Mr Chairman, it seems to me that I shall have to take the hon the Minister of Finance’s place today. It is only a pity my time is so limited; otherwise I would have given him some guidelines as to how the country should be governed. [Interjections.] Yes, this naturally includes the whole economy, as one of the hon members over there says. [Interjections.]

A great deal has been said here, over the past few days, about the country’s finances and the economy. I should like to compliment the hon the Minister on launching such a thorough and devastating attack on the CP’s economic policy. During the past two weeks the CP has been exposed time and again. In the first place it has been exposed with regard to its homeland policy, which is not practicable. Yesterday it was again exposed as a result of its economic policy. [Interjections.]

I should now like to appeal to the hon member of the CP who is going to speak after me to spell out clearly the financial implications of their homeland policy, and also to tell us how this is going to affect us, the Coloured people. He must also explain clearly to us how the CP views the economic future of this country.

I want to go further. Since I really have very little time at my disposal, I should like to concentrate on the challenge facing our people in South Africa. Job opportunities will have to be created in this country. Last year there were more than 10 million people under the age of 18 years in South Africa. Of these young people, only 1 million are Whites. The vast majority of them are Coloured and Black people. This means 9 million young people, of whom at least 2,5 million will enter the labour market this year—people for whom job opportunities will have to be created. A large number of these young people are Black people. The creation of job opportunities is therefore of cardinal importance. Indeed, I believe that the creation of job opportunities is the backbone of the South African economy, particularly for Black people.

It is also true that as a result of a shortage of finance, the State, cannot create all the necessary job opportunities. It is also true that the private sector, particularly the large companies, cannot create all the necessary job opportunities. It is therefore important that very close attention be paid to the informal sector, particularly in the Black residential areas. I believe that we have a tremendously large resource here that has never really been properly exploited. I believe that there are young people in the Black residential areas who can look after themselves. I believe that the Government should give attention to this. In my opinion the specific direction in which, we should be moving is towards a situation in which the young Black man entering the labour market should create work for himself.

In the Black residential areas there are various ways in which this can be done—ways that are in the typical African tradition. Last year the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said that the various ways in which people can make money in the Black residential areas should be examined.

I want to talk about the “stokvelpartytjies” which are organised in Black residential areas. These are an untapped resource where people are taught how to talk to one another. This may not always be the right thing, but five years ago it was also said that it was “rubbish” to legalise shebeens, and today they are one of the State’s largest sources of revenue.

This factor must be considered. It is one of the ways in which the Black man can help himself and can be taught to save. This is a form of saving, and I believe that the time has come for us to examine the typical African market. The one who must ensure that job opportunities are created—this is, of course, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology—should appoint a commission or committee to examine the typical, traditional African way of doing business. I believe that there is a market here which can effectively be developed. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the format of the debate up to this point has not actually lent itself very well to real debating and therefore I shall attempt to debate with the NP briefly this afternoon.

During some of the speeches from the NP side there was reference to the CP and we heard words such as “stupid” and “dishonest”. I want to refer to this briefly. I assume that the hon the Minister of Finance is an intelligent and honest person. What did we find yesterday? The hon the Minister of Finance, referring to the hon member for Witbank’s speech, said the following:

In other words, the hon the Minister said that the hon member for Witbank had positively stated that large financial institutions were abusing the financial rand. What did the hon member for Witbank say, however? He said: “It is also an illusion that financially powerful companies with foreign interests cannot abuse the financial rand.” [Interjections.] Then the hon the Minister came up with a melodramatic challenge to the hon member for Witbank to give evidence before the Harms Commission.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Brakpan looked me in the eyes and said I was dishonest. I request your ruling.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it and replace it with politically dishonest.

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

If that is a yardstick for honesty, I want nothing to do with it.

I also want to refer to what the hon member for Kuruman said when he alluded to me. He said that I had recently written an article in which mention was made of the separateness of people but of a joint economy. The hon member for Kuruman seized upon this to accuse me of humbug and other such nonsense. What did I say in that article? I know the hon member is able to read English but let me read it to him. I said:

He changed this to a joint economy! [Interjections.] This is deliberate distortion of what I said. Then he used the Aunt Sally which he had set up himself and said we were involved in humbug. [Interjections.] There is economic co-operation between us and the Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana, Swaziland and numerous other neighbouring states. Does that mean we have one economy? Surely this is nonsense.

I now want to come to what the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said. It was he who accused us of either stupidity or dishonesty and they were his specific words. I do not believe that the hon the Deputy Minister had prepared himself thoroughly for his speech! If he says that he was well prepared, then he is not only stupid or dishonest but both because what did he say?

He asked whether they intended taking away what Dr Verwoerd had promised the national states. He also wanted to know whether they intended decreasing the expenditure on which the hon member for Barberton had already launched so many attacks. I challenge the hon the Deputy Minister to put forward a single piece of evidence for the statement which he made because it is simply not true. What I did do last year was to question the misapplication of money in the Transkei. I said then that it was high time for us to tell the Transkei and the other countries that South African taxpayers’ money was not to be misused in their fatherlands. Those were my words!

The hon the Deputy Minister also went further and referred to the decentralisation of industries. The hon the Deputy Minister put the question to us whether we would discontinue the assistance, plans and programmes on which Dr Verwoerd had decided. He implied by his question that we would actually stop. He implied that we had no intention of carrying this out. If the hon the Deputy Minister would take the trouble to look at the CP programme of principles and policy, he would see that industrial decentralisation, and financial and other measures will be intensified to obtain the greatest possible establishment of each people in its own territory under its own authority. Where does the termination of decentralisation come into this? The contrary is nearer the mark!

The hon the Deputy Minister went even further and turned his attention to me. He was referring to me when he asked:

I challenge that hon Deputy Minister to come to this House or anywhere else with evidence of where or when I ever made such a statement. It is simply not true! [Interjections.]

That side of the House which has recently paraded honest people like De Beer, De Pontes and Du Plessis—I am referring to Pietie now—before the country … [Interjections] … is now talking about dishonesty.

Then what about Koos van der Merwe?

And then I am not even mentioning stupidity. [Interjections.]

I now come to political honesty. Last year before the municipal elections the Federal Council of the NP issued an election manifesto which was distributed by the information service of the Federal Council. I see it was drawn up by a Mr P W Coetzer. I think I know him. [Interjections.] What does the NP say in this? I quote:

I quote further:

That is what the NP said in October of last year! [Interjections.] They say municipalities have to decide whether their facilities are to be “open” or “closed”. I now ask the hon member for Springs whether he distributed this document in his own constituency.

They must just do it sensibly! [Interjections.]

Did he believe that this was really NP policy? What do we find now? Now that city councils have paid heed to this NP policy and themselves decided whether their facilities are to be “open” or “closed”, the NP comes up with a massive propaganda campaign that the CP is bedevilling racial relations. And this is happening while the NP says that that is precisely its policy. [Interjections.] In addition a circular is now being sent to the SAP authorities at police stations in South Africa under the heading “Polisie-optrede by die toepassing van die Wet op Aanwysing van Aparte Geriewe”. What is the instruction which is being given to the Police Force of South Africa? It is stated in the circular:

That is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act—

There is mention of present Government policy. In October of last year the NP policy was that of separate public facilities and voters were asked to vote for the NP on those specific grounds. When CP town and city councils started carrying out that policy, however—we also believe in separate amenities for every group—all hell broke loose. Now the police are being told that they are not permitted to take action. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Soviet leader Yevgenia Ginsburg, who spent 18 years in one of Stalin’s labour camps, once wrote: “All ideologies are relative. The only absolute is the torment that men inflict on each other.” Much the same might be said of the imposition of sanctions against South Africa. No-one disputes that the people will suffer; instead the debate is on who will suffer; how they will suffer and for how long; why they will suffer; and whether they are prepared to suffer. Only the suffering is certain. Its outcome remains unpredictable. Will sanctions end apartheid? Wilf they bring freedom? Will it be quick and without bloodshed or will sanctions prolong the agony, deepen poverty, escalate conflict and do irreparable damage to a post-apartheid economy?

Advocates of sanctions will argue that faced with concerted economic pressure, South Africa’s White Government will come to its senses, negotiate with the Black majority and accept the inevitable transition to a non-racial democracy. Blacks are already suffering and are willing to suffer the additional pain of sanctions to hasten their freedom. Without sanctions, say their advocates, there is no pressure on Pretoria to make the change demanded. The equation is: No sanctions equals no pressure equals no change.

On the other hand, opponents of sanctions say that the political kingdom may best be won through economic empowerment. Economic growth and a gradual broadening of the benefits of free enterprise to Blacks have provided them with a weapon for freedom through consumer muscle, labour power, the acquisition of greater skills and general education. The economy, that great meeting place of Black and White, has locked both sides together and proved the most powerful and most hopeful engine of change.

Both sides claim that the majority is on their side. Opinion polls remain a poor and often misleading substitute. Any determination of Black majority opinion on sanctions must therefore remain an open question.

Four years ago, it seemed to many that apartheid might be overthrown, so great was the revolutionary fervour that swept across the townships, causing a White crisis of confidence in Government’s ability to hold the line. Today, after three years of the emergency, there can be little doubt that Government holds power firmly and with determination. Black opposition, a strategy of ungovernability, hemmed in by armed might and a media blackout, is in check.

The country has thus entered a critical phase as anti-apartheid groups reconsider strategy and grope for new levers to overthrow the Government. There is no doubt that South Africa is the polecat and the whipping boy of the world—all because of its policy of apartheid. The sooner this policy is removed from the Statute Book the quicker we will be accepted in the international community.

Apartheid is being used as a scapegoat for all our ills. I do not believe that apartheid is the cause of all our ills. I say this because if apartheid was the cause of all our ills, then the countries in the world that do not have apartheid would have had no ills or problems. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member who spoke just before me made a few very interesting points and I think the hon the Minister will deal with them.

I want to refer to a remark that the hon the Minister made yesterday.

*In his reply yesterday, the hon the Minister said he could foresee that we would have to make certain amendments, or that we would have to devote some attention in the future to the procedure which we follow at the moment in regard to the debating of appropriation bills in this House. I should like to come back to this subject, and I merely wish to point out that at the moment we have three debates, namely the First, Second and Third Reading of the Part Appropriation; the Additional Appropriation, and thereafter the Second and Third Reading of the Main Budget.

I have no problem with our discussing finance. As far as I am concerned, finance is the alpha and the omega of this country’s prosperity and that is why it is vitally important that we should hold as many discussions as possible and have an exchange of ideas on this subject.

The question which now arises is how much of the time that we devote to this during the course of these debates is really devoted to financial discussions. I want to submit today that we talk less about finance in the course of these debates than we do about politics and any number of other matters.

I want to make a suggestion to the hon the Minister today and see whether or not he will react to it. I think it is time we adopted a system in accordance with which the hon the Minister would be allowed some financial leeway, within certain percentage points, in so far as the Part Appropriation and other financial matters are concerned. As long as the hon the Minister moved within these fixed percentage points and was subject to full accountability and financial debate, I think we could employ the politics that we are talking now in a different form, and make use of these debates for other useful discussion.

I want to make a second statement. I should like to amplify my first suggestion by asking the hon the Minister whether we could not change around the present Part Appropriation debate and the Additional Appropriation debate and introduce some debate there. I believe that if we were to do this, we would compel ourselves to make a financial debate of it. For example, we would then be able to tackle the hon the Minister and all the various Ministers during that debate and ask them why they had overspent in certain respects, what the reasons were for this, whether it had been essential, whether it had been done wisely, and so on.

[Inaudible.]

Correct. Correct. There we have a very good contribution, and I hope that when I raise this matter again at a later stage, I shall receive the support of all three Houses so that we …

Surely we must have some political discussion as well.

Yes, there may also be some discussion of politics. I do not have a problem with that, but let us just separate the politics from the financial debates so that we may conduct the financial debates on their own. Essentially we have the same thoughts on this. There we have a common point of departure from which we can begin. I should like to leave the hon the Minister with that thought. Let us change the Additional Appropriation debate and talk as much politics as we like during the others.

I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister today on his strong leadership and firm actions, as well as on the standpoints he has adopted.

I want to refer to the Trilateral Commission. This is something to which no one is negatively disposed. Everyone is striving like mad to serve on the commission; others hate and reject it. However, some good ideas are being put forward in the commission. I quote Otto Graf Lambsdorff, former Federal Minister of Economic Affairs in the Deutsche Bundestag, as follows:

He goes on to say:

I therefore want to congratulate the hon the Minister on his strong standpoints, and on the guidance he is giving the Government, and I want to ask him to keep this up.

I am concerned about certain factors in our financial and economic situation. Firstly I am concerned about the decline of the domestic sector as a source of savings. Since 1970 we have shown a decrease from 40% to 20%, whilst companies have shown an increase of up to approximately 80%, which is four times stronger than that of the private sector.

The public sector, on the other hand, has declined to the status of a net consumer instead of a saver. I am concerned that our source of development capital from the outside world has dried up. However, I am more concerned about the trend in the private sector in accordance with which companies are no longer generating the new capital which they are attempting to, or which they are supposed to be generating in order to augment employment and value, but rather a structural change has taken place in that the existing production processes are simply being made more capital intensive and are therefore no longer contributing to the creation of job opportunities.

I am concerned that the informal sector is becoming an end in itself rather than a means to an end. It is supposed to afford individuals and small companies an opportunity to move from the informal sector to the formal sector so that we can continue to maintain a well-formalised economic structure in this country. These being the inherent problems with which we are faced in this country, one now asks oneself what we can do about them. When I say today that I believe we shall be able to survive the next three years and that we shall then be out of the woods, I want to add that we must strive to do this with all the power at our disposal. I believe that our problem in this country is not simply one of the redistribution of wealth, but rather of the creation of new wealth, because the wealth that we have at present is insufficient for our population. We shall have to create new wealth to distribute and to redistribute in an equivalent fashion so that everyone may receive an adequate portion of it for himself.

