Mr Chairman, the composition of the original Appropriation for the present financial year was based on a real growth rate of 3 in the South African economy. On the strength of the economy’s sturdy performance thus far it is also still expected that this growth rate will materialise. The inflation rate of 13%, on which the original appropriation was based, also appears to be realistic.

Since the average exchange rate of the rand was weaker, however, than that which was linked to the Appropriation, expenditure levels have been adversely affected. Total expenditure is expected to be R372 million more than the original estimates.

Arising from the salary dispute between the Transport Services and member unions of the Federation of Trade Unions of the S A Transport Services, salaries of employees of the Transport Services were increased by 12% with effect from 1 October 1988. This salary increase led to an increase in labour costs of R192 million.

Further contributing factors to the increased expenditure were the abolition of the mutual concessions on 1 April 1988, provision for supplementary pension payments, the payment of higher commissions by the SA Airways as a result of an increase in passengers, greater aircraft fuel consumption as a result of an increase in traffic and increases in fuel prices.

The increase in expenditure has been partially countered by an improvement of R353 million in revenue as against the original revenue estimate.

As a result of the salary increase granted to the SATS personnel 1 have been compelled to increase domestic airways tariffs by 8% with effect from 1 November 1988 and other tariffs by 7,5% from 1 December 1988.

These tariff increases will realise additional revenue of R131 million during 1988-89. The additional revenue will, of course, not cover the increased expenditure as a result of the salary increase.

The increase in the value of imports and exports and more airline passengers will contribute to an increase in revenue of R140 million and R198 million respectively in respect of Harbours and Airways.

These increases, however, are off-set by a decrease in railway goods revenue. Everything considered, it is expected that the 1988-89 financial year will close with a deficit of R115 million, which is R19 million down on the estimated deficit of R96 million.

I want to give hon members the assurance that it is the SATS’ consistent objective to remain within approved budgetary parameters.

The introduction of this Additional Appropriation Bill can chiefly be ascribed to the compulsory implementation of the salary increase from October 1988.

†I shall now deal with the Additional Capital Budget.

From the documents tabled, hon members will note that an additional amount of R34,2 million requires to be voted for the Capital Programme.

Items which have been included in the additional budget are cash provision for the amount of R4,5 million for work which was included in budgets for previous financial years in respect of which debits of R150 000 and more per item were received and accounted for during 1988-89.

I have, in terms of section 7(1)(a) of the South African Transport Services Finances and Accounts Act, 1983, already approved of the following new proposals:

Steam Locomotives

Steam-hauled trains remain a major attraction not only for South Africans but also for tourists from abroad.

It has been decided to preserve a series of steam locomotives for our descendants at Krugersdorp and Port Elizabeth, and an amount of R1,2 million has been appropriated for this purpose.

These locomotives will be used exclusively for the hauling of trains at the request of steam enthusiasts.

Airbus A320 Aircraft

Due to the increasing number of passengers on the domestic services of SA Airways an order for an additional five Airbus A320 aircraft has been placed.

A pre-payment of R2,9 million was required on conclusion of the contract.

Home Ownership

Additional funds were required for the granting of loans to personnel. As no additional surplus funds from the pension fund were available R25 million had to be acquired on the open market and these funds have to be appropriated.

Pipelines

To prevent any further flood damage, sabotage and damage due to agricultural activities, it is necessary to assess the vulnerability of the pipeline and to determine the cost of rectifying the problem areas. An amount of R600 000 has been appropriated for the purpose of this survey.

Although the total amount to be appropriated in respect of the Capital Programme amounts to R34,2 million, savings on other works have resulted in an additional amount of only R14 million being required.

Tabling

I now lay on the Table the Estimates of Additional Expenditure of the South African Transport Services for the financial year ending 31 March 1989.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister for granting a 10% increase to SATS personnel during October. I am aware that negotiations took place beforehand between the Federation and SATS management; that is why I should like to thank the hon the Minister for this.

In the Additional Appropriation the hon the Minister asks for an amount of R406 196 000. This money is being requested chiefly for two components. One of these is revenue services, for which an amount of R372 000 000 is appropriated. The amount is then distributed further among three revenue accounts, namely rail services, R125,8 million; road transport services, R28,2 million and airways, R218 million.

In his capital programme the hon the Minister requests R34 196 000. This money will be used only to let capital works continue until the Main Appropriation is put into effect later this year.

If one looks more closely at the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, one notes that in the case of certain items appreciable savings were made. I want to thank the SA Transport Services management in this regard. It is proof that SA Transport Services funds are monitored closely.

Under the head “Airways” an additional amount of R2,9 million is being requested for the purchase of five Airbus A320s. The amount of R25 million which is being requested for the house owners’ fund must be regarded as a positive step. It is very important for the SA Transport Services to assist its staff in acquiring their own homes.

I hope that, when the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs introduces his Main Appropriation shortly, serious consideration will be given to the staff remuneration package so that in this respect it will also be possible to provide relief to the staff. As I do not wish to go into the Additional Appropriation any further now, I shall let this suffice. I therefore consider it a privilege to support this Additional Appropriation.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by saying that I am grateful for the memoranda and explanatory documents which the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs made available so that we could see how he set out the amounts he requested in the Additional Appropriation. However, I do want to say that I am sorry that the explanation the hon the Minister gave here in his budget speech this morning was not given to us prior to the debate.

If we had received it prior to the debate we could quite possibly have eliminated a lot of the debating and the questions. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to try to give us his explanations at an earlier date so that we can have a more meaningful debate.

Mr Chairman, in the light of your ruling yesterday and of the fact that, as I understand it, there is not going to be a committee stage in this debate, I want to refer to the relevant explanatory documents attached to the Appropriation Bill handed to us. In regard to the document RP 44 of 1989, to which reference is made in clause 2 of the Transport Services Additional Appropriation Bill, I should like to single out a few questions and put them to the hon the Minister.

On page eight it is indicated that an additional R19,8 million is being voted for the maintenance of permanent ways and works. Last year we drew the attention of the hon the Minister to the unsatisfactory passenger control at certain Black urban stations on the Witwatersrand. At that stage the assurance was given that the matter was receiving ongoing attention. We should now like to hear how much of the R536 517 000 for which provision is being made in the revised appropriation—this is the total amount, including the R5 754 000 in the additional appropriation—has been voted for this purpose. The amount of R5 754 000 appears in the document RP 44 of 1989, and the other amount obviously forms part of the main appropriation.

We should also like to know to what extent fare evasion at Black urban stations in particular—we referred to this last year—has now been eliminated. We hear rumours that expensive control systems were imported from overseas for use at some of these stations, and our information is that they are not actually suitable for our population and circumstances. They are consequently to a great extent “white elephants” which are serving no purpose. We should like to hear from the hon the Minister what the position is at present.

An amount of R77,279 million is now being voted in respect of the maintenance of electrical traction equipment and structures. This is the next item. It is R7,55 million, or 10,8%, more than in the previous financial year, according to page 31 of RP 14/1988, one of last year’s documents.

This increase looks extremely high and the question arises whether this expenditure only concerns the repair of really serviceable equipment, or is unserviceable equipment being repaired by the South African Transport Services for other purposes? If so, we should like to know to what extent this is being done.

A further question arising from this is whether the SA Transport Services’ equipment is becoming outdated, or are they able to replace the existing equipment timeously so that the maintenance costs do not rise excessively?

An additional R11,5 million is being requested in respect of the maintenance of passenger and goods vehicles, which brings the total amount for this to R450,668 million for this year. Last year the total amount was R442,646 million. The decrease of R16.586 million voted for on the total for the 1987-88 financial year, has therefore now been convert it into an increase of R8.022 million. One wonders what frustrated this optimism of the hon the Minister, which caused him first to budget for a decrease of R16,586 million and then converted into an increase of R8,022 million. We should like to hear the reason for this. If more damage was done to passenger and goods vehicles than the hon the Minister budgeted for, and this is the reason, we should like to hear what the extent of this was and what the cause of this damage was.

The shortfall on the running costs of cartage services now totals R10,238 million—an increase of 19,6% on the main appropriation for this year—and the total increase compared with last year is R15.036 million, or 31,7%. We should also like an explanation in this regard.

Miscellaneous cartage service costs are indicated in the explanatory documents as a leader with a net increase of R4,498 million, or 535,576%, on the original appropriation of R840 000. Hon members will agree with me that more than 500% is a drastic increase.

Can the hon member tell me where he got the figures from?

Under the heading “Miscellaneous Cartage Service Costs”. Unfortunately I do not have the document here with me.

The next item is the ex gratia payment of R390 000 to Shell SA (Pty) Ltd in respect of compensation for loss on interest. This is a new item and it was not originally budgeted for. We are not acquainted with the background to this and should like to hear from the hon the Minister what the origin of this payment to Shell SA (Pty) Ltd was.

In respect of the head “Working and Maintenance” of the Road Transport Services, which is the next item, we should like to hear what caused the increase of R23,2 million, or 12,17%, in operating costs. According to past statements by both the hon the Minister and the officials, this is one of the services which does not fare too badly every year. We should like to hear the reason for this increase of 12,17% in the operating costs.

As regards the Additional Appropriation for the capital programme, we should like to know whether the Pilots’ Association was consulted prior to the purchase and their advice taken in respect of the decision to purchase the five Airbus A320 aircraft, to which reference is made under head 6, on page 13 of the document RP 44 of 89. Hon members will recall that last year there was a fairly well-publicised discussion as to the desirability of purchasing this specific type of aircraft, and seeing that the hon the Minister and his department have now decided to purchase it, we should like to know to what extent the Pilots’ Association was consulted.

Mr Chairman, I should like to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention that the increase of 12% in October has been implemented. In comparison with the increase of 12%, and keeping in mind the inflation rate which has already soared to nearly 16% or 17% or even higher, I think that this 12% has definitely not brought any relief. I want to know what the chances are of an increase. An increase is necessary to bring us into line so that people can feel there has been an increase instead of being given an increase that will only be gobbled up by inflation.

Secondly I thank the hon the Minister for his contribution to certain aspects of tourism in this country, and I am glad to hear that the locomotives are to be reinstated.

I do, however, wish to ask the hon the Minister whether he has made any provision for an increase in travelling expenses for commuters and whether there will be an increase in the cost of commuter services this year.

I also want to ask him if provision can be made for more of the new security coaches because crime on our trains has decreased only very slightly. Our crime rate is still high and I feel that we must endeavour to make use of more of these security coaches.

One of the other aspects I want to express my gratitude for is the fact that changes have been made to the level crossings at stations. This has brought a great measure of relief, and I think that if it were extended to all other stations which have a high density of commuter traffic during peak hours, it would bring about a great change. I know there are some people who are unaware of the problems in our area and their causes. They are unaware of them, and that is why they do not know what it does to a community if there are such crowds of people at a station, and some being hurt and robbed. I am glad that there is relief now and that people will be able to move much more easily through station buildings.

I am sorry to say that we received this document late, and that is why I have no further contributions, except to say that we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, when the hon the Minister presented the Transport Services Additional Appropriation Bill today, he did not tell us whether it was the last of his Appropriation Bills because of the transformation of the South African Transport Services, which will be privatised very shortly. I think he should tell us whether it is one of his last Appropriation Bills before this House.

As I see it, an Additional Appropriation Bill is a very good thing. It is a sign of some discipline, because no department is able to forecast a budget of expenditure.

I think in order to control some form of expenditure an Additional Appropriation Bill is absolutely necessary particularly in view of the fact that the South African Transport Services is a very large organisation.

There are one or two points in the schedule that was submitted to us particularly on the questions of salaries and wages which I wish to raise. The Airways have not been allocated any increases in salaries and wages. The pilots in the Airways are very dissatisfied with the salaries which are paid to them. I think the hon the Minister owes them an explanation as to whether he has removed that dissatisfaction among the Airways staff.

The other point is that there are a number of non-White staff in the harbours and the salaries paid to them are very, very low. These people need to have their salaries upgraded and better salaries must be paid. Most of the employees in the harbours are non-Whites. When I say that they are non-Whites I mean that they are Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. They are not being paid very good salaries. I think it is high time that the hon the Minister looked into the matter of the harbour employees’ salaries because there is no provision made the additional estimates for their salaries.

Lastly, I want to refer again to the Airways. I do not know whether it was absolutely necessary to ask for R 2,9 million for additional expenditure to pay for the aircraft.

In the interests of all concerned the cost should have been reflected in the main Estimates as well as the deposit or initial payment.

To my mind the SATS have been doing a very useful piece of work and it is one department that has been administered very well as far as expenses are concerned, although it showed a lot of losses.

Mr Chairman, firstly, on behalf of the LP, I wish to convey our gratitude and appreciation to the General Manager and his staff for the unselfish service they are rendering to South Africa. [Interjections ]

It is, as management also says, encouraging that in spite of a much smaller staff—192 566 on 31 March 1988 as compared to 202 770 on 31 March 1987—a much higher level of productivity was maintained.

I want to congratulate the staff of the railway station at Potgietersrus on having made world history. It was, for the information of other hon members, the first time that a five-star “Nosa” award for loss control and occupational safety was presented to a railway station.

It is also gratifying to learn that the SA Airways, with a profit of R163 million for the financial year 1987-1988, has for the first time progressed from a situation of accumulated loss to one of accumulated profit. It is being requested that an additional amount of R372 million be appropriated to revenue services over and above the amount appropriated in the Main Budget last year, as well as an amount of R34 million for capital programmes, which is a total amount of R406,196 million.

As far as rail services are concerned, R19,8 million has been requested. This financing must be utilized for permanent way and fences, electrical traction equipment and structures as well as signalling installations. I want to say to the hon the Minister that since the purchase and construction of new rail services is declining because there is no market for it, I am convinced that there could definitely be better planning. I also believe that there are regions in the transportation component which have supplies that other regions need and can use.

What I want to say about this is that the offices of the various section managers must take stock of what they have and are not using, and send it to those who do need it. In this way costs can be cut. There are cases, I imagine, where orders are placed to store supplies which, as a result of certain other methods, are not required in that region anymore.

If we look at management and vehicle running expenses, for which an amount of R74 million must be appropriated, it is clear that plus minus 50% is earmarked for salary increases and possible overtime. We have no problem with this, but the hon the Minister must keep in mind that the staff must, at the same time, remember that they are rendering a service to the public and that they are working with people who pay tax. Nevertheless there are many complaints from passengers that some of the staff, of all races, are rude and ill-mannered. This results in friction and gives transport services a bad name.

Under “Airways—working and maintenance”, R218 million is being requested. Of this amount R69,68 million is being requested for aviation. It is vague. I should like to know whether it is supposed to be for training or maintenance costs. Seeing that many flights have been curtailed, I do not understand why this amount has to be exceeded to such an extent.

Where is that stated?

It is in the memorandum. Unfortunately I do not have the page number.

Under the same section an amount of R73 020 000 is being requested for the sales promotion and for sales. We all agree that the SAA has to be advertised well, and it is being done. However, the question arises about whether this amount is for marketing overseas where the monetary unit fluctuates. I trust that the hon the Minister will shed more light on the matter.

We are aware that sabotage and washaways have occurred and that it …

Order! I do not understand which subheading the hon member is discussing now. The hon member is now dealing with sabotage.

On railway lines.

I must know to which heading in which schedule the hon member is referring to because we must adhere to the Additional Appropriation Bill.

Sir, there is a heading for miscellaneous expenditure, under which this falls.

I do not see it here. Perhaps someone can help me. Unless I am convinced otherwise, sabotage is not relevant at this stage.

Very well, Mr Chairman.

Until now the SATS has done a good job. Although many complaints have been received that aircraft and trains are seldom punctual, I am of the opinion … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is unusual to have a debate on the additional estimates for the SATS because, in the first place, they do not very often ask for any additional funds and, in the second place, this used to be more or less purely a question and answer session over the floor of the House, whereas today it seems to be developing into a whole series of First Reading speeches.

The most important and biggest amount involved is the R192 million that is to be made available for salary increases. I am on record as having said at the time when the public service salaries were frozen that I believed it was extremely unfair that the SATS personnel should have suffered the same freeze.

We had a situation where the public service had grown in number as indeed it does to this day and the amount of money spent on salaries in the public service is quite enormous. But at the same time the numbers of the SA Transport Services personnel had decreased considerably.

Here one had a situation where, in terms of productivity, the SA Transport Services had improved their situation enormously in direct contrast with the public service. Therefore, that they should not have got a reasonable salary increase at that time was, I thought, a travesty of justice. They obviously thought so too and they took it to arbitration. As a result of that arbitration they were granted the 12% increase. I think that was fair and just. I think it was the Government’s good fortune that they were able to implement that salary increase about three weeks prior to South African wide municipal elections which was a very nice “bonsella”.

Order! I have looked at the schedule and I cannot find anything about salary increases. Perhaps the hon member can indicate where I am wrong.

Yes, certainly, Sir. If you look at the bottom of the first page of the hon the Minister’s speech and I quote:

Order! That is not in the schedule but the hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir.

The second thing that I want to discuss is in regard to steam locomotives in Krugersdorp and Port Elizabeth. We see that we are going to spend an extra amount of R 1,2 million for the purposes of preserving the steam locomotives.

Bearing in mind that very shortly—probably from 1 April next year—the SATS is in all probability, if this Parliament approves it, to become a public company, how is this then going to be handled? Is the SATS as a public company going to be expected to do this public relations job for the country as regards steam locomotives? It is all very well to spend R1,2 million at this stage, but to what extent is it going to pay off? Is it going to pay off financially? I would think that that would be extremely doubtful. Is it going to pay off publicity-wise for the SATS? That is perhaps another matter. I think that the hon the Minister should perhaps explain the actual purpose behind this and mention who will continue it in the long term? Is it going to be a responsibility of the State, or of the SATS?

Then we get to the home-ownership scheme. We now see that additional funds were required for the granting of loans to personnel and R25 million had to be acquired on the open market. In the first place I want to know at what rate of interest that R25 million was acquired. The second thing I would like to know is at what rate of interest that money is recovered. In other words there is going to be a loss and I find it extraordinary that we are having to look for additional funds for this purpose when we have a situation where the staff numbers of the SATS are actually dropping. On an annual basis one would think that perhaps there would be fewer loans required. While we are on the subject may I ask the hon the Minister whether these loans are only for the purpose of houses, or whether they include additions to houses such as swimming pools, tennis courts and this type of additional expense which can be incurred on a home?

Finally I want to talk about the A320 Airbuses. It was announced, I think during the course of last year, that it was the intention of the SAA to acquire additional aircraft.

It was said that this would happen in the next decade, I think; it is not due to happen in this decade. The hon the Minister said at the time, however, that if traffic demanded it we could perhaps push these orders forward and try to have those aircraft made available sooner. My first question is about the intention. When are we going to take delivery of these aircraft? Are we pushing it forward? I seem to remember that originally there were to be three of them, but perhaps the figure was five.

The second thing I want to know is what type of Airbus aircraft these are. Are these the aircraft about which there was quite an outcry from pilots at one stage regarding problems which I understand have since been overcome? Are the Airbuses we shall actually be getting the same Airbuses that the pilots had problems with during the initial stages?

I should also like to pose a question in view of the hon the Minister’s statement in regard to privatisation. He has said that SAA is a prime candidate. He said he would not do anything about privatising SAA—I approve of the privatisation of SAA, make no mistake—until such time as there had been deregulation and there was some competitive element in the airways situation in South Africa. I should then like to know what the situation is going to be concerning the fact that the SATS is now going to become a public company. Will these aircraft be acquired before that date, and if so, are they then going to be depreciated heavily and sold to the new company at a depreciated price so that the new company will have cheap aircraft, or precisely how is this going to work? I ask these questions because one certainly does not wish to see SAA put in an extremely favourable position vis-a-vis anybody else who might wish to go into competition with them.

I see I have only 10 seconds left and therefore I think I had better stop at this stage.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to ask the hon the Minister to explain something to us with regard to item No 15.3, as set out on page 10 as “Repairs and Maintenance”, where an additional amount of R5 million is needed.

I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would tell us what proportion of this amount is needed for the repair work that was carried out on the railway line near Firgrove, after a train transporting wheat was involved in an accident on that line; also if he would tell us what caused the accident, and how this type of accident can be avoided in the future. At the same time, while I am dealing with Firgrove—I see that the hon the Minister is making provision for bridges and subways in Vereeniging—I should like to ask what the hon the Minister’s estimate is of the amount that will be needed if nothing has been appropriated as yet. Does the hon the Minister intend to budget for a pedestrian bridge at Firgrove, since the road bridge will be completed and in operation from 15 March and will cause quite a serious hazard to normal pedestrians at that crossing.

The hon the Minister is making provision for the maintenance of aircraft, for which an overall additional amount of R30,23 million is needed. This is indicated on page 11, subhead 31.5—“Aircraft Maintenance”. I want to ask whether the hon the Minister in all honesty believes that this amount will really be enough in view of the fact that even Boeing want to inspect their own work now. Is this amount enough to identify possible defects in aircraft in good time, so that we do not have another disaster? We see that overseas in particular Boeings are falling out of the sky like flies. We must try to prevent this kind of situation.

I am somewhat perturbed. The hon the Minister should really explain to us why it was not possible to foresee that an overall amount of R390 000 in interest would be needed for Shell SA. Why could this not have been foreseen from the outset, as it makes up a reasonably large part of the appropriation.

If the hon the Minister would permit me, I would like to know whether there would not have been a smaller Additional Appropriation if the officials on buses were to collect the money from the passengers before they went through a toll gate? If one could perhaps have collected all that money, the Additional Appropriation might have been much smaller. This is a trend which is assuming alarming proportions in that officials on the buses first get R1 from every passenger before the bus goes through a toll gate. This is a large amount when all is said and done.

I also firmly believe that we would have had a smaller Additional Appropriation if the train services were operated more effectively. More third class coaches should be provided on certain lines, particularly at peak hours. I want to repeat what has been said in the past. The hon the Minister loses a considerable amount of money on transport costs as a result of people not paying for their train tickets. The train is too full and the conductors cannot get to the passengers.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to furnish us with more details about the five Airbus A320 aircraft he is going to purchase. He must tell us whether these aircraft will be reasonably safe and whether their wiring has not been reversed as well. The hon the Minister must put aside a few rand to carry out these tests in good time.

Mr Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central’s knowledge of transport affairs. However, I find it amusing that he queried an amount of R1,2 million to preserve steam locomotives. His constituency is to benefit from it. He should not complain. I am sure this is going to bring him extra votes.

The South African Transport Services needs an additional R406,106 million for the 1988-89 financial year ending 31 March 1989. Railway Services needs R372 million and the Capital Programme R34,196 million making a total of R406.196 million.

Some time ago Dr Willem de Villiers recommended the SATS should set up different structures and split its activities into separate business units operating on profit-oriented lines and should be managed according to sound business principles. When will these recommendations be implemented?

Another point that I would like to raise is that the SATS has a lot of property and equipment which has become redundant. Maybe it is written off but still worth a lot of money. I believe all this should be put out to tender and sold. This will generate funds that could be put to other use or improve existing facilities.

I note that a number of these expenditures have already received ministerial approval. Does this mean that the hon the Minister has control over these expenditures and not Parliament? Maybe I am a little confused. Will the hon the Minister explain?

Finally I want to record my heartiest congratulations to our general manager. Dr Anton Moolman, for having been named Human Resources* Man of the Year.

Mr Chairman, I should like to endorse what my colleagues have said. It is important that the South African Transport Services, which is one of our largest undertakings, had to budget for additional funds to enable them, for example, to accommodate certain items mentioned this morning by the hon the Minister.

I also want to endorse the points mentioned here this morning by the hon the Minister as factors which influenced the appropriation of the SA Transport Services. As we know, the SA Transport Services is one of the giants in South Africa, and it is important for the hon the Minister to ensure that these obligations are carried out. Hon members know that no large business undertaking like the SA Transport Services can survive without an additional appropriation.

I myself would have made a noise if the SA Transport Services had not, for example, budgeted for maintenance. This is very important because new implements will have to be bought on an ongoing basis, and this will help with the elimination of unnecessary expenses because the rolling stock is repaired here instead of being replaced. It is also of paramount importance to me that the hon the Minister mentioned here that the increase had also contributed to this appropriation to be passed here this morning.

