has 70 unique veld types within its borders which have been identified as being worthy of preservation. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources sets as a standard for conservation the setting aside of 10% of each of these unique veld types. Although they do not use the term “veld types”, we know what is being referred to. How do we measure up against this standard? Forty-three of the 70 veld types which are ours in trust to preserve for the future, ie 61%, have a conservation status of less than 1%. Only five of our veld types are conserved in accordance with the international standard of 10% or more. In this respect one must mention the fact that Oom Paul Kruger was fighting for the cause of setting aside threatened land for conservation as far back as the last century. How far have we come since then? In 1899 he set aside the area which is now known as the Kruger National Park. He fought the battle and was described as a lone voice at that time. It would seem that those making the same call at this time are still lone voices.

From 1948 to 1984 this Government, according to African Wild Life, has only set aside an average of less than 3 000 ha per annum in the form of parklands. Three thousand hectares! This compares unfavourably with the size of many private farms. It also compares unfavourably with the amount of soil that spills into the sea each year, which is the equivalent of 10 000 ha of good topsoil according to the calculations. Ten thousand hectares is flushed into the sea and we preserve less than a third of that in the form of parklands! The backlog is enormous.

When one considers the kind of money that this Government has spent acquiring land for ideological purposes, which in many cases is retrograde in terms of conservation interests, one sees the matter in its true perspective. According to programme 4 of Vote 10 of the latest Budget this Government set aside R9,52 million in the present estimates for 1986-87 for what is called area evacuation, and I quote:

This means that R9,5 million is provided in one year for the shifting of non-White people for ideological purposes, in comparison to a total of approximately R0,713 million—which is l/54th of that amount—set aside over seven years for this specific fund for the purposes of conservation!

I am criticising the Government in particular in this matter, and I exclude the department from criticism in this regard. In my experience the people in the department as such are men whose hearts are in the right place. I can even often find common cause with the hon the Minister in respect of environmental matters. I believe if they were given the money, they would use it effectively and creatively for environmental purposes. However, they do not get the money put at their disposal, and that is a criticism one must lay at the door of the Government.

In general, having said all that, we shall be supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Constantia for his support of the legislation.

For his good speech.

Yes, unfortunately you are not a good listener.

The legislation also met with a favourable reception in the standing committee. Consensus was reached there and the expectation is that the House will pass it without much trouble today. I think, however, that perhaps the hon member for Constantia is being a bit unreasonable if he is too critical towards the department, or should I rather say exclusively towards the department, because of the fact that there were various amendments after the standing committee had sat. [Interjections.] When I realised that, I dropped my head and asked myself what we do in the standing committee.

†How can we allow things like that to happen? Are we not also there to do our bit, and to act as watchdogs over incidents like these?

*That is why I say I think it is a bit unfair of him to lay the full blame on the department which prepared the legislation.

A great deal of sentiment is attached to the idea of a Minister’s obtaining rights in his department. The provision in the amending legislation, which gives the Minister the right to declare wilderness areas to be national parks, in contrast with what is presently the case since Parliament has to sanction it before the Minister may do so, has caused people to be anxious about the granting of a right of this nature to a Minister.

I have no objection to the amendment whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, and as far as nature conservation is concerned, the happier we can keep the people, the better. There should be no ulterior motives and there should be nothing sinister about it. After all, we are merely conserving what we can for posterity.

One wonders whether one is not taking things too far in saying a democratic right is being assailed if a Minister obtains certain rights in terms of legislation. I find it strange, according to the political democratic rules, that we accept a government. We accept that the NP has won the election at the polls and that its leader will form a Cabinet. As soon as a member of that Cabinet obtains rights, however, we do not accept it.

What does that have to do with national parks? [Interjections.]

For the sake of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition I want to point out that his party’s speaker raised the matter and that I have my opinion on it too. I believe it is my right to air my view in the House. [Interjections.]

Before I proceed with my actual speech, I want to say something else. There are many people in this House who have always arrogated rights to themselves. I want to point out to the hon member for Constantia that the insistence on declaring Robben Island to be a national park or as he put it, on making Robben Island something other than a home for Mr Mandela, is no original idea. Various hon members on this side of the House have made similar proposals in the past. Mr Piet Marais, who until recently was a member of the President’s Council, and the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance have made similar proposals in the past. If one considers the matter, one will think of a whole number of other members of Parliament who can lay claim to having had alternative plans in mind for Robben Island.

Why has nothing happened?

That is the point I am leading up to.

It is very easy to sit and think out these little things. I know, because I was a member of the National Parks Board for a while. We had high ideals and a fine vision of the future, particularly as far as the development of national parks and the extension of the number of parks was concerned. One has to keep the limited funds in mind, however, as well as the fact that there are other people and bodies whose interests in it have to be taken into account. I am absolutely convinced that if it is at all possible, or if there is a possibility in future of utilising Robben Island for such purposes, it will be done, on condition that it is not used for anything else.

I agree with the hon member that to a great extent nature conservation is South Africa’s Cinderella. I think it is rather unfair to compare South Africa with other countries in the world. The African countries are, for the most part, a wilderness. One cannot compare an African country with its present level of development to South Africa. The African countries are still in a condition of wilderness as it were, with the result that the land is not utilised because such utilisation would not be economically viable. That is why it is easy to fence off hundreds of thousands of hectares there and to declare this land to be national parks. If the hon member should enter those parks, however, and compare them with the Kruger National Park, which would he prefer? Would he prefer the parks of hundreds of thousands of hectares in Africa, or would he prefer the Kruger National Park where action is taken with great care and in a scientific way, not only to give the public the opportunity to see South Africa’s wild animals, but also to do research.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, when business was suspended I was pointing out that if we draw comparisons between the national parks of various countries, we must not pay attention only to the size of the parks’ surface areas. We must also pay attention to the quality of the parks. I want to maintain that we in South Africa can be very proud of the quality of our national parks, as well as of the way in which they are run.

The hon member for Constantia also mentioned that he associates himself with the Botanical Society and supports them in their efforts to conserve wilderness areas. I want to tell him I agree with him wholeheartedly. I do not believe there is anyone in this House, or anyone in the public at large, who is aware of nature conservation, who would not do his best to conserve wilderness areas in as unspoilt a way as possible. The hon member also said he believes we should define national parks better in future, or rather, that we should get a definition of national parks into the Act. He then expressed the opinion that there is an idea that the national parks should concern themselves more with the commercial aspect of the matter and less with the nature conservation aspect. I want to deny that categorically.

If one were to fence off a piece of land and not let anyone into it, and if one were to let it remain wild in the form of a wilderness, I agree that one would probably conserve perfectly what had been there. If one concerns oneself, however, with every scientific aspect which has an influence on nature, as is the case in our national parks, one cannot continue to keep our game in the Kruger National Park, for example, in a natural way if one does not have periodic controlled fires, if one does not apply controlled fires there. This has been proved scientifically. At present hundreds of scientific projects are in progress in our national parks; not to destroy, not at all, but precisely to promote the conservation of nature as far as it is practically possible.

If one were to allow a lot of elephants simply to keep on breeding—these are the most destructive animals one finds, after all—I say that after a while there would not be a single tree left in the Kruger National Park. There must be a certain measure of control. If one fences off an area using wire, one must also have the ability to arrange matters in such a way that it continues to exist, that nature continues to exist for posterity. That is why I regard the matter in this way.

I do want to add this: One of the oldest proclaimed wilderness areas lies within the borders of the Kruger National Park. I do not believe, therefore, that it is easy to draw a distinction between wilderness areas, national parks and other conservation areas. I see the matter differently. If we have to define it, my opinion is that national parks should be parks of national interest which are funded, assisted and supported by the highest funding body in the country; in other words, by the State. The other parks and conservation areas must then be scaled down and given to the local authorities—the lower levels of Government, if you like—to administer. In all probability one would differ in the process on what should and should not be a national park. That is a completely different principle, however; it is a completely different policy. It does not fit in here at all.

The restoration of the old transport route through the southern part of the Kruger National Park is taking place. Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you are going to rule me out of order now, but I want to tell a very interesting anecdote in support of my assertion that very close research is done in our national parks. In the course of the research done to recreate this transport route, old correspondence, old books and so forth, were delved into. The researchers came upon the tale of a German adventurer who was travelling from the coast to the interior. He sat beside the transport road, waiting for a lift. [Interjections.]

What on earth is that? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman would not know; at Kuruman they simply get on! [Interjections.]

The adventurer sat there waiting and then Percy Fitzpatrick, the writer of Jock of the Bushveld, came along with his transport team and picked him up. He was a very pleasant person, and they took to him very soon. He became part of the trek very quickly. One day a blue-jay flew past, that beautiful blue bird that so often delights one with its presence when one is driving in the Kruger National Park. He wanted to send a few of this bird’s feathers to his family in Germany. He got onto the wagon to get the shotgun, but when he got down again, he stumbled, the gun went off, and he shattered his left leg from top to bottom. Hon members must remember this happened in the days when there were no Barnards as physicians yet. [Interjections.]

That is a fine story!

In any case, it was very difficult to get a doctor to him. When a doctor of that time arrived there on horseback three, four or five days later, there was gangrene in the leg already, and they had to amputate it. He died during the operation.

The researchers went to look for that grave, and dug it up. Lo and behold, they found the skeleton there, with the amputated leg next to it!

The moral of the story is one should not shoot a blue bird!

I told this story just to show that we stick as closely as possible to the real state of affairs as it was. This route will probably be opened soon, and travelling along it will be an experience. I should like to have the experience of travelling that route on an ox-wagon myself, and of camping at the precise places where the old transport drivers camped. [Interjections.] It will be a journey of four or five days by ox-wagon!

You can take the whole group along.

Except me! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Constantia is aggrieved about the expenditure of R9,56 million on what he calls “ideological causes”, while so little is apparently being allocated by the State for our national parks. I want to support him wholeheartedly in his effort to obtain more money for our parks. I know the need for this exists. I experienced it in the board myself. Expansion is imperative. It is extremely difficult to obtain land. Indeed, I do not think it is possible to establish a second Kruger National Park in South Africa. There is simply no land, there is simply no room, nor is there any money at the moment. One would very much like to expand, but one needs more money to do so. If the hon member wants to use that as an example, however, I do not agree with it. This money is applied for resettlement and for improved housing. It is used for housing. If the hon member gives that as a reason, he must also speak of all the land used for the road building programmes. He must also speak of all the land used for the housing schemes. In addition he must speak of the land—at high prices, much higher prices than R9,56 million—used for the erection of factories and so forth.

Does the hon member perhaps think that if we give up that R9,56 million, even if we give it to the Parks Board, the people for whom it is being allocated to move them to better housing—the squatters—will disappear, and there will no longer be a housing need? Surely Budgets do not work that simply, that a decision is simply taken that one has given too much here and too little there. It is everyone’s right and prerogative—that is correct, and I repeat it; I agree 100% with the hon member—to negotiate for more money for the national parks. Please do not draw this kind of comparison, however, since it is actually senseless. A park or the promotion of our parks is also just an ideological objective.

Our national parks are a credit to our country, our pride and joy. I do not hesitate to say that at all. It is true they are not perfect. There are a great number of things that still have to be done to them. There are many developments to be made. There is a terrible amount of work that still has to be done in our parks. As they stand at present, however, they are truly a credit to our country. I have already said that it was my privilege to be a member of the National Parks Board for a while. It is one of the most pleasant tasks ever entrusted to me. It was truly a pleasure to do this work.

There is probably no nobler task than to work towards the ideal of preserving and promoting one’s natural heritage for one’s country, its people and their descendants. Our parks are very popular both locally and among foreign tourists. We really do not have enough room for all the tourists. The figure I shall mention extends over a full year, and hon members know how miserably hot it is in the national parks in the heart of summer. The Kruger National Park is 80% fully booked; one simply cannot keep up, and thousands of people turn away annually because they cannot find accommodation. There is an urgent need for the expansion of our parks. As a result we have moved an amendment in the National Parks Act, which makes it possible to implement the schedule 5 parks. These are those parks in which private initiative can retain its rights within both park and nature conservation boundaries.

The legislation we are dealing with today is nothing but an improvement and the adjustment of the existing Act to make these processes easier than is the case at present. I do not want to elaborate on that, since the hon member for Constantia made reasonably comprehensive reference to that and all the other associated aspects. I do not know whether I missed it, but I did not hear him mention clause 12. That is the clause that gives people in a schedule 5 park the right to preserve and retain by means of an agreement their rights on the land on which their undertaking is situated. I think that also makes it more attractive and makes it easier for people to enter into such schemes. It safeguards the man within the boundaries, or rather, it ensures the rights of the private individual who may have a farm, factory or whatever.

Once again I thank those hon members in the opposition parties and also other hon members who have given their support to this Bill. I also express my thanks towards the hon members concerned for the fine attitude that prevails in our standing committee. In my opinion it is one of the standing committees with the least conflict and the least trouble in reaching consensus. I thank hon members very sincerely for that.

Mr Chairman, as a former member of the Parks Board, the hon member for Swellendam made a very worthwhile contribution in this House. I think he made a very good speech. When one listened to his story about the road, it sounded like a camp-fire story which one could hear in one of South Africa’s beautiful parks. I say again: the hon member made a very sound contribution.