People tell me that South Africa is blessed with good reports and good recommendations which unfortunately are never implemented, but which lie gathering dust on the shelf. One of the most important things that could have brought about a very great change in this country of ours in the fifties and sixties, was the Tomlinson Report. If we had implemented it, the situation could have been entirely different. I now want to make particular reference to a a few existing technical reports which we would do well to look at, and the first of these is the Marais Report—the Marais Report on Mining Taxation. Secondly, there is the Melamet Report dealing with shortterm insurance.

With regard to the Loots Report pertaining to the Auditor General, I hope that the hon the Minister will perhaps be able to make an announcement regarding whether we may expect any new legislation in the coming month or two with regard to the impartiality of the Auditor General, as well as the question of performance auditing. We are presently at the stage at which the tenth economic plan is being drawn up.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister today. Since we are now going to deal with this situation, and since we must now complete this exercise, is it not possible for us to effect a quantitive co-ordination of all the existing plans that we have, and have had on the drawing board, and to construct from that a completely new picture and a completely new plan for South Africa’s economy and finances?

What I am thinking of, for example, is that one could perhaps recreate something like the old Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. If this were done, it ought to report positively on its progress and implementation at least four times a year. Moreover, a specific Minister could be instructed to implement this matter and to monitor and administer it, so that we could, for example, set targets for ourselves to enable us to achieve a growth rate of 3%, 4% or whatever, and pursue this with might and main in an effort to make it succeed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start more or less where I stopped last time. The issue is sanctions. I find it strange that some countries support sanctions against South Africa. I wonder whether they really do it for the reasons they claim, namely to promote the Blacks and people of colour in this country and their interests, or whether they are not perhaps doing it in their own interests. We can mention Zimbabwe as an example.

If Zimbabwe should be asked why it does not apply sanctions, the reply would be that Zimbabwe cannot afford to apply sanctions, because we all know how dependent Zimbabwe is on South Africa. Nevertheless Zimbabwe is clamouring the loudest for sanctions against South Africa.

Take Australia as an example. It is also one of the countries in favour of sanctions against South Africa. What do they do? They jump in boots and all and take over South Africa’s coal markets while our coal sales abroad are slumping. Australia jumps in when our sales decline so that they can foist their cheaper rubbish on other countries.

I wonder if they will ever be satisfied and do away with sanctions if South Africa improves—I say that it has to.

†Do they not perhaps have a vested interest in the maintenance of sanctions against South Africa? I leave that question at that to deal with another time because I shall not have the time to deal with it today.

Finally, I hereby announce on behalf of the DRP that whereas the hon the Minister of Finance has so ably acquitted himself and fielded all questions and queries as raised by the various and numerous speakers we support the motion for the Second Reading.

Mr Chairman, I find it a great pleasure being able to speak here today as the official leader of the PP of South Africa. The politics of our country is regarded in a strange light, and the outside world refuses to acknowledge the reform which is being discussed at such great length.

†So much has been said about the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and so much money has been used so unnecessarily and disbursed in respect of these abhorrent Acts which could have been put to better use.

Since 1984, when members of the Indian and Coloured communities came to Parliament, we have been talking about reform but how is that reform viewed by the outside world? To the world at large there appears to be no reform whatsoever and our country remains the target of enmity and doubt by most countries of the world. Although a large number of discriminatory laws have been removed from the Statute Book some are insignificant, whilst others have been of great importance, such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the influx control and pass laws and so many others. However, as long as the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act remain on the Statute Book it is definitely believed that apartheid is very much alive and therefore every stride in the direction of reform falls into oblivion.

Speaking pragmatically, Boksburg would never have been able to besmirch the name of South Africa if the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act had been removed from the Statute Book. Every region—like Boksburg, Kraaifontein, Mayfair and many others—has problems on a regional basis. If those problems are not addressed, they will accumulate and cause a wind to become a tornado. The time has come for members of Parliament to get together in order to discuss and address the problems that are confronting the communities in their various regions. How often did the MPs of the various regions get together since 1984 in order to tackle the problems in their areas on a regional basis? It is no use the White MPs trying to make a decision or a resolution regarding matters concerning Coloured people. The policy now is one of consensus. If MPs, other than Whites, are kept out then what is the purpose of having MPs of colour in this Parliament? The people who are really concerned and regarding whom any decision or resolution is required cannot be ignored, forgotten and excluded from any talks affecting them.

It is therefore my humble appeal that we work together and not in isolation towards the promotion of good neighbourliness, brotherhood and friendship in this country of ours.

In terms of the abolition of a restrictive law, the Indian community is now allowed to reside and settle in the Orange Free State, which has never been the case before. It was a province where a person of Indian origin could not even urinate, never mind spend the night. Since the opening of entry to Indians in that province, the Indian community has been well received by the Afrikaner community. Today in Bloemfontein and on the goldfields we have close on 100 families.

It is all very well to allow a community to settle in an area but what about their needs? Group areas investigations for declaring an Indian area in the goldfields were held during December 1988 and a report is still being awaited. An investigation for Bloemfontein was made this week. Now these are good steps.

Just before the opening of the Free State Indian people could travel to any part of the world with the green passport of South Africa but they were debarred from the Free State. Now they are immigrants in the Free State. They have children and their families. What about the need for schooling for the children of the Indian communities which are now resident in Bloemfontein and the other parts of the Free State?

For the past almost two years the Indian people have been experiencing difficulties and inconveniences in providing education for their children. This matter is presently being investigated by the authorities. Since December 1988 when I saw the authorities, two months have passed but nothing has happened. In the meantime the community suffers.

Education is an obligation of the Government. Never mind if there is one student, one child in an area—his education is the responsibility of the Government and it must be seen to that that child gets his education.

Presently approximately forty children in different classes—that means different educational classes, from grade two right up to standard eight—are of school-going age in the Indian community of Bloemfontein.

Bearing in mind the cost and the economic structure, it would be inappropriate for the Department of Education and Culture to construct a school for such a small number of children. Would it not be easier and simpler to allow admission of these children to a White school which, of course, in any event has no objection to admitting these children if such a particular school already caters for children of colour of diplomats? What is more, 80% of the parents of pupils in such a school have no objection to children of Indian origin being admitted to the school. The parents of these children have even consented to having the children admitted to the school.

Where do rationalism and common sense reasoning lie? Is this arrogant pride? If it is, arrogant pride is the root of destruction. Let us be positive in the building of our nation and let us forget all our differences for the sake of our people and our country.

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker amply demonstrated the fallacy of the argument of the hon member for Vasco that the financial debates should not concern themselves with politics. I enjoy talking about finance as well as economics, but traditionally a financial debate is for the redress of grievances. In South Africa grievances are very frequently—if not almost inevitably—of a political nature. In those circumstances to seek to turn a financial debate only into exactly that would be a grievous error and a departure from tradition with which we certainly could not agree.

There are a number of economic matters that I want to deal with. The first one—I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw attention to it and ask the hon the Minister to deal with it—is the question of the problems relating to the losses in respect of foreign exchange.

The available figures in regard to the last published accounts indicate that the deficit in the Golden and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account amounted to R2 553 million. It also indicated that the net liability in respect of forward exchange cover had increased from R36 billion to over R44 billion.

What is even more important is that insofar as the unrealised exchange losses on State debt as at 31 March 1988 are concerned, those amounted to R1 309 million. However, that becomes worse because the claim by the Reserve Bank against the Government in respect of additional losses on foreign exchange cover for the year 1988 to the year ending in 1989 amounts to approximately R6 000 million.

These are tremendous figures and if we bear in mind the unrealised exchange unrealised exchange losses for the SATS which have received publicity and the losses of other parastatals then we really need to know from the hon the Minister whether he has assessed the losses which exist in respect of the State, the Reserve Bank, the parastatals and the control boards because even the control boards are involved in it to some extent.

Even though the Government, by law, does not have to repay the money to the Reserve Bank immediately, the reality is that sooner or later this money has to be repaid. We cannot allow this situation to exist without some form of explanation concerning it.

The second matter which I want to deal with is the question of the hon the Minister’s involvement in a substantial argument with the hon the leader of my party regarding the question of economic growth. It is clear if we look at the figure for economic growth in 1988 that it is estimated at approximately 3%. As I understand it, there are no definite figures available as yet. For 1987 the growth was 2,5% and for 1986 it was 0,5%.

To my mind, two crucial issues are being ignored. The first is in which sectors there was economic growth during the years in question and whether there was the kind of economic growth which we needed. Secondly, there is the question of per capita economic growth in order to determine whether the population as a whole is better off or not, because our population is increasing at a tremendous rate.

I am the first to concede that 1 September 1985 brought about a change as regards the position of foreign loans. The fact that this created an awkward situation is one thing, but the fact that we did not adequately anticipate it, namely that the authorities did not plan for this kind of contingency, is unforgivable and that is what has caused the restraint on growth.

If there is a restraint on growth because of our inability to obtain capital, we can have one of two choices. We either say that we will do nothing about it. We will then experience periods of limited growth, we will then get into trouble with our balance of payments and have to apply restrictive measures, and then we will go through the cycle of unsatisfactory growth in South Africa indefinitely. That is the one scenario. The other scenario is that we actually deal with it in a completely different fashion. We say to ourselves that we cannot get money from abroad, but that what we need to do is to create a demand in South Africa, by South Africans, for South African produced goods so that there is no pressure on the balance of payments.

I have allies in this matter and I have preached this for some years now. I now have allies in the Reserve Bank. They also now support this policy. What we have to do is to turn this economy around and say to ourselves that we must realise that for a long time things will be like this. If we apply a policy of job creation to improve the quality of life, if we employ unskilled and semiskilled people and make only limited use of more skilled people to lay out parks and community centres, to build houses, clinics and libraries, those people will spend the money on food, clothing and shelter. Those are South African produced goods which will not pressurise the balance of payments.

It has been estimated that only approximately one-third of all our imports today cannot be substituted and cannot be done without. I think we have to look at a new scenario for South Africa. We need a new philosophy for South Africa. Let us look at Japan. Japan is regarded as a wonder nation, but it built itself up by encouraging people to take in their own washing, to build up their own needs, to cater for the needs for their people, to get the economies of scale going, and only then to enter the export market, knowing that they had the markets at home to support these industries.

To my mind we have a very clear choice: We either decide that South Africa is going to stagger from one mild upswing followed by a downswing to the next, or alternatively that there will be a dramatic change in the whole outlook towards growth in South Africa and a change in the philosophy regarding the economy of South Africa. We can provide for our own people. We can generate the jobs. We can give the purchasing power and we can build up our own industries in South Africa. That is to my mind the key to getting real growth in South Africa without being dependent on overseas finance.

Mr Chairman, to a great extent the hon member for Yeoville expanded on inward industrialisation, of which I am a firm supporter. I believe that with our large population which is predominantly poor, but which is growing rapidly, we can definitely create a large domestic market to promote our growth rate if we really try to get inward industrialisation going.

To a great extent I also want to agree with the hon member for Vasco about the question of the budget debate on the Part Appropriation Bill and the Additional Appropriation Bill. In my opinion the time allocated to the discussion of the Additional Appropriation Bill should be extended considerably so that we can take each individual Minister to task about unnecessary excessive spending in his department. In that case I feel we should even be able to address the policy that causes unnecessary excessive expenditure.

In his reply yesterday the hon the Minister of Finance emphasised that the abolition of apartheid would have no effect on the economy. I want to differ drastically with the hon the Minister, however, since all of us in this House are well aware of the detrimental effects of sanctions on our national economy.

This leads one to the question as to why sanctions are applied with regard to South Africa. Is it simply because the superpowers do not like the hon the Minister or possibly the hon the State President? The underlying cause is apartheid which deprives the majority of South Africans of basic human rights. What is the title of the Dellums Bill? “The Anti-Apartheid Comprehensive Bill”—it is all a matter of apartheid. Unfortunately there are people in South Africa who believe that we can get along without foreign assistance, that we can tell the outside world to “do their damnedest”, to go to blazes.

Surely it is narrow-minded and unrealistic to think that we can experience growth, especially extensive growth, if sanctions are imposed against South Africa. This year South Africa is experiencing a higher growth rate than in the previous two years, but this growth has been attained despite sanctions, definitely not as a result of sanctions. The growth rate would definitely have been much higher if we had not had to contend with the effect of sanctions. I am sure the hon the Minister will agree with me on that point. Apparently the hon the Minister has also forgotten that because of anti-apartheid pressure, South Africa has been able to procure only one foreign loan since 1985.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis had a great deal to say about apartheid economics yesterday. The system of apartheid has resulted in a disproportionate distribution of power, freedom and rights with regard to Whites and Blacks in South Africa. This disproportionate distribution of inter alia prosperity is related on the one hand to the large contribution made by Whites to the national product and State revenue. That is what the hon member was making such a fuss about. According to him, only White South Africans pay tax. On the other hand, it is a reflection of the political power and negotiation patterns, and therefore forms part of the apartheid system.

It is a worldwide phenomenon that the richer part of the population pays more tax than those who benefit directly from government action. The poorer sector of the population benefits more from government expenditure than it contributes in the form of taxation. The alarming poverty of those in South Africa who are starving is often the result not of their personal incapacity, but of structural factors over which they have no control.

I should like to advocate the redistribution of prosperity. By that I mean that structures must be established in which equal opportunities are created for all members of the community and in which the factors that have plunged certain people into conditions of structural poverty can be eliminated.