It was good news for all of us to hear that there is going to be an increase. We have all experienced problems with the inflation rate. Our voters have complained incessantly about this, and that is why I support this Bill this morning.

Mr Chairman, at this stage of the debate there is no longer any figure with regard to which a question has not been asked. I will therefore refrain from asking the hon the Minister any further questions about the figures because I do not think there is any figure about which a question has not been asked.

I should just like to deal with two important points. Firstly, this budget would not have been necessary if the salary increases had not been granted, because it would then have been within the 2% limit. At the moment the overall appropriation is approximately 3,5% of the amount for which we budgeted last year.

The interesting thing about this undertaking of the South African Transport Services is that it now has a turnover of approximately R11 billion per annum, and if we compare the two, I again say that it is only a minimal fraction. Therefore I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his personnel on a very sound and successful budget submitted last year. A further interesting point in the hon the Minister’s First Reading speech was that we saw for the first time that the Act works. The Act which we passed last year dealing separately with the Transport Services’ personnel and divorcing them from the Public Service, has stood the test of time. It has succeeded in solving a problem. The fact that only 12% has been granted as an increase, I believe, should not, upset us. It was not 15%, it is true, because these people are dealt with in a different way, and we should not begrudge them this kind of treatment. It was their choice, and it also proves what negotiation can do at this stage. I am very glad that a law which contains many thorny problems has, in this case, passed the first test it was subjected to.

The second point I should like to deal with was also raised by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. It relates to steam locomotives. Firstly I want to tell the hon member that I am very grateful to hear that he is indeed going to save steam locomotives for his descendants. I support the R1,2 million, and I repeat that if we compare that R1,2 million with a likely turnover of R11 billion this year, it is only a very small fraction. I want to go further and follow on the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. Over and above the questions which the hon members are going to ask him, I want to ask him what more we can do. The department has a travel bureau, namely SAR Travel. I want to request that we launch a concerted marketing effort to promote this aspect, particularly overseas, for example in Brazil. Rio has its carnival, we should also try to find something which will be of interest to tourists. A steam train from a particular period in the past could, for example, become an important attraction to draw people from overseas to South Africa.

I do not want to go into the possibility of tariff increases. We will discuss that in a week’s time in the Main Appropriation. However, I must say that I am worried about the increasing losses. If we consider them in conjunction with the approximately R500 million which has already accumulated, provisional estimates indicate that at the end of this year they will amount to an accumulated loss of approximately R600 million. This worries me and I hope that something will happen enabling us to attempt to reduce these losses in the coming Appropriation—particularly when we examine the new Bill which transforms the Transport Services into a State corporation. This is why I do not want to go into any further detail about possible tariff increases as that can be discussed next Wednesday.

Finally, in the approximately 50 seconds which remain, I want to express my concern about the number of aircraft arriving so late. I want to join with other hon members in asking whether this could not take place sooner, since at present there is not enough capacity on SAA’s main routes at peak hours.

Mr Chairman, there is actually nothing more to discuss, but I want to thank the hon the Minister for the increase in October 1988. The cost of living increases virtually by the minute, let alone by the day, and our people are suffering from the effects of the inflation rate. It is therefore encouraging for us to hear that consideration was given to these people as far back as October.

It takes a lot to maintain a household these days. A mother in her home must think twice before spending any money and this leads to poverty.

We support this legislation because it means an increase for the personnel of the SATS. I believe in the saying “do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg".

We are very grateful to the hon the Minister for having got round to negotiating with the trade union, because this has led to useful discussions. I can assure the hon the Minister that those people greatly appreciate the fact that negotiations were held with them because they are, after all, the spokesmen of the workers. I thank the hon the Minister for agreeing to negotiate with them.

With regard to the timetable for train services, there used to be a suburban committee which met every three months in the Paul Sauer Building. That committee has been phased out. That committee always assisted when a change in the train timetable was under consideration. Our people find these changes difficult. After all, it is our people who know when it is peak hour and in what direction more commuters are travelling. I am therefore advocating that that committee should be re-established so that we can also have a say.

I am pleased to support this legislation on behalf of my party.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who participated in this debate and who really supported the measure. In some respects perhaps they digressed a little—perhaps further than this debate actually envisaged. If I do not reply specifically to that it does not mean that what the hon member mentioned is not important, but simply that it is perhaps a matter which we could discuss to better effect when our main appropriation is presented within the next two weeks.

I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Primrose. He said that this additional appropriation would not have been necessary if we had not granted salary increases during the year. In essence it is correct that the salary increases which we granted during the year and which were supported by all the parties here are in reality the reason for our additional appropriation.

The hon member for Primrose raised another, very important, point here. With reference to the salary increases he said that in reality it proved that the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Act, which was passed by this Parliament, was working. As hon members know a Labour Council was constituted with Prof Nic Wiehahn as chairman. He is in fact the man who laid the foundation of that entire labour exercise of ours, and I want to thank him on this occasion here in this House for the work he did in this connection. I think we can say that the solution which the Labour Council arrived at, from the management as well as the trade union side, demonstrates the realism with which that Council operates. I think it was an example to the rest of the country.

The hon member also referred to aircraft and advocated that the new aircraft we were purchasing should be put into operation as quickly as possible. I want to tell the hon member that there are fixed times at which we are able to take delivery of the aircraft, and that we will definitely not delay putting them into operation. I want to thank him for his contribution.

The hon member for Vredendal expressed his thanks, as did several other hon members, for the salary increases. He also referred to the R372 million for which we are requesting authorisation here. I just want to explain that although an amount of R372 million is being requested for expenses, it is actually authorisation for the spending of that amount. We also received a certain income and effected certain savings, which means that we do not need that amount but in reality need only R19 million for the operating appropriation. Consequently we are asking here for authorisation. I thank the hon member for his contribution and his reference to this matter.

The hon member for Roodepoort referred to the particulars furnished on page 8 in regard to the amount of R19,8 million. Of course that amount includes quite a number of things and I should like to furnish the hon member with the particulars. In the first place it includes the amount of R5 754 000 and the increase we are requesting there is primarily attributable to salary increases with effect from 1 October, additional pension contributions as well as an increase in repair costs as a result of flood damage.

This is the amount of R5,7 million. Then there is the one of R5,9 million under the subhead 2.2—“Electric Traction Equipment and Structures"—which consists primarily of salary increases with effect from October, and pensions contributions. Then under the subhead 2.3—“Signalling Installations and Equipment”—there is an amount of R8,08 million which once again is being provided primarily for salary adjustments and additional pension contributions, as well as the laying of extra underground signal cables for better protection.

The hon member asked whether the equipment was becoming obsolete. I can inform the hon member that all SA Transport Services equipment is inspected and monitored very thoroughly, and is also kept in good condition.

The hon member also referred to the amount of R390 000, which is the ex gratia payment we made to Shell. I think there were other hon members who also referred to this. The fact of the matter is this: Shell is a major client of ours, particularly as regards the conveyance of coal, and paid us at certain increased tariffs. After long negotiations with the coal producers we reached an agreement with them. In this agreement we decided on an agreed tariff which was actually lower. For a long time—it was probably very close to a year—we then had some of their money in our possession.

As a token of goodwill to a major client of ours we decided, after they had asked for this, to pay them interest on that money of theirs that we had had for a long time. After all we had also benefited because in that process we ourselves paid less interest or also earned interest.

The hon member asked whether the pilots had been consulted before we decided on the A320s. Yes, we consulted them. To tell the truth we sent some of our top pilots to France to receive training on those aircraft. I myself went on one of the test flights with three of our top pilots. I can tell hon members that they told me personally that they were very pleased with the aircraft and in fact were quite excited about them. With that I think I have dealt with the questions put by the hon member.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to the salary increases and then asked whether further increases could not be considered. As I have already explained, these increases were based on agreements which we entered into with our trade unions in a very responsible way. In the coming year the salary increases will again take place in this same way. We do not have any other way but that of negotiating with our trade unions. We shall again proceed on that same basis.

The question as to whether there would be an increase in commuting was a good one. but the hon member must ask that question when we come to our main appropriation.

As regards the crime rate and the question of security coaches, I think that too are matters which we will then be able to discuss to very good effect.

The hon member thanked us for improved mobility on stations. I want to thank the hon member for perceiving this and being positive about it. For the sake of interest I just want to tell hon members that I recently received a complaint from people dealing with this matter, namely Management, that the mobility of people on the Johannesburg station was being impeded as a result of many small businessmen plying their trade there.

They were then in danger of our perhaps having to remove them. I went there myself to investigate the situation and I decided that we would not do so because thousands of people were making their living out of those businesses. I then said that all we had to do was obtain their co-operation. Afterwards I asked their leader to come and speak to the management of the SA Transport Services. If they were not able to solve all the problems among themselves, he had to come and see me. However, I also told him to control everything neatly where they were plying their trade because it was truly a revelation to me to see how many different kinds of business were being carried out there. I saw no one there who was dissatisfied or angry. One can control these matters if one has co-operation from everyone. I thank the hon member for referring to it.

†The hon member Mr Thaver asked a very important question. He asked whether this could be the last additional budget that we would introduce to Parliament. I would say his question is a bit premature, but the next few hours will determine that. [Interjections.]

He also referred to the dissatisfaction about the salaries of Airways and Harbours personnel. I can give the hon member the assurance that those are aspects which of course we must look at very closely. That is why we thought the best way to deal with it was through our labour council, which is doing a very good job. I can give the hon member the assurance that the betterment of the position of our workers is our top priority.

I am proud to say that the productivity of our people made it possible for us to get by with far fewer workers and I pay tribute to them in that respect.

The hon member also referred to the R2,9 million that we spent on the Airways. I just want to make the point that the R2,9 million is only what one can call a deposit. We must now pay for the five aircraft that we bought and which will be delivered during the next few years.

*The hon member for Wuppertal referred very specifically to the increased productivity of our workers. I think it is appropriate if I tell him to what a great extent that productivity can be measured. I think it is right that we should say this here and that even that it should be published.

I have gone through the figures for the past 10 years. During the past 10 years, on average, fuel prices have increased by approximately 15,8% per annum. This is a major item of our expenses. Fuel has increased by the same figure, namely 15,8% per annum. The consumer price index, according to which the inflation rate is calculated, increased by 14,3% per annum over this period. Electricity, which is also an important component in our series of expenses, increased by 11,1% per annum. The rates of the SATS increased by 8,9% per annum over the same period. This is the only one of all these components which is a single figure, and well under 10%. This can be attributed to one factor only, viz the increased productivity of our workers. I should like to pay tribute to them, and I thank the hon member for having addressed this point here.

As regards publicity for the Airways, the figures irfdicated here dealt with overseas and domestic publicity. Ours is a highly competitive industry and therefore publicity is very important. The hon member can discuss the courtesy of our employees further at a later stage. This is something which is constantly being brought to the attention of our people, but if the hon member wishes to make a further contribution in this connection, he is very welcome to do so during the discussion of our main appropriation.

†I thank the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central for the remarks that he made. He referred to the R192 million increase for salaries which, as I have already said, was the product of negotiation. He is quite correct that we have improved as far as our number of workers are concerned. That is not the reason for but it is the proof of the increased productivity that I mentioned earlier.

The hon member also referred to steam locomotives and I am glad that he brought that up. I think that we owe this to our people, to our descendants, to the tourists and to people from abroad, because our first technology came from overseas. I predict that this project of preserving steam locomotives for tourists and the enthusiast could well develop into one of our major tourist attractions and that it could be handled on a profitable basis.

I think that even if it must be done as a public relations job, we still owe that to the public of South Africa. If this future company is approved and it looks into the possibility of coming to an agreement with some other organisation to handle it, that will be done.

The hon member referred to the R25 million housing loan. The interest rate is 6,4% and this loan is for housing only. It is not intended for swimming pools etc. The rate of interest charged is 5%.

Borrowed at 6,4%?

Yes, borrowed at 6,4% and subsidised for the balance. Our employees pay 5%.

What do you pay for the money?

We pay 6,4%.

The delivery dates of the additional five A320 aircraft are spread over the next few years. All of them are not going to be delivered at the same time. Two of them will be delivered in July 1992 and two more will be delivered in August 1992. The last aircraft will be delivered in September 1993.

The hon member also referred to depreciation problems in the event of the SAA being privatised. This is of course something that we will have to bear in mind as it will affect the price of the concern.

However, I still maintain that we proceed according to programme as far as that is concerned. I also hope to go into the matter of deregulation of the market at some appropriate time and not necessarily in this debate. We will discuss this further in the next debate.

*The hon member for Macassar referred to page 10, item 15 (iii), and asked what that R5 million was for. The R5 million indicated in that programme is increased maintenance costs as a result of an increase in vehicle kilometres covered owing to more traffic. He also appealed for more money for the overhead bridge at Firgrove. Once again this is a matter which he can take further in our main appropriation. The additional amount to which we are referring in these documents, as I have already indicated, is an initial payment to make the contracts legal. He also referred to the question of the Shell payment, which I have already explained.

The hon member said that we would have suffered fewer losses, would have made more money, and would therefore not have had to budget for additional funds if we had used more third class coaches during peak hours. But adding more coaches is unfortunately not the solution, because using a large capital outlay for only a few hours a day is where we incur our losses. A better solution to that problem would be if we were able to extend the peak hour. For that purpose we need the co-operation of employers. If employers would help us by extending their peak hour, so that not everyone has to be at work at the same time in the morning, we could solve these problems and could also provide our workers with a more convenient service. On this occasion, too, I want to make an appeal, not only to employers, but also to our employees to take this matter in hand. We are making little progress with it.

†The hon member for Umzinto referred to the five business units. I can give him the assurance that these five business units are already in operation and the fact that we split it up is to the benefit of the business as such. He asked about selling stock. That is not necessary. Of course that is one of the business principles of the SATS.

*The hon member for Opkoms also supported this appropriation, and the salary increases for our workers. I thank him for doing so.

The hon member for Rawsonville spoke last, but he raised an important point. He strongly advocated the question of negotiation in order to obtain results. I want to thank the hon member for doing so. This is indeed the course Transport Services has chosen to follow.

I thank hon members very sincerely for their participation in the debate.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Schedules agreed to.

Second Reading debate

Mr Chairman, in his First Reading speech the hon the Minister referred to the economic background against which the Additional Appropriation was being introduced. Unfortunately I did not have the advantage of having any copy of the speech available whatsoever, and I am therefore reacting to what I have heard.

It is interesting that the economic background for this Additional Appropriation is also described in the Finansiele Scenario of the SATS, on page 3, under the title “Omgewingsverkenning met die klem op politieke hervorming”, and I quote from it:

Here there are several matters that strike one, but the aspect I should like to refer to is the reference to low worker productivity. That is not what I myself am saying, but what the SATS stated in its Finansiele Scenario during its strategic conference. With all due respect, this does not tie in with the hon the Minister’s remarks when he was reacting to the First Reading debate and spoke of “the higher productivity of our workers” and “the productivity of our people which made it possible to come by”, etc.

I think we are entitled to a statement from the hon the Minister about why the management of the Transport Services thought fit, in their Finansiele Scenario, to state that the low productivity of workers was one of the problems hamstringing the economy, whilst the hon the Minister thought fit to make a great hullabaloo about the increased productivity of the workers.

The hon the Minister also referred to the R192 million with which labour costs have increased. In that same Finansiele Scenario reference is made to the influence of the trade unions on labour costs. Let me refer to that document and quote the following from it:

The point is this. On the one hand provision is made, in the Additional Appropriation, for an increase of R192 million in labour costs, but the Finansiele Scenario of the South African Transport Services predicts much more severe increases in labour costs. In fact, it is alarming that in the light of such a scenario—in the light of express statements that the co-ordinated action of trade unions would have a disruptive influence on the economy and exert severe pressure, to the extent that the State would possibly have to intervene increasingly in the sphere of labour relations—the Government and the management of the Transport Services specifically continue to adopt the course they have adopted.

What also relates to labour relations, however, is the reference to capital-intensive transport techniques on page 7 of the Finansiele Scenario.

The point is this. On the one hand the Government creates the impression that it is doing everything in its power in an attempt to counteract unemployment. On the other hand we ascertain, from the Finansiele Scenario, that the Transport Services is, in fact, ready to proceed with a move towards greater capital-intensive techniques. In other words, there is a tendency to move away from labour-intensive practices towards capital-intensive practices.

On page 5 we are presented with the prospect of “’n vermindering in personeel van ’n redelike drastiese persentasie”. On the one hand the impression is therefore being created that unemployment is being counteracted, whilst on the other the SATS is, in point of fact, preparing itself—the Government is also acting in this fashion, allowing such action to take place—to move in the direction of capital-intensive practices instead of labour-intensive practices.

What is envisaged is the employment of funds, which the State obtains from privatisation, for the creation of job opportunities, amongst other things. On the other hand, in the Finansiele Scenario of the SATS specific provision is being made for a move away from labour-intensive practices by way of a drastic reduction in staff, and I think it is reasonable to expect the hon the Minister to give us some indication of the actual course both the SATS and the Government are adopting. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall not be busy long. I listened to the hon the Minister’s answers and, if what I heard is right, he did not actually reply to the most important question which I put to him. This dealt with the deficit on page 9 of the explanatory document as regards the running expenses of cartage services. There is a 31,7% increase as regards running expenses while the increase is 535% in the case of miscellaneous cartage expenses.

This is the only aspect which I did not hear the hon the Minister reply to and it is obviously the part about which we are most curious because the increase is so enormous.

I should like to refer to the hon the Minister’s speech in the First Reading debate in which he referred to the salary increase and labour costs which rose by R192 million.

On this subject the CP would like to ask the hon the Minister what portion of these labour costs was budgeted for or forecast as regards costs expended on the employment of extra security guards at railway stations and the training, as we have now been told, of a new force of own security officers instead of the old SA Railway Police which has been amalgamated with the SA Police.

We hear that private security companies are now being used as well as security guards that they have trained themselves. Obviously this is a total contradiction of what we were told in the past to the effect that an extra SA Railway Police Force or at least a quasi-Railway Police Force would not be formed again.

The last aspect which I should like to touch upon is the question of curbing costs in the purchase of traction equipment and maintaining and supplementing rolling stock which is touched upon under head 2 and head 3 of the items set out in the explanatory document accompanying the Additional Appropriation Bill.

The question which I want to ask the hon the Minister is to what extent the South African Transport Services itself has conducted an investigation into the possibility of making use of a so-called light rail system in metropolitan areas, as I saw in a publication Engineering Week of 3 February 1989. This is envisaged by a consortium of four companies which is now planning to provide such a rail system to certain cities and it would appear from the report concerned that the planning of this rail system in urban areas is in a reasonably advanced stage.

It is obvious that this will have a telling effect on the operation of SA Railways specifically in cities if it is put into operation. We should like the hon the Minister to clarify this aspect.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Potgietersrus read from a document here which I obviously have not seen and he referred to criticism as regards low productivity. The hon member said that that did not accord with what I had said earlier.

I referred earlier to comparative figures. I did not in any way say that I was satisfied that productivity in South Africa, or even in the Transport Services, was good enough. That is South Africa’s problem. What I tried to indicate was that Transport Services had performed very well as regards inflation in comparison with other sectors on which it depended very heavily. I do not say at all—and I say this to the workers every day—that it is good enough. It must improve still more and it will do so. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to labour unrest and conflict. I want to tell the hon member that one does not deal with conflict and unrest by ignoring it. We know this now. We know this because we ourselves experienced a traumatic part of it. We know that the ways in which one does it and one’s structures to reach one another, to talk to one another, to negotiate with and to listen to one another, are the ways that work. The hon member and his party could well take note of this.

As regards capital intensity, I think that if we in South Africa today would take the way of saying that we wanted to do everything by means of capital intensity, it would obviously be to our great disadvantage in the long run. Nevertheless, if we ignore capital intensity and technology, our growth would be precarious in the extreme. That is why it is important that capital intensity on the one hand and labour intensity on the other should strike a sound balance. Then one progresses best of all. That is the method which we are trying to apply.

The hon member for Roodepoort referred to the R192 million increase in our labour costs. Yes, that is the right amount. We have already referred to it. To tell the truth, that is the total amount as a result of salary increases. I cannot furnish him with a specific figure of the percentage devoted to security.

I do not think this arises from today’s debate either. I do not think this is the place where this should be answered; we can discuss this further when the time for it comes in the Main Appropriation. The details which the hon member wants deal with miscellaneous cartage expenses of R4,498 million which represents an appreciable increase. The amount which the hon member wants to be told chiefly comprises additional expenditure connected with motor vehicle licences which were not budgeted for originally.

That increase represents that amount in the main. The hon member is aware that mutual benefits have been terminated and that is why we also have to pay licence fees.

The hon member referred to the matter of a light railway. SATS is not considering light rail systems at this stage. We do not think that it would link up well with our system as such but we think that it would complement the system which we operate very well. As the hon member knows, a great step forward has already been taken in this connection in the Port Elizabeth area and SATS thinks that it could be an industry which could complement SATS very well in this regard.

This brings us to the end of this debate. I want to conclude by saying that I think that in a certain sense it is an historical debate too. It is the first time in 75 years that SATS has traded, conducted business, within a competitive market with practically no protection. It had received protection for 75 years and here it was plunged immediately into the transport market for a whole year without any real protection. If we look at the financial results, we see that it was actually only R19 million short of being able to stay within its budget. If one considers that it did business in an open and competitive market, I think that this should go on record in favour of SATS. I thank hon members for taking part.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, at present the SA Transport Services is a State enterprise under the control and authority of the State President.

Traditionally the SA Transport Services has considered the establishment of a sophisticated transport infrastructure, which meets the overall transport requirements of the country, to be its principle objective.

With the development of an integrated railway network and subsequently an overall road infrastructure, this objective of Transport Services was realised. In the accomplishment of its task this organisation grew from a service-rendering Government department into a commercial enterprise which forms an integral and influential part of the business world.

During the past 10 years in particular a need has risen for the optimum utilisation of all assets and available capital. This need can only be realised in accordance with the principles of the free market system within a deregulated transport market in which all participants compete on an equal footing.

The present legislation makes it impossible for Transport Services to play its part in this connection. On the one hand it is subject to certain restrictions when it wishes to operate according to commercial principles, and on the other it is, in certain respects, in a privileged position in a regard to competitors.

The primary objective of this Bill is to convert Transport Services into a profit-seeking and tax-liable public company, under the Companies Act, which must compete on an equal footing in the transport market.

Upon incorporation the State will be the only shareholder.

Provision is also being made for the establishment of a Rail Commuter Corporation which, as an instrument of the State, must ensure that rail commuter services are rendered in the public interests.

The provisions essential to arrange the conversion to the new dispensation satisfactorily and the arrangement concerning the relationship between the State and the company is also contained in the Bill.

†The Bill also provides a base for the possible privatisation of the enterprise or parts thereof. It needs to be emphasised, however, that the Bill does not provide for the final privatisation of the organisation whereby ownership is transferred from the State to private enterprise. It merely provides for a legal structure which is an essential phase in the process of privatisation.

Particular powers are granted to the Registrar of Deeds concerning the transfer of immovable property from Transport Services to the company.

Provision is also made for the issuing of shares to employees of the company and its subsidiaries.

The company will compete on an even basis in the transport market but at the same time obtain greater flexibility to act effectively in a fast changing environment.

Achievements will be judged according to the yield on capital and skilful persons, also from the private sector, will be appointed on the board of directors.

The Labour Relations Act will be applicable to the company after a transitional period of two years.

*The conversion of transport services into a public company and the establishment of a rail commuter corporation lays the foundation for the dynamic development of the transport market in accordance with the free market system and is to the benefit of the country’s economy.

The Joint Committee on Transport and Communications discussed all the aspects surrounding the envisaged amendments in detail and I want to thank the Chairman, the hon member for Primrose and all the committee members sincerely for the objective and extremely competent way in which the deliberations were debated.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I should like to state that the CP cannot support this Bill.

We can begin by looking at the explanatory memorandum to the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Bill. We note that the following points are mentioned in the memorandum:

The memorandum then states that the opinion now prevails that this task has to a great extent been completed and that the undertaking at present has a sophisticated infrastructure. It states further that now is the right time to convert this service-rendering State department into a commercial enterprise which is going to form a part of the business world.