The hon member for Swellendam also dealt very neatly with the hon member for Constantia who tried to imply here that South Africa’s national parks were not up to the standard of parks in the rest of Africa. I agree with the hon member that one must also consider the expertise which is accumulated in the Parks Board in South Africa and compare it with what is found in the rest of Africa. Think, for example, of the research which is done by the Parks Board—research on wild-life preservation, our plant life, birds and animals. Even by world standards that research is excellent. I therefore wish to join the hon member in congratulating the Parks Board on the wonderful work they are doing for research in South Africa.

There is however, one aspect on which I should like to differ with the hon member namely that he does tend to have created the impression that national parks are holiday resorts. In our opinion they are in the first place areas of conservation, since we do not really have very extensive areas for that purpose at our disposal. Nonetheless we are grateful that they are also places where the South African tourist, when he is able to relax, can go and rest in the absolutely unspoilt nature of South Africa, and can also be close to his Creator.

The CP therefore also supports this legislation. It is just that there are certain inherent sources of concern for us in the legislation, especially because the “Minister” who controls this legislation creates certain difficulties for us. When I say this, I am not referring to the hon the Minister as a person; on the contrary I think he is a competent Minister as far as environmental conservation is concerned, and he is someone who takes this matter very much to heart.

The hon member for Swellendam also referred to the fact that the right to proclaim land to be a national park has been transferred from Parliament to the Minister. Only yesterday the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning vehemently attacked the opposition parties here and accused them of allegedly trying to belittle Parliament. That is why I say that one should perhaps be careful not to transfer too much of the power of this Parliament into the hands of Ministers.

The conservation role of national parks in South Africa—be it on land or sea—cannot be overemphasised. In fact we can only express our highest appreciation for it. The role that South Africa’s national parks play in the tourism industry cannot be underestimated either. The tourist industry, which is one of the largest industries in South Africa …

Was.

The hon member says “was”. That could possibly be true under the present circumstances. I should like to tell the hon member that the tourist industry started to decline the day the NP accepted power-sharing and began to follow the path of political integration. [Interjections.] It started the day the Government chose the path of power-sharing and when unrest, strife and conflict came into this country as a result of the fact that they were following that path. [Interjections.]

I should like to put it to the hon member for Parktown, who knows something about heart transplants but very little about politics, that if his party were ever to come into power in South Africa …

Then the tourists would come here.

… there would not be a park in South Africa. No tourists would come to this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he does not think that we would be promoting tourism if we changed the National Parks into CP Parks?

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether I should react to that. I think the name “National Parks” can stay because true nationalism resides in the policy of the CP. [Interjections.]

The role that tourism plays in South Africa must not be underestimated and we hope that in future it will still be possible to expand tourism. We hope that foreign tourists will again see their way clear to coming to South Africa and visiting our parks under safe conditions.

Do wild animals also have partition?

Yes, the wild animals in South Africa also have partition because the lion does not mate with the tiger. [Interjections.]

Where are they putting up the donkey statue?

The hon member apparently knows more about that subject than I do, and I do not want to give him a reply in that regard.

I want to reiterate that the role the South African parks and the National Parks Board play in the promotion of tourism is very important. This fact is demonstrated by the quality of service which they provide.

I also want to refer to this beautiful publication, Custos, which is the nature conservation publication of the National Parks Board. I think it is a beautiful publication. My children and I look forward every month to receiving it. I ask the hon the Minister to convey the congratulations of this House to the editor of Custos.

I should like to quote from the annual report of the Council for the Environment:

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether these proposals also apply to the Parks Board and whether he will tell us what the proposals and recommendations of the Council for the Environment in this respect and in respect of privatisation were. The Administration of the Cape, who is also in charge of nature conservation areas in the Cape, recently mooted the possibility that the beaches of South Africa could be privatised and transferred into the hands of private individuals because the Government has no control, or is not prepared to exercise control, over the beaches. Since they are not prepared to prevent the crowding out of Whites on the beaches, they are considering privatisation. I should just like to ask the hon the Minister whether they are thinking about privatisation of the parks as well as certain activities within the parks.

Proposals on the devolution of power and privatisation according to the new constitutional dispensation have been made. The memorandum on the amending Bill states:

Then the amending Bill defines “Minister” as the “Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism.”

He can also be Coloured!

Yes, the hon member for Randburg says: “He can also be Coloured” and I know that the hon member would also be satisfied if the Minister were Black. Am I right? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Randburg is probably also aware of the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister is already at this stage an Indian.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to ask whether an hon member in this House has the right to leave his bench, go up to the bench of another member of the House and to threaten him? I waited until both the hon members concerned had returned to their benches before putting this point of order.

Order! As far as the hon member’s objection is concerned, I can inform him that no hon member within this entire parliamentary dispensation may threaten another hon member, not even in the lobbies or in the grounds of Parliament. In any event, I do not think it behoves hon members to do that.

Mr Speaker, I am referring to the hon member for Rissik.

Order! I did not see the threat a moment ago, but I could just mention to the hon member for Witbank that while the hon member for Kuruman was speaking, both the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Stilfontein came to tell me here that they would like to come and speak to me in my office. Consequently I have decided to deal with the matter there and we can leave it at that for the moment. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

It is a pity that while we are engaged in important debates on important issues in this House of Assembly, hon members, especially those in the back benches, make ugly interjections. [Interjections.] It is a pity that hon NP members wish to reduce the House of Assembly to that level. [Interjections.]

Order! By way of an exception I have allowed hon members to engage in politicking for a very short while. In addition, we were then sailing through very calm waters. But I think we have now had enough of that, and the hon member for Kuruman and every other hon member who speaks after him, must confine himself to the provisions of the legislation. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I am referring to clause 1 of the Bill which defines the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism. With reference to the interjection by the hon member for Randburg I should just like to mention that the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs is Mr S V Naicker from the House of Delegates. I think that he, in his capacity as Deputy Minister, can act as the delegated representative of the Minister of Environment Affairs under this legislation.

In clause 7 of the Bill it is said that the National Parks Board can, within these areas, provide visitors with accommodation, as well as recreational facilities such as swimming pools and certain coastal resort facilities. Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister, whose deputy is Mr S V Naicker of the House of Delegates, what the Government’s policy is as regards the making available of facilities within these parks.

Are all facilities which fall under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Board open to everyone? I should like the hon the Minister to reply to this because the beautiful Cape Point Nature Reserve falls within his own constituency. Last year when I went to have a braai at Buffels Bay one weekend there still was a small concrete wall with the words “For Whites only”. We were able to go and have a wonderful braai among our own people. A short distance away facilities were also provided for Coloureds and Blacks. At the beginning of this year when I went to that beautiful spot again, the words “For Whites only” had been chiselled off the wall and there were so many people that at that stage we could not find a single braai place anywhere in the reserve. There were braai places for only six White cars.

You are a disgraceful racist!

The facilities that were there for the other people in other places whilst…

You are inciting racial hatred!

There are places where that hon member and his differently pigmented friends could go and have a picnic together.

The hon member must indicate which clause he is dealing with.

I am dealing with clause 7, Sir, in terms of which accommodation and facilities are made available by the National Parks Board. I am asking the hon the Minister for facilities to be made available for the Whites in South Africa who like visiting these parks and who would like to be with their own people. [Interjections.]

Surely the CP can have their own parks.

If this has to be done for the CP only, then we will do it for the CP only. If the hon member for Kimberley South is prepared to do it on an integrated basis, let him go ahead. But there are Whites in this country who still want to go on their own. [Interjections.] I ask the hon the Minister to spell out his standpoint in this regard. In the past hon members of the House of Assembly were appointed as members of the Parks Board. It was a fine nice tradition. [Interjections.]

I am speaking to the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism. I wonder whether the hon the Minister of National Education would show me the courtesy of allowing me to proceed.

When we were discussing the Budget, the hon the Minister of National Education was conspicuous by his absence; the Cabinet benches were empty. Now that I want to speak to the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism he sits there chatting to him.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he has done away with the fine tradition I have been referring to. I think the hon member for Swellendam was the last member of the House of Assembly who was part of that Board. He testified today that he could speak with great compassion about it.

The hon member for Swellendam did not understand why that practice had ceased to exist.

We should like to support the legislation which enables the National Parks Board of South Africa to improve the services they provide, to play a greater role in tourism, but especially to play a greater role in the preservation of the beautiful natural, animal, bird and fish life of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I find it extremely regrettable that the hon member for Kuruman seemingly arrogated to himself the right to become insulting in this House this afternoon. I am referring specifically to the remarks which he made about the backbenchers on this side.

You are very presumptuous.

I find it a pity, especially in a debate such as this, which is not supposed to become insulting in any way, nor to have politics dragged into it. He also made the statement this afternoon—and I am not trying to circumvent Mr Speaker’s ruling— that since so-called power-sharing was introduced by the Government, our earnings from tourism ostensibly began to drop dramatically. What are the facts? In 1984 revenue from foreign exchange, excluding fares, amounted to R750 million. The following year, 1985, our revenue was R900 million— an increase of R150 million. I should like to concede at once that the exchange fluctuations had something to do with this, but this afternoon I should like to say that we would not have earned R20 million in foreign exchange if his policy been introduced.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he can tell us what the position in respect of foreign tourism was from 1948 up to and including February 1982? Did tourism deteriorate during that period?

I want to suggest that it has increased since the hon member left the NP. In addition the hon member for Kuruman said here this afternoon that a lion does not mate with a tiger. Now I should like to tell him that a lion does not mate with a baboon either. But I should like to ask him whether he would concede that one can cross a Jersey cow with a Friesland cow?

A Jersey cow with a Friesland cow? [Interjections.]

A Jersey with a Fries-lander. [Interjections.] I just wanted to see whether the hon member was still asleep. I perceive he is not. The statement which the hon member for Kuruman made this afternoon is shown to be ridiculous by what I have just said.

What are the facts? What he said this afternoon in connection with integration across the colour bar implies that people of colour in this country are of a different species to Whites. That is what he implied this afternoon. I find that extremely insulting, to myself as well as to a Coloured person and a Black person.

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

No, I am not going to reply to my questions from him now. He was insulting towards me. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker ruled that we were not allowed to talk politics.

Why don’t you sit down?

I cannot help it if the hon member is hurt.

The hon member for Law-aaikamp. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member has indicated that he does not wish to reply to a question, hon members must not put questions across the floor of the House.

In reply to that interjection by the hon member for Barberton, I should like to tell him that we can always make him the mascot of Lawaaikamp.

I should now like to refer to the constructive contribution made by the hon member for Constantia, and I should like to associate myself with his appeal concerning Robben Island. Should Robben Island be declared a national park one day I personally would consider it to be a living monument to Piet “Weskus” Marais. I often heard him wax lyrical in private conversations about the potential of Robben Island.

This afternoon the hon member for Constantia also had a lot to say about the low percentage—it is less than 3%—of South Africa’s surface area which has in fact been zoned for conservation purposes. I should like to concede to him at once that all of us would have liked the percentage to have been even higher. The fact of the matter is that the general standard for Western countries, under ideal circumstances, is that approximately 10% of the country’s surface area should be utilised for conservation.

I should also like to associate myself with something the hon member for Swellendam, pointed out, ie that divergent factors play a role in this country, including the fact that there are large areas in the country which yield a low output, which therefore wrests our surface area ratio completely out of context. I am thinking in particular of the large surface area of our Karoo country. It is the ideal of all of us, if we can find the means, to utilise larger areas of this country for conservation. This afternoon I should like to appeal to the private sector to make a far greater financial contribution to the conservation of our country and its heritage.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Swellendam for the valuable contribution which he made as member of the National Parks Board. We got to know him in the Southern Cape, when the Lake Areas Development Board also fell under his jurisdiction, as being a person with exceptional skills, a love of nature, and a person with a feeling for ecology and its conservation. I should also like to emphasise another point which the hon member for Swellendam mentioned, and which I also endorse: We must not become over-sensitive about the powers that we are conferring upon the Minister. With the passage of years this Government has been recognised as a Government which acts with a great sense of responsibility as far as nature conservation is concerned. I can also understand why representations were made to the Minister recently by, inter alia, the Council for the Habitat and the Council for the Environment, and also by the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry, who is also the Member of Parliament for the Piketberg constituency. I am also familiar with the sentiments of the people of the Cedarberg. When one goes climbing in the Cedarberg and one has scaled the Wolfberg Cracks and has camped out on Sanddrift, and one knows someone like Mr Pollie Niewhoudt, then one realises that those people in their own right, without legislation, ordinance or regulation, have, made their contribution to the preservation of the beauty of that region for posterity.

The legislation here before us this afternoon was thoroughly scrutinised on the standing committee. The first opportunity we had was on 13 November 1985 in Pretoria, and after that we met again on 5 March of this year in Cape Town. This afternoon I should like to thank the hon Minister for the amendments in general, but also for the amendments which he subsequently proposed. Those of us who live in the Southern Cape, are particularly grateful for the measures in this Act, Act 57 of 1976. If I examine the Amendment Bill critically my eye falls on clause 2A(1)(c). With reference to this clause, I should like to say a word or two this afternoon about the Lake area, which falls in the George constituency. I want to thank the hon the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism for his statement in the Gazette of 13 December last year, namely that the Wilderness Lake area, situated between George and Knysna, is going to be increased almost fivefold in size. Henceforth it will be known as the Wilderness National Lakes Area.