I should also like to speak briefly about something that causes me some concern. As I have mentioned, our economy has been weakened by sanctions. This past week we experienced a further setback when the gold price reached its lowest level in more than two years.

Gold is of exceptional importance to this country, since gold exports make up as much as 45% of our revenue. The continued decrease in the gold price can cost the country a considerable amount in revenue. Unfortunately the gold price is not predictable, and the Government cannot control it. I find it significant that the gold price was depressed in particular by the low oil price, but also by our competitors’ increased gold production. Here sanctions play a role once again. The stronger American dollar is definitely not good for our gold price either.

If the low gold price is maintained, or drops even further, it will definitely have a detrimental effect on the value of our rand. In addition the surplus on our balance of payments will shrink. The surplus on our balance of payments must be increased, however, in order to effect the payment of our foreign debt of approximately $22 billion.

The rand may not drop, since this will further aggravate the struggle against inflation. This brings one to the question as to whether interest rates will be increased again in the near future to keep the rand at an artificially high level. Fresh in our memories, however, is the fact that financial institutions adjusted the interest rate five times last year. One wonders whether we are heading for an increase in indirect taxation in the near future. I do not think so, because I know we are on the eve of an election, and the Government dare not do that.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Douw must please excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said. I should like to link up with the hon member for Yeoville’s speech about industrial development. I agree wholeheartedly with his statement.

Countries having a strong and burgeoning manufacturing sector are internationally at the forefront of development and prosperity. In South Africa various studies have identified the industrial sector as the sector with the greatest growth and job-creation potential. Export promotion, import substitution and internal industrialisation have been recommended as the chief elements of economic growth.

Immediately after my appointment I decided that we had enough White Papers and reports and that we should implement our industrial policy. I instructed the Board of Trade and Industry to investigate the growth potential of selected industries and sectors and to recommend incentives for specific industries and sectors. These investigations have indicated that the existing incentives for industrial development and export promotion must fundamentally be adapted to facilitate economic growth. Structural adjustments have been recommended for industries which have been selected on the basis of their existing or potential comparative benefits. The aim of the structural adjustments must also be that of improving the South African industrial sector’s competitive capability.

The Government has accepted these recommendations, and the point is now that in future the State is going to concern itself with structural adjustments in industry. Hon members will immediately want to ask why the Government concerns itself with structural adjustments.

The answer to that is that there is enough evidence on the international front to indicate that structural adjustments in industry do not take place without State intervention. There are many good examples to which the hon member for Yeoville referred, particularly in eastern countries, the newly-industrialised countries. The development of electronics industries in Japan and Taiwan is an example of spectacular successes achieved in industrial development by co-operation between the private sector and the government.

The objectives of structural adjustments are, for example, an increase in production and productivity, increased exports, value enhancement, import substitution, job creation and research and development, and also technological improvement.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Technology has already taken several steps to bring about structural adjustments in our industries. I want to mention the following industries which have already been investigated.

There is the motor vehicle industry, about which the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology will make an announcement next week, an industry in regard to which we are converting from a local content programme based on mass to one based on value. The main objective of this programme is to save on foreign exchange, and in the next few years this programme will create tens of thousands of job opportunities in this country. Let me also refer to the textile and clothing industries which have been investigated. Each of these industries provides work for more than 100 000 workers and are seen as growth industries of the future.

I also want to refer to the television industry which makes a strong negative contribution to the economy and which is merely an assembly industry. On 1 April a new development programme will be implemented. The industry must be completely restructured to convert its negative contribution to the economy into a positive contribution.

I want to refer to the widely-based electronics industry which has already been investigated and about which the Government is considering certain recommendations at present. The rapidly-growing contribution of the electronics industry to the balance of payments is causing concern. It is interesting to note that the electronics industry is the sixth largest importer of electronic components in the world.

There are quite a few industries which are still being investigated. Let me refer to the chemical industry in which the Government is at present, in conjunction with the large companies, working on a South African strategic plan for the development of the petro-chemical industries.

These industries have a tremendous development potential, and down the line they generate a tremendous cumulative effect. We have adopted a new philosophy here, and that is not merely to take note of the development of synthetic fuel, but also to look at the whole spectrum of new chemical products, where the major job creation and value enhancement actually takes place.

As far as the steel and iron industry is concerned, at present there is a large shortage of certain products on the world market, and shortly South Africa will make certain announcements about attempts being made to utilise these opportunities.

Then I want to refer to the stainless steel industry. There is a tremendous world market in the stainless steel industry. We want to encourage our industries to move out of iron and steel manufacture into the manufacturing of stainless steel, and also to manufacture and export stainless steel products. This year we are expecting major announcements in connection with incremental increases in production capacity here.

I have also issued instructions that the industry manufacturing earth-moving equipment be investigated. Their net imports are between R1500 million and R1 800 million per annum, and here local content programmes can also lead to sound economic development. Here there is potential for both large-scale import substitution and increased exports.

The success of structural adjustments in South Africa will depend on the degree of successful co-operation between the private and public sectors. Already there are unmistakeable signs that the private sector is gearing itself to deal with major changes and innovations. I have experienced this during interviews with industrialists and during numerous visits to factories, but official statistics are also beginning to reflect this trend.

Let me mention a few figures. In the first three quarters of last year the manufacturing sector spent approximately R4,4 million on capital equipment, a figure which is 22% more than that for the corresponding period during the previous year. In the first 10 months of last year, the seasonally adjusted manufacturing production was 5,85% higher than in the corresponding period in 1987.

Although this improvement is largely attributable to the growth in consumer spending, import replacement has played a very important role, and for the first time in our history we are witnessing a trend in which industrialists are investing in production capacity purely with a view to the export market. I should like to congratulate our industrial sector on this achievement and ask them to extend that even further.

Owing to the fact that our Board of Trade and Industry has the task of administering rebates in regard to surcharges on capital goods, we have also had insight into what is being imported at present. We have seen a tremendous spate of manufacturing machinery imports. I am referring, in particular, to machinery for the metal processing industry, the metal manufacturing industry, the clothing and textile industry and the plastics industry.

It is clear that at present industrialists are gearing themselves to a much greater demand for the products furnished by their industries. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Technology and the Department of Trade and Industry are fully aware of our responsibilities at present, and in future we shall be intensifying our role in support of trade and industry.

That is why we are charting a new course for industrial development in South Africa. The Board of Trade and Industry, the CSIR, the SABS and the Department of Trade and Industry are pro-actively being harnessed to promote industrial development.

I want to refer to the scheme which the hon the State President announced last year during his opening address in Parliament on 5 February when he said that the IDC had been requested to set money aside for the financing needs of small industrialists.

The IDC then budgeted R300 million for that purpose, R222 million of which has already been spent. The IDC has informed me that this programme will provide approximately 16 500 job opportunities when it is in operation. The total net positive contribution to the balance of payments—this includes import substitution and exports—will be an estimated R776 million per year in the nineties, merely as a result of the leverage effect of this expenditure of R300 million.

This is a remarkable success story, and we have also instructed the IDC to look into the promotion of subcontracting in South African industry. A wide infrastructural network of subcontractors in industry, particularly in the sphere of medium to high-level technology, is an essential element in the improvement of the industrial structure in South Africa if we want this to grow.

There is nothing strange about a country like South Africa experiencing economic problems. What is of importance, however, is how the economic problems are reacted to. One must not lapse into a state of negativism. With industrial growth as a lever, we have the ability to generate the necessary economic growth in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, just as the hon the Minister has created a squad to look into the question of the financial rand, I think it is high time the hon the Minister appointed a structure to look into the question of unauthorised expenditure by various departments.

Just recently—a day or two ago—the media went to town in exposing some of the departments that have spent some millions of rand by way of unauthorised expenditure, particularly as regards the purchase of luxury cars. However, they did not have time to give coverage to the national leader of our party, who made some valuable contributions in so far as this Bill is concerned.

It is also important to know that some of the departments are not only provided with money on the estimates, they also go to town spending money on matters that are not provided for on the estimates. I think it is important that the hon the Minister in charge of finance look into some of these aspects, since these statements in the media do not only embarrass the hon the Minister; in my opinion they embarrass every hon member of Parliament.

The other important aspect concerns the many financial matters that come before the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. This committee has a very difficult job to do. It acts as a police-man in so far as Parliament is concerned. I think that if the hon the Minister took it upon himself to look into the question of finances insofar as the various departments are concerned, the Joint Committee on Public Accounts will have very little work to do. It will not have to act as a policeman on many issues. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Acting State President has identified the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act as obstacles on the road to negotiation. Last night the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said on television that other measures had to be sought in order to maintain the principle of own areas. There has also been talk on the part of the Government of another new constitutional dispensation which once again must be based on race or groups.

Does the Government still not understand that it is not the legislation per se, but in fact the principles contained in the legislation, that are the obstacles on the road to negotiation?

Apartheid is not negotiable in any form, except on the basis of partition. This would not be the CP’s partition, however, but rather partition as spelt out by Prof Carel Boshoff.

In the end the answer is very simple, because the absence of negotiation is a state of emergency per se, whether it has been declared or not. That is why the present state of emergency cannot lead to peace. Let the Acts be abolished, therefore, the detainees released and the state of emergency lifted.

Of course, we can take the long course in which the new Democratic Party must first come into power, after which it must abolish the Acts and then replace the state of emergency by a political process. In the meantime, however, while we are waiting for the Government, we, together with other relevant political actors and ordinary good South Africans, will continue to define the future in a concrete way without apartheid.

Mr Chairman, I want to broach three aspects which I mentioned to the hon the Minister in a previous debate. With regard to the one aspect, he said he would go into the matter and see what could be done about it, and with regard to the other two he gave an unsatisfactory answer.

I want to quote in full, with regard to social pensions (Hansard: Representatives, 17 April 1985, col 1669):

It is 1989 now, and still the pensions are not equal! The hon the Minister must please tell me what he is going to do about that. The other question that was also discussed in this House was that of accommodation. I told the hon the Minister that people who rent houses from the State are burdened considerably by the rental package because so many charges are added to it. I mentioned the following charges: Administrative costs, community facilities, maintenance, rental reserve fund and many more.

I also mentioned that the problem of school accommodation was not being obviated. I wanted to know what he was going to do with all the empty schools in White areas that were unutilised, and whether they could not perhaps be used at that stage, because there was no money to build other schools.

Mr Chairman, South Africa is not only in need of economic stability but also of social stability, and social stability is an issue which touches the hearts and minds of all of us.

Disparity in pensions is one of the many contributory factors in emphasising and bringing about polarisation amongst the races in our community. The days of rhetorics in respect of healthy interracial relations must now be translated into meaningful and positive action and policy.

The encouraging signal from the hon the Ministers in the Government benches will come to nought if parity in pensions is not achieved forthwith. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bayview made an interesting contribution and the Government has also accepted the principle in the long term of narrowing the pension gap. I am sure the hon the Minister will deal with this particular matter.

*My formative years in economics were closely linked with banking and the financial world, so hon members must please let me highlight a few of the characteristics of banking, and in particular its control function. Up to 1987 the Registrar of Financial Institutions was responsible for banking and building society supervision. However, the Financial Institutions Amendment Act of 1987 transferred this responsibility to the South African Reserve Bank.

With the Banks Act and the supervision of banks the Government is aiming to establish and promote a financially sound banking industry. A further aim is to protect the bank investments of the general public and to maintain confidence in the banking system.

The Reserve Bank has two obligations in this regard. Firstly, there is the constant adaptation of the legal framework within which banks function in changed market conditions. With the rapid development of market conditions it is therefore necessary to remain up to date at all times. I trust—and have heard—that there will soon be further submissions for further amendments to banking legislation in order to adapt to these changed conditions.

Secondly the actions of registered banks are continually monitored by the SA Reserve Bank. However, it is not the Reserve Bank’s duty to guarantee every bank’s solvency and liquidity. Registered banks must, in fact, comply with the requirements of the Banks Act, but for the rest, that bank deals with its affairs in its own way and as it sees fit.

Banks do not hold 100% capital or 100% cash reserves, or even 100% liquid assets, in the face of their public obligations. Banking is therefore, by its very nature, a risky undertaking. At times individual banks in many countries end up in trouble, as a result of poor management, and find themselves with serious liquidity problems. Fraud also takes place at times, with catastrophic consequences for the investors, if a particular bank cannot stem the tide in time.

It is said that “very few banking institutions in the world would be able to withstand a continuous run on their reserves”.

†As far as this is concerned I would like to remind hon members that at this very moment the United States is experiencing extreme difficulties with its own banking institutions. In South Africa, however, as far as I know, none of our own registered institutions is in any way affected or vulnerable.

*Nowhere in the world is the supervision of banks a guarantee against this kind of thing, nor is it supposed to be any guarantee. Banking institutions and their depositors should themselves take responsibility for their investments and other financial decisions.

In order to achieve the objectives involved in the supervision of banks by the Reserve Bank, it is necessary for prospective banking institutions to be approved before they can be registered. Registration then creates an opportunity for the Reserve Bank to evaluate the registered institutions on a continuous basis in order to ensure that the legal requirements can be complied with and that, in so doing, sound principles and practices can be maintained.

The Reserve Bank’s function of supervising banks applies, in its entirety, only to registered banking institutions and bank control companies. Members of the public or those who do business with unregistered institutions are therefore exposing themselves to tremendous risks without the protection and monitoring of governmental institutions. In this case they would have to bear the consequences if they supported these organisations. As far as I am concerned there is also a certain element of gambling on the part of the public in making use of such organisations. Therefore we must try to prohibit this system. However, if it is suspected that an unregistered person is operating a banking business, that person can be instructed by the Registrar of Banks to furnish certain information.