We do not agree with this motivation and I shall deal with it fully in a moment. In the memorandum these factors which I have just mentioned are given as the first reason for the change of the SATS’ personality. A second reason is then advanced, namely the development of a comprehensive road network.

Right at the outset I want to say that in our opinion this is one of the weakest motivations for this change of personality of the SATS. We note that a tremendously heavier burden is being placed on the road network of South Africa. It is a burden which the road network can no longer bear and which the Government is trying to alleviate by means which include a toll system that has already given rise to huge problems.

We in the CP are of the opinion that what is probably necessary is an entire new analysis of the total transport infrastructure in South Africa in order to determine whether one should not rather move away from the roads. Mechanisms should then be created in order to alleviate the pressure on our road network and possibly in the process more use should in fact be made of rail traffic, as happened at a stage when things were going well in the economy.

In the third place the general state of the economy is advanced as reason for this step. This is amplified by saying:

In the memorandum to the Bill there is interesting information on the situation that has prevailed up to now, followed by the motivation as to why the situation should change. In the memorandum to the Bill itself the statutory framework within which the SATS is operating at the moment is set out, and then it is specifically pointed out that in several important respects the SATS differs from an ordinary commercial enterprise, and then by implication that this in fact enables it, by means of these differences, to do business on a better and more profitable basis. Among other things reference is made to the fact that its object is to satisfy the total transport needs. Paragraph 2.3 reads:

Paragraph 2.4 reads:

It is part of the State set-up. Paragraph 2.5 reads:

Paragraph 2.6 reads:

I am coming to this, however. One of the aspects on which we differ directly with the Government in principle is that these sometimes unremunerative services must be continued. Apparently the Government has abandoned that standpoint. It is then mentioned in paragraph 2.8 that expenditure is incurred only in terms of an annual appropriation Act of Parliament. Consequently there is control over the funds, and tariffs in the case of this body are fixed by the Minister of Transport Affairs on the advice of the South African Transport Services Board. Furthermore it is stated in paragraph 2.10 that it enjoys in some respects protection against competition. In our opinion this is an important exposition and an important admission.

According to paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 it has wide statutory operational powers and is exempt from the provisions of several Acts, including the Income Tax Act and the Labour Relations Act.

Paragraph 2.13 reads:

Then it is simply indicated that, on account of various studies, particularly that of Dr Wim de Villiers, the time is now ripe to enter the stage where the character of this enterprise is changed into one which shall be controlled, managed and operated in accordance with the norms of profit and yield on capital; that it will be given a substantially equal footing in the transport market where it has to compete; and that it is fully liable to taxation and will be sufficiently flexible to make participation by the private sector possible.

The CP says that the SATS is an industry of exceptional strategic importance for any South Africa government because it comprises the most effective transport network, not only of the RS A, but also of the entire southern portion of Africa and therefore exerts a far-reaching influence in and around South Africa.

We believe that the SATS must continue with this service, and that this can best be ensured in the form of a State enterprise and not a mere private business enterprise.

Even now there is still talk—I listened to what the hon the Minister said today a moment ago—about the possible privatisation of the SATS. We have heard repeatedly from other sources as well that it is possibly going to be privatised or partly privatised.

From the address made by the hon the State President at the opening of Parliament last year it was very clearly apparent that certain sections of the SATS were pre-eminently among the State institutions earmarked for privatisation by the Government. In fact, the Bill itself makes provision in clause 32 for the privatisation mechanisms for the company which will be created if this Bill is passed.

Then we may also refer to the information document distributed at the end of last year in which mention was made for the first time of the fact that the SATS was apparently going to be converted into a public company. That entire document was full of references to privatisation. In fact, the entire basic principle of the exposition in that memorandum is privatisation.

We are not convinced that the financial affairs of the SATS will prosper if it is simply operated as a public company or in the form of a commuter corporation. In this connection it is necessary to bear in mind once again that the SATS should not merely be a commercial enterprise because it has a special part to play in the socio-economic and even political spheres. A requirement is that services such as the Airways and the rail commuter services of the SATS in particular should to a certain extent enjoy a privileged position in the transport market in order to be able to keep their tariffs lower than would otherwise be the case.

I mentioned the Airways and the rail commuter services as examples. The Airways is the most profitable component of the SATS, and rail commuter services under the present Government the least profitable. The Airways, according to the viewpoint of the CP, must to an increasing extent build bridges for South Africa in the sphere of international relations with other countries. It is our conviction that the best counter to the world-wide propaganda onslaught on South Africa is the tourist industry. The part played by SA Airways in this connection can hardly be overemphasised. Merely to let the Airways function as a commercial enterprise without this mission, inter alia, would not benefit South Africa.

Internally the rail commuter services render just as important a strategic service in the conveyance of a large section of our labour force to and from their places of work in our urban areas in particular. As the population increases the demands made on this sphere of rail commuter services will grow. We think that severing rail commuter services from the rest of the profit-making sections of the SATS, for example the Airways, in the form of a rail commuter corporation, is not meaningful in the light of the above elucidation.

During the course of this debate several of my colleagues will deal in greater detail with various aspects of the Bill, and also explain the CP standpoint in respect of it.

I just want to refer briefly to the text of the Bill in question and make a few observations about it. In clause 9(8)(b) on page eight of the Bill it is provided:

This is the South African Transport Services Conditions of Services Act—

This is the provision, and the question which arises here is why four-fifths of the trade union members must decide. I am not going to discuss this question in full. One of my colleagues will go into it in greater detail. We are particularly opposed to clause 13(1) on page 10 of the Bill which provides:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall not react to what the previous speaker said, but say at the very outset that the LP supports this legislation.

At present the South African Transport Services is a State undertaking, without a legal personality, under the control and authority of the State President. Because South Africa is a rapidly-growing and developing country, it has primarily been the task of the SATS to ensure the establishment of a transport infrastructure which has to provide for the overall transport needs of South Africa. In the accomplishment of the above-mentioned task, the Transport Services has grown from a service-rendering Government department to a commercial enterprise which is an integral and influential component of society.

I want to refer, in particular, to the comprehensive road network and road transport system, and also to the general state of the economy. This embodies, in particular, the need for the optimal utilisation of all assets and available capital.

In a free-market system this principle can only be realised in a deregulated transport market in which all participants compete on an equal footing. One can only compete if there are no discriminatory laws. We have no problem with deregulation, but the Cabinet and the relevant Ministers involved in constitutional matters must lay down clear guidelines for the local authorities so that they do not hamper transport companies belonging to people of colour by restricting them to certain group areas. This impairs relations and causes frustration. Already there are certain towns in the Transvaal that have issued regulations prohibiting people of colour who furnish transport services from operating in the main street or within the business area.

According to the present legal framework the Transport Services is not in a position to play the role of a commercial enterprise. When it comes to applying commercial principles to running the undertaking, there are certain restrictions which make it difficult to do so.

On the other hand, in some cases the Transport Services is in a privileged position in contrast to its competitors, which prevents competition on an equal footing.

The objects of the Bill are to convert the Transport Services into a profitable and taxable company. How the company is going to operate, however, is not addressed in the Bill. 1 would very much like to hear the details from the hon the Minister. I cannot venture to say that rail commuter services will ever be a profitable undertaking.

I am sure that hon members of all the parties will agree with me that we will always have poor people in our midst, people who have to be subsidised in order to get them to their jobs, to church, to places of recreation, etc. Without any emotion I want to come right out and say that owing to the Group Areas Act a large percentage of these people live some distance away from their places of employment. They pay a very large portion of their salaries for transport. I am advocating that commuters should always be subsidised.

As I understand the legislation, the State’s role will change from that of the party responsible for the establishment of infrastructure to that of one of the shareholders in the company. That brings us to privatisation. How are the workers going to obtain shares? I want to recommend that they be given the first opportunity. Nor must their benefits be tampered with. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would place it on record, in Hansard today, that the interests of the workers will, in fact, be looked after.

Will the great deal of land owned by the Transport Services, land which is useless, be transferred to the company in toto, or can the land be transferred or sold to local authorities and the private sector? Would the company then be subject to the regulations of local authorities when it came to the erection of buildings and structures, because at present the Transport Services has no need to consult local authorities and submit plans.

The truth is that this legislation is subject to many other pieces of legislation, and I trust that this main objective has been entrenched and can only be amended by the State. The Labour Party and I therefore give our support to this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member who has just spoken for his support.

I just want to tell the hon member for Roodepoort that I do not have sufficient time to conduct a debate with him, except to tell him that I differ completely with the points of departure he advanced here as to why he could not support the Bill.

I want to begin by thanking members of my joint committee, as well as Transport Services and the personnel, and Prof Sakkie de Villiers and Mr Bekker whom they brought in from outside to help get this legislation elucidated and discussed on the joint committee. I convey my thanks to each one of these people because it made the debate in the joint committee so much easier.

This is the most important legislation since the formation of the Transport Services, which in 1910 was still the South African Railways. This is the most important event in the history of the South African Transport Services since that time. Whereas the South African Transport Services is at present a State undertaking, and will shortly undergo a change in character if this legislation is passed—at this stage that does not appear to be problem—a completely new era can arise.

Up to now the Transport Services has in certain cases had advantages, and in other cases disadvantages. In certain cases it had to do things and in other cases it was unable to do certain things. This made its position difficult and since 1977, with the development of the deregulation of transportation to a lesser extent, this character has changed and it is essential, as the hon Minister said, to examine Transport Services in order to prepare it for a restructuring in the 1990s and to prepare it for a new era in the year 2000; otherwise the Transport Services will go the same way as other transport services in the rest of the world. Where transport services there changed in character the situation improved. I am referring specifically here to the Railways when I advance that argument. We must never forget what happened in America when the transport services there changed. The Railways thought they were in the railway business and not in the transport business. I am pleased to say that the transport services are now in the transport business and no longer merely in the railway business.

The one important point I want to elucidate here for a moment is the position of the employee. I think many questions are being asked about this outside. This position of the employee, as well as the position of the pensioner, is consolidated in four basic instruments, in the first place the South African Transport Services conditions of Service Act in regard to which, as we saw a few minutes ago, success has been achieved with negotiations. The second instrument is the consolidated conditions of services, the third the employees’ service contract and the fourth is the Railways and Harbours Pension Act, together with the Railways and Harbours Pensions for Non-Whites Act of 1974.

These measures make provision for and regulate the employees’ salary packets, housing benefits, medical benefits, travel benefits, leave, pension benefits, accident benefits, insurance and related matters. Specific provision is made in the pension laws and regulations promulgated in terms of such laws for the benefits in respect of pensioners in terms of the payment of lump sums and monthly pensions.

After the commencement of this Bill provision is made for a transitional phase of two years before the Labour Relations Act will be made applicable to the employees of the company. The position of the employees therefore remains unchanged during this period, except for the Basic Conditions of Service Act which is to be made applicable for the first time to the company and its employees.

This important change is to the benefit of employees, since it makes provision for minimum requirements for conditions of service. After the transitional period of two years has elapsed the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Act 1988 will be repealed and the company and its employees will be subject to the Labour Relations Act. In addition the absolute prohibition on strikes contained in the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Act will be replaced by the granting of a discretionary power which will be entrusted to the Minister of Transport Affairs to place a prohibition, in the public interests and supplementary to the Labour Relations Act, on lock-outs and strikes in respect of the company and its employees.

The Bill provides specifically that employees retain the rights and remain bound to the obligations applicable immediately prior to the repeal of the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Act. Any change will definitely have to take place within the framework of the labour legislation.

The Minister is additionally being empowered to expand the investment possibilities of the pension funds. However, the statutory framework within which the pension funds are administered remain unchanged.

In general the Bill is accepted by the trade unions. There were specific objections in respect of certain aspects, particularly the discretionary prohibition on strikes. However this power is in fact necessary in order to prevent a deficiency arising owing to the fact that the drafters of the Labour Relations Act did not originally have the S A Transport Services in mind when it was being drafted. Here we have in mind specifically the case of the lighthouses which have to be manned 24 hours a day. In this new dispensation the trade unions have a major role to play and I want to request them, as they did in the past, to play their role in future in the new dispensation in an equally responsible way.

I do not wanted to spend much time on the commuter corporation. Many hon members on my side will discuss the commuter corporation and everything that goes with it. All I want to add is that a great task awaits us here, and also the hon Minister for Administration and Privatisation, when we start dealing with this entirely new aspect and with an overall policy that will have to be followed by the Government. I think it will also be very important—it will have to be worked out in full and this is a point we debated for a very long time—to determine how one can transfer certain shares from, in this case, the State Corporation or the company to the employees.

The joint committee felt that, without incorporating it into the legislation, it should be in keeping with the norms on the stock exchange and other places. In the report on the Bill we made such a recommendation to the three respective houses and addressed the request for a general policy to be drawn up between the hon Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon Minister of Administration and Privatisation.

I want to dwell further on the very important point which now emerges: Why not proceed directly to the direct privatisation of the SA Transport Services? This debate is raging within Parliament and outside Parliament. I do not want to contribute much accept to ask a question, which is repeatedly asked, and I think it is a very good question to ask. This question which is being posed and discussed in all forms of the media today deserves a little attention, and perhaps the hon the Minister will spend some time on this in his reply.

As I analyse the matter it is not possible to draw direct comparisons between the circumstances in South African and those abroad. There are points of agreement, but also very major differences. These differences arise primarily from the course of the history of transportation in the various countries, and this may not be overlooked. Owing to the lack of time I shall confine myself primarily to two countries that are always mentioned as examples, namely the USA and Britain.

As a state the USA has never owned or operated transport modes. All the USA did was to regulate them. With the advent of President Jimmy Carter everything was deregulated.

These are completely different circumstances to those in South Africa. They then allowed the market forces to play a greater part and the politicians a lesser part. That is the situation in the RSA.

In the case of Britain the enterprises were in the past very often in the hands of private people. Subsequently they were nationalised by succession of Labour Party governments. Some enterprises were in turn denationalised. Mrs Margaret Thatcher has now finally denationalised enterprises, particularly transportation enterprises. There are various examples such as British Airways, National Freight from British Rail and others.

The most interesting observation is that here there was a mixture of property ownership by the private sector under state. What was interesting about the State corporation was that they were initially converted into a State corporation and subsequently privatised. Some of the Sate corporations were privatised directly out of the hands of the government. For an example I was told inter alia that more or less 7 years elapsed from the time the first decision was taken until British Airways was finally privatised.

It is therefore a long process. It is going to take time. There are people here who are in a hurry. I hope that this Bill will at the end of the day also achieve the objective that when we have finished deregulating we will also be able to privatise. Nevertheless we shall first have to go through the stage of deregulation. We shall first have to create competition. My standpoint is that if a choice has to be made between a privately-owned monopoly and a state-owned monopoly, I would prefer the latter. Quite some time is going to elapse from the time this Bill is passed and we have gone through all the various stages until we have reached the stage where we can say now the next component of the SATS, as we know it today, is ready to be privatised. I think we must do this very slowly, so that we can learn and achieve successes.

Other examples which I do want to quote here demonstrate to us the problems we had in the past by acting overhastily in certain cases.

One of the important questions I want to ask about something which has to happen between the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is that the people in this case will have to be informed on a very wide basis of the steps which will be taken and what procedures we are going to adopt. The same procedure must be adopted as was done in the case of the privatisation of British Airways. Let us rather use additional money to inform the public and invite them to participate in everything instead of being over-hasty. That is my request to the two hon Ministers. I am grateful that the hon Minister for Administration and Privatisation is also present so that we can discuss matter directly with him.

I also want to say that it is interesting to see that deregulation is going to have its advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately there are not only two sides to a sausage and a mirror. Everything has two sides. In this case there will also be two sides. There are going to people and organisations who are going to be hard hit. There is going to be a time of the adjustment. Let us make that time of adjustment of such a nature that it does not cause too much pain but, in the same breath, let us not drag our feet.

Finally, after deregulation has occurred, I see that there is certain components in regard to which I want to encourage privatisation, but let us first go through the deregulation stage.

When deregulation and privatisation are being discussed, there are two aspects which can really be singled out, and that is that at the end of the day what must be prevented is that we restrict any of the market factors from playing a role. We must try as far as possible to allow the market forces to determine what is necessary, what the price and what the quality is, who is prepared to pay for it and what they want to pay for. At the end of the day I find it important to say that I have every confidence that the state will in the short term be able to introduce market forces as quickly as possible in order to change this market situation in future.

I have a few ideas in regard to the establishment of the SA Rail Commuter Corporation which is to be established primarily for the commuter. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give particular attention to such aspects as cost allocation and distribution among the various organisations that are going to compete. Hon members must bear in mind that a railway line is going to be used in peak hours for commuter services, and is going to be used outside of peak hours for goods trains. Consequently a specific responsibility rests on the two respective of organisations, namely the transport company and the Rail Commuter Corporation, to reach an agreement as far as prices are concerned.

The third request I want to address to the hon the Minister has a bearing on operating agreements. These operating agreements are going to be a mine-field. There will be criticism from both sides, but my request is that this process be gone through gradually, and that an effort be made to build up a sustained workable relationship between these two organisations. Although the hon Minister will remain at the helm there will be two separate boards controlling and making the policy for these two bodies.

It is my pleasure to support this Bill, and I hope and trust that this Bill will help you change and improve the entire transport market of South Africa, so that the unit costs of transportation will become as affordable as possible for the man in the street. I also hope that when we debate the Road Traffic Bill, and I hope this will happen during the next few weeks, we shall then have begun to finalise the deregulation of the transport market in South Africa.

Business suspended at 12h43 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, the SATS will soon appear on the menu but we will have to wait for at least two years. The Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Bill makes provision for the formation of a public company with the State initially being the only stockholder. However provision is made for employees to acquire shares later. It also makes provision for the creation of a separate corporation to run the rail commuter services in the public interest. The other areas run by the SATS namely airways, harbours, pipelines and road transport will fall under the public company still to be named.

Commuter services will be operated by the South African Rail Commuter Corporation Limited and will be managed by not more that 10 members of the board of control, including the chairman appointed by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. At least three of these members shall have expertise and experience of private sector enterprise.

The Bill emanates from various studies, particularly one by Dr Wim de Villiers on the privatisation of the SATS. Over the past 75 years the SATS has operated as a sophisticated transport infrastructure in the interests of the country. I believe the time is right for entering into the next phase of development. This phase requires the establishment of the SATS as an enterprise run on a profit and loss basis, competing on a substantially equal footing in the transport market, fully liable for taxation and sufficiently flexible to make participation by the private sector possible.

A number of clauses provide for the maintenance of the status quo of the SATS employees service and pension conditions within the new company. This Bill was comprehensively dealt with by the Joint Committee over three days, which made numerous amendments.

Finally, I want to record my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Director General and all his senior staff for preparing an explanatory memorandum which assisted the members of the joint committee a great deal in considering this Bill. My thanks to the chairman of the joint committee who is a highly knowledgeable person on transport affairs.

Mr Chairman, the matter before us is of considerable importance because it really involves the initial steps in regard to what is a policy matter relating to privatisation. The question which needs to be asked is what is really involved in privatisation. Why should there be privatisation? In our submission there is a case for privatisation particularly where in fact the State has gone beyond its normal function. There is, however, a State role where the private sector either cannot operate or does not want to operate or where the State can do better.

One of the major features of privatisation—so it is alleged—is not only that under a private organisation there will be greater efficiency—I say that is alleged because it does not necessarily follow in all cases—that it will also release money in order to have those funds available for other socially desirable activities.

One of the important issues is, of course, whether in fact one favours the ownership of the means of production by the State or whether, to the extent possible, the means of production should actually be owned by the people. We have repeatedly said that we do not favour the ownership of the means of production by the State except in exceptional and appropriate circumstances but that we do favour the ownership of the means of production by the people, and that wherever possible there should be the greatest spread of share ownership in the community. So that there should be no misunderstanding we therefore say that we support the concept of privatisation, but we do so with the qualifications which I have mentioned in order to ensure that the public good is cared for, that monopolies do not unduly arise and that we do not in fact fall into a trap where there is no incentive for enterprise.

The question of this Bill is one which has posed us with some grave questions and serious problems. Firstly, let me pay tribute to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who has, I believe, played a very important role in relation to the shaping of this particular Bill.

He has strong views about privatisation which accord with our party’s views on privatisation. However, the question which arises is the implementation of the principles of privatisation and whether the method that has been used in this particular piece of legislation is the correct one.

The submission which I make is that the creation of the two corporations—the company and the so-called corporation—by means of this piece of legislation is not a necessary preliminary step in the process of privatisation. There is no case which can be made out for the privatisation of the SATS as a whole. There is no case for it.

I could get no-one better to support me than the hon member for Primrose who made it very clear in his speech just before the luncheon adjournment that it is going to take a long time before the individual items and the individual aspects of the SATS are really going to be owned by the public. However, he regards this as being merely a first phase. He says one must not be too impatient, because it is going to take a long time before there will be real privatisation.

I believe the hon member is correct in having said that. He was, however, wrong when he said that British Rail had been privatised. He was quite wrong in that regard, but that is a minor debating point. I do not want to make anything of it. If he is correct in this submission, then there is no case for this at all, because there is no case for having the whole of the SATS privatised at the same time.

If we have a situation where there are aspects of the SATS which should be privatised—and there are aspects that should be privatised—I for example personally believe that there is a very strong case for the privatisation of road transportation. In fact, there is a very strong case for the SATS not being in road transport at all. That could be dealt with separately. However, the reality is that all that is happening now is that we are taking the SATS and putting it into two corporate entities. What we are doing in the process is to remove a large measure of the accountability to this Parliament in respect of the financial aspects away from Parliament and putting it into the hands of the executive.

Certainly it is going to be argued that the report has to be tabled and can be debated under the Vote of the hon the Minister. However, I ask any hon member in this House to deal with the amount of time that is available in respect of State corporations now in order to debate them. Hon members get allocated a couple of minutes in order to debate things which involve hundreds of millions of rand. We find that there is inadequate time to deal with accountability when merely a report is tabled. I do not want to exaggerate, but there are dozens and dozens of other corporations where there is no time ever to debate the reports. If the SATS is going to continue as a corporate body in the form in which it is suggested—in two corporate bodies, that is—then there is every reason why the process of budgeting and accountability should remain the same.

I will give hon members another reason why it should not take place at the moment. Insofar as the companies are concerned, it has been made clear that the intention is to form subsidiaries and then to put particular aspects of the SATS into these subsidiaries. However, Parliament will have no say as to the basis on which this is going to be done. Once it is in this company, the executive still has power but Parliament has no power at all and Parliament has no power to determine the terms and conditions upon which public issues should be made, the valuations that should take place or as to whether it is right or wrong that it should be floated either at all or at that time.

Parliament will have no say whatsoever. It will be entirely in the hands of the Executive. The real privatisation issue does not lie in the creation of this company and this corporation. It actually lies in the floating off of the subsidiaries. That will be the real privatisation. With great respect for the hon member for Primrose, he has continuously confused deregulation and privatisation which are two completely different processes.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir. If the hon member tells me that privatisation and deregulation are the same thing, then he is looking at the wrong dictionary. The whole basis of the sale of subsidiaries is whether real privatisation comes in at all.

Let me deal with another matter which I think is fascinating in relation to this. If we look at the Bill, we have a position that in terms of clause 15 (1) the State may:

and when it does so then an agreement can be concluded that if the Company believes it is unprofitable, the State then has to accept liability, not only for the payment of the costs, not only to ensure that it breaks even but it has also got to pay an amount in order to enable the Company to earn a reasonable profit after taxation as a result of such activity.

In other words, what we are doing is we are guaranteeing a profit in respect of what is presently a public utility service. That one could still understand. What one cannot understand, if one looks at clause 15 (7), is that where a service has been provided on an unprofitable basis by the SATS immediately prior to the taking over and it is continued after such date, then the same basis of compensation applies. In other words, whereas at the present moment one has the situation that in any business there are certain services which are profitable and certain services which are not; in any business there are loss leaders; in any business there are things which one has to do in order to provide a service for one’s customer; in this case the Company can come along and say: “This is not a profitable service. I am giving you notice that I am not going to continue with this service.” Then not only must the loss be made good but they must be allowed to make a profit on this.