This afternoon I should like to pay tribute to the originator of this concept, namely the old Lakes Board which later developed into the Lake Area Development Board under the chairmanship of Mr Frans Botha. This afternoon I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor in Parliament, the State President, who over many years strove to protect that important lake ecosystem for posterity.

He did nothing for Lawaaikamp. [Interjections.]

I can tell that hon member that I will send him back to Lawaaikamp. Since he has mentioned Lawaaikamp—yesterday he also mentioned the name of Mr Jan van Eck—I can give his party some good advice. While I was in George the day before yesterday having in-depth discussions with the municipality and with the Black community leaders …

Order! That has nothing to do with the legislation. [Interjections.] Does the hon member for Hillbrow want to ask a question?

Mr Chairman, may I be permitted to ask the hon member a brief question?

Unfortunately not now.

To get back to the lakes, on which Lawaaikamp also has a bearing, I should like to mention that it is extremely important, as far as that specific environment is concerned, that tourists come to that area and that we do not have any negative criticism with regard to Lawaaikamp. Yesterday, however, Mr Jan van Eck from that party arrived on a chartered flight. He did not come to do anything. He was busy with an electioneering stunt in order to get his name into the papers for the sake of the Claremont by-election. He is wasting his party’s money—and I want to say this to hon members this afternoon— while we are really struggling with serious local problems.

This afternoon I should also like to express sincere thanks for the role played by the late Dr Nak van der Merwe in the realisation of an ideal in that area. I should also like to thank the present hon Minister for his contribution. I should also like to express thanks for the role which a man such as the hon member for Swellendam has played and for the new board which has been appointed under the chairmanship of Mr Jim Heunis. This afternoon I should like to thank the hon the Minister for having given the necessary permission for the Parks Board to open a decentralised office in George. It assists in improving the image of the Board and to bring the Board closer to the public.

Since the old Lake Areas Board began to function in 1982, with an area of 2 100 ha under its control, a unique demonstration of the equilibrium between development and conservation occurred. I shall come back to that. The enlarged lake area will cover an area of approximately 10 000 ha. The boundary will be as follows: To the west, the Wilderness; to the east, the Goukamma Nature Reserve—that is where the hon member Kuruman should rather have gone to have his braai—to the south, the low-water mark of the Indian Ocean; and to the north, the Outeniqua Mountains. That comprises 10 000 ha.

This afternoon I should like to tell members as well as the hon the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism that that announcement last year was accepted enthusiastically by our entire community. The river systems which will be protected by this announcement are the Touws River with its tributaries, the Duiwe River, the Wolwe River, the Hoëkraal and the Karatara Rivers. The lake system which is already included in this, are the Serpentine Canal, Elandsvlei as well as Langvlei. More important still is that the extensive Swartvlei estuary will be added to this area by virtue of this proclamation.

What is being excluded at this stage, because it falls under the Cape Provincial Administration, is Rondevlei and the Goukamma Reserve, which also includes Groenvlei. As a matter of interest I can mention to hon members that Groenvlei is the only lake in that area in which fresh water. What is interesting, however, is that it fluctuates with the ocean tides, although it is not connected with the ocean in any way.

This afternoon I should like to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he realises that it is in the interests of the region to develop a township near Swartvlei, adjoining Groenvlei? There are nearly 200 erven.

As a matter of interest, may I mention to the hon members that the hon member for Hillbrow and I are both honorary presidents of the same body? Who would have believed it? [Interjections.] The hon member for Hillbrow knows where to go and spend a holiday! I very much appreciate his positive attitude towards conservation, but I want to say at once that I do not share his sentiments as far as the proposed development at the Swartvlei estuary are concerned; on the contrary I am in favour of the development of the Swartvlei township. I have expressed my opinion on this in public. [Interjections.] I want to say right now that I am not sure whether people who are at present opposed to this will not eventually be among the first to turn up at the auction.

In this area we are dealing with a unique ecosystem. I have photographs which illustrate this. In this area there is an amazing number of bird species. I have been told that approximately 100 different species of birds are to found on these lakes. Which hon members have ever gone and sat down on the edge of those lakes to drink in the visual beauty of that area? Today I should like to assert that the area between George and Knysna is one of the most enchanting natural assets in this country. As far as that is concerned I want to emphasise that we also have an obligation to posterity.

†I want to repeat this. I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to all the people in George and elsewhere who have worked so diligently towards achieving this goal.

You have already said that in Afrikaans!

Yes, I should simply like the hon member’s colleagues to understand it as well! [Interjections.]

We attach great value to this area. I should like to quote what T V Bulpin wrote in his book Discovering Southern Africa, on page 172:

On page 205 it is said:

Furthermore, a French traveller La Vailliant who visited that area circa 1782 said the following about the area between George and Knysna:

But when I look at the proposed section 2A(1)(c), I must express my concern about the possible restructuring of the Parks Board. I must express my concern this afternoon about the rumours that are going around that control of the Southern Coastal Areas Division might be shifted from the Parks Board to the provincial system. I cannot support that because this area is so important to me that I not only consider it to be a national asset but an international asset as well.

Over the years we in South Africa have become used to a specific kind of park. The type of park we have grown accustomed to is the Kruger National Park—which was established in 1926—up to and including the Karroo National Park, which was established in 1979. On each occasion it was an area which was proclaimed and demarcated as a conservation area by the State. The point of departure each time was to preserve the unspoilt nature of such an area. After conservation, attention was given to research and the education of the public into an awareness of conservation. Activities which were in conflict with this aim such as the utilisation of the area for farming purposes, were prohibited. In the process we have also acquired areas in which the two schools of thought could be reconciled into combination.

Put another way, areas in which conservation was obviously an urgent requirement could in the past not be declared national parks because farming activities had already taken place there. Here the Lake Area comes to mind.

What is the crux of the National Parks Board Act (Act 57 of 1976)? It deals with the whats and wherefores of the National Parks Board of South Africa. A number of schedules follow. Schedule 1 deals with the borders of such parks. I do not want to discuss each schedule, but Schedule No 5 brings us to the Wilderness Lake Area.

This afternoon I want to ask once again why we cannot in the process reconcile conservation and human activities to a far greater extent in South Africa. To me it is perfectly logical to combine Schedule 1 with a so-called Schedule 5, or a similar park. As far as the Wilderness Lake Area is concerned, the various lakes and State-controlled land can be proclaimed in terms of Schedule 1 and then the surrounding areas can be incorporated to a far greater extent than is at present the case. I should like to conclude.

Hear, hear!

I should not like to say the same things as my hon colleague did earlier because I do not have bananas with me at the moment.

Cross over to us first and then run away as you did the last time.

I did not run away. The elderly inhabitants of Huis J J Watson chased that hon member out of their old-age home. That is what happened. [Interjections.]

I wanted to wipe the floor with you but you ran away.

I should like to conclude this afternoon by appealing to the hon the Minister for the Lake Area of George to fall under the National Parks Board, not only because it is an international asset but also because it should be the earnest endeavour of each one of us to preserve this area for posterity.

Mr Chairman, listening to the hon member for George eulogising about the Knysna-George area, made me realise just how very fortunate we are in this country to be blessed with so many different environmental assets. What the hon member said about the beauty and magnificence of that area can be applied to so many different areas of this country. [Interjections.] I would like to invite him, therefore, to come and admire the beauty of the Drakensberg in Natal—if he has not already been there. [Interjections.] Perhaps then I can enlist his support to eulogise about that as well. [Interjections.]

Sir, I really do want to try to get the ship back on course, and so I would like to comment briefly on certain aspects of the legislation before us. Allow me to state at the outset that I will deal only briefly in the Second Reading with the proposed amendments of the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] I think it only fair to point out … I wonder if I could have your protection, Sir. There seems to be a slight altercation going on again.

I am being provoked, Sir.

Order!

I think we must realise the fact that the standing committee did in the first place approve the Bill which included the two clauses … I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but there really seems to be a violent dialogue going on here, and I seem to be the only one who is not able to make himself heard.

Order!

Thank you, Sir.

The fact that the standing committee—I repeat myself for the benefit of those who did not hear me the first time—approved in the first place a Bill which did actually include the two clauses which the hon the Minister now proposes to delete, lends, as far as I am concerned, credibility to his flexible approach. That is something, I feel, from which this House can take considerable comfort. I realise that environment affairs is, at the best of times, a sensitive issue, and one which requires sensitive handling. I therefore commend the hon the Minister for the decision he made.

One sees aspects of this legislation as an attempt to expand our national parks in a practical and economical manner. This is borne out in clause 3. I wish to refer particularly to the second category of registered parks, or those which are often referred to as Schedule 5 parks.

The fact that it now becomes possible for an agreement to be arrived at between a private landowner and the hon the Minister and his department through a national park clears the way for the utilisation of tracts of land which have hitherto been lying idle. Possibly some of these would be areas on which existing mining operations or prospecting is taking place. Now these areas, too, can become incorporated into registered national parks. These areas can be brought into use for the benefit of the community as a whole—and this can be done without the considerable expenditure that may have had to be incurred had provision not been made for such a step in this legislation.

Furthermore, we welcome the attempts being made to encourage private landowners, who own property adjacent to or near to existing national parks, to make available their properties for the expansion of these parks. The benefit of not losing ownership should encourage these landowners to make their properties available for such incorporation.

It is also possibly as well to record the other benefits that would flow from agreements being reached between the private property holders and the national parks in their vicinities. These would include the benefits that would accrue to fauna and to wild life in general. One looks at the question of the removal of boundary fences as a start which has been a restrictive factor, particularly in times of drought, in regard to providing adequate grazing facilities for animals in many of our parks. One also realises that for those private landowners who probably have been unable to exercise sufficient control over their properties, in the past, this can now be done effectively in conjunction with existing parks.

Let us look at the question of alien plants or noxious weeds, whatever the case may be. It is invariably on these unoccupied properties that one gets considerable growth of noxious weeds and foreign vegetation and from that point of view alone, their control could also become a factor that could be of considerable benefit to the landowner and surrounding areas.

The question of the control of game is also a factor that we must bear in mind, in that this would, in itself, eliminate to a great degree, overstocking that might take place within Parks Board areas. The removal of fences to which I referred earlier could also provide access to new grazing areas. Finally there is the fact that the conservation of national resources could also become a condition on which private properties be made available to the National Parks, which could also be highly beneficial to all concerned.

Here again it is interesting to note that the terms of agreement need not necessarily affect the existing utilisation of any privately owned property, or the occupation of or access to any of these properties. In fact, owners would be able to utilise their properties in very much the same manner as they do at the present time. May I appeal to the hon the Minister to bear in mind again that in order to encourage participation it is essential that agreements with various landowners should be made as flexible as possible. It is important to expand parks now while we still have land available, and one must realise that, as has been mentioned earlier in this debate, from an international point of view we are lagging sadly behind in relation to areas that have been allocated for environmental conservation.

I wish to add, however, a word of warning in regard to parks in general bearing in mind the increasing demands that are being made for environmental recreation. We must be aware that pressures for accommodation are going to increase. We realise that there might be demands for creating a more sophisticated type of accommodation, and I would appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that any accommodation, whenever it is provided, should be as rustic as it possibly can be and should conform as near as possible to the character of the surrounding area. Only the basic requirements should be provided, which I am sure will attract more and more people to take advantage of the many natural amenities offered by Parks in this country. This is a form of recreation that many urban people are looking for. The existing high standards that have been provided for in many parks must be preserved at all costs.

I wish also to issue a word of warning in that I feel it is essential that all parks should not be afraid to insist on and strictly enforce a standard of discipline within their reserves. This is essential if environmental factors are to be preserved.

May I in conclusion once again record the excellent spirit that has existed between the National Parks Board, the Department of Environment Affairs and the Natal Parks Board. May I express the wish that this good relationship be respected at all times and that there should be no suggestion of any of the powers or authority of the Natal Parks Board being removed at any time.

Mr Speaker, I am not sure if there is anything strange about the environment of this House but for the second time in the past few years I find myself rising to reply to a debate when I have a very sore throat. I hope my throat lasts a bit longer this time than it did a year or two ago. [Interjections.]

I would like to reply individually to the contributions that have been made by the hon members. First of all, the hon member for Constantia referred to mistakes in the Bill which necessitated a number of amendments. The Director-General apologised on behalf of the department to the standing committee for the errors that had occurred and he has asked me specifically to say that he tenders his apologies again today. I do not think it was necessary for the hon member to have referred to this matter; there were mistakes made in the Bill but surely it is better to put mistakes right after one has discovered them than it is to have legislation on the Statute Book that contains those mistakes.

I want to remind the hon member that he too was a member of the standing committee. If he missed the standing committee meetings at which these matters were discussed, it is nobody’s fault but his own.

I was overseas!

In that case the hon member must not follow the example of the previous Leader of the Official Opposition and go overseas so much. He must spend a little more time in his own country. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to the narrow escape concerning wilderness areas and nature reserves. I want to tell him that no harm would have been done if the so-called “mistakes” had been left in the Bill if one looks at the situation from the following point of view: First of all it is the same Minister who declares wilderness areas and nature areas who would declare national parks. I think it is singularly unlikely that a Minister who has declared a nature area or a wilderness area would for wrong reasons and against the advice of his department, go on to declare it a national park. The hon member for Swellendam dealt effectively with this point in his speech.