If it is subsequently suspected that unregistered banking transactions are, in fact, being conducted, the money which has thus far been obtained by that organisation must be repaid to the investors. This repayment is aimed at putting an end to unregistered banking enterprises. This in no way implies that there is an inherent guarantee that there will, in fact, be a full repayment of the investment funds or that the investor is likely to recover his full amount.

In addition, if there is any reason to suspect that an unregistered institution is, in fact, doing banking business, the Reserve Bank has, since July 1988, been authorised to carry out a comprehensive inspection in order to obtain the necessary information. However, the Reserve Bank cannot be expected to investigate and monitor all the bank-related investment possibilities of unregistered persons on a full-time basis.

Members of the public who do want such protection should place their investment funds exclusively with registered institutions. If they do entrust their funds to the unregistered institutions, they are taking investment risks for which the authorities cannot accept responsibility.

In this regard I want to refer to the so-called Vermaas affair, and particularly to the activities of Eurobank Pty Ltd, which was registered in Ciskei in June 1988, ie eight months ago.

Initially, Mr Vermaas’ involvement in Eurobank was not known and the bank’s activities seemed relatively innocent. However, the Reserve Bank was uneasy about the acquisition of investments in the Republic by this Ciskeian bank. A senior official was therefore delegated to visit the banking supervisory authority in Ciskei and to discuss the matter, but this apparently met with little success. The Reserve Bank reacted quickly, and as early as 22 July 1988 issued a Press release in which a warning was issued to the effect that Eurobank was not registered in the Republic and therefore not subject to supervision by the Reserve Bank.

The unsatisfactory regulation of cross-border banking activities between the Republic and the TBVC countries was brought to the attention of the relevant Government representatives, in fact at the meeting of the Multilateral Technical Committee on Finance, which met in Umtata on 6 September 1988. By the end of October it was established beyond all doubt that Mr Vermaas was, in fact, involved in Eurobank and Euro Trust Ciskei. An informal investigation was undertaken which led to the appointment of an inspection team on 16 November to investigate the relevant matters. As a result of this inspection, the Reserve Bank obtained a court order from the Supreme Court in terms of which further banking activities were prohibited. They were also prohibited from alienating their assets.

On 7 December, the return date for that order, the parties were instructed to repay immediately thus far taken from the public, irrespective of the various unexpired terms. This immediately put Mr Vermaas and his related parties in a position in which they were unable to comply with the order. This paved the way for our creditors to obtain a provisional sequestration and a provisional liquidation order against Mr Vermaas on 9 December 1988.

The fact that criminal charges had in the meantime been laid against Mr Vermaas, made it unnecessary for the Reserve Bank itself to take further legal steps. Hon members will therefore observe that within six months of Eurobank-Ciskei’s registration in Ciskei, despite very little South African control over this Ciskeian operation, the Reserve Bank had succeeded in eliminating this iniquity from our financial world. Without the prompt action of the South African Reserve Bank, this set-up could have lasted for several more years. The South African Reserve Bank and its staff deserve praise for their exceptionally effective action, and it is a pity that uninformed and mischievous individuals are trying to cloud the actions of this fine organisation as far as the Vermaas affair is concerned. The Reserve Bank provides a tremendous service and I want to thank them and pay tribute to them for doing so.

Mr Chairman, some of my hon colleagues asked me to make a good speech and I will try my best not to disappoint them.

We have reached a time in our history when a lot of challenges are facing our country. We have reached the stage in our history where all hon members, irrespective of what party they belong to, want to see a new South Africa rid of all forms of racialism. We have the ability to make South Africa a truly great nation in the southern part of Africa. It is true and no one can deny it that South Africa is not the country it used to be. However, it is also true that South Africa is not yet the country that it ought to be and that is the reason why we are here today.

I agree that we need time if we want to continue on the road of peaceful reform and of negotiation. I think of the members of the CP, whom I want to call my colleagues, and I even feel that I need to call them my brothers. As our brothers in South Africa, if they are not going to move along with the creation of a new South Africa, we will have to drop them along the way. We have said over and over again that we are prepared to forgive and to forget. However, our forgiveness is not an occasional emotional thing, but it is a permanent attitude in our hearts.

The hon the Minister and his department have steered South Africa through a very difficult period, and for that we congratulate them. They have taken us through a difficult economic period, a period in which the outside world has declared war against our economy. As the world tries to squeeze us, it should basically strengthen each one of us in South Africa to fight for what is rightfully ours.

Let me declare openly that I am totally against sanctions. As far as I am concerned, sanctions are the greatest evil that has struck South Africa. Sanctions are nothing else but an economic violence perpetrated against our country and our people as well as against the whole of Africa. We as people, we as South Africans, will have to brace ourselves and stand together and tackle the evil of sanctions head-on. People who go overseas and call for disinvestment from South Africa should be ashamed of themselves. By doing so they greatly harm this country in which we were born, to which we have contributed in the past and which we will give our own blood for.

With regard to the so-called multi-racial, so-called group society, I wish to add that no group can make it on its own.

If sanctions are going to win, South Africa is going to die. If South Africa dies, we will die. If South Africa succeeds, we will succeed. As these countries are plotting against us with sanctions, we in this department will have to plan to counter their actions. As they are conniving to cause pressure against us, we should build on our past successes in this country.

We from the Labour Party are saying that we are prepared to help make South Africa a better country for the future. We in South Africa can shout for our freedom, but we will not be free unless we are economically free. The choice in our country is not between violence and nonviolence. The choice is between non-violence or non-existence. That is where we stand today.

Violence will never work in our country. Peaceful reforms at this point in time will win, and we want to be part thereof.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to thank all hon members for their contributions to this short debate. I think we concluded the debate on a very high note. I should like to thank the hon member most sincerely for the conviction with which he pleaded South Africa’s cause.

I believe that many people who are implementing sanctions against South Africa from abroad and from within South Africa must feel foolish to know that those hon members who, during the past few weeks have stated their case in this House regarding the injustices that have been committed against them and their objections to the present system, and who have made out a case for drastic change in South Africa in order that they may occupy that position in South Africa which they would like to occupy, should feel this way. Despite their inherent and polite grievances against previous governments, and even against the present Government, one of those hon members was able to stand up today and plead the cause of South Africa in the manner and with the enthusiasm with which he did so.

I think we in this House are unanimous in our appreciation of the hon member’s actions and I should like to thank him most sincerely for what he said with regard to the efforts we are making in our department. I shall convey his remarks to my advisers, because we enjoy working together as a team.

I am pleased that the hon member adopted a standpoint against those individuals in particular who seek to implement sanctions against South Africa from within South Africa, and those who make use of the hospitality and the privilege of a passport to travel abroad in an attempt to promote sanctions against South Africa from there. I thank him most sincerely for the undertaking which he gave on behalf of his party that they would do their share in defending South Africa’s cause. I really am highly appreciative of the case he put forward.

I must say, I have seldom in my life seen the hon member for Barberton behave with as much vigour as he did today. He said he was going to alter the tone of the debate into one of debating and I must say, the hon member exceeded our wildest expectations with the energy he put into his case. He is quite correct. The hon member for Witbank did use the word “can”. I did not hear the word “can” when he used it.

It was broadcast on the radio.

I wrote in my notes that the hon member had made that statement, and it was on the basis of my notes that I took the hon member to task during the debate. [Interjections.] I wonder whether I might point out to hon members that I am attempting to set a matter to rights on the basis of the facts before me, but that some of those hon members are motivated by such resentment and hatred ad hominem that in truth they cannot hold their tongues for a short while to enable me to make myself heard to the person to whom I should like to speak.

I think the hon member for Witbank ought to be ashamed of the way his colleagues are behaving whilst I am trying to hold a reasonable discussion with him. However, that is how we know those hon members. The word “can” is in Hansard and if I had had the Hansard in front of me, I should not have been able to proceed with the point I had made, namely that I would submit it to Mr Justice Harms, because then, for the first time, I would have seen that he had used the word “can”. If he used the word “can”, then the statements I made are naturally completely invalid. He did use the word “can”, and for that reason I sincerely apologise to that hon member for having misunderstood him—it was bona fide.

That is why I took the strongest exception to the hon member for Brakpan. Hon members will recall that I spoke yesterday about the way he behaves. Hon members know that he is quite a lot older than I am, and when I was elected to Parliament 15 years ago, I had enormous respect for that hon member, a respect which was confirmed when he took the Chair. He pulled his weight. We respected him as a competent MP, but during the past few years we have experienced him as being someone who walks around nursing such a grievance that he is unable to address a matter; he is continually ad hominem. [Interjections.] He cannot rely on the merits of a matter; he must always sink to the level of personal insults. I think that such a senior hon member of this House, who overstepped the mark to such an extent, basically because he was unable to control his temper and his ego in the process, that he shouted to me that I was dishonest, and in other words committed an unparliamentary act so that he had to stand up and withdraw it …

Order! If an hon member has withdrawn something, no further reference is to be made to it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for the correction, and I shall not pursue that argument. I am not bitter about it. I must nevertheless shake my head sadly at the misconceptions which formerly well-balanced, fair-minded and acceptable people have undergone since they left the constructive and stimulating company of the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon member made an interjection yesterday to which I have not yet replied. This brings me to the standpoint which the hon member for Jeppe stated here. I want to thank the hon member for Jeppe most sincerely for having placed the entire question of banking in its correct perspective.

The hon member for Brakpan—if I heard him correctly; permit me to ask him now—made use yesterday afternoon by way of interjection—if my information is correct—of the words “Sunday afternoon”. “What about Sunday afternoon?”—is that so? I take it he was referring to the fact that I had granted Mr Vermaas an interview. I take it that was what he was referring to.

Why did you send officials of the Reserve Bank to Vermaas on a Sunday?

I shall tell the story. I merely wanted to know whether that was what he was referring to. Hon members can see what is motivating that hon member. Shame!

That Sunday afternoon I received a call from a senior colleague. Mr Vermaas was not known to me and my family. My wife has never in her life set eyes on a living Mr Vermaas—not to this very day. Never. She has, however, seen photographs of him. Up until that afternoon I had only seen him once.

Then I received a call from my senior colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told me the following:

gehoor wil word, want as hy gehoor kan word, dan is daar ’n kans om horn te help sodat daar nie mre ’n “run”, sogenaamd op sy besighede plaasvind nie.

My colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs told me that he had asked this Mr Vermaas whether he had done anything wrong, and that Mr Vermaas had given him the assurance that he, that is Mr Vermaas, had not done anything wrong. For that reason, my colleague told me, he was prepared to ask me to speak to him. Mr Vermaas’s problem was that a great drama was about to unfold around his affairs on the following morning. For that reason I told my colleague that he could tell him to come and see me. He came in and spoke to me at my home. I listened to him. I want to state categorically to hon members that the day when a Minister, and the Minister of Finance in particular, is not prepared to listen to people in and out of season, he will have very great problems in getting his work done, and he will lose something which has been built up over the years and which has helped him—I am talking about my predecessors as well—immeasurably in the execution of his task.

I listened to him and then I told him that I could do nothing for him. I informed him that there was only one body that could listen to him with a view to his problem on the following morning, and that was the Reserve Bank. I asked him whom he had spoken to up to that stage, and he mentioned Dr Van Greuning’s name. I said that I would make an appointment with Dr Van Greuning on his behalf so that he could speak to him, because I could do nothing to assist him.

I can only refuse to speak to someone if he has forfeited the right afforded him by some or other Act to appeal to the Minister of Finance. If anyone were to consult the Minister of Finance before a judgment had been made by those officials who have specific legal authority, that person would lose the right of appeal if the Act made provision for an appeal.

Time without number, I have received some of the foremost names in commerce, industry and finance in my office. They have given me information that has placed me in a position to do my job better, to close certain loopholes and to put a stop to certain malpractices in South Africa.

Besides, I told a certain newspaper man, Kit Katzin, who stuck to me like a leech and who telephoned me continuously, from the first day to the last on which he attempted to pester me, that I regarded myself as a publicly elected political functionary. I do not have the right to refuse to speak to anyone. Moreover, I cannot ask someone for a curriculum vitae before I speak to him. In my constituency I speak to people without qualification and, if I have the time, I speak to some of the hundreds of people who ask me to discuss their personal problems with them. I speak to them as often as I possibly can.

Whenever I speak to someone and I am unable to do anything for him, I send him to some of my officials. Anyone who thinks that a Minister of Finance can know all the technical aspects of everything over which the Ministry of Finance has legal jurisdiction, should really, as Hendrik Schoeman said, have his head read. It is impossible. I do this every day of my life. I often speak to someone whom I must tell, look, my friend, I shall send you to official so and so, because he is the man who deals with this matter.

I then telephoned Dr Van Greuning and told him I had a Mr Vermaas at my home and that I was unable to do anything for him. I suggested that he see him, because he had said that if no one listened to him, an opportunity to avert a great financial tragedy for a number of people would be lost. The choice we were faced with therefore, was that if we were to refuse to speak to him and the tragedy were indeed to take place, even though there was a possibility of averting it, our problems would have been greater than if we had, in fact, listened to him. I therefore asked Dr Van Greuning to speak to him.

What I find interesting is that neither Mr Vermaas nor Dr Van Greuning told me that they had, in fact, already arranged to meet one another later than evening. I therefore made an appointment which it was unnecessary to make, and for that I have spent hours of my time on the telephone with Kit Katzin.

I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that I found it a pity that it was necessary to perform an official task on a Sunday, because I do not like doing so. Crises normally pick such days to occur, when one finds them either inconvenient or undesirable. For that reason, because the scenario that had been sketched to me was that of a crisis on the horizon, I spoke to him.