I venture to suggest that two things are going to happen as a result of this measure. Firstly, that as the taxpayers of South Africa we are going to end up having to pay more than we have paid before—that instead of saving money in regard to this process we are going to end up having to pay more. Secondly, and I make this forecast, that the tariff structure in the years that lie ahead is going to go up. Whereas we think there is going to be competition, whereas we think that competition is going to reduce the tariff structure, we are going to have the very opposite happening in South Africa.

There is another matter which I think we should refer to.

Clairvoyant Schwarz looking into the future again.

Perhaps the problem is that since that clairvoyant has so often been proved correct, it is high time the hon member listened to him. That is the problem. [Interjections.] If he wants a political fight, I shall give him one. One of the problems with this Government is that it does not look ahead. It has no plans for the future. That is the problem. It has no plans for the future. We only need to look at the economy to see what a mess the Government has made of the economy over the years. Then one will see what a mess it has made. If you want to talk politics, my friend, you can look at your own history, look aj the mistakes your party made. Look at the mess you have made of this great country.

†This was a great country.

Order! The hon member must refer to other hon members as “hon members”. The hon member may proceed.

I refer to all hon members as “hon members”.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: That hon member’s last remark would in effect mean that the hon member who interjected was not an hon member. I request you to give a ruling in this regard.

Order! I accept the hon member’s explanation that he referred to all hon members as “hon members”. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I return to the Bill, after that rather pleasurable interlude. [Interjections.] Any time he wants it, he can have some more.

May I just point out what the position is in regard to commuter services. If anything has shown the failure of NP policies, it is in fact the creation of this separate corporation. Why has this separate corporation been created? It is true that we cater for all races in the commuter services—there is no question about that. However the reality is that the real losses in respect of commuter services come from the commuter services for the Black people of South Africa. Moreover, the real reason for the losses is that that side of the House has not allowed people to live where they wish in South Africa. They have dragged them miles away from their places of work.

Nonsense!

That hon member used to object to it as well when he was a gentleman in the old days. [Interjections.] The reality is—I draw the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to this—that he used to stand up in this House in the days when he actually was with it, and in those days he used to draw our attention to how people were being forced to live away from their work, how they had to get up in the early mornings in order to get away. That is the reality.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member whether there are any other commuter services around the world—such as in the United States, Great Britain or Europe—that are not running at a loss, and that are not subsidised by Government?

Yes, Sir. Outside of Soviet Russia, there are to my knowledge no other people who are forced to live away from their work in the way in which it is done in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has not answered my question.

No, Sir. Outside of Soviet Russia there is no other place. If the hon the Deputy Minister can tell me another place outside of Soviet Russia, he should do so now.

Mr Chairman, the hon member refuses to answer my question.

Mr Chairman … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in support of this Bill I wish to quote from this book: Viewpoint: Global sweep of privatisation. It reads as follows:

We find ourselves faced with this question: What is one’s opinion of the Government? If one supports the Government, one’s agenda will likewise be in line with those circumstances.

First of all I shall be discussing privatisation, and commenting on other issues. I understand there are quite a number of arguments against and for privatisation.

There are certain things which I think are important and should be brought across by means of this viewpoint. It is important that we should also have a look at the influencing factors regarding privatisation and deregulation.

In many of the debates there was an outcry to curb or to curtail State expenditure. It was not very successful because Government expenditure could not be reduced to a satisfactory level.

Privatisation was looked upon as some means to reduce the Government’s share in the economy. In the past, especially the early eighties, South Africa could always rely on its high gold price. It also had a very lucrative bank rate in those days. This however came to a sad ending when sanctions took over and today money is becoming a very expensive commodity for South Africa.

Looking at it, we find also that there was a reduction in the net reserves, an increase in the foreign debt and this high inflation rate that we had.

From the side of our party, we would love to support and we do support privatisation. The reason for that is that we first of all realise that it is so difficult to sit and listen to arguments which come from different levels of society. One finds that there are different groups: those who have and those who do not have. There are those who live below the breadline and those who live in the poverty-stricken areas. There are those who are looking for the upliftment of our areas and there are those who come out of the ghettos.

As a result it is important that those of us who come from sub-economic areas should look for ways and means where we can at least make it possible to lift the standard of living in our communities.

We therefore hope and trust that there will be adequate funds generated by privatisation so that the upliftment in our areas can definitely be brought about.

We have gone through this Bill and I have noticed that the hon member of the PFP is not supporting it but strangely enough the hon member who serves on the joint committee supports to the hilt.

It was very interesting to note the hon member’s amendments and the fruitful arguments he brought about.

He did a very good job!

He did a very good job in steering the Bill through the committee and we must thank him for that! We find it strange, however, that the hon member—I know that the hon member for Yeoville is an economist—did not bring in those points that he raised now.

As far as privatisation is concerned, we believe that it is a means to the steady retreat from the marketplace of the Government. It is the most desirable development in that it frees the forces of the free enterprise system. This means that the ideological considerations such as colour discrimination will be replaced by purely economic orders of the day and it will also foster efficiency and profitability. As I have said before, it will be the colour of one’s money and not the colour of one’s skin!

We firmly support this privatisation and we …

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

I do not have much time to answer the hon member’s question. I am sorry Mr Chairman, but I am not prepared to answer the hon member’s question! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has indicated that he is not prepared to answer questions! The hon member for Bishop Lavis may continue.

Deregulation is absolutely essential in the fight against unemployment and low income. It will create a seedbed for a whole new enterprise system. It will also broaden the tax base and contribute towards building a strong social and economic barrier against the destructive forces of Marxism.

The other point I want to mention is that of the commuter services.

*We want to request that the commuter services be subsidised, since that is the only mode of transport available to the poor masses and to the broad public, those people who do not own motor vehicles. There are hon members sitting in this House who have never travelled by train. They do not know what is is like to travel by train from here to Mitchells Plain or from the slums and the bundu.

We ask the hon the Minister loudly and clearly to make an effort as far as the commuter services are concerned, since to many of our people, due to the present high transport costs, they are the only mode of transport available.

Mr Chairman, the CP is opposed to the desirability of this Bill in principle. During the course of my speech I shall refer to the reasons for this. Perhaps I should just comment at this stage on the standpoint adopted by the chairman of the joint committee, the hon member for Primrose. He said:

That is not correct, however, because apparently the hon member—I say this with respect to him—did not read the explanatory memorandum at all. The question of privatisation is dealt with explicitly in the explanatory memorandum. I am pleased that the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation has also joined us now. Let us see what is said in connection with the Bill on page 2 of the memorandum:

In other words, the door is quite open. This Bill does not place us on the road to privatisation, because a decision must still be made as to whether the SATS is going to be privatised! [Interjections.] It is possible, therefore, that with regard to this Bill, a decision will be taken later that we must reverse it.

We are not the CP!

Consequently we are not going to take the road of privatisation—this is what is said there—if we should decide that we do not want to privatise.

The present position, therefore, is that we have to contend with a Bill which is exactly like the NP’s policy with regard to public facilities in Vereeniging; they are not closed and they are not open! We are in favour of privatisation and we want to privatise, but we shall decide in due course whether or not we are going to privatise. The hon member said this would take place over a period of seven years. Let us assume for a moment that in seven years’ time the Government decides the SATS is not going to be privatised; is the standpoint that the whole process will be reversed then or not? [Interjections.]

There are important objections that can be made to this Bill, and I should like to deal with what is probably the CP’s most important objection to this legislation. That objection is that if this Bill is passed, the SATS will be withdrawn from the control of Parliament and will merely be placed under the control of the Executive Authority and the responsible Minister. In effect this means that there will no longer be any parliamentary control over the SATS’ activities and budget. In fact, Parliament as the highest authoritative and control body will no longer have any say in the financial setup and the details of the operation of this enterprise. If we accept such a system, therefore, we are relinquishing some of the democracy in our parliamentary system and reducing the role of Parliament in our public life.

There can be no doubt that parliamentary control over organisations with public functions is one of the cornerstones of democracy. In both his books, viz on page 250 in Staatsreg and page 270 in Administratiefreg, Prof Wiechers refers to this important testing function Parliament has with regard to the national administration.

Nevertheless, in a court decision Jivan and Others v Louw N O and Another 1950, 4SA page 129 Transvaal, the Transvaal court ruled the following in this connection, and I should like to quote the passage to the Committee:

I now want to put an explicit question to the hon the Minister: Can he deny that if this Bill is passed, the SATS will be withdrawn from the control and the testing authority of Parliament as the highest body? In addition, can he deny that questions that are going to be put about the SATS will no longer be discussed, because we are making a public company of the SATS?

This right of a citizen to object to future deficiencies and shortcomings in the SATS is now being taken from him. Undoubtedly this is a curtailment of the rights of the South African electorate. The NP, who often at their meetings make such a fuss of caring so much for the rights of the citizens, must tell us what will become of these citizens’ rights once this process is implemented.

At the same time, and this is equally important, the responsibility of the Minister—in this case it is the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs—to Parliament is being eliminated completely, or at least being curtailed drastically. The only thing we will deal with in future will be financial reports and financial statements which can be debated. There can no longer be debates about policy aspects, because this facet is being removed from the national administration and placed in the hands of a company.

What are the probable results that will ensue from this very important, but tragic event that we are debating today? I do not think that this extended public committee quite realises the consequences of what we are doing today. [Interjections.]

Hon members can well laugh, but we shall see what the future brings. With the disappearance of parliamentary control and with it the right of the objecting public to appeal to their parliamentary representative, it is inevitable that there will be a lowering of standards and a drop in quality in the SATS, because the Minister will no longer be responsible for defending the lowering of their standards, for example, in Parliament.

In the second place there is no constitutional means by which pressure can be used to remedy deficiencies in the SATS’ service. In the third place there are no checks and balances in this system to keep increases in tariffs as low as possible. In the fourth place we have the situation that the creation of this public company will pave the way to full integration of the SATS, because then the NP Government will have a handy screen behind which to hide and from which to tell the public that it is not the Government that is permitting integration to take place, but the public company, and that the public must address their complaints to the public company.

In the fifth place I want to refer to clause 17. In that connection I want to point out that despite the provisions contained in clause 17, the strategic interests of the Republic are still not being safeguarded against danger.

The hon the Minister should take a look at clause 17.1 want to ask him and also his legal representatives whether any legal remedy has been built into clause 17. If the hon the Minister should issue a notice that such public company should cease its danger-creating activities, according to the procedures determined in clause 17, and they do not respond to this, what is the hon the Minister going to do? Is he going to take the public company, of which the State is the only shareholder, to court? Is he going to join issue with himself in the Supreme Court? Surely that is a complete juridical anomaly, and something that I have never heard of in my life. I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reply to that. [Interjections.] I hear there are interjections, but those who are making interjections should rather advise the hon the Minister on how to resolve this problem.

In the last place I should like to refer to the Government’s fence-sitting also in this connection. I should like to refer to clause 18. The commentary on clause 18, as it appears in the memorandum on page 54 of the Bill, reads as follows—

That is exactly what I said right at the beginning, with reference to the Government’s constant fence-sitting. Just ask them what their policy is. They have something of everything and are prepared to satisfy everyone, because we now have the situation in which the way is being paved for ultimate privatisation, if I am to believe the hon member for Primrose.

If we are going to make a public company of the South African Transport Services, why not go all the way? Why do we not say that if it is a public company, we are prepared to permit strikes from the outset, because we have no problems with that? After all, we are privatising and ultimately we shall end up with a right to strike. Why must we give the Minister the authority to issue a prohibition on strikes? If the Government wants to take the course of privatisation, let them go all the way and let them grant a right to strike.

In the CP’s opinion there is only one tenable standpoint with regard to both principle and practicality, and that is that the South African Transport Services will remain a State enterprise which as such is under Government authority and is subject to parliamentary control. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I find it very difficult to argue with the CP because they seem to have a convoluted thinking process. They seem to find it impossible to see what is happening in the world around them. The tendency throughout the world is to move away from rail and move on to road, except in the case of bulk. It basically boils down to one thing and that is economics. Obviously they have not learnt the lesson of Boksburg yet.

In view of the fact that hon members of the CP all have free passes and are so keen to use rail, why have I never seen them catching the train from Acacia Park to town? It is rather amazing.

I would like to ask the hon member for Yeoville if this Parliament had any say in the privatisation of Sasol.

What an example!

Was it a success when it was privatised, or was it not?

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but it was privatised and this House had nothing to do with it.

The provisions of this Bill will now put the South African Transport Services in a position where it will have to compete on an even basis with private enterprise in the market place. It will no longer have the restrictions that were placed on it by legislation.

For years it has enjoyed a very privileged position because of its existing legal framework and the perception that a State monopoly, with its access to funds and cross-subsidisation, was the correct thing to have. In saying that, I do not want to detract from the important role that the SATS has played in the development of South Africa and its infrastructure, but times have changed and one should take cognisance of those changes.

The very reasons that the hon member for Roodepoort stated were not good motivating reasons, I believe are. While we are still a developing country, the provision of transportation infrastructure which could provide for the total transport requirements of South Africa, has until recently been the responsibility of the Transport Services. However, that task has been more or less completed. We have in the Republic, if one takes into consideration the road network, the finest infrastructure in the whole of Africa.

I want to say that the privatisation, the word as such, has different meanings for different people. However, the primary reason for this Bill is to change the Transport Services into a profit-seeking and a tax-paying company. That is the primary object. It is one of the first steps towards privatisation, a daunting challenge to management. However, when one looks at the calibre of management, I think that they will meet that challenge. At this stage it is envisaged that the State will be the only shareholder and for good reason. If the State is to realise its full potential, then its primary task is to make the corfipany a viable and a sought after investment in the market-place. However, to achieve that potential, top management has to overcome certain obstacles and has to meet certain challenges. Those obstacles are mainly related to the human element, which feels threatened by change and the uncertainty that change brings with it.

Here I refer firstly to the workers, to the union officials who manage the workers, the public servants and lastly, the beneficiaries of the service. Management will have to find and devise means to allay fears and misconceptions; they will also have to form strategies that will in fact convince those very people who are against the change that it is in the best interests of all. It means a change of attitude when it comes to performance and productivity. Competition is after all the best way to ensure customer choice satisfaction at the most efficient and lowest economic cost.

I do not believe that every State enterprise can have the same blueprint or the same formula for eventual privatisation. Each and every case will have to be treated on its own merits and independently. We will also have to accept, as we proceed along this road, that there is a learning curve and mistakes are going to be made. However, I believe that with good management and business acumen a lot of those mistakes can be kept to the minimum. Herein lie more challenges. That is why it is going to be very important for the hon the Minister to see to it that only the best available persons will be appointed as directors of the proposed new public company. The success of this whole exercise rests on their shoulders as well as that of management. I firmly believe that privatisation correctly handled and planned is one of the brightest aspects to emerge from the reform package. It holds the key to participation by the work force in the free enterprise system by way of shareholding. That is why clause 34 is of paramount importance. This clause will be the vehicle that will secure worker participation by obtaining shares in the company. The implication of being a shareholder, a part-owner, holds the potential for greater motivation which in turn will mean more efficiency and productivity, which is what this whole exercise is partly about.

Much has been said about job loss and unemployment when it comes to privatisation, but I believe that we can learn something from the SATS. That is why this exercise is going to be a success. The very foundation that is required for entering the market-place has already been laid by the SATS. Over the past three years or longer they have started to gear themselves into eventual entry into the no-holds-barred competitive field. I would like to quote some figures in this regard. On 15 June 1982 their staff complement was 279 000 odd. By 1986 it had dropped to 224 000 or 225 000 and by 1989, it had come down to 179 883. This is a drop of almost 100 000.

What is even more important is their labour productivity. Starting at a base of 100 in the year 1981-82, it was roughly at 110, and came down slightly, but in the past year, 1987-88, it was almost up to 130. What is even more interesting is the revenue generated per employee at constant tariff. Starting again at a base of 100 in 1981-82, it is now almost at 160. What I am saying is that by anticipating their eventual entry into the marketplace, the SATS have moved away from the public sector image of being inefficient and lossmaking.

They have slimmed themselves down and they are starting to make commercial sense. At this stage they have already taken initial steps to see to it that it does become a viable entity, which in due course will realise its full potential for the State, as and when the State decides to sell part or whole of its shareholding.

Another important aspect is the formation of a rail commuter corporation. I would again like to refer to the hon member for Yeoville. He was asked a question by the hon the Deputy Minister, but he did not answer the question, because he could not. I believe that at long last cross-subsidisation in transport will be laid to rest and the State will accept its full responsibility in this regard. This factor is a milestone in itself, because the sums involved in commuter transport will at long last become transparent. I am firmly of the opinion that once these figures become known, we will find that commuter services are being operated at a loss of billions of rand per year. That will lead to the position where some very important decisions will have to be made, namely whether losses on commuter services can be justified in the national interest or whether commuter fares will have to be increased to try to cover at least part of the cost.

On the lighter side I would just like to say to the hon the Minister that when the SATS becomes a public company, it will issue invoices which only gives one 30 days to pay, not a hundred-and-plenty!

In closing, I want to say that I firmly believe that this can, in the long term, be as successful as Sasol was.

Mr Chairman, I am not surprised that the CP is voting against this Bill. After all, this is their way of trying to win White votes: making a political football in this House of a bill which will be to the benefit of most people.

The Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Bill must be seen as stemming from the report of the De Villiers Commission, the commission of Dr Wim de Villiers who was appointed by the former Minister of Transport Services to make a thorough study of the strategic planning, management and systems of the SATS. Personally I am a great advocate champion of privatisation because I believe in healthy competition. If we look further, we shall see why I say this.

The primary objective of this Bill is to convert the SATS into a profit-seeking company that is liable to taxation. As a result of the fact that studies indicated that profitable rail commuter services will not be possible in the foreseeable future, and that the rendering of such services may be considered to be in the interests of the public, further provision is being made for the creation of a rail commuter corporation which, in its capacity as instrument of the State, must see to it that such service is rendered.

The preceding changes are expected to have the following results in the general economic sphere. The role of the State will change from that of party responsible for the creation of infrastructure to that of shareholder of the company. The basis is being laid for the optimum utilization of the country’s assets. It creates a suitable platform for privatisation, complete or partial, if this should be decided upon in due course and the transport market is being further deregulated.

This conversion will have various implications for the SATS. It will become subject to the application of most laws. In particular it will become fully taxable and in future therefore none of the taxpayer’s money will be pumped into transport services anymore. It has to compete on an equal footing in the transport market. As I said, I like healthy competition. The Labour Relations Act will be applied to the company after a transitional period of two years.

It results in greater flexibility which is needed to act effectively in a rapidly changing environment. Achievement is judged in terms of the norm of yield on capital. Knowledgeable persons from the private sector can be included in management. I shall refer to this again later in my speech.

This Bill will also pave the way for the SATS to change from a State enterprise without legal personality, falling under the control and authority of the State President, to a statutory company. The SATS is presently being operated, managed and controlled according to a number of unique laws such as the South African Transport Services Bill, 1981, the South African Transport Services Finances and Accounts Act, 1983, and the South African Transport Services Conditions of Services Act, 1988.

From the aforementioned it can be seen that the SATS differs from a normal commercial enterprise in various respects. After this Bill has been passed the hon the Minister will have to take the necessary steps for the establishment and incorporation of public companies with share capital and the issuing of a certificate to carry on a business under the Companies Act, 1973.

I wish to address certain requests to the hon the Minister. Before this process comes into operation, the interests of the employees must be looked after, in the best interest of the employee himself. Furthermore, the employees must be given the assurance that their medical aid will not dissolve a few years after the establishment of this company, that the home ownership scheme will not be stopped and that the new company will continue to help its staff with housing loans.

My request to the hon the Minister is for him to give consideration when this Bill is passed, the company established and a board of directors has to be established that will consist of members appointed from the government and private sectors and the General Manager of Transport Services—this is a serious request which I am addressing to the hon the Minister—to appointing people of colour who qualify and have business know-how and experience on directorship level.

I am convinced that there are such people available among us. If it is possible, I am prepared to furnish the hon the Minister with the names of such persons.

As regards the rail commuter services, a corporation will be established. It will be known as the South African Rail Commuter Corporation. Rail commuter services are a socio-economic service and therefore the main aim and task of the corporation will be to see to it that rail commuter services are rendered in the public interests of the Republic of South Africa.

Hon members heard repeatedly from other colleagues that, as a result of other circumstances, the majority of the commuters live far away from their places of employment and thus the ordinary commuter has to be considered.

I want to repeat the request I made to the hon the Minister earlier viz to appoint one of our people to the control board of the corporation that is to be established. I repeat that I can talk to the hon the Minister in order to furnish him with the names of certain people.

The point that I feel very strongly about is the assurance that no employee will lose his job summarily when the company is established.

I think that this Bill has been discussed well and thoroughly in the joint committee and therefore I have no further objection to supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vredendal has asked the hon the Minister for guarantees for employees in the service of the SATS in connection with their conditions of service. He wants some guarantees in terms of the home-ownership scheme and he also asked that the board should not be chosen exclusively from members of the White race. All of those appear to me to be reasonable requests. However, I do not want to follow that argument any further.

In my opinion it is important to stress that the attitude of my party in no way indicates any opposition at all to the principle of privatising the SATS. I think that has to be absolutely clear. [Interjections.] No, we are not being equivocal as the hon the Minister seems to be indicating; on the contrary, we believe it is a highly desirable exercise and our quarrel with the Government and this hon Minister has to do with the way it is being done.

If one looks at the whole situation, one of the most important reasons for privatisation has to do with the creation of a fair competitive situation within the transport industry. This competitive situation should in the final analysis be of benefit to the consumer.

As a party that believes in free enterprise we believe strongly that free competition should be part and parcel of free enterprise. It would be somewhat naive to believe that transport can function totally without control but free competition means that competition in the transport field should start off on an equal footing and that no particular organisation should enjoy special protection. We want to see the special protection afforded to the SATS disappear and we want to see a transport industry where all competitors are on an equal footing.

Undoubtedly—I think we are all aware of it—private enterprise, spurred on by the profit motive, tends to bring about more efficient and more economical operations. The Government is to be congratulated on finally coming to the realisation that this is so and we naturally welcome any steps towards that end but in this instance the Government is going about things in the wrong way.

We do not believe that it is necessary to approach the whole question of the privatisation of the SATS away from detailed control by Parliament and we believe that the process would be better handled differently. We probably might well have the same end in view.

We would like to see the SATS operating in a situation where it, for example, is subject to the Companies Act. We would like to see the SATS subject to the same laws, controls and constraints which are faced by any private sector company. The SATS’ profits should be taxed in the same way as private sector companies’ profits. [Interjections.] Those are the goals but we are not convinced that this Bill achieves those aims and objectives in the right way.

I believe that in considering this Bill we are entitled to know more about the hon the Minister’s detailed intentions with regard to one of the objects of the Bill as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, namely that the Bill “will create a framework for the further restructuring of the enterprise”. I presume that this refers to the possible splitting up of the various components of the SATS into separate companies and not just separate sections. There is no other mention in the memorandum of any intention to bring about this split and we need an unequivocal statement from the hon the Minster as to his intentions, to which should be added a suggested timescale as to when this split could take place.

I find it difficult to understand why the more direct route of immediately splitting up the SATS and creating individual private enterprise companies is not being followed. As hon members know the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central over a long period urged the hon the Minister to make SAA a separate private enterprise company. Why should this not be done immediately? Why do we have to go through the whole rigmarole of setting up a huge conglomerate rather than taking the more direct route?

I would like the hon the Minister to say what his intentions are with regard to the SATS. Is it the intention to create a separate entity and to allow greater competition in the field of air transport and are we likely to see competitive airlines operating on our main routes?

SAA is not the only area of the SATS operation which we believe should be operated separately and we would like to hear from the hon the Minister what his intentions are with regard to other sections. I personally have not made up my mind about what should be done with regard to pipelines, but we would like to know whether it is intended that pipelines should be operated as a separate entity in time.

Use your common sense.

When it comes to road transport services … Common sense is something that hon member knows nothing about, so I would not come to him as an authority.

I do not know why something has not been done already about the road transport situation. There is absolutely no reason why action should not have been taken already in this field and now we have further delays. A more than adequate coverage is already provided by private enterprise and it is inexcusable that this Government is still competing with the private sector. What for? Why is the Government doing this? Why are we still in this field and what is to stop the hon the Minister from immediately taking direct steps to get out of road transportation?

You are arguing against yourself.

The hon the Minister may believe that I am arguing against myself but his convoluted logic in this escapes me.