The hon member for Constantia also referred to consultation with other Ministers. Obviously I will have to use my discretion when it comes to the contributions made by my colleagues in respect of these matters. If my department and that of another Minister cannot reach agreement, we will continue to consult to arrive at consensus.

If reasons had to be found for this particular clause, one of them would obviously concern the Department of Defence and defence interests. Another would probably concern the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and provision is in fact made for consultation with him throughout this Bill.

The hon member also mentioned the transfer of land outside a park referred to in clause 4 of the Bill. This is an existing measure, and only the name of the portfolio of the responsible Minister has been changed. The hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works is now responsible and the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has been brought in to give him the opportunity to investigate the possible mineralisation of land prior to any exchange taking place.

He also referred to the question of oceanariums as dealt with in clause 7. I do not have anything in mind with regard to oceanariums. As a matter of fact, it is not I who included them. They were included in the principal Act because this is an existing provision; only the paragraph numbers have been changed. That is why the wording of the relevant provision has been repeated in this clause.

I think the definition of a national park is an important matter. There is an accepted International Union for the Conservation of Nature definition of a national park. In terms of this definition, which was accepted by the tenth general meeting of the IUCN in 1969, a national park is described as follows:

1. 1. where one or several ecosystems are not nationally altered by human exploitation and occupation, where plant and animal species, geomorphological sites and habitats are of special scientific, education and recreative interest or which contains a natural landscape of great beauty; and
2. 2. where the highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent or to eliminate as soon as possible exploitation or occupation in the whole area and to enforce effectively the respect of ecological, geomorphological and aesthetic features which have led to its establishment; and
3. 3. where visitors are allowed to enter, under special conditions, for inspirational, educative, cultural and recreative purposes.

The Council for the Environment is also addressing this matter in regard to a conservation strategy as the hon member mentioned. The National Parks Board strikes, I may add, a very fair balance between conservation and utilisation.

*I want to refer to the speech by the hon member for Swellendam and I want to congratulate him on his contribution as leader of the study group on Environment Affairs and Tourism.

†The figures quoted by the hon member for Constantia to which the hon member for Swellendam referred do not give a true reflection of the actual area set aside for conservation purposes in the Republic. Furthermore, what we may lack in quantity we certainly make up for in quality. I believe that everyone in this House will agree with me. The hon member for Swellendam made a very objective contribution on this point for which I wish to thank him.

In addition to our national parks, we have provincial parks, provincial nature reserves, private game parks and we also have the farming community.

*I should like to pay tribute this afternoon to the farming community of South Africa for their contribution as farmers to conservation in South Africa. I think that nowadays all the farmers in South Africa are more conservation conscious than ever before. I often drive around in agricultural areas and I have many friends among the farmers, especially in the Cape Province. I want to pay tribute to them today for their efforts to conserve the natural heritage on their farms.

†We are also planning to expand our national parks extensively in the years that lie ahead. The question of Robben Island and Dassen Island has also been mentioned from time to time. I echo what the hon member for George said today. If ever a tribute has to be paid to one person who has pleaded that Robben Island be given proper recognition in some form or another as a nature reserve or a national park—the same applies to Dassen Island—it is to the man generally known in this House, when he was a member, as “Piet Weskus”.

*I believe that “Piet Weskus” played a special role in environment conservation and I personally shall never forget the moving pleas he made in this House over the years about the conservation of the sights and the natural heritage of the West Coast.

That brings me to the hon member for Kuruman. He made a fine contribution, especially at the beginning of his speech. He spoilt this a little later on in his speech, but the first part of his speech did prove that hon members of all parties in this House have great admiration for the conservation of our natural treasures.

He also referred to tourism as one of South Africa’s most important industries. I agree with him that what has been happening over the past few years will not continue indefinitely. When the position in South Africa improves our country will be one of the world’s most important tourist areas. I think we shall attract many people who have been here before and who wish to return, as well as others who wish to view the famous parks and game reserves of South Africa.

The hon member referred to the role of the National Parks Board and asked whether non-serving members of Parliament are now appointed to that board as a matter of policy. He knows, and all hon members will remember, that members of Parliament have served on that board over the years. I want to pay tribute to every one of them who has made a fine contribution as a board member. Hon members make pleas in this House for conservation and for the establishment of more national parks and nature reserves, but there are also people outside this House who could, and wish to, make a special contribution to the national parks system. It is for that reason that I have made a few appointments on merit. I am thinking, for example, of Mr Kerneels Human and Mr Mike Rattray. They are the newest members of the National Parks Board and I think they will be able to make a substantial contribution to that body. I think we should consider the merit of all persons who could possibly be appointed. If hon members who retire from this House still wish to make a contribution we could perhaps consider them for further appointments.

†At the moment, however, we have such quality and such quantity that I should prefer to appoint people on merit, and not just to include them because they are or have been members of this House where they are making a contribution or have made one.

*The hon member also referred to facilities in the national parks. I want to refer to this briefly. There should be clarity about this, since this is a sensitive matter. For all practical purposes the national parks have been accessible to all race groups since the establishment of the National Parks Board system in 1926. Initially, for practical reasons, only Whites visited the parks, and it was only later that the need to visit the national parks developed among the more affluent people of colour.

The need for overnight facilities for people of colour increased as their interest in the national parks increased. Separate but equal facilities were therefore created by the National Parks Board in the past. Ample provision was made for own dining and ablution facilities in order to avoid possible friction. The Kruger National Park, for example, is visited by dignitaries from all over the world. For this reason two restaurants with international facilities which may be used by all racial groups were established there in 1960. The separation policy was maintained throughout, but in 1981 it was decided to make international accommodation facilities available as well and to allow all guests, regardless of race, to use all shops and restaurants. Few problems were experienced. In fact, I am not aware of any problems in this regard. This approach is now being more widely adopted.

As far as day visitors are concerned, all race groups receive the same treatment. Only resident visitors of all racial groups are allowed to use the swimming-pools—for obvious reasons. One cannot allow visitors who visit a national park for one day, to use facilities such as the swimming-pools. There is not enough room for that.

Hiking trails in national parks can be a point of friction. The arrangement that obtains here is that all hiking trails are at the disposal of all race groups, but if reservations for the same date have been made by members of different race groups, all should be consulted in the matter. Should there be dissatisfaction it will be reserved for the members of the race group who applied first. I consider this to be a sound arrangement.

To sum up, I want to say that the board’s policy makes adequate provision for all racial groups. This policy will also be adjusted periodically in order to ensure that the needs of all users of all racial groups are met.

Except those of the Whites!

It is absolutely uncalled for to say such a thing.

You are causing the Whites to be crowded out of this place.

That is not true.

I want to emphasise something the hon the Leader of the House said here recently, and that is that provincial resorts are going to be transferred to the Ministers’ Councils of the different Houses. Sir, I have a fairly good memory but I did not realise that my memory is as good as it now proves to be. I can remember vaguely that the hon member for Kuruman was the chairman of a certain commission. I think the commission was called the Commission of Inquiry into Environmental Legislation. That commission produced its report in 1982 and the number of the report is RP10/82. My memory did not fail me after all. The recommendation of this commission was unanimous, and the chairman, the hon member for Kuruman, agreed to the recommendation as contained in paragraph 6.4.6 in terms of which “members of all population groups should be considered for appointment to the Council”. [Interjections.] The less the hon member has to say about mixed boards and mixed facilities in future, the better.

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

No, Mr Speaker, definitely not.

In his speech the hon member for George mentioned the utilisation of the percentage of land used for nature conservation in South Africa. If one takes into consideration something I said earlier on about including the area covered by private game reserves, nature reserves and other conservation activities, about 10% of South Africa’s land is used for nature conservation. The hon member for George also addressed a plea to the private sector for greater participation in nature conservation. I should like to mention a donation this afternoon that we received from Dr Anton Rupert recently in the form of an amount of R4 million for the purpose of expanding national parks. The Government made a further contribution of R4 million. This amount of R8 million has been invested and the interest will be used for the expansion of our national parks. I think this was a very fine gesture on the part of Dr Rupert and an equally fine gesture on the part of the Government.

On the part of this mixed Government!

Yes, on the part of this Government, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon member spoke knowledgeably about the Wilderness lake area. I am pleased that I was able to play a role in that regard, but I merely put the finishing touches to the hard work undertaken by all the other people over the years to get that Wilderness lake area declared. It is indeed a national asset as he rightly said, and I think one can accept that everybody in the department and elsewhere shares his feeling that this is one of South Africa’s greatest and most beautiful assets.

I now come to the hon member for Mooi River.

†As usual, the hon member for Mooi River made a constructive and an interesting contribution. He is quite right in saying that when the hon member for George talks about the natural beauties of the Southern Cape, he is blowing his own trumpet, and that the people of Natal can equally well blow their trumpet about the natural beauty and the natural facilities in that lovely province. The same thing can be said about the West Coast and about that portion of the Peninsula which I happen to have the honour to represent. [Interjections.]

What about the Northern Cape?

As I am reminded, there are other places such as the Northern Cape which also have certain claims to fame. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred—and I am glad he did—to the expansion of parks and the inclusion in parks of property belonging to private individuals, under the agreement park system or the register park system or the Schedule 5 park system. As he quite rightly says, that envisages a partnership between private enterprise—the private land-owner—and the park authorities, without the impossibility of a capital outlay that would be required from the Parks Board or from the Government to incorporate all those private properties. I am very enthusiastic about this system. I have held a number of discussions with people whose properties border on the national parks, and I believe that with a concerted effort and with the co-operation of all the people concerned, we shall be able to increase our national parks in the next few years substantially by including under the Schedule 5 system, private property presently in the hands of farmers.

As the hon member said, one of the big advantages will of course be the removal of boundary fences. If the removal of park fences and the boundary fences between the farms takes place, I can foresee only benefits eventually. I can only foresee that the game will be able to use the old, traditional game trails which they used 50 and hundreds of years ago. I can foresee real benefits for both the Parks Board and the administration, as well as for the private individuals concerned. Our approach will certainly be flexible. We have tried, in terms of this Bill, to give incentives to the private owner by way of relief of rates etc in order to encourage him to come into the system. Moreover, I can give him the assurance that the Parks Board is very aware of the need to develop any facilities in our parks in the most sympathetic way possible. We certainly do not want eyesores. We certainly do not want modern buildings and modern architecture and things of that sort. We want things that blend into the national parks in the same way, if I may say so, as most of the buildings that I know blend into the Natal Parks under the administration of the Natal Parks Board.

*Mr Chairman, I think I have now reacted to most of the points made by hon members, and I should therefore like to conclude by thanking the various parties for their support and hon members for the fine contributions they made here this afternoon.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper:

1. 1. On page 5, from line 28, to omit paragraph (b).

May I briefly refer at the same time to another clause that is going to be amended, namely clause 7, by the omission of paragraph (c). The intention is, in terms of the proposed amendments, to delete these two paragraphs which both refer to the measure whereby wilderness areas and nature reserves declared in terms of the Forest Act, can be declared national parks by me without obtaining parliamentary approval for their withdrawal, as is required at present.

The measure was initially introduced essentially as a time-saving measure. That was the reason for it, against the background that it was the same Minister who was in the first instance responsible for the declaration of wilderness areas and nature reserves who would, in the event of the areas being declared national parks, be responsible for their withdrawal.

*It is a fact that the wilderness concept has acquired a special significance, both nationally as well as internationally. An indication of this is the country-wide reaction approximately two years ago to a proposal that the Cedarberg wilderness area be incorporated into a national park. Representations received at a late stage from a number of responsible bodies, and from people involved in nature conservation, pointed out that the removal of parliamentary sanction could have been interpreted as a retrograde step.

†That happened to be my thinking at the time that the standing committee was considering this matter. It seemed to me, when I received representations from the Mountain Club of South Africa and from other bodies of that kind, that we should have another look at the matter. I am sure that hon members will agree that it will perhaps be better to stick to what is known as the tried and the true procedures than to allow a discretion to a Minister, which step could possibly give rise to suspicion about his intentions. That would obviously be unjustified but, nevertheless, I should like to avoid that sort of thing if it is possible.

Accordingly, after considering the matter further, I have come to the conclusion that the potential disadvantages of retaining these provisions in the Bill far outweigh the potential advantages. I therefore recommend that the relevant passages referred to be removed from the Bill, so that the status quo is maintained insofar as wilderness areas and nature reserves are concerned.

Mr Chairman, I would like to respond to what the hon the Minister has just said. As we indicated during Second Reading, we will support the amendments which will delete both paragraphs. As the hon the Minister said in his statement to the Press, these powers were unnecessarily authoritarian. We agree that it will be better to do it through the normal procedures. The various bodies that are involved in this matter are much happier that this will be the case, and we thank the hon the Minister for having been sensitive to the representations received.

I should like to take the opportunity to respond to one other small but important matter. During the course of his reply to the Second Reading the hon the Minister said that the Director-General wished to place on record his apology for the fact that there had been some changes to the Bill before it reached its final stage. I think it is unfair that it should be on record that only the Director-General place an apology before this House on this matter. I think the responsibility for the changes must be shared among a number of people and not just be shouldered by one individual or one department. Law advisers, public representatives, the Minister himself and the Cabinet were involved. Therefore, I think the responsibility for the changes must be spread.