If I had to make a choice tomorrow whether or not to see a person, I shall see him again. I shall see him again. It is normal, decent business practice, if it is not only good manners. That is the story as it concerns the interview granted to Mr Vermaas, and my photograph appears every time as though I had questions to answer. If the hon members wishes to ask me a question, he is very welcome.

According to the rules I may not do so. What about the embarrassment for the hon the State President?

Yes, that is a very logical question. I am pleased the hon member reminded me of it, because I want to say it in any case.

I also told Dr Van Greuning that I would like him to grant him the interview. Dr Van Greuning declared under oath that I have not addressed a single request to him to try to do something for him. I merely told him to give Mr Vermaas a hearing, because the summit conference was due to be held the next day. Ciskeian companies were involved and if a major scandal or whatever were to be splashed in the newspapers on that day, on which there was to be a meeting which had been arranged with great difficulty, it would have cast a shadow on the summit conference, particularly because it was a Ciskei-based company. That would have been undesirable. That was part of my motivation for telling Dr Van Greuning why I was phoning him on a Sunday evening to ask him to see someone urgently. This is absolutely normal and logical and I think I would have been failing in my duty if I had not also taken that aspect of the matter into consideration. That is the long and the short of it.

Neither Kit Katzin, nor The Sunday Star—no one in this country—is going to succeed, in regard to this whole matter of Mr Vermaas, in hanging an albatross around my neck, or that of anyone with whom I have had any dealings.

This brings me to the whole question the hon member for Jeppe dealt with very knowledgeably, ie the purpose of banking legislation in South Africa.

It is an absolute fallacy to think that an Act can protect one against sharp practices. The fact that we have a Banks Act does not mean that the Government guarantees anyone’s banking activities. There are experienced businessmen sitting here in the Main Chamber. There are people who are serving or have served on the boards of various banks. A bank is a precarious business undertaking. Even if it functions optimally, within the general limits laid down by the Banks Act, it remains a risky venture. The hon member for Jeppe rightly said that not everything had been fully covered. Many years ago Dr Gerhard de Kock’s ex-professor in economics told his students one day: “Ladies and gentlemen, if one organisation offers someone 1% more interest than another, just remember that there is a dashed good reason for doing so.” Dr De Kock told us about that when we were discussing these matters. It is a lesson that the South Africa public, all of us, would do well to take to heart.

I am afraid that too many people in South Africa have a kubus mentality, a quick-buck mentality. There is no such thing as a quick buck. If one has precious savings, it pays one to seek maximum security for one’s money and not to risk investing it with people who start saying one they will give one 40% interest. Where are they going to get that from? What kind of business is it? That is a kubus mentality. It is amazing to see what has again happened after a specific person had setbacks in the past, with people again investing R1 million.

I do want to ask the public nicely please to understand that there is really no way in which the Banks Act or the Reserve Bank, or the police or anyone else, can protect them against foolish investments. There is no way of doing this. We must be careful about who the people are to whom we entrust our hard-earned cash.

†I should like to make reference to something that I didn’t refer to yesterday when I talked about the financial rand and the commercial rand. There is something I should like to say to the hon member for Yeoville, but I see that he is not here.

*Then I should like to have it recorded in Hansard. As far as the financial rand is concerned, we have moderately extended its use to property and other transactions. Why? For two basic reasons. We wanted to increase the demand for the financial rand abroad so that the gap between the financial rand and the commercial rand could be narrowed. That was our objective. Then we extended this to a few other transactions. For example, we said that 50% of the purchase price of properties should be in ordinary commercial rands and the other 50% in financial rands. The important point I would nevertheless like to emphasise, and have placed on record—the hon member for Yeoville said we should again restrict this merely to stock exchange transactions—is that every transaction other than stock exchange transactions must individually be approved by the Reserve Bank. There is a strict measure of control over transactions of this nature by the Reserve Bank.

Then I want to come to the hon member for Barberton. He and I will simply have to continue our present altercation about the calculations involved in money supply and interest rates. I think we are getting closer to understanding each other on this issue.

I want to tell the hon member that last year I had an experience—involving the interaction between the money supply and interest rates—which was quite different to what happened in 1984. In 1984 we increased the interest rate by three percentage points, merely to put a damper on the economy or to cool it down. Last year it was a different story. A tremendously high level of expenditure caused a heavy demand for credit.

That extensive demand for credit has put upward pressure on interest rates. In the few instances of an increase in the bank rate, the market had already discounted that increase. In other words, it was not a question of the increase in interest rates having been the result of a policy decision. The increase in the interest rates had already been caused by the situation in the market.

If the Reserve Bank had therefore begun to restrict the money supply earlier last year, interest rates would have increased much more rapidly than was actually the case. That is the gist of my argument, and that is why I am arguing that in the circumstances that prevailed in the past, the money supply did, in fact, play a different role to that which it played previously. One therefore cannot say that increases in the money supply and higher interest rates went hand in hand, because the excessively rapid increases in the money supply by the Reserve Bank resulted in interest rates not increasing all that rapidly. It was therefore responsible for holding interest rates in check.

One cannot therefore say in the same breath, as the hon member for Barberton did, that owing to the fact that the money supply was allowed to increase rapidly, John Citizen now has to pay the price by way of higher interest rates. The obverse would have been true if the money supply had not increased to such an extent. Then John Citizen would have had to pay a much higher price far sooner than was, in fact, the case. I hope that in the future we shall understand one another better as far as this matter is concerned.

I now come to the hon member for Southern Free State. I merely want to tell him that we have debated this matter before.

Western Free State!

My apologies. I am referring to the hon member for Western Free State. The State is not primarily responsible for job creation. The private sector is responsible for that. If we were to crowd the private sector off the field owing to excessive Government expenditure, however, we would not be in a position to blame them if they did not create the number of job opportunities that the economy needed.

I agree with him that if shebeens had long since been legalised on a much larger scale, we could have incorporated that lifestyle into a more formal sector of the economy. [Interjections.]

To the hon member for Barberton I want to say that I still have some difficulties with the hon member for Witbank’s sentence—the word “kan” notwithstanding—because he said “dit is ook ’n illusie dat die kapitaalkragtige maatskappye met buitelandse belange nie die finansiele rand kan misbruik nie.” Why does he call it an illusion? Who said they could not? Who in this country said that those companies that were well-endowed with capital, or the smaller ones, could not make misuse of the financial rand?

Yesterday I repeatedly tried to explain that anyone who was prepared to commit fraud, who was prepared to falsify documents, could make misuse of the financial rand. I do not know why he called it an illusion. I do not know if he was thereby trying to create the impression that we in the Government were solidly behind the private sector. I do not know why else he would have said that. [Interjections.] If he was not trying to score a political point with that statement, it is irrelevant. What is the political point he was trying to make? The political point he was trying to make was that we were watching over the major companies and that someone in Government circles supposedly said that they would not be able to do so. I say they can do it. Anyone can do it if he is prepared to perpetrate falsifications and fraud.

The fact that I did not hear the word “kan” does not make that sentence acceptable. It merely makes it a different brand of nonsense, something I did not even realise yesterday. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Vasco raised an interesting matter, which also elicited a reaction from the hon member for Yeoville. But I do not think the hon member for Yeoville understood the hon member for Vasco correctly. I am very grateful that in principle the hon member Mr Douw has expressed support for our further investigations into this matter.

I think that this is what the hon member for Vasco said. He said that we should have a debate for the Additional Appropriation rather than for the Part Appropriation. The hon member Mr Douw said that this would allow us to achieve two goals: Firstly that of hauling hon Ministers over the coals—this is how I interpret his words—hon members getting a chance to ask hon Ministers to explain why there has been overspending. Secondly he said that instead of having that machinegun situation of questions and answers that we normally have, in that debate there would consequently also be an opportunity to ask a Minister what policy motives prompted him to incur that specific over-expenditure.

I really do think that if one were to examine these two debates, these two budgets, from my point of view there would be some sense in seeing where it was more fitting to have a more incisive debate—in the case of the Additional Appropriation or in the case of the Part Appropriation. This does not mean that one now wants to allege that in a budget debate one speaks only about finance. After all, we do have the Main Budget, in which we can discuss politics for a whole week. I think that the Additional Appropriation could lend itself to a very specific in-depth financial debate, but also based on certain policy considerations.

I respectfully want to suggest—I do not know what the correct procedure is for doing so—that the hon member for Vasco, in his capacity as chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, take the initiative in calling together the chief spokesmen on finance for the other parties in Parliament and exchange a few ideas about this at some or other time. If they wanted to make a proposal about this, I would be prepared to take it further. I really do think we can make a contribution to a meaningful financial debate, because we definitely need to do so.

The hon member for Vasco spoke about the creation of affluence. I want to change the term and speak rather of the creation of assets or the creation of wealth, and the contribution they make in this country. The creation of assets and wealth must, in the economic sense, be our top priority.

I think the hon member Mr Douw spoke about a redistribution of wealth or assets. I do not think we can easily support a redistribution of existing assets in this country. That is what has been attempted in various parts of Africa.

I want to agree with the hon member Mr Douw when he says that by means of redistribution of opportunities, if one may call it that, or in positive terms, by the creation of equal opportunities and by removing the obstacles preventing people from developing their potential or from utilising certain opportunities, we could bring about a redistribution of income in South Africa, which would not mean that we would have to take from those who have, but rather that we could, in fact, generate additional income so that, seen as a whole, those who are less privileged at present can obtain a larger share of the whole. When one has initiated a redistribution of income in that way, that would ultimately be converted into a redistribution of assets, because one first has to deal with the question of income before one can arrive at the possession of assets.

Let me tell the hon member for Vasco that there is, in fact, a mechanism for interaction between the Economic Advisory Council and the Government. I have an idea that at the moment this is again under scrutiny to see how the situation can be improved, but at the moment many very useful contributions are being made. Perhaps we should think about disseminating those contributions on a broader basis, and also the contributions we receive from the Central Economic Advisory Service about its monitoring campaign. We can certainly give attention to that.

I think the hon member for Matroosfontein hit the nail on the head when he said that sanctions were supported by countries for their own ends. I think Australia is the most typical example of this. As far as Zimbabwe is concerned, it really is one of the major ironies in the economic history of Africa. The day President Mugabe asked for full-scale sanctions against South Africa at the Commonwealth Conference—that very day—our delegates in Harare were concluding a new trade agreement with Zimbabwe. That is the very height of irony, graphically illustrating the realities of Africa.

The hon member referred to Australia, which had harmed South Africa’s coal market. My colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works in the House of Assembly, summed it up correctly when he remarked from his bench that the Australians had tried to drive us out of the coal market by means of sanctions. The depreciated rand then enabled us to drive the Australians out of the coal market. We are regaining those markets at this moment. A low rand is not always a tragedy, therefore.

†The hon member for Yeoville spoke about losses in respect of foreign exchange. As regards the whole question of forward cover I would like to say that this is offered to importers in order to make it possible for them to finance their procurements from overseas sources and not from South Africa.

*It is the old leads and lags story. If all our imports had to be financed from South Africa, the rand would be subjected to enormous pressure, which would create very serious problems for us. It is true that we have suffered a very great loss, but that book loss is actually a subsidy paid to the importers of South Africa. It is a subsidy for the benefit of the entire country. We would have preferred it if matters had been different, and if the rand were to reverse its course and begin to appreciate again, the situation could be reversed with regard to that great loss as well. We must view this matter in its full perspective.

†The hon member referred to the question of per capita growth. I do not want to repeat what Dr Gerhard de Kock, Governor of the Reserve Bank, espoused in a very interesting argument in this regard when he referred to our gross national product—not our gross domestic product—where on the basis of a 5% growth in our gross national product our per capita growth was rather substantial.

The hon member talked about turning the economy around. I am afraid that what he asks for I have repeatedly said in this Chamber and in the House of Assembly too. We are not only busy planning to turn around the economy but several plans are already in place. I think we have fresh information available—I have said this repeatedly—with regard to all our incentive schemes. That includes export incentives, industrial growth incentives and so forth. Our economic researchers are also busy designing a revised economic development programme. Under the chairmanship of my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister a short term industrial strategy has just been completed and will also receive urgent attention.

We on the side of the Government are not accepting, I repeat, not accepting a 2,6% or 3% growth rate as something which is the final condemnation of South Africa’s economic growth. We are changing the nature of economic growth to do that.

I want to dispute the contention that only 33% of our imports are essential. I would like to see the motivation for that statement. If one thinks that 80% of our imports consist of capital and intermediary goods and only 20% of consumer goods, I think it is unlikely that 40% of capital goods can be reduced to 33% and that all our intermediary goods can be manufactured in South Africa. I doubt that very much and I would like the hon member to give us more information in this regard.

I think and would like to suggest—I see his hon leader is making notes for him—that the hon member for Yeoville should perhaps propose that we especially debate the comments of the Government on the economic strategy as developed by the Economic Advisory Council of the State President.

*As far as the hon member Mr Douw is concerned, I agree with him in the support he has given to inward industrialisation.

†We are making a virtue of necessity, and in this process, urbanisation will be one of the major engines of economic growth between now and the end of the century.

*I just want to repeat what I said yesterday. The point I made was that if apartheid—or what he or other hon members experience as apartheid—were to be abolished overnight, that would not be the final solution to all our economic problems. That was the only point I was making in that connection. In saying this, I do not wish to start a debate on the economic consequences of its abolition; I think those could be debated. It could have advantages as well as disadvantages. All I am saying is that it is not a magic solution. Abolishing apartheid will not mean that all our other problems will automatically be solved. That was the only point I was making, and I believe the hon member will accept it if I give him that perspective.