We want to know what the hon the Minister’s intentions are with regard to harbours. Are they to be operated as a separate entity? Are individual harbours to be operated on their own? We are being asked to pass this piece of legislation without any real knowledge of the intentions of the Government. This is what distresses us. The trouble with the hon the Minister having taken this long and devious route towards privatisation and deregulation is that it appears that he is dragging his heels. Action with regard to road transportation should have been taken long ago when the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, again, first urged him to do so. This is equally true with regard to airways. There is no need for secrecy. A clear and unequivocal statement is required so that we know where we are going and what decisions probably have already been taken in this regard. The hon the Minister does not have to play his cards close to the chest, he can tell us. The route that is being taken is too long and drawn out and we believe that the best interests of South Africa and the South African consumer demand that the process of deregulation and privatisation be accelerated and that interim measures such as this Bill are really not all that necessary.

We are in total agreement with almost all the aims and objects outlined in the explanatory memorandum. We agree that the SATS should be controlled, managed and operated in accordance with the norms of profit and yield on capital. We agree that the SATS should be fully liable for taxation. We agree that the framework of the SATS should be restructured. We approve of a provision which would allow employees to be issued with shares. But in the final analysis, we believe that the hon the Minister could be doing this far more expeditiously. The work on the joint committee done by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central certainly improved many aspects of this Bill, but we believe that different, faster and more efficient methods could and should be used to bring about the expressed aims and objects of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we thank the hon member for Bryanston for his support for this legislation. The hon member put certain questions to the hon the Minister, to which the hon the Minister will finish replies in due course.

Those of us on this side of the House would like to thank the chairman of the joint committee, the hon member for the Primrose, very much for the way in which he dealt with the legislation. It was difficult legislation and we devoted many days to it, but we thank the hon member for his guidance and insight and the advice he gave us.

The Bill under discussion has as its objective to make provision for the formation of a company, for the legal succession to the South African Transport Services by the Company, for the establishment of the South African Rail Commuter Corporation Limited and for related matters. One could ask why there should a change from a State-controlled undertaking to a profitseeking and taxable company. Perhaps it is necessary for us to look briefly at the history of the SATS as it is known today.

In 1860 the first railway line was opened at Point in Durban, in 1910 the South African Railways and Harbours was amalgamated, in 1934 the South African Airways was established, in 1965 pipelines were introduced and in 1981 everything was combined to form the SATS as we know it today.

Initially the SATS was responsible for the development and the provision of the entire country’s transport system. Today we have a network of rail and road service infrastructure serving the mining and agricultural industries. For many years the SATS contributed to development by giving special tariffs to mining and agriculture. We are grateful to the SATS for this service and their tremendous contribution to the development of the whole of South Africa.

However, this task has to a great extent been accomplished and at present the undertaking has a sophisticated infrastracture. In the process the SATS has grown from a State department which renders a service to a business undertaking which forms an integral and influential part of the business world.

In recent years there have been various investigations aimed at getting the SATS to function on a better business basis. There was the Van Breda commission, which investigated the regulating of transport and the Franzsen committee of 1979. In 1986 there was the White Paper on the National Transport Policy, as well as the investigation by and recommendations of Wim de Villiers. Then there was the final report of Wim de Villiers in 1988.

A few years ago the SATS reached a milestone when it was decided to restructure the SATS into five business sectors, namely railways, harbours, airways, pipelines and road transport. This laid the foundation for the SATS to compete effectively in a deregulated transport market. This development, the establishment of a comprehensive road network and transport system, as well as the general state of the economy has resulted in a change in the requirement which has become specifically distinguishable the past ten years. In particular this involves the need for optimum utilisation of all assets and available capital. In terms of the principles of the free market system this need can only be realised in a deregulated transport market in which all participants compete on an equal footing.

Within the present legislative framework it is impossible for the SATS to run an ordinary business undertaking on this kind. On the other hand in a certain sense the SATS is subject to restrictions which make it difficult to apply free trade principals at all times. In some respects the SATS is a privileged position with regard to competitors, which prevents equal competition.

A phase in the development of the South African economy has now been reached which requires that the SATS be converted into a form of undertaking which will enable it to utilize assets to the optimum and to compete on an equal footing with the private sector. The obvious form of undertaking is a public company in terms of the Companies Act, which is the recognised form of undertaking for a big business.

The primary objective of this legislation is to convert the SATS into a profit-seeking and taxable company. The general provisions of the Bill are aimed inter alia at creating a legal framework for the restructuring or possible privatisation of the company. Specific powers are being given to the Registrar of Deed regarding the transfer of immovable property to the company and the corporation. It makes provision for the issuing of shares to the employees of the company and its subsidiaries. It also provides that the company and the corporation are exempted from the payment of taxes resulting from the transfer of assets and rights.

I now come to matters concerning the field of labour. The hon member for Primrose spelled out the position of the employees, but together with the management team the ordinary employee of the SATS is its most important asset. At the end of the day it is the employee’s loyalty and interest in his profession which contributed to the success of the SATS. Provision is therefore also being made in this Bill to protect the position of the employee and to ensure that he is treated fairly. In times of clauses 3, 8 and 9 the rights and obligations are not affected by the change-over to a company. Two years after the change-over the rights and obligations of employees will be exposed to existing negotiating processes. The South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Act, 1988, will remain applicable after the change-over to a company. Two years hence this Act will be repealed.

Clause 9(2) determines the arrangements in connection with the Labour Relations Act. Clause 9(7) determines the consolidated service conditions and clause 9(8) the Labour Council. Clause 18 deals with strikes. The SA Transport Services is therefore well on its way to developing into an organisation which will proudly and rightly be able to hold its own in a deregulated market.

The Bill makes provision for the formation of companies and for the Transport Services to be privatised when convenient. The objective is the systematic transfer of suitable functions and activities on property from the public to the private sector where services, production and consumption can be more effectively regulated by the market and the price.

The process forms part of a strategy. Firstly, the involvement of the public sector in the economy must be restricted or reduced so that more capital, production means and opportunities can be made available to the private sector. Secondly, the private sector must be afforded the opportunity to develop and grow to the optimum and with the minimum of state interference.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, the principal issue in the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Bill is the formation and incorporation of a public company. The Bill emanates from the adoption by the Government of the De Villiers Report on Strategic Planning and Management Practices in the operation of the SA Transport Services.

The proposed company will be run on business principles as any other public company. Part of the policy of the Company is deregulation and privatisation. I have no serious problems with this new venture but I have reservations about its operations and ultimate success.

I must sound a note of caution and I wish to make the following comments. Hasty decisions to deregulate and privatise certain services may lead to disruptions and chaos. Let me elaborate on that. Presently the State directs and controls the SATS. The State plays a vital role in influencing the economy. The State ensures socio-economic stability. However, the State also protects the consumer and the end user. The same thing cannot be said of the private sector.

The private sector will be profit motivated and their whole exercise will be oriented towards making money. I admire the confidence of the hon member for South Coast who says he has a lot of confidence in privatisation and he is almost certain that it will succeed. He also mentioned free competition. I have no objection against free competition but free competition in an unequal society will not work.

I also want to share the hon member for Yeoville’s anxiety about privatisation. I will not commit myself at this stage by saying that privatisation is going to be successful throughout. The private sector would not assume the responsibilities of the State. This attitude could possibly have a ripple effect on consumer prices, increased costs and provision of essential services.

I must warn that the imitation of overseas models in privatisation may not be suitable in a South African situation. In South Africa we have predominantly Third World conditions. We have extreme polarisation of poverty and wealth. Adoption of these models must be very carefully considered in the South African context.

I wish to state: The assets of the SATS should not be sold as going concerns in the name of privatisation. I would envisage a sound business approach, consider market related values and the projected valuation of SATS properties in the years to come.

I want to pose the following questions to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in regard to employment opportunities and shares for employees. Firstly, what guarantee is there that all the SATS employees, including labourers and staff, will retain their privileges, positions and benefits? Secondly, what guarantee is there for continued and permanent employment? Thirdly, will employees be selectively retrenched as privatisation creeps in? I must mention that I am somewhat apprehensive of the long-term consequences of this deregulation and privatisation.

Furthermore, will all the employees be accorded the opportunity to buy shares? Will a percentage of the shares be declared and allotted to this section? Will the necessary literature and information be furnished in understandable language so that the ordinary labourer is made aware of the privilege and opportunity of participating in these shares? [Time expired ]

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Primrose started speaking, he maintained that the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Act had worked extremely well. However, he has a very short memory, because this Act only came into operation less than a year ago. The Act has not even had a chance to prove itself. The very first time there was negotiation, the matter was made subject to arbitration, and an Act was passed to ensure that an agreement would be reached before arbitration was resorted to and one was forced to accept something against one’s wishes.

Last year I was privileged to attend two or three meetings of a joint committee. When the Bill was discussed, the CP asked that the Labour Relations Act be made applicable to the Transport Services. Then it was said that this legislation should be given a chance to prove that it worked. The Labour Relations Act would possibly be considered later. I want to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for eventually getting around to implementing the Labour Relations Act. However, as the hon member for Losberg said, the Transport Services is once again falling between two stools, or they want to have their cake and eat it too.

According to clause 9 (8) (b) the company and four-fifths of the trade unions must agree before an industrial council may be established. The Labour Relations Act provides for the way in which an industrial court may be established. It is quite clear. In terms of this Act one or more employers and one or more employee organisation may form an industrial council, if the Registrar approves. In terms of this four-fifths of the employee trade unions must now agree before an industrial council is formed. What is more, if an industrial council is established within one year after the Labour Relations Act comes into operation, the assets of the Labour Council are transferred to the industrial council. Now I ask myself what is going to become of these assets of the Labour Council if an industrial council is not formed.

I have looked at the Bill and provision is not made in it for a disestablishment clause. I also telephoned the Department of Transport this morning and asked whether there was a disestablishment clause in the constitution which the council had drafted. They promised me that they would get back to me and I am still waiting! I would be glad if the hon the Minister could tell us what is to become of the assets if an industrial council is not established. How are those assets going to be divided?

Another problem concerns clause 10 which deals with Transmed, ie medical scheme. At the moment a great deal is being said about the Government wanting to privatise. Here one has dispensaries that are functioning on their own, and why has Transmed not been privatised. I shall answer this question.

It is far cheaper to have one’s own dispensaries for one’s members. That is the whole object of the exercise. Consequently more of these dispensaries can be opened, to the benefit of the workers, with the approval of the Minister of National Health and Population Development. There are other employees who have been pleading for the same benefit for years now, but their request has not been granted.

At the moment when a person must get his medicine where there is no Transmed dispensary, he goes to a private pharmacy and pays the full amount. He then submits a claim for 75% of this amount. This has been discussed before. Pensioners cannot afford to pay the full amount. They have one of two choices. They must either stay without the medicine or they must send the prescription to a Transmed dispensary and wait several days before they get the medicine.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to see to it that Transmed enters into an agreement with pharmacies where there are no Transmed dispensary. According to the agreement the member must then get his medicine from the relevant pharmacy for 25% of the price and the scheme must repay the pharmacy the remaining 75%.

I also want to touch on the strike clause. It has been discussed before. Yet again the hon the Minister wants his bread buttered on both sides. The Labour Relations Act is going to be implemented by the Minister of Manpower, but the Minister of Transport Affairs wants to gain the power to place a further prohibition on strikes.

According to the Labour Relations Act the Minister of Manpower has the power to declare any work to be an essential service. If the strikes in the SATS continue and escalate, we are going to have the position that the Minister of Manpower is going to reserve himself the right to declare this an essential service. Yet the hon the Minister has introduced another statutory provision! How on earth can one say that one is implementing the Industrial Conciliation Act in its entirety and then the hon the Minister gets more powers than the Minister of Manpower! That cannot be accepted!

I also want to touch for a moment on the shares which are being issued. We agree that the employees of the SATS must get shares. This could possibly be free of charge, because they were underpaid over the years. They are still being underpaid and this may quite possibly help them. I am glad that the hon member for Primrose said that certain recommendations had been made to the Minister.

I do not know what those recommendations were, but I feel that there must be a period within which the shares may not be sold by the workers after they have been listed on the stock exchange.

This will prevent these shares from falling into the hands of big business and big business then taking over the SATS. This is a way of preventing this. It must also be ensured that these shares which are given to employees, are not held against them later on when better conditions of service are being negotiated. It must not then be said: “We were so good to you, we gave you a lot of shares.”

In the light of what has been said, I want to ask the hon the Minister to correct all the shortcomings in this Bill now, so that there is no necessity for him to say within a year after the Labour Relations Act has been made applicable to this, that he wants to make further amendments to this legislation. It is only fair to say from the outset that the Labour Relations Act, as it appears on the Statute Book, is also going to apply to the SATS. Then there will be no problems, such as our shamefacedly having to amend the legislation later on.

Mr Chairman, like my colleagues, I want to support this Bill. I support it, in the first place, because it will usher in a new era for the SATS. I believe the SATS is facing the greatest challenge to its future. The changes in the SATS will be of great benefit to our people, because for the first time the ordinary employee is also going to be a shareholder.

These factors will, for example, contribute to higher productivity because everyone is going to be a part of the SATS. Because everyone is going to share in the success and the profits, this is also going to motivate our people better and they are going to feel they must put in more and adapt to the changing circumstances the future demands of them.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on this brave step. I am very glad about the mechanism which has been built in for the transition period because there are definitely going to be growing pains. I am glad that provision has been made for this.

As regards catering services I also want to ask the hon the Minister to build in a mechanism which will ensure that there is no threat to life. At the moment we are sure that food would never be served on trains which could be a threat to life. If the services are privatised, I want measures to be built in to ensure that such problems will still not crop up.

Like my hon colleagues, I also want to recommend strongly that the hon the Minister takes a good look at our commuter services. As other hon members also mentioned, this is going to become an even bigger factor in the future. It will mean a great deal if those services are subsidised, because our people will benefit. Particularly owing to the rapidly growing rural areas, as well as people moving to the cities, I want to ask the hon the Minister to give attention to this.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour for me to follow on the hon member for Opkoms.

*My people have given me so little time that I shall not pursue this matter. I have sat here and listened and I have come to the conclusion that both the CPs and the Progs are opposed to privatisation. They even express it in contradictions to put their case.

I grew up next to a railway line and I had great admiration for the Railways. I always thought it was a very lucrative and rich business, but South Africa is a developing country and commuter services are part of the development. For that reason the State must make an input to this development. Commuter services must not been seen as a profitable undertaking, but rather as a service organisation in the development of our beautiful country and its beautiful people. Unfortunately when I look around me they are not all as beautiful as I would like them to be. [Interjections.]

The biggest loss in the SATS is on commuter services, and that is why I am glad that the passenger and goods services are now going to be separated and run as two organisations. The SATS is going to be run as a public company, and the commuter services as a state corporation.

This decision was taken mainly in consequence of the Franzsen Report and the White Paper on the National Transport Policy which was published in 1986. The following were some of the findings: Firstly, that railway passenger services operate at a loss of hundreds of millions of rand per annum. Secondly, that fares are nowhere near high enough to cover the costs, because many people do not even pay. Thirdly, that losses resulting from passenger resistance cannot be eliminated by increasing fares. Fourthly, that losses must be compensated from alternative sources.

The first condition laid down for the implementation of the recommendation was that the SATS had to be relieved of the financial burden resulting from the provision of uneconomic socioeconomic services. The Government accepted this. In the study it is also recommended that the State should take responsibility for providing rail commuter services and that the SATS should provide the services as an agent of the State.

I hope this is going to work, because the commuter is of the utmost importance to our country. A commuter is not a nobody; he is a very important link in the chain of our country.

I think it is impossible to expect the State alone to get the people to work. Sooner of later the employer will also have to make an input, because he really cannot live in clover all the time. It is asking too much to expect one person to do all the work, and the employer comes off too lightly. We should therefore consider commuter tax.

I should also like to endorse the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, that in appointing members of the board of directors of the South African Rail Commuter Corporation Limited an attempt must be made to look after the interests of the commuter.

The provision of commuter services is also very important in another respect, namely to keep the traffic off our roads in the mornings and evenings. Our people are full of complaints. Petrol is too expensive, motor cars are too expensive, and so it goes on, but one must just take a look at the roads in the morning. Most cars are transporting only one person, and occasionally two.

Cape Town, with only two main routes, is a striking example of traffic congestion during peak periods. If the present situation continues, within two or three years insurmountable problems are going to crop up. I come from a farm. I think I can drive a car, and I have a licence too. On the farm a cow occasionally wandered in front of me or a tree got in my way, but here in the city it is different. I thought I had a new car, but they have already wrecked the front, and the back, and a woman drove into the side of it. [Interjections.] That brand new car has now been made new again. They have already written off the previous one. That is why I want to say that from now on I am going to commute. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Worcester says that after listening to what the PFP have had to say about this Bill, he comes to the conclusion that we are against privatisation. That hon member has clearly not been paying attention to the arguments we have presented. For his edification I must therefore repeat that the PFP is in favour of privatisation. We are in favour of the State rolling back from its involvement in the private economy. We believe that there are many State and parastatal organisations whose activities would be undertaken far better under the disciplines of the free enterprise system in the private sector.

This Bill is not privatisation. What we are objecting to here is that the Government is attempting to bring in a measure under the respectable cloak of privatisation and calls it a privatisation measure, but it is not privatisation. This Bill is a restructuring of the SATS. It is not privatisation at all.

Privatisation means, if anything, the creation of an equity-owning public, as has been demonstrated in Margaret Thatcher’s Britain. It means the creation of a share-owning democracy where the people, the members of the public, own the services and manage and operate them. In this case, all we are doing is taking the SATS as a State institution and converting it into a private company that is still 100% owned by the State. Where is the privatisation in that? No member of the public is proposed to be a shareholder in terms of this measure as it stands in front of us. It is merely a restructuring measure.

It is nonsense to talk of privatising the SATS as a whole. No private company could ever hope to bid for the SATS. It is worth billions. It is worth more than the total resources of all our biggest companies combined. So, it is complete nonsense to talk about the total privatisation of the SATS. If one talks about taking productive elements of the SATS, parts that can stand on their own feet, and have them bid for—perhaps on a tender basis by private companies or consortiums—and taken over and then being placed full-square in the market to compete with other organisations, then we have privatisation.

How do you know that this is not going to happen?

If that is going to happen, we shall support it but this measure does not provide for it to happen. All this measure does is to restructure the organisation under the label of a public company and take it beyond the scope of Parliament’s control.

At present, under the general aegis of the Department of Trade and Industry, we have organisations such as Iscor, Foscor, IDC and Eskom, and how much time do we get to debate it? I shall take my party as an example. We had 20 minutes last year to debate the entire Department of Trade and Industry portfolio and all those massive organisations are listed under the aegis of that portfolio. There is simply no time in terms of priorities to pay even the slightest due attention to some of the key activities listed there. That is what we are going to create in terms of this Bill.

We are going to remove the SATS, which at present takes up a considerable amount of parliamentary debating time and focus, and place it beyond the reach of parliamentary debate, except in the most peripheral way.

Tell us how you would do it.

I have told the hon member how we would privatise it. We would do it by taking constituent parts of the SATS empire and putting them out for privatisation on a market basis. We have been through that.

A particular question I now want to pose is: What is the rush? The hon member for Primrose said this is the biggest thing that has happened to the SATS since 1910, and he is right. This is a total restructuring of the South African Transport Services and I believe this Bill first saw the light of day among members of the joint committee only in November or December. For the biggest thing that has happened to the SATS since 1910 to be placed before the joint committee mere weeks before it comes to Parliament to be adopted in principle, does not seem to be a reasonable way of going about things. Let us look at one example.

I have here in my hands a memorandum, to mention one example, which was put out by the president of the Association of Law Societies of the RS A. This is just one memorandum in response to this Bill. It is obviously a weighty submission. This has never been seen by the joint committee. I believe certain members of the NP were given sight of it and asked to circulate it to the joint committee members, but that never happened. Whatever the merits of this particular submission may be, how can Parliament be asked to rush into the biggest restructuring we have seen since 1910 while an important submission such as this has not even been taken into account by the joint committee?

We have some serious misgivings about what is taking place here today. We think it deserves far more consideration, far more careful analysis and thought and far more debate in wider forums in public and in the joint committee.

The issue of privatisation, we believe in this instance, is being abused. I must say that I have a basic suspicion about the intentions of the Government in terms of privatisation. Around the world where there has been successful privatisation, and I take the United Kingdom as a good example, it has been a case of the government of the day undoing the work of its opposition.

In the case of Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, the Tory Party has basically been undoing the work of previous Labour Party administrations which nationalised slices of their economic life. One then has a Government which is motivated to implement its own policies and is not restrained from undoing the work of its opposition.

In this country we have a situation where this Government is being called upon to undo its own work, the work that it has been putting into place over the past 40 years. It is being asked to privatise in the face of resistance from some of its own key support blocks. That is not a good augury for the success of privatisation in South Africa.

It is going to take a superhuman effort on the part of this NP Government to overcome the natural restraint which must exist on the part of a government being called upon to undo its own work. The way this Government has gathered in increasing slices of the economy under its own wing is quite alarming, and to believe that they are capable of undoing all of that in the time that lies ahead, is difficult.

I think if we look at what has actually been achieved under the heading of privatisation since the White Paper was published—apart from this measure which has been put forward as privatisation, but which is not—we have had one tentative move in respect of Eskom.

In the light of all this; in the light of what we regard as a restructuring proposal and not a privatisation measure; in the light of the alarm that we feel at the speed at which this Bill is being pushed through the processes of Parliament; and in the light of our general reservations about the ability of this Government to deliver on its privatisation promises, we are opposing this Bill.

Mr Chairman, …

What about Kraaifontein? Do you have enough houses there for all the people?

Mr Chairman, if I had such a big mouth and my party had lost so heavily, I would keep quiet.

†At the outset, listening to the hon member for Constantia, I was not quite sure whether to believe him or his party, but I think ultimately we are going to agree to differ.

*This Bill before us today is not only comprehensive, but also far-reaching, particularly in the mind of the man in the street, because thus far the man in the street has seen the Transport Services as a kind of emergency chemist, a school of thought that says that the Railways will and must be there whenever he needs them. Because it is such a comprehensive Bill, there are just a few aspects I should like to refer to, a few broad overall business principles, and then I should also like to refer to the composition of the board of directors.

Although this company or organisation is unique and will initially operate quite differently to normal patterns of operation, it is nevertheless true that ultimately this company will operate under the Companies Act like any other company.

It is good to know that attention is being paid to privatisation. I do not want to elaborate on that. I merely want to say that after having listened to the hon member for Losberg, I do not understand his ramblings.

Let us, however, give one another a word of caution by saying that one should not privatise merely for the sake of privatisation. That is why it is also good to hear that the object of this company will be to declare dividends. The truth is that every ordinary businessman knows that in order to declare dividends there have to be profits. In order to achieve profits, one must comply with certain basic disciplines of the commercial world. It is therefore good to know that this company will endeavour to meet these basic requirements, and that they will strive for sound administration as an objective, an objective that can only be achieved with a capable board of directors and competent management. For me it is of cardinal importance that this organisation have the best possible management personnel at its disposal. It is good to know that the SATS already has such people available.

What is also envisaged is that this company will build up reserves. One can only build up reserves, however, if one makes a profit, and the most important aspect is perhaps that this company will be as subject to company tax as any other. It is equally reassuring to know that this company will keep proper †records, that it will submit financial statements and—for me this is of the utmost importance—that it will not only be subject to internal auditing, but ultimately also to external auditing.

It is good to know that what is envisaged is the establishment of a company which will comply with the basic and essential disciplines of the business world. In my view this endeavour is very neatly summarised in the following four statements. The company will be controlled, managed and operated in accordance with the norms of profit and yield on capital. Secondly, the company will compete on a substantially equal footing in the transport market. Thirdly, the company will be fully liable to taxation and, lastly, it must be sufficiently flexible to make participation by the private sector possible.

Earlier on I referred to the board of directors and its composition. I do not want to dwell on details, but just make a few overall statements. The hon member for Vredendal advocated that people of colour should be appointed. My plea is that we abandon such an idea and appoint knowledgeable people to the board of directors. The number of directors is of no importance to me. My plea is that there will not be too few, nor too many. Let us say there must not be fewer than seven, and not more than twelve.