However, let us be grateful that, in a democratic tradition, the problems were identified and that the changes were brought about. We support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 9, from line 27, to omit paragraph (c).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, in the few minutes still at my disposal, I merely want to summarise by repeating the CP’s standpoint that the SABC has become the tool and the instrument of a panic-stricken but arrogant Government. [Interjections.] The Corporation seeks justification for this in reasons which are repugnant at times. [Interjections.]

As far as political matters are concerned, the SABC simply does not have the ability to act in an open-minded, balanced, unbiased and impartial way. I want to mention only two examples of what has happened since 12 March, the last occasion on which I spoke, and my hon friends will be able to elaborate on this. The first of these occurrences took place on Monitor on 24 March. It was said in connection with the kwaNatal indaba that the CP and the ANC have been linked as bed-fellows, as radical bodies, which want to overthrow South Africa from the right and from the left respectively.

A second instance took place on 10 April, when Monitor made out a case for the NP, which could not have been done as well as it was in that programme by any hon member on that side of the House, whether on a public platform or in the House. The opening of facilities and central business districts was propagated in that programme, without putting the alternative at all.

There is no alternative.

There is definitely no alternative!

The alternative is between us and hon members of the PFP. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Law and Order made a very interesting remark yesterday. He came out very strongly against the Cape Times and said the Cape Times was the mouthpiece of the ANC and the UDF. The hon the Minister of Law and Order desires the downfall of the Cape Times with all his heart, but his hon friend and colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, by means of M-Net put out his saving hand inter alia to the Cape Times to save this pernicious newspaper from downfall.

Can one believe that?

One has a situation there in which the Government’s right hand does not know what its left hand is doing. This takes place by means of agreements which hon members and I do not have the privilege of seeing. These are agreements which are not shown to us for approval. We cannot identify ourselves with the granting of greater powers and freer participation in the economy by South African television unless restraining measures are introduced and included in the legislation, for example the appointment of an ombudsman to prevent this monopolistic body from continuing to be a propaganda instrument for the Deputy Minister of Information. My time has expired. The CP votes against this Bill.

Mr Chairman, before responding to what the hon member for Brakpan said—and I am very definitely going to do so—I should very much like to sound a more positive note and focus on one aspect of the very important legislation before us here today.

The legislation before us is of great importance because it is instrumental in heralding an exciting new era for the media and for communication in our country. South Africa faces great challenges in this new sphere of mass communication or, more specifically, electronic communication. We cannot be allowed to fall behind, because if we were to fall behind, we would always be lagging behind the rest of the world.

The Bill before us now makes it possible for the SABC and our Press groups to join hands for the first time in this country’s history and, to the benefit of everyone in our country, enter upon and further develop the vast field of electronics. In the memorandum on the objectives of the Bill we read the following:

Negotiations are at present under way to conclude an agreement for co-operation between the SABC and a Press consortium giving rise to two partnerships, that of a subscription TV channel, known as M-net, and also the joint administration of TV4. This is a very important and significant development in the media field. It means that the SABC and the Press are negotiating an agreement to co-operate on a major project. One really hopes that this will lead to these two media giants burying the hatchet in future and joining together their great resources for the benefit of all of us in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member of the CP is free to crow about the Cape Times, but let me just tell him that this is a major development involving major newspaper groups. The struggle between the SABC and the newspapers in this country has become an unsavoury business. The newspapers, for example, maintain that the SABC, particularly after the advent of TV, is busy cutting their throats. It is true that newspapers find it increasingly more difficult, from a financial point of view, to make ends meet because of the fact that they have had to relinquish advertising to the TV services. Some newspapers have already had to close down, and this will also be the fate of other newspapers if this subscription service cannot prove to be of some value to them.

In South Africa we have a Press which, judging by high Western standards, can be compared favourably with the best in the world. We have a free and independent Press that every democratic country can rightly be proud of. It would therefore be a great pity if this fine industry, our Press, were to be adversely affected. That is why one should welcome the decision, by way of the legislation before us, to create new sources of revenue for the newspapers by also permitting them to obtain a slice of the SABC’s advertising cake.

One cannot but be excited by this step. When all is said and done it could prove to be a turning point in the history of newspapers and broadcasting, heralding a new era of co-operation. For the first time in this country’s history the English-language Press and the Afrikaans-language Press will be working together on a joint project—after having, in the past, often fought like cat and dog! Hon members will agree with me that this is a significant development. [Interjections.] Sir, I can understand why hon members of the CP are whining such a lot. None of the newspapers in South Africa supports them. They sit there like orphans. [Interjections.]

Yes, but we are on the road to victory.

This Bill now also makes it possible for newspapers to break out of the sphere of antiquated paper technology and pursue its communications role in the new field of electronic technology. With their wide experience and knowledge in the sphere of communications they can make a gigantic contribution to the development of the technology of communications in South Africa.

If this opportunity had not been created for our newspapers, their future role would probably have grown increasingly meagre and their position would probably have become increasingly more difficult. It is expected that the SABC and the Press consortium will jointly launch a subscription TV channel which would still be able to improve the quality of television in South Africa more than somewhat. Our television viewers would be able to benefit because subscription TV and TV4 would chiefly focus on top-quality entertainment. Mr Ton Vosloo, chairman of the M-Net consortium, has already intimated that M-Net will have access to the best programmes and also to spanking new films and that they will be purchasing only the best. So there are surprises and innovations in store for television viewers.

This new service will also require new technology. One of the interesting possibilities that will apparently also be investigated involves three sophisticated satellites that will have to be constructed abroad at great cost. The benefit of these satellites is that they will be able to beam up-to-the-minute programmes directly to viewers in South Africa.

What is also of importance is that this expected co-operation agreement breaks the SABC’s monopoly about which there have been so many complaints in the past. This gives newspapers access to the broadcasting field too. It also brings about the privatisation of television, something which has been advocated for such a long time now, not only giving newspapers a share in television, but also giving production companies a share in the field of electronics and television.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Sir, the hon member must first listen for a while and will perhaps then, at a later stage, get a chance to ask a question.

There is really very little to listen to.

This subscription service is undoubtedly also going to be a shot in the arm for our economy because of the fact that it creates new opportunities for our own film industry and because it ought to inspire local talent to better productivity and creativity.

I very gladly support this legislation with all the positive aspects involved. Some of my hon colleagues will be highlighting other aspects.

I should very much like to extend my thanks to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs for the support we obtained for this legislation from all parties in the committee. That support came from all the parties, no matter what hon members of the CP may say here today.

I now want to come back to the hon member for Brakpan. One finds the CP’s conduct increasingly surprising. Before us we have an important and positive piece of legislation, but the hon member for Brakpan had very little to say about that. Here this afternoon the hon member again elected to launch a stereotyped attack on the SABC about so-called bias and brainwashing. We are already so familiar with the phenomenon of struggling opposition parties, which cannot make any headway in politics, venting their bitterness and frustration on the SABC. We have repeatedly found radio and television being made the scapegoats whenever opposition parties suffered a defeat at the polls. It is nothing but frustration that the CP is again expressing here.

Instead of the CP having some appreciation for the SABC, which makes an excellent job of a very difficult task, they come along here with the most scathing and unreasonable criticism possible. The SABC’s task is not an easy one. It must furnish a service and do justice to a complex society in South Africa …

I wonder who wrote that speech.

Let me tell the hon member for Jeppe that I write my own speeches. I shall also help him if he needs any help with his speeches. Then his speeches in the House would be more meaningful.

I did not know you wrote such stupid speeches.

Koos, what would keep you quiet?

Smarties!

The SABC serves a great diversity of communities and cultural groups, and as many political parties with divergent opinions. For example, just take the CP and HNP; no one would be able to satisfy them, not even the Angel Gabriel. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan comes along with the blatant accusation that the SABC is brainwashing our people in this country.

Of course!

But that is anything but the truth! Let me explain to that hon member what is going on.

The SABC is not guilty of any brainwashing or bias, but is constructively informing the people of our country about the realities of South Africa which are becoming more serious and more complex by the day. When the SABC presents facts urgently calling for solutions, the purpose is to inform our people, to set them thinking and to open their eyes to the harsh realities of the South African situation unfolding before our very eyes. They do so to get our people more involved in the new initiatives and new strategies which will also facilitate the survival of hon members in the CP.

It is probably a good 80% of the SABC’s time on radio and TV that is spent on conveying factual material and information. When people in this country are placed in new relationships to one another, as is happening at present with the reform processes we have going here, it is surely necessary for one community to know how another is thinking and reacting. The SABC would be neglecting its duty if it did not reflect this thinking and these opinions and have them analysed and interpreted by experts. It is nonsense to come along and say that this is brainwashing; the hon member does not know what brainwashing means.

Our own TV increasingly aims at not merely presenting a visual image of what is happening, but also at sketching in the background, interpreting events and placing them in perspective. Then those hon members consider it to be brainwashing. In this context our TV service is following a world-wide trend prevalent in all TV services, because increasing numbers of people are having recourse to television and radio for news and information.

The world is becoming increasingly complex, and the demands made on the media to explain and interpret events are increasing. TV and radio cannot make a meaningful contribution if they cannot sketch in the background and interpret events. That is why a programme such as “Network” has become so popular with viewers.

It is not brainwashing when, in its actuality programmes, the SABC get leading figures from all groups, parties and communities talking. Hon members of the CP who are now complaining so bitterly now also get an opportunity to highlight problems from various angles. In these programmes opinions are solicited and reflected to and fro across group lines. In this way an immeasurable contribution is made towards more positive attitudes and sound race relations in this country. Those hon members of the CP are not interested in sound race relations; they are only interested in political gain.

As far as this is concerned, the SABC’s point of view is to serve the interests of South Africa and, broadly speaking, those of the various population groups in our country. In these programmes the SABC does not, like the newspapers, act in accordance with party-political guidelines. [Interjections.] How great the demand for these programmes really is is reflected by certain very interesting facts. In Britain the audience for a typical news or news backdrop program is larger than the circulation figures of all the British dailies put together. In America a recent survey has indicated that a good three-quarters of the country’s population get their news chiefly from television. In South Africa the main news broadcast on TV has a daily audience of 2,8 million viewers. The weekly number is approximately 20 million.

Man, that is old news.

I doubt whether that poor hon member ever heard of this.

What I have already forgotten, you still have to learn.

I shall leave the hon member at that. I could have sent him to a specific place, but I shall leave him where he is. [Interjections.]

Moreover, for their main news services TV2 and TV3 average 1,43 million viewers per day or 10 million per week. That means there are 30 million people in South Africa watching television news.

If these people are being brainwashed, why do they come in droves to the news programmes on our TV services? Why are they so popular? Even members of the CP come in droves to find out about the news and get some background information.

In both Britain and Europe the principle of impartiality in interpretative news programmes is being thrown overboard to an increasing extent. The famous BBC is at the forefront of this move and their example is being followed by other large TV services in the world. So one can see the ludicrousness of the CP’s argument about the SABC supposedly being engaged in brainwashing. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the CP, which grumbles and complains so much about the SABC, that bearing in mind the proportionate size of that party, its standpoint is very well conveyed by the SABC. [Interjections.] Without radio and TV, which so regularly convey the CP’s standpoint, the public would have known much less or even nothing about them because there is no newspaper that puts their case or is prepared to do so. Hon members must tell us why no newspaper in this country supports them.

They are afraid of us. [Interjections.]

The liberalists have hijacked the newspapers.

I think there are many people who are afraid of the CP, because they are travelling a dangerous road.

If one looks at the radio and TV versions of what is said in Parliament, one finds that a larger percentage of CP spokesmen than NP spokesmen are reported. They get more coverage than we do on this side! As far as the parliamentary scene is concerned, in relation to its numbers the CP is better off than the NP. The CP has no reason to complain; it should be grateful for what the SABC does for it. Those hon members are well-known in this country because the SABC has introduced them to us.

But I also want to level an accusation at the SABC here today.

Well I never! Wonderful!

I want to accuse the SABC of paying too much attention to the CP. [Interjections.] They give too much publicity to the negative, destructive politics of the CP and the HNP. [Interjections.] It has a negative effect on relations with people of colour in this country. [Interjections.] The publicity given to CP members on radio and television is out of all proportion to their contribution in this House and outside this House. It is out of all proportion to their newsworthiness and, one could almost say, to their roadworthiness. They overload one with old political clichés and radicalisms without making any real contribution to the solution of our country’s problems. If one just looks at the debate of the past few weeks, asking oneself what contribution they have made, one sees nothing but clichés, clichés and more clichés, and nothing more. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan says the SABC is engaged in a brainwashing operation that leaves one choking for breath. That is what he said. If there is anything in this country’s politics that could really have one choking, it is the mouldy, archaic thinking of the CP. [Interjections.] The CP is angry at the SABC because the SABC does not want to think and act in the same verkrampte fashion that they do. Is that not ridiculous and arrogant?