The hon member quite justifiably referred to the low price of gold. I want to tell him this. In our planning for the coming Budget, we have our fears when we look at what is happening to the gold price. The simple truth is that if the gold price were to plummet, depriving us of foreign exchange we would otherwise have obtained, and if various other things that are not suitable for discussion in this forum were also, as by-products, to have a negative effect on foreign exchange in the event of a drop in the gold price, we would have to take prompt and very drastic action to cool down our economy. Public expenditure would also have to be drastically curtailed. This is a matter of the utmost importance to us, therefore.

The hon member rightly pointed out a very dangerous phenomenon as far as the gold price was concerned. At the moment, the gold price is being influenced by a massive sale of gold over the past year or two by gold mines that are still to be developed. In this way they are financing the building of the mines, namely by borrowing gold from the banks and selling it in advance, with the intention of returning to those banks eventually the gold they are going to produce. This is a way of marketing gold in advance and increasing the supply to such an extent that the price is drastically lowered. This is something we must bear in mind.

The hon member made another very valid point in connection with the monetary policy. He said he hoped we were not going to raise interest rates in order to keep the rand at an artificially high level. Unfortunately, there is a fact we have to face. This is that if interest rates go up in the European countries, we cannot lag behind. It has an effect on us. We cannot isolate ourselves from the interest rates in other countries. One has only to read what happens in other countries. When the inflation rate goes up or the value of their currency begins to decline, their interest rates go up. This is not necessarily a policy measure, but in the context of economic factors it is an inevitable consequence of measures that are taken to protect their economies.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology made a number of points in reply to the hon member for Yeoville. I thank him for doing so. I should like to say in this Chamber that I naturally have a great deal of contact with industrialists and businessmen and that the hon the Deputy Minister has built up an excellent reputation during the time that he has occupied this portfolio. He is regarded as a person who undertakes a task, thoroughly familiarises himself with it and then produces practicable policy measures without delay. In this way, confidence in our economy is enhanced. I should like to express my appreciation to him.

He referred to the petro-chemical industrial strategy. According to what he said, and judging by other information available to me, this is one of the most exciting industrial prospects this country has had in a very long time. I wish him every success with it.

I also appreciate his reference to the work done by the IDC in connection with job creation.

†To the hon member Mr Thaver I wish to say that I fully concur with what he said except that the committee which he referred to, the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, is in fact the policeman in that regard.

That is their task. That is the interaction between legislators, officials and the executive. It is this committee’s task to identify these shortcomings, the misappropriation of funds and unauthorised spending. They should also mete out the necessary punishment if they wish to do so and they can do it by way of their report. So if the hon member would like to argue that the infrastructure should be further supported, I think that we can continue the debate in a fruitful manner. I would like to see the policing function of Parliament greatly enhanced.

This brings me to a point that the hon member for Vasco made earlier on. I would like to see the Auditor-General receiving a much greater degree of autonomy. We are working on that. That Bill is currently in process after a long cycle of negotiations. I hope the Cabinet will finally approve of it in the not too distant future. It has now been on the agenda for quite a while.

*I do not know why the hon member for Reigerpark is so eager to quarrel with me about matters with which I am really not directly involved. I told the hon member long ago that he should not quarrel with me about the rental packages. The day he raised this matter, I expressed the opinion that we should see whether we could find cheaper financing for those towns so that Oom Kosie—whom the hon member mentioned—who pays R103 a month for his house would not have to pay such a large amount in interest on the services provided in the town where he lives. I also argued that if we could lower the cost structure, Oom Kosie would not address such urgent pleas to the hon member for Reigerpark for higher pensions either. Now the hon member is quarrelling with me about the same thing again. He should approach the proper Ministers on this matter. I want to ask him kindly to approach the hon the Minister responsible for White schools on the question of empty schools in White areas. I am not responsible for White schools. Sometimes I thank the good Lord for that. Criticism in this connection should be addressed to that person, and I would appreciate it if the hon member would address his remarks to him next time.

The hon member also asked me why pension parity had not yet been achieved. I want to tell that hon member that if my own good intentions could provide that, I could support his plea, but unfortunately, it comes from the country’s Treasury, and there has not been enough money to provide it. I simply trust that we shall move in that direction as rapidly as we can.

I conclude by expressing my thanks once again, especially to the hon member for Jeppe in connection with the banking matter. I think we could continue our discussion of that matter in a subsequent debate, for there are many misconceptions that we shall have to remove. I have already referred to the hon member for Bonteheuwel.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! Before I call upon the first speaker, I should just like to have hon members’ attention for a moment.

I wish to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that there will only be a First and a Second Reading debate with regard to the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill since the Bill does not contain a schedule. Speeches will be delivered from the central podium.

†Before calling on the first hon member, I wish to remind hon members that at all stages of an additional appropriation Bill debate must be confined to the subjects contained in the estimates and the reasons for the increase or for savings. That is the rule. Discussion should not reopen the question of policy involved in the original grant. Only when an entirely new vote or item appears in any additional estimates may full discussion on the service take place.

Mr Chairman, this Bill makes provision for the voting of additional expenditure of R198,386 million, which will bring the expected total expenditure for the 1988-1989 financial year up to R6 229,036 million. This additional amount represents an increase of 3,3% on the original estimate of R6 030,650 million and is necessary to make provision especially for additional staff expenses and increased international commitments.

Details of the additional amounts that are required appear in the Estimate of Additional Expenditure which, according to the Standing Rules and Orders, I shall table after my speech. I shall now deal with the proposed additional appropriations.

It is estimated that staff expenses will increase by R110,92 million mainly as a result of the following factors, viz the general salary adjustment of 15% which was granted to post office officials as from 1 January 1989; increased expenditure on service bonuses, leave gratuities and pension contributions which resulted from the abovementioned adjustment; increased housing subsidies due to the higher interest rates imposed by financial institutions; and increased departmental contributions to medical schemes as a result of the increase in membership fees.

This will bring the total staff expenses up to R1 873,133 million, which is 6,3% more than the original appropriation of R1 762,210 million.

†International traffic and in particular telephone traffic has increased more rapidly than originally expected. This increase together with a lower exchange rate of the rand resulted in higher transit moneys and terminal charges being payable to foreign administrations. Revenue derived from this increased traffic is however also higher.

Additional expenditure of R106,695 million is necessary to meet the higher international commitment. An additional appropriation of only R87,463 million is however being asked for since by applying virement, savings on other items of operating expenditure totalling R19,232 million can be used to partially defray this expenditure. The total appropriation under this item will now come to R428,660 million. Total revenue was originally estimated at R4 677,399 million. It is expected however that revenue will be higher and the additional expenditure of R198,386 million will be defrayed from the additional income.

I now introduce the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill, 1989 and lay the Estimates of Additional Expenditure of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications for the year ending 31 March 1989 (RP 16-1989) upon the Table.

Mr Chairman, allow me to congratulate the Post Office on a record operating surplus of R774,9 million for the 1987-88 financial year.

As I understand it, R452,3 million will be used for the partial financing of capital expenditure after the defrayal of the various costs. That sounds good, but we will have study it more closely later.

In this Bill, the Post Office is requesting an additional appropriation of moneys to the sum of R198,386 million. As the hon the Minister said, the increase over the original budget is 3,3%. This is mainly for staff expenses and increased international commitments.

An ironic situation has arisen with the expansion of the country’s telecommunication traffic. While it is heartening to see that this expansion is taking place more quickly than was planned, it is a pity that it should coincide with the lower value of the rand. A positive development is therefore being handicapped by circumstances beyond its control. While we concede that these circumstances—the reduced value of the rand—cannot be attributed entirely to South Africa’s position in world politics, politics nevertheless, do have a role. I agree that the increased volume of traffic is resulting in a higher income, but it could be even higher. What I mean by this is that the time has come for us in the Republic of South Africa to solve our internal political problems as quickly as possible, because they are even being reflected in international trade. In one way or another we are all feeling this in every sphere.

I understand that the additional staff expenses is mainly as a result of the general salary increase of 15% which came into effect on 1 January 1989. I have no problem with the leave gratuity and the service bonuses, but I do have a problem with the pension contributions emanating from the salary adjustment and the higher departmental contributions to medical aid schemes as a result of higher membership fees.

I want to begin with the medical contributions. It is being alleged that proper control is not being exercised in this area. People who do not contribute to medical aid schemes are receiving medical treatment on the cards of those who are members of medical aid schemes. It is also being alleged—I say this with all due respect to the many good doctors and pharmacists—that there are cases in which doctors and pharmacists are being paid for medicines and services that have not been rendered. This is a form of corruption.

With regard to the increased pension fund contributions, I am convinced that the workers’ contributions should be paid into a fund that will earn a good rate of interest. Investment agreements could help to curtail increased contributions by way of interest earned on contributions over a number of years. I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reaction to this. Nevertheless, the Post Office has done well, and I want to support this Bill on behalf of the LP.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, and, at the outset, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister and his personnel for having made the memorandum on the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill available to us in advance. This should contribute to a meaningful debate, and I thank the hon the Minister for it.

The aim of the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill is twofold, namely to provide for additional staff expenses and to provide for higher international commitments. Firstly, almost R110 million is needed for additional staff expenses emanating from the general salary adjustment of 15% which was granted to the Post Office personnel with effect from 1 January 1989, as well as other expenditure emanating from the general salary adjustment and the higher interest rates being levied by financial institutions.

During the debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill last year, the Official Opposition was strongly opposed to the fact that, in accordance with the economic measures of the hon the State President, the hon the Minister did not, at that stage, see his way clear to granting a general salary increase to Post Office employees. For that reason, it is very pleasant to see that, in the meantime, the hon the Minister has given the CP’s appeal for a general salary adjustment favourable consideration and has consequently decided to grant a general salary adjustment of 15% with effect from 1 January 1989. The Post Office employees as well as the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly are very grateful for this. Yet it is a pity that the hon the Minister did not grant a general salary adjustment last year during the Post Office budget, because the Post Office workers would have found that a great help. Nevertheless, we share in the gratitude of the Post Office official for the 15% salary adjustment which the hon the Minister has granted, even if it only came into effect on 1 January 1989.

I should also like to thank the hon the Minister for eventually conceding that the statement that the hon member for Boksburg made during the debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill last year, namely that all Post Office officials received notch increases last year, had no foundation, because, in the meantime, the hon the Minister has conceded that the Official Opposition were correct last year when we said that nearly 40% of the Post Office officials had not qualified for notch increases because they had already reached the maximum notch on their salary scale. That included those who were receiving fixed salaries. For that reason we share in the gratitude of the Post Office official for the increase that has been granted, but even more so in the gratitude of that 40% of Post Office officials who did not receive notch increases last year.

The question that can rightfully be asked, is what is the position, in particular the financial position, of the Post Office official. Is the 15% increase which has been granted, sufficient? It is true that the Post Office officials are not public servants, but I should like to refer to the standpoint of Dr Johan de Beer, Chairman of the Commission for Administration, in the article “Staatsdiens in perspektief” in which he says the following, and I quote:

According to Dr De Beer, that is the position in the Public Service. For that reason, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the Post Office workers are not in the same position. The Post Office worker forms the crux of all communication systems in South Africa. The department works hard and renders an excellent service to the community of South Africa.

I also want to congratulate the Postmaster General, Mr De Villiers, on what he and his department have achieved in just under a year. I want to thank Mr De Villiers and his department for the hard work that they do. I also want to thank them for the diligence with which they fulfil their task.

I also want to give hon members an example. Last year I wrote a letter to the Postmaster General in which I urgently requested him to assist in the provision of a direct exchange connection for a police station in the Ventersdorp constituency, namely the Klerkskraal police station. Within days of having sent the letter, I received a letter from the Postmaster General in which he informed me that the Klerkskraal police station would be given a direct exchange connection within four weeks. I visited this police station four weeks later and found that the connection had been installed before the four week period had expired. Surely that is service rendered by a team that each one of us can be proud of.

The CP thanks these officials, and for that reason I say that the hon the Minister should kindly try to establish whether the Post Office official is not perhaps in the same boat as the public servant, in the sense that, in real terms, they are worse off than they were five years ago.

Secondly, R87,468 million is being requested to meet international commitments, and because, according to the hon the Minister, the income is expected to be higher than was estimated earlier, and as the additional expenditure of R198 million can be recovered from this increased income, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is not opposed to the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, firstly, we would like to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on having come forward with requests for a salary increase. It appears that these requests have a degree of merit and that the requested increase cannot therefore be avoided.

Did you come alone today?

Please! We have no control over the increased value of the rand. With regard to the salary increase of 15% which the hon the Minister is requesting for the Post Office workers, I should like to know whether it is an increase of 15% across the board, and whether this 15% is also going to be applied in such a way that all ranks and levels which are possibly still lagging behind, will benefit from this, and that parity in the Post Office will be achieved in this way.

I should like to say that the hon the Minister is aware of the fact that there are those who are lagging behind with regard to their salaries and who, therefore, place a very high premium on this 15%.

However, hon members are aware that the cost of living is rising. The price of petrol, amongst other things, has also risen, and as a result of this, our people in these circumstances are wretched. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would tell us whether this 15% is also going to be used to bring about parity. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege to participate in this debate and I would like to take this opportunity of commending the hon the Minister and his department for having shown positive results insofar as the Budget is concerned. It is also very heartening to note that the taxpayer is not going to be further burdened with deficits as in the past. We also very warmly welcome the lifting of the minimum wage level, which is a very significant step in the right direction. I think all hon members would commend the hon the Minister for having taken such a bold step.