The most important aspect, however, does not lie in the numbers. The most important aspect lies in the knowledgeability of these directors. It is logical that some of them will also be knowledgeable about transport affairs, and others about the economy, management and finance. I would very much like to advocate, however, that the hon the Minister appoint at least one or more people who have what is commonly known as good, plain common sense. Over the years I have learnt that one can appoint many knowledgeable people, but then the wrong general management is appointed. Automatically this weakens the board of directors. The obverse can also be true. A large number of people with common sense, who appoint the right general management, automatically make themselves a good board of directors.

The Bill before us is an important step in the history of the South African Transport Services. That is why we must ensure that the right steps are taken—all these steps—so that in the long run we have an impeccable company which can deal with this extremely important facet of the South African economy.

Mr Chairman, I shall not elaborate any further on the hon member for Wellington’s arguments.

I cannot, however, fail to take the opportunity to say that I was initially surprised when the hon member for Alberton called in the hon member for Bryanston in support of this Bill, when all the while he had been opposing it. I realised at a later stage, however, what it was all about. Politics being what it is these days, every good Nationalist will try to call upon every other Prog in an attempt to get himself over the hump. We have already seen this happening in Boksburg.

†Firstly, I shall refer to, and quote freely from, an urgent written request by the president of the Association of Law Societies to the hon the Minister today, concerning clause 33 of the Bill under discussion. It reads as follows:

*That standpoint was endorsed by the Competition Board when, after written and oral representations by the Association of Law Societies on 12 April 1985 it reached the following conclusion and conveyed this to the Association of Law Societies:

†Subsequently, the Association of Law Societies propose an amendment discussed it with the legal representatives of the department and the SATS. Eventually they had to learn this morning that the hon the Minister had decided to continue with clause 33 as it stands. This renews and aggravates the profession’s already deep concern. The ALS has a duty under its constitution to safeguard and maintain the independence, objectivity and integrity of the profession. It cannot stand idly by and permit the potentially serious harm which it sees done to the independence of the profession to go unopposed. It urgently needs reconsideration. We in the CP, wholeheartedly support these representations made at an even later hour this morning to the hon the Minister.

*The Government took a political decision that the establishment and maintenance of a transport infrastructure which would meet the overall transport needs of South Africa could no longer be seen as the Government’s responsibility. I quote from the explanatory memorandum, which was made available to us, in support of that statement:

On page 15 of the Finansiele Scenario, to which reference was made in an earlier debate, the SATS even goes so far as to state that until the year 2000 the railway infrastructure in South Africa is adequate. In its efforts to escape the dire responsibility attaching to development—in the transport field too—the Government has used privatisation as a coat-peg, as an excuse why the SATS should be converted into a public company.

Why is the hon the Minister so eager to privatise the SATS? Why does he want to take the SATS away from the State and throw it into the private sector’s lap? Although the State will initially be the only shareholder, the reactions of Government members a moment ago proved that privatisation has already been decided on and that the contention, in the explanatory memorandum, that this Bill is not a suitable platform for the creation of privatisation, if this were to be decided upon in time, is pure hog-wash. The decision had already been taken.

The question is why one has to privatise. It is not because, as in Britain, one must try to counter nationalisation, because locally the private sector did not have a share of this market. In fact, it did not have the desire or the ability to take upon itself the developmental task in the field of transport, and that is why the State accepted the challenge. The State established the South African Railways and Harbours, developed the hinterland, built railway lines criss-crossing the country and brought growth and development to areas where there had previously been no growth and development.

In my maiden speech two years ago I spoke with the utmost sincerity about these matters, and the hon the Minister did not find any fault with that at all. He did not feel himself called upon to warn me that he was in the process of putting paid to those lofty ideas I still cherished about the SATS at that time.

The SATS furnished as cost-effective and efficient a service as any other transport service in the world. So why then the need for privatisation? Why must assets to the tune of R50 000 billion, which Parliament and the country’s taxpayers have control of, effectively be placed in the hands of the SATS management?

My reproach is not aimed at everyone in the SATS management, but at those elements in that management who co-operated so zealously in the process of getting away from parliamentary control over the SATS’s activity, and against those elements in the management who, for reasons known only to them, are so eager to get away from parliamentary control.

The end of in-depth and regular debates—lasting many days—in Parliament about the policy, strategy, finances and administration of the SATS is in sight. Is that what the hon the Minister, the Government and certain elements in the management want? Why is the hon the Minister in favour of this Bill? At its worst this Bill is a motion of no confidence in the hon the Minister himself and in his ability to give such leadership that the SATS can maintain its proud record on the course it has adopted and travelled with such distinction.

I read through the whole of the hon the Minister’s speech at the commencement of this debate, and nowhere was there any effort even to give an underlying reason why it is right to have the SATS privatised. He made all kinds of superficial statements, many of which we could read in the thick explanatory memorandum given to the members of the joint committee. There was not a single new idea, no profundity and no attempt to give reasons why the SATS should be privatised.

Why are the Cabinet, the Government and the hon the State President in favour of this Bill? I cannot help thinking that the hon the State President and the Government would very much like to get away from the numerous motions of no confidence in them adopted recently in SATS circles, and specifically by the trade unions. The Government wants to divest itself of its developmental task, specifically in the sphere of transport in this country.

What is the effect of privatisation going to be?

Better competition!

Better competition? Let me tell the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation what the effect is going to be. The effect is going to be that they will be more geared to profit-taking. Shareholders and the investors, there will exert more pressure to furnish dividends. The result is going to be higher and more expensive tariffs. The hon the Minister and I can get together in a year or two and then see who is right. Tariffs will be higher and the SATS will be unwilling to perform certain essential unremunerative services. I do not have enough time for that now, but I could quote from three documents at my disposal to prove that the SATS is unwilling to furnish, in the future, the uneconomic services it has thus far had to furnish. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to thank hon members for a debate which covered a wide range of topics and in a certain respect was in fact surprising. For example I was really surprised to find the PFP, or whatever their name may be, blowing so hot and cold here. I have a suspicion that a divisive factor has once again arisen in this little party.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has just walked in. He is an hon member who sat on that joint committee, where he pledged his support for this measure, and yet three hon members of his party participated here today, and what one had to say almost caused another to want to thank him for supporting the legislation. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke against himself here, and I shall refer to this in a moment. The hon member contradicted himself. Nevertheless they intimated in the end that they were opposed to the measure. That does not surprise me. It really does not surprise me that that party should be in the position it finds itself in. They have lost all ground which gave them credibility in the eyes of the public.

You don’t know what is about to hit you!

You are worried about your seat! [Interjections.]

This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with my seat. Nothing!

Before I begin my reply to the debate there is one aspect I want to deal with first. It is concerned with the law societies. This morning the Association of Law Societies caused a letter to be delivered to me in which they objected to clause 33 of the Bill. I phoned the secretary straightaway and told him that surely he knew my door is always open to him. He knows I am a member of their profession, but why did they not lodge these objections on the joint committee? Surely that was the appropriate place to do so; then we would certainly have looked into them. Ultimately I told them that the item of law contained in clause 33 of the Bill was merely a transitional measure—a temporary measure. I gave him the undertaking that we would subsequently solve this problem with them to the satisfaction of both parties. I satisfied the members of that profession. I have made this statement because I promised him that I would mention it in the House today.

I thank the hon member for Primrose, the chairman of the joint committee, for the work he did in this connection. The hon member indicated the position of the worker here, with great skill of course. He explained how we were going to deal with the position of the worker afterwards, and said it was still our top priority in this whole exercise. After all, what is at issue here is people. The success one is subsequently going to have is going to depend on the successful participation of one’s employees.

Why not proceed directly to privatisation? The hon member referred to that. One simply cannot compare South Africa to countries abroad. Our situation is different, and that is why one cannot adopt the same course. That is why it is important, and this I am also saying to the hon member for Yeoville, because that hon member wanted us to get out of the situation in which we now find ourselves and proceed with privatisation. We say one cannot do it that way. It must first be properly divided up into business units and those business units must operate in a business atmosphere so that one can evaluate them.

The hon member for Constantia made as though one could merely hold an auction. One could merely say: “Here I have businesses and I am now selling them to the private sector.” No one will buy such a business, because it must first build up a history. It must first build up an indication. It must first build up a potential for profitability before one can successfully privatise it.

You are insulting the airways! You are insulting your own people!

We said—I said it in my speech—that it was not privatisation. I said this to hon members in my speech. This is not privatisation. We are creating a convenient structure from which we can move those components we do decide to privatise.

The hon member referred to the cost allocation between the company and commuter services, namely the operating agreements that will be involved. I can give him the assurance that top-line experts will work on this. The Minister of Transport Affairs and the Minister of Finance will evaluate the eventual results properly. I think the hon member may rest assured that this matter will be dealt with properly and with great expertise. I thank the hon member for a very valuable contribution and a very valuable service he rendered in this connection.

I come now to the hon member for Roodepoort. I am astonished that the CP expressed such strong opposition to the Bill, with the exception perhaps of the hon member for Carletonville. It seems to me he is almost in favour of the Bill. However, it astonished me that the other hon members expressed such strong opposition to this Bill whereas they abstained from voting on the joint committee. If one feels as strongly about a matter as the CP demonstrated here today one should at least have the moral courage to vote against that Bill at the appropriate time.

But I shall tell hon members what the reason for that is; I shall give hon members the reason. Those hon members are sitting on the fence for a while to see whether they cannot derive a little political advantage by opposing the Bill. On the other hand they are not too keen to say it, because it is not popular. I can give those hon members the assurance today that they are not going to make any political gain from their conduct today. I want to tell them that the people of the SATS are sick and tired of being looked down upon as being people who can only hold their own if they receive protection. I find great enthusiasm among the employees of the SATS who say: “Sir, we are proud that we are now going to be able to hold our own in an area in which we can compete with people and where everyone will not say that we are occupying a position or doing work simply because we are protected by the law”.

The hon member said he wanted the pressure to be taken away from the roads and placed on the railway lines, and that that was why the railway services should be favoured. He was therefore advocating statutory advantages for the railway services. Surely this was what we had for years. That was precisely what we had for years, but we have moved away from it because we saw it did not work. We, too, want to keep the pressure off the roads, but how do we want to remove it? We want to remove it by means of competition on the part of the railways. The railways will compete with the roads. We are not afraid to do that. Management is not afraid to do that. We are not afraid of having to be protected, but then one will again have to have a vast police force to see that those laws are enforced.

The hon member was in fact advocating a welfare state. What became of the welfare states after the war? What the hon member was advocating was the principles they embodied, namely the protection of services by the State rendered in competition with the private sector. What became of that system?

When I say that I also say that the Government is in no way opposed to subeconomic services being subsidised, to attention being given to social services and to assistance being rendered to them. Of course we shall do so. But the Government says this must be done openly.

We have in fact created the instrument for that purpose, namely the Rail Commuter Corporation. We have in fact created it because we are able to render those services, but we want to do so openly. We say it must not harm the economy, rendering those social services which are the responsibility of the State must not harm the economy.

The hon member wanted to know why the four-fifths clause as regards transition to an industrial council had been included. It was inserted on request. The hon member for Carletonville also asked for it. It was inserted at the request of the trade unions to obviate one or two trade unions possibly being opposed to it, and so that there could then be a transition to an industrial council.

As regards the particulars on property development, it is provided in clause 13 that the status quo shall be maintained for three years. After that transport services will be subject to all the restrictions imposed by local authorities if property development takes place.

I thank the hon member for Wuppertal. He referred to discrimination on the roads. I want to tell him that we can discuss that matter in the debate on the Transport Vote. I think he had in mind the permits granted for the conveyance of people. The Government is committed to eliminating discrimination. This is a subject which we can discuss to good effect in the debate on the Transport Vote. As he knows, the people who apply for permits state specifically what they are applying for—whether for Whites or for nonWhites or for mixed permits.

The hon member asked for certain assurances and he put certain questions to me. The hon member wanted to know how employees were going to receive shares. The hon member said that the rights of the employees should not be tampered with. I think the legislation is very clear in that respect, that the status quo will be maintained and that they will be transferred just as they are to the company.

The hon member also asked whether I ever envisaged commuter services being profitable. No, I do not. He asked for commuter journeys always to be subsidised. As far as I can foresee this will have to be the case. I know of no place in the Western World where commuter services are not being subsidised.

The hon member asked about the shares and conditions of service of employees. I have already given him an assurance in that regard. The hon member also wanted to know whether land would be transferred to the company. Yes, land will be transferred to the company and to the commuter corporation, as provided for this in the Bill. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution in this connection.

The hon member for Vredendal was the only speaker who in fact said that this legislation stemmed from the Wim de Villiers Report, and I never heard a sound, particularly from the PFP, to the effect that they were opposed to this report. This Bill is the logical outcome of that report.

The hon member went on to say that he was in favour of privatisation because he was also in favour of sound competition. That is precisely what everything is all about.

But you said it was not privatisation.

I say once again that this is not privatisation. We say that we are creating a foundation for privatisation. That hon member and everyone spoke about privatisation. That is why the hon member also did so; he said he was in favour of privatisation because he was in favour of sound competition. That is a sound statement.

He made a request for the interests of workers to be looked after, including the medical scheme, home-ownership schemes and other privileges. He also asked for people of colour to be taken into consideration for appointment to the board of the company or the control body of the corporation. He also added the qualification that these should be people possessing the expertise to be representatives there. I want to give the hon member the assurance that there is absolutely nothing to prevent his request from being complied with.

He went on to ask me to give the assurance that no worker would lose his job as a result of the establishment of this company. In the legislation before us we have already stated that everyone shall become employees of the company. I can in fact give him that assurance, namely that no person will lose his job as a result of this change. †The hon member for South Coast referred to the challenge that top management must take on. That is the absolutely essential factor if this exercise is to be successful. I can give him the assurance that top management has in fact accepted that challenge.

The hon member also referred to clause 34, relating to worker participation in share schemes. This is indeed the first time that that is possible, but evidently hon members taking a stance against this Bill are not in favour of worker participation, and I am surprised at the hon member for Yeoville.

You are off your head!

On a point of order, Sir: The hon member for Yeoville made the accusation that the hon the Minister was off his head.

Order! Did the hon member say that the hon the Minister was off his head?

I said that because he said I was against something when he knows full well that I am not. So either he deliberately told an untruth or there must be something wrong with him.

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

I withdraw them, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir: The hon member must go to the microphone. He cannot stand there and talk where we cannot hear him.

Order! The hon member is correct. Both the hon members for Boksburg and Yeoville should have gone to the microphone. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is a very justified conclusion that I can arrive at if the hon member is opposed to this Bill. If he votes against it, I want to tell him that that is the way I want to give them a share in the business. The hon member is opposed to it, and therefore I assume that he is also opposed to my giving them shares in the business.

But that is absolute nonsense and you know it!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Alberton paid tribute to the work done by the SATS and the contribution which Transport Services had made to the development of our country. That is correct, and I do not think the contribution made by the SA Railways, now known as the SA Transport Services, to the development of this country can ever be overemphasised. However, I want to tell him that it is not a book which is now being closed. The SATS will continue to make this contribution to stimulate the development of this country even further. This time, however, they simply want to do so by means of free competition. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Wellington in particular referred to how the books and the accounts of this company should not only be subjected to internal auditing, but also to external auditing. I give that hon member the assurance that I have no problems in that regard. We will also at all times be entitled to call upon the services of even the Auditor-General in this connection.

I agree fully with the hon member when he pleaded for expertise in the control body and in the boards when it comes to financial matters and management. I think he also referred to technology. If he did not refer to that, I want to tell him that it is also a very important thing. Just as important is sound common sense, because without it education is of no use to one.

The hon member for Losberg said he was opposed to this Bill because it removed control from Parliament. I want to tell him that the shares in this company will be held by the South African Government, and the Government is responsible to this Parliament. In other words, nothing is in reality being taken away. The hon member will always have an opportunity to raise all matters in the Transport Vote which he wishes to discuss in regard to the transport company.

The hon member quoted here from a book dealing with government departments. Has it never dawned on the hon member that the SATS, first of all, is not a government department. Apparently he does not know that. The SATS has its own legislation. It is a business and it has developed in such a way that, as I said in my speech, one can no longer deal with the matter by means of partial protection. It is now time that it competed on the open market to the benefit of South Africa.

The hon member referred to the powers of the Minister in clause 17. He wanted to know whether I would make a court case against myself. That sounded very clever to the hon member, but apparently he never realised what it means if the State is the only shareholder. It means that it appoints the directors. Now why would he make court cases against them?

I come now to the question of the prohibition on strikes. It is now being said that we are falling between two stools as far as the present legislation and the Labour Relations Act are concerned. All the legislation in reality states is that after a period of two years there will be a transfer to the Labour Relations Act, and that the Minister will retain his right, which he has now in any case.

What right does a person now have in terms of clause 17?

A person can go to court if he wishes. There is a legal remedy which a person has in any case.

Is it stated there?

It need not be stated there. Surely one has a legal remedy in regard to any matter. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville commented quite favourably here on the question of the transfer to the Labour Relations Act. He also referred to the question of the four-fifths vote, which I have already explained to the hon member for Losberg.

Mr Chairman, I should just like the hon the Minister to explain his reasoning to us when he says that it will be easier to change over to an industrial council if four-fifths of the trade unions vote for that.

Yes, it is easier. It means that if there are only one or two trade unions opposed to it, one can still change over to an industrial council and achieve one’s object. It is actually in favour of the argument put forward by the hon member for Carletonville.

As far as Transmed is concerned, the status quo is being maintained. The hon member referred to this and asked for there to be a prohibition on the sale of shares within a certain time. These are all matters which can be negotiated. It is only the principal of the ownership of shares, also by the employees, that is being addressed in this Bill.

I thank the hon member for Worcester for the contribution he made here. He said that the Railways must be relieved of the losses in respect of commuters, because it causes cross-subsidisation and cross-subsidisation distorts the entire transport economy because the wrong people, the people who should not pay, are doing the paying. I thank the hon member for mentioning that point. The hon member also pleaded for more people to commute, and he even said that he was in future going to commute. We shall welcome him as a first-class commuter. There are even many who are now commuting third class and it is very peaceful there. The hon member could even make use of that.

The hon member for Opkoms emphasised the fact that for the first time in history the ordinary worker may also be a shareholder. He congratulated the Transport Services on this brave step, but he also mentioned the important fact that there could be teething problems. There are going to be teething problems and that is why it was a wise step to make provision in this case for a transitional process. In all these steps there is a transitional process in order to try to eliminate all these teething problems. The standards will be maintained. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

†I wish to thank the hon member for Bishop Lavis for his contribution. He said we must look for ways and means to uplift our people and he saw this legislation as a part thereof.

*The hon member advocated that commuter services should be subsidised. I have already referred to that.

†The hon member for Merebank sounded a note of caution about privatisation and deregulation. He said that the socio-economic services must not be destabilised and I find nothing wrong with that argument. In fact, that is the intention of this Bill before the House.

The hon member also referred to the privilege of employees to become shareholders. Once again, it is only the principle that is addressed in this Bill. Particulars thereof will of course be negotiated with the workers themselves. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Umzinto referred to participation of the private sector in the management council of the commuter corporation and the board of directors. Again, I want to stress that it will be people with knowhow. I also thank him for his support of this Bill.

I must say I find it quite surprising that the hon member for Yeoville came out against the Bill. As I have said, this is a basis, a restructuring to make possible privatisation easier—to take Transport Services into an atmosphere of business. Of course there will be accountability to Parliament. The Government is the shareholder. [Interjections]

It is a fact that the hon member’s party has always taken the opportunity to take a stand against the right things.

The right wing, yes!

They always took a stand against the right things that this Government did. That is why that party is the size it is today. It is the size it deserves to be because of its stance against everything.

That is why you are repealing all the laws which you introduced and which we opposed!

The hon member argued here that this step will increase tariffs. The whole intention is to aim everything at increasing efficiency. It is already clear that there is more efficiency. Competition will be a very important slogan of this company and therefore I foresee none of the fears which the hon member expressed here.

The hon member for Bryanston said that he is for free competition and privatisation. He said that the SATS must pay taxes. He also stated here that it must come under the provisions of the Companies Act. The logical thing to do then would be to make it a company. How will one tax the SATS without it being a company? There is no easier way to bring the SATS within the ambit of the Companies Act than to make it a company. That is why I told the hon member that he is reasoning against himself.

The hon member referred to the SAA and asked me what my intentions are with it. He also asked for a timescale. I have already often expressed myself in public and said that with the SAA there must be a minimum period of three years. British Airways took six years to privatise. I said there must at least be a minimum period of three years.

The hon member for Constantia said that this is not privatisation. I agree with him; I said that this is not privatisation. This organisation now moves from the sheltered environment of the State to the rigid norms of competition in the private sector. To make this transition successful it is of great importance that the interest of the personnel be handled with great circumspection and empathy. After all, it will be the personnel who will determine the success of the new company.

I stated in my Budget Speech in Parliament last year and I would like to reiterate that the personnel will not be worse off but will, in fact, be winners. This assurance of mine has been included in the Bill. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that the company and the SATS are the same employer—personnel therefore retain their basic consolidated conditions of service.

*This also applies to all rights and privileges. All changes to it must of course occur by means of negotiation between the company management and the trade unions. I am very proud to be able to say that this company has, by means of effectiveness, already succeeded in reducing its personnel by almost 100 000 employees over a period of 61/2 years, without dismissing a single person. That is why the SATS has, within the transportation sector, become the power it is today.

The name of productivity, success, prosperity and profit is good management. The name of low productivity, failure, adversity and losses is poor management. That is why it was decided that a thousand officials in middle and top management should all sign a contract to the effect that anyone of them may give two months notice of termination of service. All of them have signed these contracts, because they accept this challenge.

I should like to thank hon members who participated in the debate and who pledged their support to this legislation.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, while I was walking to the podium, I could not help thinking about the very famous saying to which Africano Scipio, I think it was, gave utterance, viz ex Africa semper aliquid novi. We may rest assured that Parliament is constantly involved with innovation, and that goes for this podium as well.

†On 1 March 19881 introduced the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill into Parliament. On that date the three Houses of Parliament approved of a motion that a select committee be appointed to form part of a joint committee to, inter alia, consider the Bill. On that day I also indicated that the status of the Bill is that of a document that may serve as a point of departure, and does not purport to bind either the Government or those participating in the committee. Therefore, the committee was at liberty and in fact had complete freedom to use that Bill as a basis for discussion.

At this stage I would like to emphasize again that the introduction of the Bill to which I have referred was never intended to cut off the inflow of funds from foreign governments, organisations or businesses. The Bill was primarily aimed at monitoring foreign funding. In a Press statement at a later stage I made it quite clear that foreign donors who wish to contribute to programmes for economic growth, job creation, education, health and other humanitarian activities are welcome to continue doing so. When I introduced the Bill I also indicated that, and I quote, “the main players in the game”—that being a reference to the committee members—“should in the interest of the game try to find consensus on what the rules of the game should be”.

*I want to congratulate the hon members of the committee which submitted the Disclosure of Foreign Funding Bill to Parliament, on the successful manner in which they dealt with this portion of their task. I am personally aware of the many hours that were devoted to committee meetings and negotiations, for which I want to personally thank the hon chairman of that committee, the hon member for Vasco, and every other hon member.

To a large extent this Bill serves the purpose we sought to achieve. It is a monument to the tricameral Parliament and the principle of consensus. Everyone who took part in the proceedings of the committee made a valuable contribution and really went to a great deal of trouble, in the same spirit in which I referred to the original Bill at the time, to achieve consensus and to determine what the rules of the game in regard to this very thorny subject, namely foreign funding, ought to be.

†As far as the inflow of money into South Africa from abroad is concerned, the committee recommended as a rule in principle that there should be full disclosure of such money. No one can find fault with this principle. In fact, several large democracies have similar provisions. The Bill, therefore, regulates the disclosure of the receipt of money from outside the Republic by or for certain organizations and persons. The provisions of the Bill are restricted to any organization or person declared by the registrar to be a reporting organization or person. The only consequence of being declared as such is that notice must be given to the registrar of the receipt of foreign funds and the registrar must be furnished with certain specified particulars, namely the amount of the money, the name and address of the supplier of the money and the purpose for which and the conditions subject to which the money was provided. The money must be deposited in a separate savings or cheque account at a financial institution, a record of all transactions must be kept in one of the official languages, and the prescribed reports, returns and financial statements must be furnished to the registrar at the prescribed times.