It has always been the SABC’s policy and practice throughout the years—and it still applies today—that all news and information should be presented objectively and without distortion, clearly and unequivocally on the basis of its factual news value. The SABC has adhered to this throughout the years and has acted so correctly and objectively, and with such a balanced approach, that its integrity as one of the most balanced broadcasting systems in the world is still untarnished today.

I could say a great deal more about this, but my other hon colleagues will make further contributions. I just want to say that I would very much like to support the legislation before us because it is legislation that will place this fine and efficient broadcasting service in a position to furnish an even better service in this country.

Mr Speaker, to the hon member for Bloemfontein North, I can only say—with apologies to Shakespeare— “Methinks the gentleman protesteth far too much”! The thing that really upset him was the term “brainwashed”. During the course of my address here this afternoon I intend to cover many of the points he raised.

It was inevitable that this particular measure would unlock the whole debate on the bias or otherwise of the SABC. I believe that every single medium in this country, be it the printed medium, radio or television, is biased one way or the other. It is biased towards one particular political viewpoint or towards one particular pet theory or hate which it may have, or a pet theory or love it may have. I do not think that television is any more or any less biased than any of the others. However, let me hasten to add that the bias is undesirable in each and every one of them, because if they were truly doing what they should do, they would present both sides and all sides. However, the big difference between television and radio, and my subscription to a newspaper, is that I can stop my subscription to a newspaper. I do not have to buy the newspaper from the vendor on the corner when I go home, if I do not want to. If I do not want to buy the Cape Times, The Argus or Die Burger or Rapport or whatever, I do not buy it. [Interjections.] However, I am captive when it comes to the SABC.

I have to pay for a licence and buy a radio or television set. [Interjections.] The hon the Chief Whip gives a simple answer and says one can switch it off. Yes, of course, I can switch it off, but in order to switch it off, I have had to buy it. In order to have that choice, I have to make a tremendous capital investment. [Interjections.] I have to spend a lot of money in order to buy a television set. I spend it in the hope that I am going to hear and see something I want to see. I spend it in the hope that I am not going to have to watch nauseating programmes like Quibble/ Kibbel for 10 minutes of every night of my life where people cut holes in the clothes of others, or throw themselves into fountains or sing Tarzan-songs for money. If that is the level of our humour in our lovely country, then heaven help us!

I do get the feeling that there are attempts being made in certain programmes to offer viewers something worthwhile. In a programme like Network, for argument’s sake, they are trying to do that. Inevitably, however, there will be one or two good Network programmes where there are members of the CP and the PFP who are able to state their views. One never sees members of the NRP on television. It seems as if we got dropped off the face of the earth as far as the SABC is concerned. However, when one does see people from the left and the right wings of the political spectrum represented in this House, they are good programmes because the viewpoints of those gentlemen are being presented. It is inevitable, however, that after two such programmes, there could be anything between six to a dozen of the usual sickly Nationalist propaganda programmes which will ensue for the next week or so.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North says that television constructively educates and informs the people of South Africa. He says television is positive. However, Mr Speaker, to be positive in South Africa means one thing today: One must have a little blue card which says that one is a member of the NP. Then one is positive. If one is anything else, one is negative. One is immediately labelled as negative. One is not constructive, one is destructive if one is anything that is not connected with the NP. The hon member for Bloemfontein North says that television must serve the best interests of South Africa. What he really means is that it must serve the best interests of the governing party. He continues his train of thought, saying that, unlike newspapers, the SABC does not follow a particular party line. Well, that was the laugh of his speech! It is ridiculous to say that, unlike newspapers, the SABC does not follow a particular party line. To be quite honest, I am not surprised that the SABC is having a little difficulty in this regard, because the NP is having such difficulty following its party line that obviously its slave is also having a little difficulty. The NP does not know which way it is going. It does not know whether it is going in the direction the hon the Minister of National Education wishes to follow, or whether it is going the way the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to go. At the moment, however, it is going the way of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs through the SABC because he is the baby in charge. [Interjections.]

In my opinion the news broadcasts on SABC-TV have been reduced to nothing more than trash. Night after night, particularly over the past few weeks, if there was a bomb explosion in Belfast or in Armagh, and as long as there is violence and fire or an explosion, and it is akin to what is happening in our country, but it is happening in some other comer of the globe, one may be sure that that is item number one on the news. They seem to say: “Look, South Africa, it is happening somewhere else too.” That item is followed by similar items, after which a Minister gets coverage. After that there is coverage of another item of violence which is again followed by the views of another Minister. That is what one sees on the news service of SABC television. That passes for news! Perhaps a little report on the unrest in South Africa is included somewhere. Do hon members on the Government side want to tell me that this is not brainwashing? This is the ultimate in brainwashing! There is no news service on the SABC any longer! I am sorry, but I have tried to be tolerant of the SABC. Read the speeches I have made in the past and hon members will see that I have bent over backwards to be tolerant of the SABC. I am afraid, however, that the SABC is taking it too far. One needs only to make an overseas visit to realise how serious the situation is. One can say what one likes about the SABC and the overseas flannelage. One needs to see only a few decent overseas newscasts and one will know what news is all about. Is there no other country in the world apart from South Africa? Does nothing ever happen beyond our borders other than violence? Surely there is other news that we could look at, but no, we are precluded from looking at it. We do not see it. [Interjections.]

I want to say, however, that there is no doubt that television—and I think I have had my say about the bias of the SABC now— has had a marked effect on the medium of the printed word. When radio was introduced in the 1930s, I can remember as a small boy noting that, even then, changes were coming about in the newspaper industry. The newspapers changed. Their presentation changed. In the 1930s the front page of most newspapers was taken up by advertising. They changed, however. Television has had a far greater and far more urgent impact on the printed word. That impact has been condensed into the past 10 years. The computer age, coupled with word processing, has introduced a whole new ball-game and we are going to see that ballgame when M-Net comes onto our screens.

Any hon member in this House who uses Beltel, as I have since its introduction, will know what we can expect on M-Net. One only has to look at one’s television screen during the test period to see what is to come. I believe that ultimately the number of newspapers that we see on our street corners is going to diminish. I do not think that the newspaper is going to vanish from the scene but I certainly think that the numbers we have in South Africa will diminish. Are hon members aware of the fact that the city of Pretoria is served, I believe, by no fewer than seven newspapers on a daily basis? That cannot continue. I think M-Net will see to that. [Interjections.] One will be able to read the news on the television screen in one’s lounge every night. That is what it will amount to.

I won’t miss some of the papers.

One won’t miss some of the papers, and one won’t get inky fingers, and one’s wife will not complain about the dirty marks on the light switch caused by the ink on the newsprint. Neither will one be castigated for reading the newspaper in bed, thereby dirtying the sheets. [Interjections.]

I sincerely believe that these changes will come about, however, and I am delighted that a Press consortium representing all the major Press groups in this country, together with the SABC, will operate the M-Net system. I say this because I believe that then, and only then, will all these groups be brought together. They are all going to be brought together and, hopefully, the bringing together of these groups into that corsortium will mean that we will enjoy a comprehensive coverage of news, views and opinions in all fields and across the complete political spectrum of our country. It is my sincere desire that we see that.

Obviously, the Broadcasting Act has had to be amended to cater for this innovation. I also believe that as technology improves, we are going to find that we shall have to look at the Broadcasting Act more closely and more often.

The staggering of the payment period for licence fees, is long overdue and I am sure that the Postmaster-General and his staff will be more than happy because the chaotic situation that exists at our post office counters towards the end of September is something that we can all do without.

I must say, however, that I cannot share the Official Opposition’s concern regarding clause 3(b). I cannot agree with the hon member for Berea. Moreover, I almost think that their stance could be as a result of lobbying from a certain sector and not due to any sincere conviction within their ranks.

You would think that.

Yes, I do. The Chief Whip says I would think that. I do, because on the standing committee, no such reservation was expressed. There was no reservation expressed in the standing committee when this Bill was deliberated, and that is my reason for my saying so. [Interjections.]

I am happy to accept that the provisions contained in this clause dealing with the right of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to place the material on the video and cinema market, have been inserted in order to offset the unavoidable losses—I think a blind man on a galloping horse could see this—which are incurred as a result of the inability to do this in terms of the existing Act.

I believe too that note should be taken of the fact that there was an amendment to one of the clauses which gave cause for concern in the original Bill. It says much for the workings of the standing committee that that clause was deleted, and it was done with the unanimous concurrence of all. I think we have been left with an amending Bill that will serve the Broadcasting Act well. In my opinion it will give effect to some very necessary improvements.

In conclusion, there is one thing that I want to see above all but which, unfortunately, I think is a forlorn hope. However, I sincerely hope and pray that the day is not too far distant when we shall have an unbiased radio and television service which will present news and views of all the people in this country fairly and squarely and which will also give us the news of what is happening in the great, wonderful world beyond our borders.

Mr Speaker, there are some points which the hon member for Umhlanga made with which I do not entirely disagree but I do feel that he has also fallen into the trap into which opposition speakers very often fall, and that is that he overstated his case.

The United States, for example, is known as the greatest democracy on earth and also as the leader of the free world. As such, one would expect it to take a great interest in events in other parts of the world. Yet I have never seen a country in which the television news services are so introspective, self-centred and parochial as those that one sees on the various American television stations. Whatever the SABC’s other faults may be, it gives far greater coverage to international events than most other TV stations anywhere.

I will also have a few things to say about bias but, since I spent 15 years of the SABC’s 50 years of existence working there, I should like to join other speakers, like the hon member for Brakpan, in congratulating it on its auspicious anniversary. I also wish to associate myself with the congratulations of the hon member for Walvis Bay on the impressive progress that the SABC has made over half a century and on the service it renders our many communities in terms of information, entertainment and even education. [Interjections.]

I know of no other broadcasting station in the world that broadcasts in so many languages on its internal services, and certainly of no other that does so at so little cost to its listeners and viewers. This, I think, is a particularly noteworthy achievement in view of the small size of our overall population and the relatively small numbers of each of its components, each of which the SABC serves in its own language in one way or another. As a result of these factors, it stands to reason that South Africa cannot afford numerous channels, as can the United States of America, with its almost 20 channels which all broadcast in the same language, thus affording millions of people a wide variety of choice. If they do not like a programme on one channel, all they have to do is to switch to another.

The SABC, on the other hand, has to try to please as many people as possible with a very limited number of channels at its disposal, both on radio and television and, as the hon member for Stilfontein said, that is an impossibility. As a result it is almost inevitable that the SABC will receive complaints from time to time, even in respect of the most innocent and innocuous matters, such as the choice of a music or sports programme on a given day, not to speak of more contentious matters such as socioeconomic and political events.

Therefore, given the limitations imposed on it by factors beyond its control, I think that, generally, the SABC does a very creditable job on all its services.

Having said that, however, I think it is also equally necessary to say that we in the NP are, to paraphrase the words of the hon member for Brakpan, also not always deliriously happy with everything the SABC does either. We too have some criticisms in respect of programmes such as Network and the manner in which the SABC handles certain socio-economic and political issues from time to time.

That being so, I reject the hoary old allegations on the part of the opposition parties that the SABC is a propaganda organ of the NP. [Interjections.] To suggest that people like Mr Harry Oppenheimer, Mr Tertius Myburgh and Mr Harold Pakendorf are spokesmen of the NP merely because they welcomed the State President’s Opening Speech at Parliament in a certain Network programme is, I think, so far-fetched and absurd that it hardly warrants comment. [Interjections.]

Even in this House there are times when the PFP and the CP agree with us on the Government benches on certain issues. On some occasions they even pass the odd laudatory remark and vote with us in divisions. That does not turn them into Nationalists and neither does it make Progs of the CP when they vote with the PFP against the Government. [Interjections.]

By the same token, the mere fact that Mr Harry Oppenheimer finds aspects of the State President’s Opening Address worth welcoming does not turn him into a supporter or advocate of the Government or the NP. While on this subject, may I inquire since when the PFP has become a segregationist party? When the hon member for Brakpan accused SABC television of being abused, in his words, “om die Regering se integrasiebeleid te bevorder” there were loud “hear, hears” from the PFP benches with the mellifluous baritone of the otherwise very reticent hon Chief Whip ringing through the Chamber loudest of all. [Interjections.]

There is a constitutional difference between the Government of the day and the governing party. This difference is recognised in most multiparty countries of the world and has always been recognised in South Africa. It applies even more today since the Government no longer consists of one party but of three. For the duration of its mandate, therefore, the Government, once it has assumed power, acts and speaks for all the citizens of the country and is equally responsible to all of them, including those who voted for it, those who voted against it and those who did not vote at all. Therefore, when a Minister makes an announcement on behalf of the Government on television or on radio, when he raises or lowers taxes, for example, introduces or abolishes influx control or whatever, this is a thing that is going to come about and affect the lives of the people. Consequently they have a right to know what is going to happen and it cannot therefore be reasonably argued that the broadcasting of Government announcements and statements by Ministers are propaganda for a political party. [Interjections.] That is why governments are newsmakers whereas opposition parties more often than not merely tend to express opinions and views which are not likely to affect the electorate until they themselves come to power. Opposition parties are aware of this, and in this debate the hon member for Brakpan has already conceded that the Government is in fact the biggest newsmaker in the country.

Governing parties, on the other hand, are no different from any other political parties. They do not speak or act for all the citizens, but are responsible for their actions only to their members and supporters. It is in this context that the NP often gets the short end of the stick and has reason for complaint, because the SABC, like the opposition parties, does not give sufficient attention to the constitutional distinction that I have just dealt with.