I would also like to make one or two comments on something that was a stepping-tone in the right direction in so far as the Ministry of Communications is concerned, which is of course the uplifting of a very long-standing restrictive race barrier, by allowing staff members to join any one of the staff associations of their choice. This is a very fine achievement and we are indeed very delighted to have received this report.

Whilst it is the main task of the Post Office to increase the communication network and whilst tremendous progress has been made on the technological front, I wish to highlight an area where greater effort is still required, namely in the field of human relations and human communications within the sphere of operation of the department.

What is the reason for the conspicuous absence of people of colour at management and senior management levels in the department? In a recent newsletter of the department, reflecting promotions, not a single non-White was mentioned. May I ask why?

What is a non-White?

Are we saying that in a population where 80% are non-Whites, there are no competent persons to fill such positions? Is job reservation still alive and well in the Post Office? Are we saying that non-Whites are only good users of the services? Cannot they be managers of such services?

The hon the Minister during the discussion of his main Budget last year made the statement that there was no prejudice in promotions and appointments. If this is so, can the hon the Minister tell us why an Indian postmaster in Durban who holds a high post of grade one postmaster is in charge of a lower grade post office? Could he not have been more productive and in line for promotion to higher levels, as is the policy of the Post Office, if he were at the postmaster’s office in Durban or at the regional office? Is it because of the fear that he will be in charge of Whites? This I say is prejudice and I think it is the truth.

It is time that the hon the Minister opened lines of communication in this regard and showed that his department is capable of taking strides in this extremely important sphere.

Order! I do not find in the Bill anything about promotions. The Bill only deals with a salary increase of 15% across the board and does not seem to me to cover promotions. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I refer to the R110 million that is required for staff expenses. In this regard I would like to bring to the notice of the hon the Minister that more than 50% of the postal staff workers are probably living below the R500 level. This, in the present time and climate, is not sufficient for a man to survive.

I would like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to consider very seriously to uplift and upgrade the quality of life of these people. They have no choice. They are rendering invaluable services to posts and telecommunications and it is in this spirit that I would like to make this appeal to the hon the Minister and his department to consider improving their quality of life.

Mr Chairman, we are at present discussing the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill. The hon the Minister is asking for an amount of R198 386 000 to be granted to his department. It is clear from these estimates that the hon the Minister is asking for R110 923 000 to be appropriated for salary adjustments. As we already know, there were no salary adjustments last year, and we should like to welcome this step.

We are also aware that the salary adjustments of 15% which the hon the Minister is asking for in this appropriation, are not really adequate, since there was no adjustment in the salaries of our Post Office workers last year. I want to ask the hon the Minister to make provision for further salary adjustments for Post Office officials in the main appropriation as well.

The hon the Minister is asking for additional funds so that increased service bonuses can be granted to the employees of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, and we are in favour of this. Since these additional funds are only being requested to cover the transitional period, I do not want to go into the appropriation in detail at this stage. I will have a detailed discussion with the hon the Minister at a later stage, during the main appropriation debate.

I should like to say that the Labour Party supports the fact that overall staff expenses have been increased to R1 873 133 000. I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the additional appropriation is confined to two heads. We have not been given a detailed breakdown of these two items. I would like to ask the hon the Minister certain questions to give us a little more information on this.

First of all I assume that the bulk of the R111 million required for additional staff expenditure was swallowed up by the 15% salary adjustment granted to Post Office employees. As a party the PFP fully supports the salary adjustment. Hon members will recall that we were critical of Government for not providing an annual adjustment of salaries in last year’s estimates, in particular where the financial performance of the Post Office compared so well with most other Government departments. It seemed to us then to be particularly harsh to penalise the employees of this department because of the Government’s overspending and financial mismanagement in other areas.

While dealing with staff benefits—as I understand it—the additional requirements do not deal only with the 15%. We are talking about service bonuses, housing subsidies and all sorts of other benefits as well. I think it would be appropriate at this stage just to deal with one aspect of continuing discrimination in the Post Office where I would like to see the hon the Minister give directions to eliminate the inequalities and the unfairness which certain employees are still experiencing as a result of lingering apartheid.

Order! I think the hon Chairman of Committees in the House of Assembly has just indicated that staff expenses as a policy matter cannot be discussed.

Mr Chairman, with respect …

Order! I am pleased about the respect at least.

Mr Chairman, there certainly is respect, Sir. I would suggest from the speech delivered by the hon the Minister that it is not only a question of the increase in salary. There is higher expenditure on service bonuses, housing subsidies and departmental contributions to medical schemes and …

Order! Apartheid is not there; I am quite certain.

Mr Chairman, with respect when apartheid continues to affect these particular benefits, I think it does fall within the ambit of this Bill. I would just like to point …

Order! If the hon member continues in that vein, I shall have to ask him to leave the podium.

Mr Chairman, I will not refer to the word “apartheid” again.

I would like to point out that in the Post Office we have 48 742 Whites on the permanent staff, compared to the 5 243 Blacks, 3 767 Coloureds and 2 070 Indians. In other words, we have four times as many Whites on the permanent staff as all the other races put together.

In contrast, we have 2 000 Whites, 23 000 Blacks—eleven times as many as the Whites—and 8 000 Coloureds—in other words four times as many as the Whites—employed on a casual basis. The significance of the permanent staff versus the casual staff ratio is precisely what we are dealing with in this Bill, namely the benefits which staff members receive. Because of this discrepancy and imbalance between permanent and casual staff, we find that we have the vast majority of the White employees receiving all the benefits which this Bill deals with, whereas the vast majority of the Black employees in the Post Office, because they are classified as casual employees, do not have the benefits of housing, medical aid and pension schemes.

I can envisage a situation where one has to have a floating staff of casual employees for ad hoc jobs from time to time, but I cannot envisage a situation where one has ten out of every eleven White employees employed on a permanent basis, whereas one has only one in six Black employees employed on a permanent basis. One therefore has ten out of every eleven White employees on the Post Office staff receiving all the benefits of permanent employment, while only one sixth of the Black employees are even entitled to qualify for any one of these benefits.

I really would like the hon the Minister to look at the situation to find out why it is necessary to keep a complement of 23 000 casual Black employees on the staff. Why cannot some of those people’s posts be converted to permanent posts, so that those who are permanently employed may be classified as permanent employees rather than as casual employees?

I do appreciate—it was explained to us last year—that a lot of these people are semi-skilled or unskilled workers. However, even in that classification one must have a need for a classification of permanent employees, particularly if one needs 23 000 on a casual basis.

The second additional item of expenditure of R106 million relates to international commitments. This very substantial increase—it is a substantial increase because it is 25% over the original estimate—is attributable to higher transit moneys, we are told, terminal charges and a lower exchange rate. We have also been told that the increased international traffic which has cost this additional money has also led to increased revenue. I should be interested to know what the amount of this increased revenue is—we have not been told this—and therefore what the net expense or profit of the increased international traffic has been.

Finally I should like to know from the hon the Minister what the precise breakdown of the losses are due to the lower exchange rate of the rand. It would seem that these losses alone may well account for the bulk of the R106 million required under this head of the Additional Appropriation.

Due to the fact that the speech delivered by the hon the Minister was very brief I submit it is extremely difficult to approve this expenditure or give our support to this legislation until we have a breakdown of these figures. I hope the hon the Minister will oblige. Nevertheless, the PFP intends supporting the legislation because the general thrust is in the right direction. We approve of the salary increases. It would also seem that whether we approve or not the other item for which additional sums are required is for money already spent. We assume it will have to be approved and the Bill will have to be passed. We will therefore be supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, this is my maiden speech in this Joint Meeting of Parliament. I believe it is appropriate for me to take this opportunity to wish the hon the State President a speedy and complete recovery from his illness to enable him to resume his office and to carry on with, hopefully, the reform process which he initiated. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on his appointment as Acting State President and I also congratulate the hon the Minister of National Education on being elected as the leader of the NP.

I want to tell the hon member who has just spoken that he and I will have ample opportunity to deal with all apartheid practices when the main Appropriation Bill comes up later this month.

Having said this I want to move on to the Bill before us. The Post Office which was showing losses only three years ago ended the year 1987-1988 with a record operating surplus of R774,9 million of which R452,3 million was contributed to the financing of capital expenditure. At the beginning of 1987 revenue was estimated at R4,3 billion but a moderate upturn in the economy and improved use of assets and resources resulted in 4,7% increase to nearly R4,5 billion which was commendable for that year. Let us hope that this pattern will prevail for the years ahead.

On 18 January I went to an auction of redundant Post Office motor vehicles in Pinetown. Amongst the vehicles that went under the hammer were 18 kombis which were the first to be offered and within a short while they were all sold for prices ranging from R11 000 to R19 000. The kombis were about five years old. Some of them fetched prices which were higher than when they were new. I thought the Department of Posts and Telecommunications would be sitting pretty. Nevertheless, this additional appropriation has become necessary because of the substantial increase of 15% in salaries for all public servants. The Department of Posts and Telecommunications had no option but to go along with it. This additional amount is R110,9 million.

International traffic on overseas services has increased. This is encouraging because it means that many countries are now talking to us. This in turn augurs well for our trade relations which are doing well and the economic upswing, which is improving. The amount for international commitments is R87,4 million which will eventually be recouped. I believe direct dialling was also introduced to a further eight countries, including India.

Mr Chairman, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is my first speech from this podium. I would very much like to convey my best wishes to the hon the State President and wish him a speedy recovery.

I am speaking in support of this Appropriation Bill, particularly in view of the 15% salary increases which came into effect on 1 January 1989. Everything has become expensive and the cost of living has increased dramatically. Household articles have also become expensive and people are finding it difficult to keep their heads above water. This is why we are very grateful indeed for the salary increases. We trust that the salaries of all post office officials will, in general, be made more equitable.

Higher contributions to medical aid schemes have become necessary as a result of the increase in membership fees. In order to provide efficient service, medical aid schemes have been obliged to increase their membership fees, because even medicines have become more expensive. As a result of the increases in interest rates, there has also been an increase in housing subsidies.

Mr Chairman, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the NP let me say that we support this additional appropriation. I also want to join with all the other members in conveying our thanks and best wishes to the personnel and the Minister.

I also want to convey my thanks to the people who have retired this year. We think particularly of Mr Ridgard and the success he has achieved. Even today we still talk about a large part of his period of service.

I think that it is correct to pass this measure to make provision for the additional funds, particularly in view of the salary increase. There are basically only two amounts we can talk about, and we have already spent 45 minutes on two single amounts of R110 million and R87 million. I want to endorse these amounts.

I merely want to digress slightly without contravening the Rules. Together with the hon member for Boksburg I want to thank the hon the Minister because in addition to the 15% increase he also considered the position of the technical personnel. In the past we have lost a considerable number of technical personnel to the private sector, and this year this was put right. I want to make use of this opportunity to say thank you that we are able to keep these important people to provide a top-quality service—as the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has said before, we are one of the biggest importers of technology in the world, and the Post Office is one of the major consumers of technology.

This ability to use the additional expenditure to cover a part of the costs is evidence of the fact that the Post Office and its personnel have succeeded in obtaining the additional income by making better use of equipment and personnel, and by making use of the best management techniques.

I think that when we deal with the main appropriation within the next 14 days, there will be enough time to devote attention to this.

Finally I want to say that the sound financial management and the exceptional capital structure, attested to in this appropriation and, in the annual report which was tabled a few weeks ago, where there is a very large surplus, indicate that use is being made of the best techniques to achieve effectiveness and productivity.

I would very much like to expand on the aspects touched on by the hon member of the PFP, but since this is not a political debate I think we shall postpone that issue for 14 days and then take it further.

It is a pleasure for me to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members very much for their contributions here. I know that many of their intentions are good. The Department of Posts and Telecommunications maintains sound relations throughout with all hon members of this House. We have a great deal to do with one another. We have many opportunities to try to solve problems and we also have the opportunity today of discussing certain matters.

As the hon member for Primrose said, this organisation is outstandingly managed. It is one of the largest businesses in this country of ours. It has an enormous establishment. It uses some of the most sophisticated equipment and we always try to keep pace with the very best in the world.

This sometimes tempts us to spend too much capital and to want to compete too much with countries overseas. We have recently, especially in consequence of the inquiry conducted by Dr Wim de Villiers, identified all our problems as well as all the matters which we have to attend to. That report is available now and, when we deal with the main appropriation in a few weeks’ time, that report will be made available to hon members. I am in no doubt that we shall have an exceptionally profitable discussion on it and that we shall then deal in detail with the activities of the Post Office, its strong and its weak points—the majority are definitely strong points—in all its various capacities.

I want to deal briefly with a question with hon members. If I do not reply in detail to everybody’s questions, hon members may rest assured that in a few weeks we shall have the opportunity of conducting an in-debth debate in great detail and after hon members have also studied this very interesting report by Dr Wim de Villiers.

The hon member for Wuppertal, who must be one of the hon members in this House who knows the Post Office best, put a few important questions, but then he is also aware that the Post Office has eliminated discrimination entirely.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

The hon member knows this and hon members who are shouting so loudly now that this is not true do not know what they are talking about. [Interjections.] We have eliminated all discrimination in the Post Office …

That is not true!

… and the factual position of temporary workers who are there is a factual position. It has to do with unskilled workers and it is a matter of training to make labourers more skilled. That is what is happening now. We are going out of our way to involve people from all population groups in the Post Office and to give them every possible opportunity, regardless of where they originate, to better themselves. Hon members must not be unreasonable now and say that this is not true. They do not know what is going on there. If hon members know what they are talking about, one can reply to them. If they are merely shouting without cause, however, they do not know what they are talking about. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Wuppertal mentioned the fact that higher pension contributions, resulting from the increase in salaries, did not need to be so high if money in the pension fund were invested more advantageously. I want to point out to the hon member that Post Office officials are members of the same pension fund as public servants, that is the pension fund of the Central Government. This also applies to temporary employees. Administration of the funds and investment of the money in them is not the responsibility of the Post Office. Nevertheless I have taken note of what the hon member told us and we shall always ensure in our discussions with the authorities which control that fund that they negotiate the best benefits for Post Office employees.