*The aim of this Bill is therefore by no means to control the influx of money from abroad. The Committee also deemed it appropriate at this stage, as an additional protection mechanism, to build in a provision that the registrar should draw up a report once a year relating to every reporting organisation or person, that the report should be submitted to the Minister of Justice, and that it should be tabled in Parliament for consideration by a joint committee of Parliament. To my mind this is a really healthy development and it deserves the support of each and every one of us. The Bill places no restrictions on the powers of the committee. It may possibly be necessary to take certain steps to adapt the Standing Rules and Orders of Parliament in order to consolidate the wide powers which have by implication been granted to the committee and which will enable the committee to act in its own way as watch-dog over the influx of money from abroad. That is democracy at its best.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for us to support this Bill. As the hon the Minister has said, to a large extent this Bill probably represents one of those attempts by a committee to completely rewrite a law and to create a new one.

I understand that there is a great deal of criticism and that quite a number of misunderstandings exist with regard to this legislation. I know that Assocom and the law societies are critical of this legislation. I think this is due to a few aspects which are perhaps being understood incorrectly.

What is envisaged here, if I understand it correctly, is that there should be control over the money coming into the country, control in the sense that that money should not be used for a purpose other than that for which it was intended. Therefore, if the money comes into the country for a legal purpose, there are no problems. If a person is then asked to report on the money coming into the country, there ought to be no problems if it has been brought in for a legal purpose and it is being spent in accordance with that purpose.

It can happen, however, that money comes into the country as a bribe, for example. We had a case of money in the form of a bribe leaving the country for the purchase of casino rights in the Transkei. If a suspicion exists that money is being used in that manner and it falls into the hands of certain person, that person may be also be declared a reporting person and he will have to report on what he did with that money which came into his possession. In addition to what is apparently being stated here directly, it may also be used to combat corruption. That is precisely how corruption takes place, namely by money falling into a person’s hands and one not being able to determine exactly what he has used it for.

The procedure is that if a suspicion exists that money is coming into the country and one is not sure whether is being spent legally or illegally, such a person or body who receives the money may be declared a reporting body or organisation which will, in other words, have to report on how the money is being spent. Such an organisation must adhere to strict accounting procedures and may not make use of money that has come into the country for hospitals to purchase a luxury car. This can only be determined if one knows for what purpose the money is intended and if one has control over the accounting and the system that is followed in such an organisation.

It is true that offences are being created in this Bill. The most important of these deals with a person’s spending money in a manner not in accordance with the purpose for which it was intended. It is nothing other than theft if I am given money to spend on purpose A and I spend it on purpose B. These are the sort of offences that we can counteract through this form of reporting which has been embodied in this Bill.

In the first instance I want to point out that the Bill initially dealt with the promotion of orderly internal politics, and that lent a political colour to the measure. This Bill, as it is now to appear on the Statute Book, has been depoliticised. In its present form it has nothing to do with politics. I am not saying that it could not be used for political purposes. However, it cuts through politics. In fact, it envisages control over money entering the country and over the manner in which it is spent.

This is not such a strange principle. America has such a law in terms of which an account must be given of money entering that country in this way. That is the Foreign Agent Registration Act. England is contemplating a similar Act, which is aimed at preventing money from going to the IRA, and that organisation has a purely political objective.

There is another aspect to which a large number of objections have been raised, namely that if this money were to fall into the hands of the Registrar at a later stage, he would be able to return it to the person from whom it had come, if it was not being spent in accordance with its intended purpose, or he could use it in accordance with the purpose for which it was intended. Something in the provision that is being overlooked, is that it will only be possible to take such steps after a person has been found guilty of an offence in terms of this legislation. The Registrar may not make use of his prescribed powers before such a thing has happened. Clause 9 (1) provides expressly:

do certain things. Clause 9 (2) provides:

Subsection (3) reads:

In such a case a report is submitted to the Minister. A further provision reads:

(4) The Minister may, after consideration of the report contemplated in the subsection (3), direct the reporting organisation or person concerned by notice in writing—

1. (a) to return the money to which the report relates, or any part thereof, to the foreign source from which the money came;

That is one possibility. The following possibility, after a conviction, is contained in paragraph (b) which reads as follows:

1. (b) to transfer the money to which the report relates, or any part thereof, to the Registrar, who shall dispose thereof in such manner as may be determined by the Minister, having regard to the purpose for which the money was originally provided.

I therefore want to submit with all due respect that this Bill must be viewed in the first instance as legislation that has been depoliticised and which is intended to counteract corruption. I do not think any hon member in this House would be in favour of money which comes into the country for purpose A, being used for purpose B.

I know that there is a certain amount of criticism being levelled against this Bill in the sense that it is being said that it is aimed at certain church organisations. This is not the case in the Bill, but I want to say that it could be made applicable to church organisations. If the church organisation uses that money for the purpose for which it came into the country and in accordance with its instructions, and if it keeps proper account of it and does not misapply it but uses it for a lawful purpose, that church organisation has nothing to fear.

For that reason we in the CP support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, immediately when one finds the CP in bed with the NP there are problems. There must be a purpose as to why there is agreement. I say this with great respect. I do not mean anything untoward.

There is no doubt that this is history. It is the first time that a committee has taken a piece of legislation and rewritten it but what worries me about this morning’s exercise is that if I look at the Order Papers of yesterday for both the House of Delegates and the House of Assembly I find that there are amendments to this piece of legislation which to me means that this whole exercise of debating the issue here today will have to be repeated once the committee has met and looked at the necessary amendments.

I do not really want to go into details. However, the whole question of whether England and America and most European countries and most Western democracies have similar legislation is not important to me. What is important is that while those are democracies we have a reputation of not having been a democracy. One has to view this totally differently from the kinds of needs of the Western democracies and the democracy that we are still trying to create in South Africa. Until we are a democracy recognised by the Western democracies as a true democracy can anybody equate the one with the other?

It is important for funds that come into the country to be used correctly. Because of our history there will always be this whole question mark over whether or not the interpretation of usage is going to be correct interpreted. I do not want it to be seen as an absolute witch-hunt again. The committee reached consensus on the issue that if money comes into the country for a hospital, a hospital or at least health services must be provided. We have got no problems with that.

Order! Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not the whole tenor of the Bill under discussion?

Yes, Sir. What I am trying to say is that one must look at one’s history and the democracy that is prevalent.

In South Africa the great majority of people are still not in Parliament. The great majority of people are not part of the legal machinery. The great majority of people in this country do not make the laws in this country. Therefore they will and are being encouraged from outside to foster South Africa into a true democracy. This is the kind of funds that are coming in. Therefore I say to hon members without any fear that it is the interpretation of those that are going to apply the law that concerns me.

However, I do not want to go into a lengthy debate on this issue at this stage because I believe that we will have to replay this whole exercise at a later stage when the Bill is referred back to Parliament for its consensus. Therefore my interpretation is that the Bill will have to be referred back to the committee because of the amendments.

Therefore I will present the arguments of this side of the House at that stage because I feel I will waste my time by doing it now.

Order! I just want to point out that in view of the fact that amendments have been moved, the Bill will have to be referred back to the committee.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to reaffirm what the committee had in mind, which is precisely what the hon the Minister has already placed on record, namely that the proposed Bill before us must not in any way be interpreted as a Bill aimed at cutting off any or all funds from foreign governments, organisations, businesses and or any money for the upliftment of any person or body in South Africa.

*The committee was faced with a formidable task, and from the beginning we realised that this was very contentious legislation. The first thing we tried to do, therefore, was to allow ourselves to be led by the evidence in respect of the nature, scope and opinions concerning the problem.

We tried to approach organisations to give evidence, and on 13 June 1988 we asked the following organisations to appear before us. Among others there were the NECC, Learn and Teach, the ECC, Foundation, Idasa, etc. As a matter of interest one can mention that the first few organisations refused to give evidence, although of course we received a great deal of written evidence.

It is also interesting that my committee worked under very great pressure from the outset. Reference was made to this in The Argus under the heading: “Britain to pressure South Africa over Funds Bill”. This situation crystallised further in many things experienced by all the members of the committee. For instance, in America last year I was invited to have breakfast with some people who are very well known to us in South Africa. Let me tell the hon the Minister immediately that I realised once again that there is no such thing as a free meal; I had to work for it. The contentiousness of this legislation emerged very clearly on that occasion. Consequently it is an exceptional privilege for me to express my thanks and appreciation today to all the members who served on the committee—including the hon member for Toekomsrus, who in my opinion made good inputs—for the hard work they did, the long hours they put in and the good inputs they made. We also supplied interim reports as a result of our work situation.

It is an exceptional privilege to be able to testify here this morning that all members acted positively and in the interests of South Africa at all times. There were differences and disputes and a considerable variety of opinions, but I want to make it very clear that all members acted in the interests of South Africa at all times, because although we realised how contentious this legislation was, we also realised that we had a problem to address, and I am sure the hon member for Toekomsrus and other hon members will agree with that.

When one thinks that this legislation threatens individuals’ private rights and their privacy, as well as private organisations and churches, one realises the extent of the problem and the great unhappiness it can cause. As a result members had to concentrate on accommodating not only domestic interests and representations, but also foreign interests and representations, because the funds that come from foreign countries are very important. We cannot get along without those funds, and we do not want to. We think this is for the good of the country, and that is why we must deal with the problem accordingly.

Eventually the committee agreed to accept the following principles.

†Before 1 come to the basis for the legislation, may I just say that for any member who wishes to make a further detailed study of the basic principles embodied in this legislation, they can look at the FARA Act of the United States, which reads in full as the Foreign Agents Registration Act of the USA.

On a visit to Europe last year I made use of the opportunity to visit Israel and to have a few discussions with people there, who incidentally are still living under the old English law of 1925. As one of the previous speakers said, it has now come to the fore in England that they are thinking about legislation directly similar to what we are dealing with now in connection with the present problems which they are encountering.

We finally came to an agreement on the following four basic principles:

1. (a) Full disclosure of all money from foreign sources, which will include where it came from, from whom it came, how much, the purpose and accounting.

Let me make one thing very clear at this stage, as a question may arise, and that is that if we talk of purpose, the purpose may of course change. Take for instance a donation made for 1988, which cannot be carried through. Consequently a new purpose may be agreed upon by donor and donee. I do not think that anyone should experience problems with that type of change in purpose and I do not think it should cause any problems. The other basic principles are the following:

1. (b) Use of monies disclosed in audit by a registered accountant; and
2. (c) Misuse will only be a criminal offence in terms of: (i) donation; (ii) the law of the country and (iii) non-disclosure.

Those were the three basic elements. In order to make them effective we agreed on a fourth principle, namely to have an effective mechanism to monitor and—even more important—to prevent. When I talk about that it becomes more important because there are basically two elements which we should view separately. We must firstly look at the legislation and look at the necessity for the legislation. On that point I think the committee was ad idem. However—I have discussed this with various other persons, both locally and internationally—I think that the legislation is less important than the implementation of the proposed Act.

The committee tried to take this whole affair out of the political arena and leave it clear of the political scene administratively. I therefore think that the appointment of the registrar by the hon the Minister is going to be very important. If we can have somebody here, possibly an ex-judge or senior magistrate, who will be totally isolated from the political scene, that the implementation of the legislation itself could be of very great importance, because I do not think that either we or the outside world could ever totally agree on either the principles or the details of the Bill. We must therefore face the fact that once the legislation has been approved, we will be tested by the way in which we handle its execution.

I think that we have dealt with a very difficult matter and I would once again like to thank all the hon members of my committee for the hard work which they have done and I also wish to thank the hon the Minister and his staff, especially the people seconded to us, for the assistance they gave us. I would like to say thank you to all of them.

Mr Chairman, this Bill emanates from another one introduced first, namely the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill. The committee reached consensus, and I too believe that we need legislation to control funds coming from overseas, from whatever country, and the purpose for which they are intended. Hon members must appreciate, however, that once this Bill was made public, we saw the adverse publicity it received in various press reports. Despite the fact that the committee reached consensus on this Bill after putting in many long hours of tremendously hard work, one has to take into account that South Africa is also dependent on funds coming from overseas. The purpose of the funds to be used is the important criterion.

We have also noticed that there are a number of proposed amendments to this Bill, and I am equally grateful to the chairman who has made the announcement that the Bill will have to be referred back to the committee for further consideration. I must draw the attention of hon members to the fact that South Africa is obviously facing tremendous adverse publicity and an onslaught in so far as many of its policies and laws are concerned. One must appreciate that while this country cannot do without the necessary funds, as I said earlier, the Government does not have sufficient funds to provide for what the other sector can.

In dealing with the requirement that the funds that come into the country are used for the intended purpose the committee took into consideration the fact that the purpose of those funds can be altered between the donor and the receiver, providing it is of necessity declared. I believe that once this Bill is referred back to the committee we shall be able to find a much more workable basis for it, and I believe that the desirability of such a Bill is of absolute necessity.

Mr Chairman, although we are discussing a Bill called the Disclosure of Foreign Funding Bill today I hope you will forgive me if I dwell for a few moments on what I consider to be the important history of this Bill.

Early last year the hon the Minister of Justice without warning and with only the slimmest of justification introduced a Bill entitled the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill. Almost immediately this Bill was referred by the hon the Minister to a newly appointed joint committee of all three Houses for investigation and report. The Bill immediately met with the most vehement opposition both inside and outside South Africa, and quite rightly, I believe. The Bill provided that the Minister of Justice might declare any organisation which he in his opinion deemed to be guilty of political activity of any sort in the Republic to be a restricted organisation.

In subsection 3(a) of the then proposed Bill the scope of the political activity was not defined at all and was as wide as the ocean is deep. I should like to quote just one clause from that Bill which would enable the Minister to declare an organisation a restricted organisation. It said the following:

1. (a) engages or participates in the furthering, propagating, pursuing or posing of any political aim or object …

The Minister had total powers in terms of this Bill. Such a decision by the hon the Minister related to his subjective opinion and was couched in such a manner as to exclude the intervention of the courts on behalf of an aggrieved party or organisation.

One of the effects of such declaration was to be that all moneys received from aboard by such an organisation would be handed over to a registrar to be appointed who would be burdened with the duty of administering such moneys, of returning it to the donor or of confiscating it on behalf of the State. Furthermore the Fund-raising Act and the Affected Organisations Act in terms of this Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill were to be tightened up so as to give greater control to the State of moneys mentioned in those Acts. It was an horrendous Bill.

Order! I have allowed the hon member for Sandton considerable opportunity to refer to the previous Bill as part of the history of the present Bill. I cannot, however, allow him to dwell at length on the merits or demerits of a Bill that is not before the committee at the moment. The hon member may continue.

I intend to refer to it a bit longer but I will try not to do so for too long.

It was a Bill bypassing the courts, allowing virtually no rights of redress and patently having the effect of cutting off all foreign funds from organisations which might be opposed to the Government and whose activities might in some remote way be construed as political. It was obviously a Bill which my party the PFP had to oppose. We had to go into that committee with an attitude of opposition towards that Bill with all the power we could muster. The feeling against this Bill was so strong that a question mark was even raised against the PFP serving on that joint committee at all. Several newspapers including The Argus from Cape Town cautioned the PFP not to become involved in a committee which had overtones of, as The Argus put it, “the old Schlebusch Commission of the seventies”. Nonetheless we saw it as our duty to serve on the committee which had been set up by the hon the Minister and accordingly both I and the hon member for Reservoir Hills took our seats.

Within hours of the announcement of the membership of the committee I was inundated by telephone calls from people who wished to lobby their views on the issue of this Bill which was before the committee. To mention but a few people who made contact, in general terms nearly every foreign embassy located in Cape Town, several trustees of trusts funding Black education, various church organisations, legal assistance organisations, some very large and well-known in South Africa, organisations working for Black urban upliftment and political think-tank-type organisations made contact. Their views when they came to see me—I think some of these people saw other members of the committee as well—were all the same. They were all totally opposed to the Bill and they saw that its passage would gravely damage South Africa. They believed that its provisions constituted a violation of human rights and that it allowed the Government by executive actions to close down its opponents. This was the tenor of the representations which were made by these people. They feared victimisation of their specific organisations. Most of these organisations said to me that they had nothing to hide, that the public were welcome to scrutinise their books and that none of their moneys were used for any illegal or subversive purposes.

When all was said and done it was the Western embassies which made in my view the greatest impression and whose arguments were the most compelling. One senior European diplomat told me firstly that approximately R30 million in donations came into South Africa annually via his country through both government and private organisations—R30 million from one country alone. While his government opposed sanctions, had a public stance against sanctions and opposed disinvestment and boycott campaigns against South Africa, these donations to organisations which were working against apartheid—as he put it to me—enabled that government to feel that they were doing their bit to support the cause of democracy in South Africa. He—as did other diplomats representing other nations here in South Africa—also disclosed to me that his government was not entirely happy about the accountability procedures for moneys which had been donated. Neither he nor his government had an account of or even knew how most of the donated moneys were used from year to year. He went further and said that on some occasions when an accounting was requested it was made plain to their government that if strings were attached to cash sent that the cash would be refused from the South African side.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, when the luncheon period intervened I was talking about the accountability in respect of funds which were donated through foreign countries into South Africa and how one particular foreign diplomat, in representations made to me as a member of this committee, told me that when accounting was requested it was made plain that if strings were attached to cash which had been sent, that cash would be refused from the South African side. This would embarrass the European government and would put them under further pressure to support sanctions. At the moment this European government can withstand the call to implement sanctions because it can say it is playing a positive role by supporting organisations which are ranged against apartheid. If the Bill of which I spoke—the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill—had been enacted, that country would have been sucked into the sanctions stance. They were also trying to prevent an escalation of boycotts of South African goods such as coal and fruit. These efforts, I was told, would be nullified if this Bill was passed.

It was with this knowledge that the hon member for Reservoir Hills and I went into that joint committee. We went through the memoranda which arrived from every corner of the country and most particularly we studied the memoranda and the documentation drafted by the Department of Justice. Imagine my pleasure, therefore, when I discovered during the deliberations which spanned several meetings and many hours, that a meeting of minds within the committee was a strong possibility. It was during these deliberations of the committee that the question of the principle of disclosure came up. I bounced this principle off various embassies as well as off all those people and organisations who had consulted me in the first instance. Those were the people who had originally made representations on the principle of disclosure.

The verdict was unanimous; the principle of disclosure of foreign funding is both defensible in my view and unexceptionable. By this time the joint committee, without having taken a vote on the issue, had virtually discarded in its collective mind all the provisions of the original Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill. Accordingly further study of the Bill then before us was discontinued. The department was requested to draft a Bill incorporating several principles, the first of which was the principle that organisations can be called upon to disclose foreign funding received. The second one was that the administration of such funds be audited with a view to ensuring that the same were used for the purposes for which they were donated. Thus the Disclosure of Foreign Funding Bill, as we see it today, was placed on our desks. This Bill before us today represents an enormous departure from the original Bill with which we were then confronted. I believe it represents a victory for reason and is in no small way a tribute to the wise leadership of the committee by the hon member for Vasco. [Interjections.] I would like to thank him publicly, as well as all the hon members of the committee, for the understanding and realism which they brought to the deliberations of that committee.

Let me be clear; this Bill before us is not perfect. It has flaws, which is one of the reasons, I may say, why the joint committee, having delivered its report and this legislation, has not disbanded. It intends to meet again in some months’ time in order to monitor and to discuss the efficacy of the legislation which by then, I assume, will have been implemented. Before this Bill becomes law I would like it to suffer further and detailed scrutiny of its specific provisions by the committee. To this end I have tabled some nine amendments for consideration. These amendments were drafted after considering further and most recently received representations from such organisations as Assocom, the Association of Law Societies and from one of the foreign embassies based here in South Africa. If these amendments are accepted—I do hope that they will be—I believe that most of the objections enunciated in the representations which we have most recently received, will have been met. Naturally whatever one does, one cannot satisfy everybody.

There may still be objections which persist but I, and I am sure that I speak for the whole joint committee, will certainly take all the representations very seriously. When it comes back to our committee, which it will, we will do everything possible to improve the Bill and to delete any possibly objectionable provisions. The proposed amendments which are on the Order Paper already go a long way towards doing this. Having said that, I am quite firm on one point, and that is that I do not regard it as an invasion of privacy that organizations receiving large funds from abroad, to be used in sometimes controversial manners, be required to disclose publicly the funds which they so receive and how those funds are administered.

Disclosure and openness is a concept which offends against no liberal principle. On the contrary, I was repeatedly told by those making representations that legitimate anti-apartheid organisations had nothing to hide, and that they would willingly open themselves up to the public gaze. In my view that is proper.

Finally, this Bill must be seen in the light of the Bill which gave rise to this debate and that is the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill. That Bill is dead. Let us all be grateful for large mercies. Let us not minimize that achievement. And while we remain hopeful of changing the Bill so as to meet recently received criticisms, we will not impede its further passage at this stage.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton gave a historic review of the activities of the committee. He also mentioned the original legislation dealt with by the committee, but I do not think it would serve any purpose to debate that aspect with the hon member. I want to say immediately that on behalf of this side of the House I should like to tell the hon member for Sandton that there was great appreciation for his inputs and contributions in this committee. I think that if the hon member adopted that attitude in all respects, we could go a long way together.

I should also like it placed on record that the committee was prepared for criticism, especially from abroad. I want to make it clear that I want to give credit to the chairman and other members on our side of the House, because they liaised with foreign organisations timeously and had worked on amendments before there was any question of pressure from any organisation, whether local or foreign. I also want to echo the standpoint of the hon member for Sandton in respect of the chairman, and I should be neglecting my duty as the first speaker on this side if I did not express our thanks and appreciation on behalf of this side of the House to my good friend the hon member for Vasco, for the exceptional way in which he handled the proceedings of this committee. We thank him very much for that.

We must remember that when this measure was released in its original form, eyebrows were immediately raised, especially abroad, but also in many other organisations. In the first place, after serious consultation and in-depth discussions in the committee and among members of the committee, consensus was reached in respect of the necessity of this measure in the first place, and later on the basic points of departure and guidelines we had laid down for ourselves. Secondly there was movement within the guidelines of other Western countries’ acceptable standpoints, and I should like to repeat that in this respect the chairman played a special part in determining for us the parameters that would be acceptable to countries abroad. In other words, we attained the basic objective and agreed on these points, that in the first place there would be full disclosure of funds that enter the country from outside, and that the disclosure with regard to the use of the funds should be very clear. In addition it became an established principle that it would be a criminal offence if the funds were used wrongly or for a purpose other than that for which the money was allowed into the country.

We reached consensus, however. I am referring in this connection to the hon member for Toekomsrus, whom I do not see in the House at the moment. The hon member asked whether we were not setting a witch-hunt in motion. In my opinion the measure in fact provides for the registrar’s action to be monitored in that an annual report has to be drawn up of how he has dealt with the situation, which is then submitted to this Parliament to be inspected and monitored. Consequently I do not think the hon member need be all that concerned about that aspect. In other words, the fourth point on which we reached consensus was that Parliament would monitor the mechanisms we have created.

Not only did we reach consensus in our own ranks; in its final form this measure also modified and to a great extent defused the initial negative reaction of foreign countries. Given our diversity, our variety of political points of view and our different political convictions in South Africa, and in particular the critical eyes, and—permit me to say this—often the double standards by which South Africa is evaluated by foreign countries in whatever it does, this measure is a monument to politics of consensus in our country, and to fairness and justice in the eyes of countries abroad.

The hon member Mr Razak expressed concern about the question of “adverse publicity”. Let us be frank this afternoon. No country in the world that has any degree of self-respect can permit funds from outside its boundaries to muster forces internally to be let loose against the government of the day as the pawns of foreign organisations.

We have sympathy for the international community’s concern that this may be another draconian measure, and as I have just said, we are sensitive about the double standards by which South Africa is evaluated. That is why it is rather interesting to read the following article that appeared in a British newspaper last year. I shall quote a paragraph or two to hon members:

He said the following:

He then made a further very important point. He said inter alia—

He then added the following—

It is interesting that a measure of this kind came from a Western country such as Britain.