Let us examine what happens in practice. A Minister makes an announcement on behalf of the Government. Let us say for argument’s sake he announces an increase in general sales tax.

Or in the salaries.

Having done so, the respective official spokesmen of the various opposition parties are approached for their comments. They have their party emblems spread behind them in the background of the television screens, but the NP spokesman and the NP emblem are absent. They do not feature at all. They are simply left out. I want to say that the hon Minister of Finance is the Government’s spokesman in this context, but the NP’s spokesman in this context is the hon member for Smithfield.

A good Free Stater!

He does not get an innings but everybody else does. These are some of the examples of bias that irritate us in the NP.

There are other examples. At the time of the unrest and the problems surrounding Crossroads and Khayelitsha, Radio Today would quite often interview public servants such as Mr Timo Bezuidenhout in conjunction with PFP politician such as Dr Alex Boraine. Whilst the PFP politicians scored political points and indulged in anti-NP and anti-Government propaganda—which a neutral public servant could not counter—there was nobody to put forward a political view on behalf of the Government or the National Party. I ask you Sir, what kind of balance is that?

Is Mr Bezuidenhout not a Government employee?

He is an employee of the State.

Is he not, therefore, putting across the Government’s view?

We do not know to which political party he belongs. He does not speak on behalf of the NP. He speaks on behalf of the State.

He is an employee of the Government.

He would not be where he is if he did not belong to the NP.

I have just drawn a distinction between the Government and the State! Does the hon member never listen? Must he always keep his mouth open and his ears shut? [Interjections.]

There are other examples I could cite. For instance, to make their programmes more interesting and controversial, the presenters of Network and other current affairs discussion programmes have developed the habit of late of basing their assertions and their questions to Government spokesmen on the allegations of opposition parties, the UDF, foreign governments and so on, thereby becoming, by extension, inadvertent propagandists for these anti-Government bodies. It is also patently obvious to me—and, I think, to any other hon member of the NP—that the presenters of the English Network programmes are not supporters of the NP. [Interjections.] Their bias shows not only in the way they draw up their programmes but also in the way they draw up the filmlets that frequently precede panel discussions. [Interjections.] I know for a fact that Pat Rogers is not a member of the NP.

Pat Rogers is not an employee of the SABC.

Pat Rogers is a member of this party.

Be that as it may, he does do Network. So I really do not think that the complaints of the hon members in the opposition parties are justified.

For example, Mr Clive Derby-Lewis is a minor luminary of the CP on the Witwatersrand. He is not an elected representative at any level. Yet until quite recently he appeared on SABC discussion programmes far more frequently than any elected member on this side of the House …

He was good, was he not?

That is not relevant!

Yes, but that hurts you, does it not?

Outside of election campaigns, it is common practice of broadcasting institutions in most Western countries—including Great Britain—to subscribe in a general way to the policies of the Government of the day. This is a normal democratic practice which recognises that the Government of the day has a mandate from the majority of the electorate.

It is simply quite unreasonable for parties that have lost an election to expect to be treated as if they had won it. Their spokesmen are not Ministers of the Government or their equivalent, and have no power to implement their beliefs. Their opinions may well be interesting, but they do not affect the day-to-day lives of the citizens in any real terms. [Interjections.] Therefore, they simply do not carry equal weight. That is why opposition politicians in Britain, the United States or anywhere else are not treated in the same way as those of the Government. [Interjections.] When Mr Callaghan was Prime Minister he was on radio and television very frequently. No sooner had Mrs Thatcher taken over when she tended to hog the airwaves and Mr Callaghan disappeared from hearing and from view! It is going no better now with Mr Kinnock, not to speak of Mr Steele or Dr Owen.

During election campaigns the practice differs from country to country. The hon member for Brakpan made the point that the three major parties in Britain got equal time. I doubt if the Liberal-SDP alliance would agree with him. Even if it were so, however, what about the Scottish Nationalist Party? What about the Welsh Nationalist Party? What, too, about the IRA which, believe it or not, enjoys representation in the Parliament at Westminster? [Interjections.]

That aside, however, I think the hon member for Brakpan needs reminding that the three major parties under the present parliamentary dispensation in South Africa are not the NP, the PFP and the CP, but the NP, the Labour Party and the NPP. [Interjections.] That is a fact! [Interjections.] That aside, Sir, I am not aware that the CP generally considers all things British to be paragons of exemplitude. [Interjections.] In any event I see no reason why the British system should be considered the be-all and end-all of party political broadcasting. [Interjections.]

I have visited other Western democracies including Austria and West Germany and I want to tell the hon members that equal time is not given to all the political parties in those countries. In both countries they have proportional formulas based on the number of votes each party acquired in the previous election, and for the accommodation of parties that come into being between elections such as the Greens in West Germany and the CP in South Africa, they have a special formula too. I think that is a far more democratic way of doing things than the British system as allegedly cited by the hon member for Brakpan quoting the hon member for Jeppe.

*I wonder how the CP would have reacted today if the Government had accepted the advice which it received from the hon member for Sunnyside a number of years ago. In 1974 this hon member was a member of the NP study group on Information, and although this was before my time he was even, if I am not mistaken, the chairman. In that year the hon member participated in a similar debate on the SABC in the House and he complained about the fact that the Government did not make enough use of the SABC to keep the population properly informed. This happened shortly before the advent of television and in that connection he said (Hansard: House of Assembly, Volume 51, col 4243, 2 October 1974):

This is the old Department of Information:

I shall say nothing further.

What is wrong with that? He is referring to the truth, which is a strange concept for the NP.

The hon member for Brakpan alleged that Whites did not have their own broadcasting service. Surely the Indians and the Coloureds do not have a broadcasting service of their own either; they are allotted only a fraction of the time of the service for Whites. I now want to ask whether the CP, if it came to power, would establish a broadcasting corporation for every single population component, state, homeland and area to give them a full-time service. [Interjections.] If that is the case, where will all the money come from.

The legislation before the House is very simple and was accepted without any problems or differences by the standing committee on 4 November last year, with one unanimous amendment. Neither the PFP nor the CP made any objections at the time. In a previous debate we heard from the hon member for Langlaagte that the CP representative on the standing committee had not received his documentation in time, and I accept his word for that.

Now I just want to know whether the PFP representatives also failed to receive their documents in time. If they did receive them, why did they not mention at the time the serious fundamental objections they now have against the legislation?

The hon members of the Opposition know that in terms of the present Constitution the standing committees are an integral part of the law-making process of general legislation. The standing committees are not only intended to obtain concensus on such legislation among the members of the three Houses, but also among the hon members of the various parties in this House so that the best possible legislation can be introduced in Parliament. When hon members therefore fail to use the standing committee to make their inputs, they fail to appreciate what is, in my opinion, an important aspect of this Parliament, they waste time of the hon members of all three the Houses and they deny our colleagues in the other Houses an opportunity to discuss amendments with us on which they could have had a say on in the standing committee.

We are all aware that the hon members of the PFP and the CP do not like the tricameral system, but they nevertheless undertook to participate and their leaders said that as democrats they would participate in the system and in the standing committees, albeit with the intent to change it.

About two weeks ago a letter from the hon member for Brakpan was published in Die Burger in which he said that they were participating in the standing committees as democrats. Silence is in my opinion not participation and that is why I really do not find the excuse that they did not receive the documentation to be entirely convincing. In such a case I think the proper procedure is to request an adjournment of the standing committee so that the hon members concerned can study the documentation. In this way we could all enjoy the benefit of their inputs before they come to this House. [Interjections.] They make endless speeches in this House on a subject which they accepted without a dissenting vote on the standing committee. [Interjections.]

The way in which the CP and the PFP have dealt with this legislation, makes me wonder whether they are not perhaps trying to circumvent the procedure of the tricameral system and the standing committees. Another reason may be that they cannot of course make as much propaganda on the standing committees as they can here during the public sessions. Finally I wonder whether the CP can really be so narrow-minded that they do not want to talk to colleagues of colour on the standing committees, but want to do so only in this House which they consider to be the White Parliament. [Interjections.] I am merely asking.

I now come to the legislation before this House. Insofar as it makes the privatisation of certain activities of the SABC possible, I think that it ought to be widely welcomed. We are all aware of the flood of letters to the Press after the rationalisation of the SABC’s services and the incorporation of Springbok Radio into the new English and Afrikaans services of Radio South Africa. The fact that these services now also carry advertisements, was also widely deplored in the Press. In short, the public insistence is for more services, not fewer. This conclusion can also be drawn from the many letters to the Press over many years pleading for more variety and entertainment programmes, especially on television. This demand was partly satisfied when TV4 was introduced, but the need for even more variety and entertainment still remains largely unsatisfied. I am not saying that I approve of it; I am merely stating the fact.

At the same time we are all equally aware of the continuous insistence by the public that the Government, the authorities, and parastatal and statutory corporations such as the SABC must curtail and limit their expenditure. It is even being argued that the licence fee, which is really not expensive at 13 cents per hour, should be reduced further. Where else can one find so much entertainment, information, etc, at such a low tariff?

The two demands to which I have referred are irreconcilable. They fail to take one simple fact into account: The tax and licence fees levied by authorities and institutions such as the SABC have a direct bearing on the services which the public expects from them. No organisation, not even the SABC, can offer more and more for less and less. It is obvious that that is impossible. If a statutory institution such as the SABC has to curtail its expenditure and offer more at the same time, there is only one way in which it can be done, and that is to transfer the additional services required to the private sector.

It can in fact happen when subscription TV, or M-Net has been established. Those who desire more entertainment can then acquire it voluntarily at their own expense while those who do not have a need for it, will be satisfied with the existing services at no extra cost. The fact that another TV broadcasting institution is coming into operation will in my opinion also encourage competition, which in turn can only lead to the improvement of the quality.

Another aspect of privatisation which is affected by this legislation, has already been mentioned by the hon the Deputy Minister. It is that the SABC is often forced to buy programme packages from abroad and that some of the programmes acquired in these packages, are not suitable for public broadcasting. This entails that the SABC, with its very limited resources and at unfavourable exchange rates, has to pay through the nose for material which it cannot use. Some of this material can in fact be put to use by video and home movie distributors.

I therefore think it a good thing that the. SABC is giving consideration to entering the video wholesale market so that video distributors can acquire material from the SABC instead of importing it directly from abroad. In so doing it will be possible in some cases to avoid double exchange rate transactions and the SABC will be able to operate more cost-effectively. The money which is saved in this manner can be used to produce more local programmes. I think that this would be a good development because I, but for completely different reasons than those often advanced by the CP, feel that too many foreign programmes, particularly American programmes, are being broadcast by the SABC.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North has already referred to the establishment of M-Net. I also want to say why I think that it is to be welcomed. One of South Africa’s greatest assets is the fact that we have the freest press in Africa. This fact is also recognised in the outside world. At the same time it is also a fact that everywhere in the world the electronic media have dealt the newspaper industry a blow. This also happened in South Africa despite the fact that the SABC is subject to a time limit on the broadcasting of advertisements.

As we all know, at least three newspapers disappeared from the scene last year. If we on this side had had the same approach as the CP, we would have rejoiced at it, but I think that there are other ways to get at newspapers which act in an anti-South African or a-South African way. That is to stop buying them.

The establishment of M-Net now gives the South African press industry a share in the electronic media which should relieve its financial position in the long term. This will of course only be possible if they can reach an agreement in their negotiations with the SABC.

The other amendments proposed in this Bill, such as the staggering of the licensing year, are obvious and I think they entail an improvement on the present situation, and therefore I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am glad the hon member for Benoni was the person who spoke before me, because I think we see in him a classic example of what can happen to someone who has worked for the SABC for 15 years. I think that was the period for which the hon member said he had worked for that organisation. He ended up as one of the SABC’s interviewers, particularly on political and governmental subjects. It was his duty to interview Cabinet Ministers and to lead discussions.

On his knees!

I agree completely with the hon member for Johannesburg North. [Interjections.] Did the hon member for Benoni conduct real, live interviews with Cabinet Ministers, asking difficult questions, or did he telegraph every question and ask them obsequiously?

That is hogwash!

We saw it time and time again. That hon member could not say boo to a goose, let alone to a Cabinet Minister.

I have just said boo to a whole lot of geese! [Interjections.]

Of course, the result of all this obsequiousness is that the hon member now sits in this House for the NP. [Interjections.] His representations as a member of the SABC have stood him in good stead. He has boarded the gravy train and I hope he is enjoying it. [Interjections.]

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Umhlanga, who suggested that we in the PFP had changed our minds since we discussed this Bill in the standing committee because we had been lobbied by some outside organisation. I want to tell that hon member and this House that that is most certainly not the case. I should also like to tell that hon member how it happened that we came to oppose this Bill. What happened was that members of the finance group of this side of the House had a look at the Bill and, when we got to Parliament, we inspected the particular clause in relation to tax, because that is obviously a financial aspect. We disliked intensely the exemption from tax which the SABC is being given by this Bill. Therefore we persuaded our caucus that we should oppose this legislation, and we have done that. [Interjections.]