I am looking forward to further debate with the hon member in connection with his assertions about doctors and pharmacists who allegedly receive money for services which they have not rendered. Would the hon member please furnish more details about this because we cannot permit such allegations to be left hanging in the air. This is a very serious allegation and cannot be left at that. Would the hon member please let me have the details. We on our part shall try to establish whether such sharp malpractices exist. If they do, we want to eliminate them.

The hon member for Ventersdorp was much kinder to me this year than he was last year, but he still tried to get at me. The hon member asked whether the 15% increase was adequate. My reply also has a bearing on quite a number of questions which other members put when they participated in the debate. It is Post Office policy to make occupationally specific adjustments continuously over the year. That is the usual, normal practice which applies in any organisation like the Post Office which actually exists to make a profit. Hon members who put a similar question may just note that in 1988 for instance we made occupationally specific adjustments as regards the lower entrance grades. They have a bearing on the increase of minimum wages. We reacted to requests which hon members bring to my attention the whole time. We have done this. We shall obviously respond to any reasonable request.

What about the temporary workers?

This is a matter which varies from time to time but it can be discussed in detail during the debate which is to take place in a fortnight’s time. I shall make sure that I have the figures in front of me then.

We also paid occupationally specific attention for instance to engineers and technologists, internal auditors, cost investigation officers, psychometrists, psychologists and cleaning personnel.

Since carrying out thorough studies in the private and in the public sector to see how our officials’ remuneration compared, we have been making certain adjustments on a continious basis which is an indication that the Post Office is serious in this respect in caring for its people.

As regards the hon member for Vredendal, I think that this reply which I have just furnished will serve as a reply to him as well. He asked whether this 15% increase was adequate. I think that what I have just said will answer his question too.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis asked whether the 15% also had something to do with parity. I want to tell the hon member that we have already implemented parity. People receive the same pay for the same work. We are therefore not using it to bring about parity because this has already been attained.

†The hon member for Havenside started off very nicely. He pointed out that members can now join any staff association. Then, however, he said I should give reasons as to why there is such a conspicuous absence of, as he puts it “nonWhites” in top positions.

I want to tell the hon member that the Post Office goes out of its way to try to promote members of all population groups, and particularly of those groups which are not fully represented in the organisation yet. We ask the question why they are not represented there. In this country we need all our people in order to get specialized as well as unskilled work done. We cannot leave it to only a small portion of a particular population group. Therefore we are looking for people and we want to give them the necessary training to be able to do the work. In stead of accusing an organization which has a completely different outlook in this regard he should go out there and motivate members of his group to come and join us and to go to the trouble of learning a particular skill. We will take them because we really want them.

To ask whether we still have job reservation is such a ridiculous question that I am not even going to reply to it. The hon member knows very well that there is none whatsoever.

*I have already replied to the hon member for Vredendal.

†The hon member for Groote Schuur wanted more particulars. I think he also took note of the fact that apart from the 15% increase we also attended to specialized sections of our work force. [Interjections.] I can give him all the details but I do not have the time to do so. If he would like to obtain them from me afterwards I will be very happy to give them to him.

He made the point of permanent and casual. I most certainly will look into the matter with great dedication once again. I do not reject the points that he made because we are working towards achieving what he has in mind. I am not rejecting these arguments. We will once again look into this and in our next debate on this particular issue I will perhaps be able to present him with arguments and facts which could take the matter a bit further. I have taken note of his views in this regard.

I want to thank the hon members for Umzinto and Rawsonville for their participation and for their support of the Bill. I believe that we will shortly have a much more detailed discussion.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading debate

Mr Chairman, I will very appropriately react to the few remarks made by the hon the Minister in regard to my speech when we come to the main Budget. I am sure that by that time I will be able to present the factual position to him—it will probably be in this Chamber.

I am not going to drift away from the budget under discussion and I want to assure hon members that I am going to confine myself to and centre my contribution around the Post Office Additional Appropriation Bill. I refer to Item 2 which reads “International Commitments”.

In respect of the increase in relation to international commitments, the hon the Minister has attributed this to various factors, the most important factor being the lower exchange rate of the rand. I believe that in order to overcome the occurrence of this problem it is imperative that the exchange rate of the rand must be strengthened. It is not within the ambit of this debate for me to canvass the various factors responsible for the lower exchange rate. The hon the Minister must agree with me that the acceleration of the reform process will strengthen the exchange rate and will bring in foreign revenue, thereby reducing our international commitment. In this regard, I appeal to the hon the Minister to impress on his colleagues in the Cabinet to institute positive acceptable reform programmes.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, what we have here is a very short Bill. Consequently my Second Reading speech will be brief.

The Bill is not contentious because it contains mere technical rectifications. As a result of the addition of the International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as a schedule to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1951, it was necessary inter alia to make the Regulations Governing the Manning of South African Ships in order to give effect to the provisions of the said Convention.

According to the findings of the Court of Marine Enquiry into the stranding of the trawler Maranatha during September 1986, the provisions of the relevant regulations are in conflict with those of section 73 (1) of the Act, and the regulations are therefore ultra vires.

Prior to the coming into operation of the relevant regulations, the requirements according to which South African ships were to be manned were regulated only by the provisions of section 73 (1) of the Act. However, the requirements as regards the manning of South African ships in terms of the regulations are stricter—this is the point—than the requirements laid down by the Act. Section 73 is therefore being amended to empower the Minister to bring the requirements in question into line with the provisions of the Convention by regulation. I merely want to add that when one is a member of an international convention of this kind, one is expected to implement the provisions of such convention.

†It is furthermore necessary to repeal section 80 of the Act as the Convention prohibits the issue of certificates of service by any party thereto after the expiry of a period of two years from the commencement of the Convention on 28 April 1984, which is quite some time ago.

Certificates of service already granted in terms of the said section will however remain in force.

A matter connected therewith relates to section 76 of the Act which stipulates that the Director-General may make provision for the instruction of persons who wish to obtain certificates of competency under the Act by examination. This section may be repealed, as its provisions have never been put into effect and in any event are an embarrassment to the Department of Transport which is not the proper body to provide for the education of seafarers. After all, training for all seafarers is provided for by the Cape and Natal technikons.

Mr Chairman, the object of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill, 1989, is to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, so as to provide that the standards in respect of certificated officers and other persons to be employed on certain ships comply with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers.

This Bill will apply only to ships with a tonnage of 25 ton and more which sail under the South African flag and from South African harbours. The Bill will also prevent a repetition of what happened when the trawler Maranatha went aground, when the Court of Marine Enquiry found that the provisions of the relevant regulations were in conflict with those of section 73 (1) of the Act.

Since this Bill is not a contentious one, and was supported by the Labour Party on the standing committee, we support it.

Mr Chairman, as the long title of the Bill indicates, the measure under discussion is aimed at eliminating a situation in which certain legislative measures were in conflict with one another. It is a normalising provision, aimed merely at bringing the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, into line with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, of which South Africa is also a member. Consequently we have no objection to this Bill’s being passed. The CP therefore supports it.

Mr Chairman, as this Bill updates the provisions of section 73 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, and consensus was reached in the joint committee, we have no difficulty in accepting this Bill. As far as we are concerned, this Bill merely updates the principal Act and brings it in line.

There was a court case, but this Bill now remedies that entire situation. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this appears to be somewhat of a procession of hon members, all approving the Bill. So, I shall be no exception, in that the PFP will support the Bill because it is obviously sensible.

There is, however, a point that needs to be made. What we are doing here is setting right a situation that was wrong. We are setting right a situation whereby the Minister of Transport Affairs had made certain regulations which were not in his power to make. It was only when there was a court case, as we read in the memorandum, that this was discovered. This is being rectified in this Bill.

The point that I want to make is not necessarily in relation to the Department of Transport but in terms of the Government as a whole where there have been many occasions where the court has had to find that the Government was taking unto itself powers which it did not possess. I think this must be a warning to everybody in South Africa against whom the Government takes action. They must inspect the law very carefully in order to ensure that the Government has the right to do to them what it is in fact trying to do.

We must also make the point that it is simply not good enough, as far as the Government is concerned, with all the panoply of the State, the legal advisers and the knowledge in their ranks and within the public service, that regulations should be made which the Minister does not have the right to make. I would like to appeal to the Government that in future it should try to ensure that it acts lawfully in regard to any matter.

Mr Chairman, we in the DRP support the proposed amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act. The amendments have been motivated by necessity and there is no point in my speaking any further thereon.

The RSA is not really a maritime or seafaring country. We do not depend on the sea principally for making our national living or to generate national wealth like some other smaller island states on our eastern seaboard. However, we are a force in the maritime marketplace as the following statistics of importance will indicate.

The RSA has a coastline of 2 200 nautical miles that have to be patrolled and protected. There are registered in this country 11 foreign-going ships with a total tonnage of 369 943 tons, 38 coasters and 720 fishing trawlers.

The bigger commercial fishing companies such as Irvin and Johnson and Sea Harvest each have about 50 trawlers at sea. Each trawler has a crew of 40 to 80 men. These crewmen—this is important to our community—have insurance, medical aid and pension schemes. The trawlers, crews are 97% Coloured. A deck-hand earns approximately R1 800 to R2 000 per trip, which lasts 33 days. A skipper, of whom 30 are Coloured in the Irvin and Johnson fleet, can earn up to R12 000 per 33 days and some in fact do. These seagoing men cannot spend their money at sea, so they bring it back home to port and it filters its way through the economy. This is a very important part of the work force. The Department of Transport has the safety of these South Africans and all other seafarers, whether they come from Taiwan or Russia, at heart.

I am certain that there is no place for racialism at sea amongst the crew. They know that they swim or sink together. Although I never intended to bring a political note into this non-contentious measure, I cannot but ask the hon member for Bonteheuwel, who made such an impassioned plea against sanctions, to tell the leader of his party when they go to Harare, that is if they are listened to, that if the ANC succeeds further in their sanctions and other anti-South African campaigns, all of us will be in the same boat.

If we sink, we sink together, all those groups. We dare not play with the lives of those at sea and the Labour Party must not play with our lives, as they are bent on doing. The Republic of South Africa is an adherent of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Our party will support any initiative that will foster safety at sea.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Deputy Minister has already pointed out, this legislation deals mainly with the training, the issuing of certificates and other matters relating to seamen, and minor amendments are now being introduced to bring it into line with the International Convention.

There is actually only one section that is being amended, namely section 73. This is being done in order to give the Minister the necessary powers to make regulations so that this can, in fact, be brought into line with the Convention. Section 80 is being repealed, and section 76, which has never been implemented, is now also being repealed.

There was no vote against these amendments in the Joint Committee, and it is therefore also my pleasant task to support this measure on behalf of the NP.

Mr Chairman, this Bill before us, the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill, amends the Merchant Shipping Act, Act 57 of 1951. To comply with the addition of the International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as schedule 5 of the Act, it was necessary, inter alia, to make Regulations Governing the Manning of South African Ships in order to give effect to the provisions of the said Convention. This amendment empowers the Minister to bring the requirements in question into line with the provisions of the International Convention, by regulation.

It repeals section 80 of the Act, as the Convention prohibits the issue of certificates of service by any party thereto after the expiry of a period of two years from the commencement of the Convention on 28 April 1984. Certificates of service already granted in terms of the said section will however remain in force.

This amendment will only add to safer shipping traffic and conform to the international requirements.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Wuppertal and Roodepoort and the hon member Mr M Thaver very sincerely indeed for the support they have given. I also thank the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon member for Daljosaphat who went a bit further in his plea for the general seafarer. I want to say that the hon member has my sympathy in this regard, and when the opportunity presents itself we can discuss the matter.

†I would like to refer to the point made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I thank him for his support but he made an issue of the fact that we have very little respect for the law and the Government often goes too far …

That is not what I said!

… and that the Minister does not have the right to make certain regulations. I agree with the hon member on one issue and it is that our law actually was a bit soft.

The international regulations as prescribed by the Convention are actually stronger.

I regret that we have not brought our law into line with the regulations as prescribed by the Convention. However, we have not abused our power at all. By means of this amendment we are now trying to bring our law into line with the regulations as prescribed by the Convention.

*This is the only difference, and I believe it is in the best interests of seamen that it should, in fact, take place in this way. I think the change can only lead to an improvement, and I thank hon members for their contributions, and the hon member for Bethlehem who gave his support on behalf of the NP. I thank them most sincerely for this. I also want to thank the joint committee and its members, under the chairmanship of the hon member for Primrose, for their support of this legislation.

Debate concluded.

Bill read for the second time.

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

Agreed to.

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

Agreed to.

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

1. (1) the petition of H Bruwer, laid upon the Table of the House on 13 February, be referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs;
2. (2) the petition of J F Barnard, laid upon the Table of the House on 13 February, be referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs.

Agreed to.

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

Agreed to.

Order! Before we proceed with the questions, I just wish to point out that a letter was sent by myself on behalf of all hon members to the hon the State President wishing him a speedy recovery. The reply is as follows:

The letter was signed by the Secretary-General.

Mr Chairman, with the leave of the House I should like to make a personal explanation. On 9 February, in response to an interjection by the hon member for Actonville, I retorted by saying that he had lost his deposit in a local election. I was misinformed, and as a result I made that statement. I regret having made the statement and apologise to the hon member for Actonville.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.