The final thing I want to say, although we are now talking about television, is that a stinging and personal attack was launched in this House yesterday on the editor of one of our newspapers in this country, Mr Tony Heard of the Cape Times.

Disgraceful!

There was a disgraceful attack launched on his newspaper. I want to remind this House that the editor of the Cape Times recently won an international award for courageous journalism. He won the Golden Pen award, and it is because of men like him that we are still able to say, with some small justification, that there is a degree of Press freedom left in this country of ours. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to tell the hon the Minister who was responsible for the attack that I should like to echo the words of Mr Heard in the paper this morning and challenge him across the floor of this House to make those remarks outside this House, and not to hide in a cowardly fashion behind the privilege he is given as a member of Parliament in this House.

You are not impressing me at all.

The hon the Minister has interjected that I am not impressing him. I have no intention ever of trying to impress him. I do not believe he is worth impressing and I would not wish to do so.

As we last debated this particular Bill on 12 March, in other words, virtually a month ago today, I should perhaps repeat the amendment which the Official Opposition moved to this Bill. It was moved by my colleague the hon member for Berea, and it is as follows:

That is the amendment we have moved.

I want to commence by saying that the power of the mass media of communication is enormous. The power of television and radio in particular must be the greatest power for the exercise of good or evil in any society. Even before the existence of television or radio, the means of communication was singled out by the Communist Party as being most important. A hundred years before the NP came into power in this country Marx and Engels drew up a manifesto of the Communist Party, and this is still today the blueprint for communist infiltration.

The aim was the abolition of private property, and one of the strategies to accomplish this objective was the centralisation of the means of communication in the hands of the state. In that respect this Government have been good communists since they came into power in 1948. They have dominated and they still dominate the airwaves of South Africa for their own purposes and to the benefit of their own party. They have used and abused this power quite shamelessly.

Today the SABC is nothing but an Afrikaner-nationalist medium. It is not a conservative Afrikaner medium or a Brown Afrikaner medium. It is not an English-speaking medium either. It is an Afrikaner-nationalist medium. When one looks at the list of names in the top echelons of the SABC— and I have the lists here—one will find that the vast majority of staff members in every department of the SABC, be it personnel, finance, English and Afrikaans programmes, manpower or the secretariat, have Afrikaans names. The list reads like the list of the names of members of the Broederbond. [Interjections.] I am talking about Afrikaner nationalism and not about the Afrikaner.

It is for the reasons I have stated that we welcome this first small, tottering, inadequate step towards the breaking of a State monopoly. The political power of television is boundless. It can and has made and unmade presidents. The Reagan-Carter debate in 1980 was a classic example. The countries that have that kind of debate are fortunate. The hon member for Benoni—he has disappeared again—referred only to Britain. Let us look at the United States, however. Here we have a classic example. That Reagan-Carter debate was of vital interest. I would dearly have loved during the referendum we had in 1983 to have seen a debate between the hon the Prime Minister, as he was then, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, at that stage. [Interjections.]

Where is he now! [Interjections.]

He has despaired of being able to influence the minds on that side of the House, and who can blame him? [Interjections.]

We do not see that kind of debate in this country. Have we ever seen a debate between the Prime Minister, or now, the State President, and his main political rivals? [Interjections.] Why have we not seen that kind of debate? Instead we are served up with an obsequious interviewer, like the hon member for Benoni, deferentially asking prearranged questions of Ministers who then subject us to a monologue. [Interjections.] The power of TV is well demonstrated in South Africa by the very presence of the hon member for Benoni in this House.

The reporting on the SABC is dismally one-sided. Let us look at some recent examples. There was an occasion when the hon the Minister of Law and Order took issue with my colleague, the hon member for Johannesburg North. The eventual outcome of that was that the SABC had to apologise to the hon member. [Interjections.] There was also an extraordinary interlude earlier this session when the hon member for Greytown referred to a 21% increase in salaries given to Post Office employees. The hon the Minister’s response was highlighted, but one would have wondered what the necessity for that was because the comments of the hon member for Greytown were hardly heard on SABC at all. Another example was the beach issue in Port Elizabeth when the hon the Minister for Defence was involved. We saw what the hon the Minister had said but nowhere had the SABC told us what had led up to that particular issue that the hon the Minister for Defence was commenting on.

We have had examples of that in the past. When the Information affair was at its height, the SABC was asked why they had not televised an interview on the Information affair. Can one believe that their reply was that they thought it was no longer a matter of public interest! That was when the debate was at its height.

There was also the Salem affair. I was personally interviewed by a number of television networks on that particular issue, but not by the SABC. Not a chance! Not once has the voice of opposition to Government been heard!

What is worse is the reporting of the unrest situation in this country. We are aware that the news media give a one-sided view of South Africa internationally. I deplore that one-sided view that has been given internationally about South Africa. In respect of the areas where the unrest was taking place, it was a true picture. However, it did not represent the whole picture.

The Government took reprehensible and Draconian action to stop this unfavourable reporting. At the same time, however, this Government was being equally one-sided in its presentation to South African viewers. Many of the realities of the situation within South Africa are not televised on SABC so that we also can obtain a balanced viewpoint. They are being hidden. We have been shown the most ghastly shots of Blacks being murdered by other Blacks. Kinikini was one example. There was a girl who was claimed to have been an informer and who was burnt in Johannesburg—that, too, was shown on television. Let me digress here and say that I believe some of these shots should never have been projected into homes with small children possibly watching. It was sensational reporting at its worst. My own grandchild was deeply upset by the screening of the murdered child in Natal not long ago. Those responsible for the screening of that sort of material deserve to be rooted out of the SABC far more than those responsible for the nudes on the news. [Interjections.]

We have been shown damage to schools. We have been shown burnt homes, overturned cars and trucks. It is quite right that we should see these things in order to be able to gauge Black reaction to the evils of apartheid and understand the dangers of the current situation. At the same time, however, the authorities are presented as being Simon Pure.

I want to mention two videos which I saw recently which were also shown to overseas audiences. I believe they should be seen by every single South African. The first video contains the shots of the so-called Trojan Horse incident here in Cape Town. Those shots of the Trojan Horse incident made a very deep impression on me, as they did on international audiences. They were factual shots and I believe that the South African public should have the opportunity to see them.

Another video which I saw was a record of the demonstration on the UCT campus some time ago. There were shots of the students and their banners. There was no visible evidence of stone-throwing whatsoever. It appeared to be a peaceful demonstration until we saw the police starting to take action. I have seen a video of a young girl—I assume she was a female UCT student—being dragged along the main road in Rondebosch. She was lying on the ground and a policeman had her by the scruff of the neck. As he dragged her, she was screaming and he was beating her with a quirt. [Interjections.] The screams of that poor child still ring in my ears. [Interjections.] I believe it is necessary that the South African public should also see these shots, that they should also see these things. I know that individual policemen get carried away and do things that no policeman should ever do. It happens all over the world. However, if these actions are not exposed to the public—and it is the SABC’s duty to expose these actions—but are hidden away, then we are less likely to prevent further and worse occurrences of this nature.

I would like to say to hon members on the other side of the House that I would be prepared to try to arrange a viewing of this material for them because I believe it would make as deep an impression on them as it made on me.

It is always the Police, never anything else!

I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order across the floor whether he is aware of the incident of the policeman beating this girl. Is he aware of the incident of the police beating this girl who was, I presume, a UCT demonstrator, in the main road in Rondebosch? Is he aware of that? [Interjections.] You see, this is the Minister of Law and Order!

I am not aware of all the facts as you have them. I have some facts about the incident. [Interjections.]

Well now, Sir, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he will be prepared to come with me to a venue where I shall see to it that he is shown those video shots so that he can be made aware of the situation?

You hold your own … [Interjections.]

Has the hon the Minister seen those video shots? [Interjections.]

No, I have not seen them. [Interjections.]

He has not seen them. Sir, there are none so blind as those who will not see. [Interjections.] The man who is responsible for that particular incident should be drummed out of the Police Force because he brings his own colleagues and his own Force into disrepute, not only in this country but also internationally. It is these people that we want to get rid of. Good heavens, we do not want to get rid of all the policemen—many of them do a magnificent job! However, until those who cause the trouble are rooted out—and it is that hon Minister’s duty to know about them and to take action against them—there will continue to be bad Press and other reports for us internationally which we can ill afford. If SABC-TV falls down in the respect of letting us know what is happening in our own country, then it is neglecting their duty to the South African public.

There are other respects in which the SABC is wanting. One can hardly pick up a newspaper today without seeing a complaint about the SABC. The new format of programmes and the fact that every programme carries advertising has not been accepted by the listening public. As a member of Parliament I have received many letters of complaint from listeners to the SABC. We now have a fully commercial SABC, and still they lose money. Private sector television and radio stations around the world seem to represent licences to print money. Why, with a State monopoly, do we lose money here? It can surely only be because of bad management.

Furthermore, I am forced to ask something as an English-speaking South African representing what is largely an English-speaking constituency: Please, cannot we have interviewers and staff on the English programmes who speak English? I address myself to the hon the Deputy Minister who speaks good English himself. [Interjections.] I have spoken on this matter before, and was told that it is not possible to have two staff members doing interviews in one area because of the expense.

Let me give an example of that. In Cape Town we have Chari Pauw. Now Sir, he speaks good English but it is accented English. The Afrikaner probably does not hear the difference but I can assure hon members that the English-speaker does. The SABC then appointed a second man in the Cape. One would think it was a good opportunity to appoint a man who spoke good, unaccented English but no, we got Lionel Jack who speaks very heavily accented English. I ask this hon Deputy Minister to look at the television staff of this Parliament. The number one man is Marius Kleynhans, the number two is André le Roux and the number three is Riaan Nel. These are the people whom we most often see on the English service of television. They are all nice people and I have nothing against any single one of them. I know and like them all—they are good, decent-thinking people. In fact, I wish I could speak Afrikaans as well as they speak English but, Sir, their English is accented!

So what?! [Interjections.]

Well, Sir, there you have the comment of the NP: “So what?” [Interjections.] Why are the English-speaking people of this country not allowed to have somebody who speaks their own language as they themselves speak it? [Interjections.]

You are a disgrace to South Africa!

You are a racist!

We have these stories about “Boerehaat” and all the rest of it but I sit in this House and I listen endlessly to people in those benches talking about the “volk” and about their people. Why should I not talk about mine? Why am I suddenly a “boerehater” when I want to fight for my own people in this country and when I want to fight for the English-speaking South Africans and what they stand for? [Interjections.] I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to have a service in our language which can be an example to our children and teach them to speak decent English. It is desperately necessary. [Interjections.]

There are good things in this Bill in that it is going a little way—a very little way but its moving—towards privatisation. The SABC is in competition with the private sector for advertising income. They should not have a monopoly of these two means of communication. I would rather see M-Net in private sector hands only, with no SABC involvement. We should have a truly independent television and radio network. At the very least this Government should allow some small and private television and radio stations serving local communities and not being part of the State network. If they can be economically viable in the competitive market, then they should exist, and that very competition would force the SABC, in order to compete, to improve the quality of their service. They would be competing for advertising rand and it would do them a power of good.

I believe the SABC should have a board of which the majority of members are nominated by organisations in the private sector. The accounts should be kept on a private sector basis and the organisation should pay tax on profits, just like the organisations with which they compete. I therefore find clause 7 of the legislation astonishing, coming as it does from a Government dedicated to private initiative and competition. They say in the preamble to the Constitution of this country that they want to further private initiative and competition. However, this is nothing but an attempt by the bureaucracy of the SABC to gain a competitive advantage. The hon the Minister should have seen through it and not let them get away with it. The SABC competes—ask any magazine or newspaper management about advertising— and this is simply an attempt to gain an unfair edge because of their connection with the legislative arm of Government. If this Government really does believe in private initiative and free competition then it will not allow this clause to go any further, and I therefore support the amendment by the hon member for Berea. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it is a long time since I last heard a speech dealing specifically with relations between Afrikaans-and English-speaking people. [Interjections.] I thought that since 1961 and after we had become a Republic, we had drawn closer together. After listening to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, I have the impression he wants to widen the gap between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. [Interjections.]

I say the SABC, like hon members on this side of the House, is proud today of the number of English-speaking people on its staff. Hon members can look at this report and see how many English-speaking people really listen to the programmes.

Then there is also the hon member’s reference to the Cape Times, with its negative image. If I remember correctly, the hon the Minister of Law and Order said yesterday that the Cape Times would go the same way as the Rand Daily Mail if it was not careful. Eventually it will lose its circulation and its readers. It is losing its advertisements, and a newspaper cannot exist without them. The Cape Times must take thorough cognisance of that. If such newspapers continue to convey a negative image in this way, they are destroying not only us, but themselves too.

Cognisance should also be taken of this fierce confrontation. The hon member mentioned that although certain things are not reported by the SABC, they are reported by the news media. I want to tell him that it has been proved abroad that it is better if the media do not divulge names when the lives of people are at stake. Their names are not disclosed in public. We therefore want to tell the hon member he is conducting a political debate at present; a debate not really suited to this Bill.

The SABC …

The hon member must wait for a moment; we shall speak again.

He can take lessons in image-building next week. I think it is high time he knew something about image-building, and really came to see how an image can be built; not only as far as he is concerned, but also with reference to the image of the Republic of South Africa. That is what we need in this connection.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 17h30.