It was mentioned this morning that similar measures already exist in the USA, but what is even more important is that foreign organisations, which make funds available in South Africa for the socio-economic upliftment of our many Third World people out of sympathy and with great expectations, are also indirectly protected by this measure.

We welcome such contributions. We can tell countries abroad that unlike the rest of Africa, South Africa is not a so-called bottomless pit. If infrastructures are created in education and health services, for example, it will be ensured that they are maintained in South Africa, because we believe that this becomes an asset to the country. What I am saying is that we welcome assistance from abroad, and do not want to discourage it in any way.

This measure also provides, however, for protection against abuse for political purposes of the mechanism to monitor funds that reach the country for use in education, training or health services and other socio-economic objectives. In other words, the measure addresses two aspects, viz that South Africa knows for which purpose the funds are entering the country, and the donor knows that the funds will be used for the purpose for which he granted it.

I have sympathy with the Association of Law Societies and with Assocom, but I want to tell our friends out there that most of their arguments are not convincing. To say, for example, “there is an undue invasion of privacy” or “the consequences may be so unfortunate that people may be afraid to handle funds of foreign origin” or “the De Lange Commission has recorded that Government funds are totally inadequate to fund the education needs”—which we all know—or to talk about “bureaucracy” and to say “it is all very well for the United States of America, but South Africa cannot afford it” is unacceptable in my opinion. Nothing prevents organisations from bringing funds into the country from outside and spending this money in South Africa in a decent way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have no difficulty with the principle and the concept of the Bill. It is known that when funds are brought into this country for a certain use or purpose they must be used for that purpose. I have no difficulty with that.

We have organisations like the Rockefeller Foundation which draw up a contract with the recipients in which they set out the purpose for which the funds will be used before the funds come into the country so that it is known for what purpose the funds will be used.

In view of the fact that since the committee took a decision on this Bill there have been certain amendments and there have also been representations by the Association of Law Societies in their latest letter, dated 13 January 1989, and by Assocom in their memorandum, dated 13 February 1989, this Bill is now going back to the committee for reconsideration. One of the recommendations of Assocom is “that in the light of the aforegoing consideration Assocom must strenuously oppose the Bill in its present form and strongly recommend its recommittal to the joint committee for further in-depth consideration”. They further recommend that should the Bill be recommitted to the joint committee Assocom will, as in the past, be prepared to give oral evidence in support of its views.

When this Bill goes back to the committee we will have more in-depth discussion and more information will come to light. Therefore, I do not want to commit myself at this stage but shall wait until this Bill is returned to the committee.

Order! If hon members feel they have to talk, they must please do so quietly.

Mr Chairman, it is obvious that there is very wide support for this Bill, and well-motivated support to boot. Therefore it is not my intention to indicate how good this legislation is, nor do I think that I would be able to make much of a contribution if I did that. Instead, I want to confine myself to certain organisations which made representations in connection with this Bill and which are opposed to it. I am thinking in particular of the Association of Law Societies. Without encroaching on the duties of the committee which is going to consider this legislation, I want to say that when I read the Association of Law Societies’ objections, it seemed to me that they did not stay within the confines of their profession and comment from a purely professional angle, but made objections which even had political undertones. I think that the Association of Law Societies will have to consider this matter very carefully, because—I mean well when I say this—they may find themselves in a position in future in which their objections are not treated with the necessary respect. I am saying this because in my opinion they have been clutching at straws in order to criticise this Bill. For example, they felt that Clause 4 (5) which deals with the creation of assumptions in respect of certain amounts of money, could be misinterpreted. The clause reads as follows:

1. (a) has, on instruction from outside the Republic, been credited to the account of a reporting organization or person, of of any other organization or person for the benefit of a reporting organization or person; or
2. (b) has been paid to a reporting organization or person, or any other organization or person for the benefit of a reporting organization or person, from a bank account in the Republic or an organization the head office of which is outside the Republic,

To say that this clause is not clear and is difficult to interpret, is, in my opinion, clutching at straws. An attempt has been made to criticise the Bill by saying that it has been poorly formulated, but I cannot share this view.

As far as the other objections are concerned, there are mere references to generalities. It is said that “the administration of the Bill will add to the already massive bureaucracy”. This is a generalization. The other view expressed, namely that this Bill, which aims to allow certain funds which benefit the country to dry up, can have detrimental consequences, is a non sequitur.

I refer to this kind of criticism, and I say that to go further and say that sufficient control already exists, without giving any indication in which respect this is the case—as if this whole Bill has no viability—compels one to conclude that in this case the Association of Law Societies must be very careful to avoid being guilty of commenting on matters which do not concern it.

That is all I want to say in this connection. I request the committee which will consider this Bill to bear in mind that there may be more to the objections than meets the eye.

Mr Chairman, the Disclosure of Foreign Funding Bill creates a new blue-print for the control of amounts of money entering and leaving the country. Foreign funding will have to be declared and will be subject to the measures contained in the legislation. If money is brought into the country for any ecclesiastical or charitable purpose and is used for this purpose, there is no problem. The money will simply be paid into the separate bank account, as contemplated in clause 4 (2), for this purpose.

†In other words, the person or organisation receiving this money is in the position of a trustee, entrusted to carry out a trust or a mandate, and provided he abides by his mandate—if such mandate is not a promotion of subversion—he has nothing to fear.

*Mr Chairman, let us be honest. What is the purpose of this legislation? As my party sees it, the police want to have a hold over people who bring money into this country or people in this country who receive money and use it for subversive purposes. That is how we see it. I am being quite honest. We are not, however, opposed to it if this is the case. If people in this country are going to receive and use money for illegal and subversive purposes, then we say we are not opposed to the legislation. If similar measures exist in Britain, Israel and the United States of America, then our party cannot see why the Republic should not enact this type of legislation.

†It is a fact that there are persons on trial from time to time in this country. Everybody knows they are before the courts for so-called subversive activities.

So-called! So-called!

Yes, until the allegation is proved. We know also that they are defended by what the newspapers call “activist lawyers”.

What do you call them?

I will talk to you later.

*The question is, who pays for these legal advisers? It seems unlikely that the accused, who are in many cases ordinary, unemployed, uneducated people who cannot afford the high cost of their defence, are the people involved. It has been suggested that the SA Council of Churches pays the legal costs, and it is suspected that the money is channeled through the SACC from abroad. [Interjections.] I have no proof that this is indeed the case. My party has no objection to the accused receiving legal aid—even the very best legal aid—and the churches must be anxious to ensure that these unfortunate people are assisted. However, large amounts of money are spent on this. The churches cannot afford it. The accused very seldom make use of legal aid or pro Deo lawyers appointed by the State. Therefore there is only one conclusion that can be reached by every thinking person, which is that the money comes from outside the country.

One case which is very obvious and which has been mentioned frequently of late, is that of Mrs Mandela. She has a lawyer in Johannesburg and a lawyer in Cape Town. She does not work. It is a fact that she does not work. Her lawyer sometimes flies with her from Johannesburg to Cape Town. One could ask who pays for that. This is the issue. [Interjections.]

On behalf of the Democratic Reform Party I want to say that if the funds come from the ANC or from the Communist Party, then we agree whole-heartedly with this legislation. The people who receive the money should indicate where it comes from and should report on how the money is going to be used. My party feels that the police will have the right to act in such cases. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Daljosaphat supported this measure in an excellent speech and I should like to thank him for that.

Various speakers have mentioned the hon member for Vasco’s competent leadership as chairman of this committee. I cannot do otherwise but join hon members in thanking the hon member for Vasco. It is a simple fact that this committee got off to a stormy start, but under his competent leadership hon members quickly calmed down and started functioning productively. He led this committee to consensus with great wisdom and we thank him for that.

†Mr Chairman, one does not often get the opportunity to praise the hon member for Sandton, so I want to suggest that when one gets the opportunity, one has to make use of it. I sincerely want to thank the hon member for Sandton for his valuable contribution on this committee. Had it not been for that, we would no doubt not have been able to deal so effectively with the matters at hand. Having said that and having taken note of the many amendments the hon member for Sandton has suggested, I hope that he will not overplay his hand.

*No self-respecting state can allow itself to be governed or disrupted from outside, or allow funds to be brought into the country illegally. In order to monitor this, the disclosure of such funds is very important. If this principle applies to Western states, it applies even more to South Africa with its many communities and cultures. Our problems are much more intense and complicated and feelings can be stirred up far more easily in this country. If this principle applies to Western countries it applies to an even greater extent to our country.

The problem, however, lies in effectively implementing the legislation in practice. This Bill achieves this in an excellent way. The proposal is to the point. It does not place unreasonable restrictions on people. Nor should it result in an unreasonable increase in administrative red tape. People who bring money into the country legally and use it for the same purpose, have no reason to fear this legislation. This applies particularly when money is brought into the country for socio-economic upliftment—as the hon member for Turffontein argued very effectively. People who bring money into the country for ordinary commercial purposes will definitively not be affected.

Another important consideration is that the monitoring function will remain with Parliament. Each year a report has to be compiled and tabled in Parliament. Parliament can then refer such a report to a committee where it can be discussed in depth. For these reasons I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few introductory comments. I was also visiting America at about the same time as the hon member for Vasco. When our ambassador informed us that the American government was very upset about this original legislation, the weighty thought occurred to me that it was surprising—especially in this Bill—how the Americans, who have a similar Act on their Statute Book, could be so presumptuous as to interfere in the domestic affairs of a country in contravention of the Charter.

If my understanding of the Rules is correct, only the amendments on the Order Paper will be discussed when this Bill is recommitted to the standing committee, and not the merits of the Bill.

I repeat what my hon colleagues said, which is that the CP regards this Bill as a measure which is in the interests of the proper maintenance of justice and order and we support it.

In terms of the Internal Security Act, Act 74 of 1982, section 2—this is actually the original Act on the suppression of communism—a Director of Security Legislation is appointed. There is mention in this Bill of a Registrar, but it is stated that he will be drawn from the Public Service.

I should like to offer for the hon the Minister’s consideration whether it would not perhaps be desirable to appoint somebody as Registrar who is not necessarily drawn from the Public Service—not that we have any cause to suspect that the Director of Security Legislation or any of the directors who are responsible for security aspects do not do excellent work but, to remove any trace of suspicion as regards the action of such a person, it is perhaps desirable to consider that a retired judge, attorney-general or magistrate should fill this position. Other opponents of this Bill, for example Assocom, suggest that the legislation introduced here would do better to contain a prohibition on the financing of activities which are detrimental to the Republic.

I think there is enough legislation that does contain such a prohibition. I consider the problem to be precisely that it is extremely difficult to establish what actually happens to funds which are ostensibly intended for lawful and even highly regarded purposes. We see this measure as a method to establish whether the laws of the land are being adhered to properly and specifically whether the money is used for the purpose for which it is intended.

Assocom further states that there is no right of appeal against the Registrar’s ruling. This may possibly be a valid argument if one does not take into account that there is always a right of review—the common law right of review—to which a person or organisation may have recourse if he feels that the Registrar is exercising his powers unfairly or mala fide.

In terms of clause 4(4) exemption may be granted on good grounds. Clause 6 also contains the provision that, when a person is ordered to appear before the Registrar, he may be assisted by his legal adviser. The fact that the Registrar’s report is tabled—where it may be debated in Parliament—should provide sufficient safeguards for a person who alleges that he is being unjustly held liable or instructed to disclose the contents of his statements.

Assocom is also unhappy about the wide powers which the Minister has in making regulations. I was unable in the time at my disposal to compare similar legislation to establish whether more stringent provisions are laid down in a Bill or in an Act which authorises a Minister to make regulations but once again the regulations are tested after all against the object of the Act and they have to remain within the ambit of the objects of the Act. There is also the right of review and I do not consider this objection of Assocom’s to be valid.

As it is clear that the purpose is not to get at organisations which are engaged in lawful activities and that it is being done for the sake of good order, the CP takes pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan put various questions to the hon the Minister which I hope will be answered in due course. I want to comment on only one of them, which is the appointment of the Registrar. The moment that that person is appointed, he becomes a member of the Public Service and therefore an employee of the State. That is why I cannot see how it will make any difference.

At the end of this debate it is very clear that the members of the joint committee which participated in the debate are very proud of their work, and I think with justification, as it represented consensus government at its best, as the hon the Minister said. I also wish to associate myself with hon members who thanked the chairman of the joint committee, whose guidance was indispensable and most competent in this case, as well as officials seconded to the committee, who similarly supported us in a very capable fashion. The committee identified a need that foreign funding should be disclosed to the authorities in certain cases. The legislation itself places no limit on the acquisition of funds. We are all only too aware of the necessity for us to obtain all possible funds for development in this country.

The amount of evidence on the first piece of legislation which was submitted to us dwindled to about three after the second piece of legislation had been published. I therefore think that it may be said that there is a great degree of calmness and satisfaction as regards the legislation at present before the House. That is how it ought to be.

I next want to deal with only a few points, namely that the legislation will place no further burden of reporting on any institution. This is not an onerous burden; it is the type of bookkeeping which somebody who is involved in a trust has to do in any case if he wishes to do his work well, as the hon member for Daljosaphat said.

The next objection was that it would cause an unacceptable expansion of bureaucracy. Clause 7 provides for Parliamentary control and comment and a say by the committee itself regarding the Registrar’s report. I believe that this will be attended to thoroughly in practice if the legislation were to occasion the unacceptable expansion of bureaucracy.

I want to deal with one more point, which is that a stigma may be attached to an organisation which were declared a reporting organisation; on the contrary, according to donors’ private submissions it emerged clearly that donors would welcome it in many cases if they knew that the funds were being applied for the purpose for which they had been donated. The legislation could certainly cause offences but the only offences according to the legislation are failing to report and application of the money for a different purpose. It is therefore untrue that no sinister object can be read into the legislation—as some of the organisations allege. The object of the legislation is merely what is laid down in the legislation itself, that is the disclosure of funds which are received from overseas. This is a principle which is accepted far and wide—as many of the speakers have already said. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not fall for the nice-sounding sentiments of the NP speakers or the mild version of the Bill before us, as many hon members do.

Although the original Bill has been drastically watered down, I do not believe that the Government has changed its original intentions as encompassed in the first Bill, namely to cut off that foreign funding which enables many democratic organisations who are peacefully mobilising against the Government to keep their heads above water. The new Bill before us is to my mind nothing less than a very clever ploy to reintroduce the original draconian-sounding Bill in a new guise, and I will state why I say that.

I say that, firstly, because of the fact that this Bill, by forcing full disclosure of both the source and the purpose of this funding, will act as an intelligence-gathering exercise for the Government. Knowing this Government I have no doubt about the way in which this information will be misused in its own interests.

Secondly, and far more serious, this Bill gives the hon the Minister incredibly wide powers by enabling him, in terms of clause 10, to make virtually any regulations. I quote: “…in respect of which the Minister considers it necessary or expedient to make regulations so as to achieve the objects of this Act.” That is what this Bill says. We only have to look at the way in which the hon the Ministers of Law and Order and Home Affairs are using existing legislation to issue regulations which are slowly but surely strangling whatever freedoms are left in our country. Nothing will prevent the hon the Minister from using this Bill in order to issue regulations destroying whichever freedoms are left in this country. Those regulations will be in terms of legislation before us. I believe it is a clever way of reintroducing all the obnoxious paragraphs of the original bill by bringing them in one by one in terms of this Bill. Nothing will prevent the hon the Minister from doing that.

Before us we have something about which I believe we can say: “Softly, softly, catchee monkey”. I think that those in support of this Bill will be sorry about that because this hon Minister and this Government will use this mild-sounding Bill to bring back all the obnoxious paragraphs of the original one which caused such an outcry.

It is a pleasure to oppose this Bill because this is really an attempt to take us for a ride.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed an interesting opportunity to reply to the discussion of this Bill.

There are so many positive aspects which have been dealt with here that I sincerely regret that it is necessary for me to react to the odd negative point. It is a long time since such peace has prevailed amongst all the parties, even though some hon members made it their task to express themselves in different terms to those of other hon members. Here and there we had a touch of humour, and here and there a good point was made at the expense of another member. The hon member for Toekomsrus, for example, referred in passing to the fact that here the NP and the CP were apparently in agreement. Let me just tell the hon member for Toekomsrus that in the past I have, in fact, agreed with him about matters that we now cannot even discuss in public. I therefore do not know what significance there is in the fact that all the parties in this House happen to agree with one another.

The fact remains that if one sees the light and has the insight to agree on a matter, parliamentary procedure makes provision for saying so and for putting this into practice.

The hon member for Bethal did point out that this Bill established a depoliticised mechanism and that if one read between the lines, one would realise that it did exclude those funds, from its operations, which possibly entered the country for declared unlawful purposes. The implication of what he said is that if funds appeared to be lawful, we would consider them “acceptable funds” and they would fall within the ambit of the law. I am referring to funds which appear to be lawful. But if, at a later stage, it were to appear that they were not, in fact, being employed for the purpose stated by the person donating those funds, a specific set of sanctions would come into operation. I am referring here to the penal sanctions.

The hon member for Toekomsrus asked who was going to decide about this. Because a penal sanction is involved, it is the courts that will decide the question and not the registrar or the Minister. Who would lay a charge if funds were not being employed for the purposes for which they were donated? The registrar can bring up this matter. Any interested party in South Africa can lay a criminal charge with the police or the Attorney-General. The committee could probably also—and it will too—develop the convention of requesting mechanisms of the State to examine a specific matter. I therefore hasten to give the hon member for Toekomsrus the assurance that here no political judgement will apply in the case of matters which are in conflict with the Bill. The judgement will be a clinical one. In the final analysis Parliament is creating for itself a mechanism with which to monitor everyone with a view to ensuring that they carry out their task.

I think that it was a very important contribution on the part of the hon member for Bethal in the sense that he emphasised that money entering the country for unlawful purposes cannot, in any event, be tolerated in any shape or form. If the money entering the country has the appearance of validity, and the purpose for which it is to be employed is not what it is said to be, this mechanism comes into operation.

The hon member raised another important point, and that is that it can also be employed to expose those funds which are ostensibly to be used for a good purpose, for example—as he said—in regard to corruption. Let us take the matter one step further, however. As far as drug traffic is concerned, it is well-known that money enters the country under other pretexts, or that something of value has entered the country which can be converted into money. This mechanism can be employed to deal with that. The same applies to anything that enters the country for any other unlawful purpose, it being possible to employ this mechanism to unmask the parties concerned.

I see that a week or two ago Die Vrye Weekblad said that it had evidence, or found elsewhere in some other source, that “hot” Mafia money was destined for South Africa. It goes without saying that it will also be possible to employ this mechanism for that purpose. The hon member therefore raised a very good point.

I hope I have thus far managed to put the hon member for Toekomsrus’ mind at rest. He can therefore keep faith with the name of his constituency, Toekomsrus, by not being troubled any further about this Bill in the future.

I am so glad that all hon members gave the hon member for Vasco the tribute that is due to him. I shall leave the matter at that. I have already replied to him.

The hon member Mr Razak has also been given a reply by the hon member for Turffontein.

†That of course brings me to the hon member for Sandton. This is a unique debate because in no debate that I can recall has such praise been lavished on the hon member for Sandton. He will forgive me if I note, however, that I also detected an undertone of apology for doing his duty by serving on the committee. It took him some time to explain how it came about. He also ventured to create the impression that this whole exercise was sprung on Parliament. I want the committee to judge this issue and in doing so I want them to recall the very wise utterings of an hon member of Parliament on 1 March 1988 (Hansard, 1988, col 2451):

That very, very wise member was the hon member for Sandton. [Interjections.] Does this sound like a member that was taken by surprise? It sounds like a man who participated in the debate in an objective well-considered, well-prepared manner. Therefore I cannot accept the suggestion, or even the statement, that Parliament was initially surprised by the motion.

There is always the possibility that the hon member for Sandton may have been misunderstood now or then. Nevertheless I can understand the sentiments of foreign countries and interests in their pursuit of the legitimate development of communities in the RSA. We support those sentiments. We would like them to be converted into hard cash that may and must be introduced into this country. We did not debar them in the past and we will not debar them in the future.

However, I am totally against any effort to flood us with foreign funds which have as their purpose the destruction of the State and its institutions and I cannot agree more with the original sentiments of the hon member for Sandton. The Government will resist, as will every House of Parliament, and will act to neutralise any attempt to intimidate and blackmail us into not acting in the best interest of all the people of our country. We may have diverse ideas on the issue of how we should go about serving the best interests of all the people of this country. We argue about this issue and on this topic every day but this Bill now confirms, once and for all, consensus on the issue of resistance from outside to bring about change in such a way that the people of this country are left out of such exercise. No, we claim that that exercise belongs to us and we shall lay down the rules.

*The hon member for Sandton indicated that he had made a contribution, and I do not want to detract from that; on the contrary, I want to give him credit, as other hon members have done. Without negating what I have thus far said, I think that the hon member has also found this Bill to be a very pleasant exercise. In conclusion the hon member said that the previous Bill was dead. He said: “It is dead.”

†In all sincerity I want to invoke the hon member’s assistance to reconsider some of the remaining proposals contained in the existing—because it has not been withdrawn yet—Bill. I think it is of paramount interest that we should also find consensus on this issue. At the time we proposed that we should perhaps codify in a much more concise way those measures aimed at obviating bad blood between and among the races in this country. That objective was contained in clauses 16 and 17.1 do not want to dwell on them again but I am under the impression that those clauses could get the support of all the parties of Parliament. Therefore I understand what the hon member is saying to me about the committee coming to that. In that case I again express my understanding and I leave the matter at that.

*In his customary fashion the hon member for Turffontein did some analytical thinking and got to the very heart of the matter. The person donating the money knows what his money is being used for, and in this respect South Africa is giving foreign donors a policy. That is very neatly put.

The hon member for Actonville is keeping his options open, and I respect the hon member’s position. In this case, however, I think the hon member for Actonville could have expressed himself in much stronger terms.

The hon member for Ermelo spoke, in particular, about the Law Society’s contribution, and whilst examining the matter clinically, I think it would be fitting for us to send copies of this debate to those who have protested, for example. I have an idea that there is a misunderstanding as far as that body, other bodies and also perhaps the SA Council of Churches are concerned. The latter body has sent us a very extensive document, the gist of which corresponds, for example, to the hon member for Claremont’s standpoint. I hope he is not acting on their instructions, but the fact remains that in my opinion there seems to be a possible misunderstanding, ie that this measure is being proposed by me or by the Government. I therefore suggest that copies of this debate be sent to those bodies so that they can see that this measure has been proposed by this Parliament. When I come to discuss his contribution, I think that the hon member for Claremont will perhaps realise that some of his standpoints are incorrect.

I always enjoy listening to the hon member for Daljosaphat, because he is original. Here and there he perhaps transferred one department’s role to another department, but he is original, and I appreciate the fact he is original in the way in which he prepares himself.

He states his case from a refreshing angle, one which, when one thinks carefully about it, is quite interesting. I think the hon member for Daljosaphat deserves much more credit for his originality than hon members normally grant him. I am now giving him that credit.

In a pithy contribution the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North supported the measure. In his argument he traced the matter back to its fundamental principle. I thank him sincerely for his contribution.

The hon member for Brakpan suggested that we also consider someone outside the Public Service for the post of registrar. He suggested, for example, that a retired magistrate or judge be considered for this post.

What is actually happening in the Bill under discussion? Parliament has accepted that a public servant, regardless of where he draws his salary cheque from, can act objectively. Secondly, Parliament has nevertheless incorporated for itself, in this measure, the guarantee that the registrar should act correctly. After all, his report is tabled in Parliament. If he therefore does not act correctly, he runs the risk of being criticised by Parliament. That is the simple fact of the matter.

It is specifically for that reason that I said, at the outset, that I did not know when last Parliament reserved so many powers for itself, by way of legislation, to ensure that a matter was dealt with successfully, than specifically in the case of the measure now before us. I shall examine the hon member for Brakpan’s proposal. His proposals always make sense. I understand that I am also in a position to make proposals to the committee. I could perhaps even propose that we should perhaps make it clear that even an ex-judge can be appointed, subject to conditions approved by the State President. That is normally the way it is worded. It is possible for us to do something of that kind.

Why, however, is it a good thing to appoint a public servant? I have already mentioned the benefit involving monitoring. That is, of course, a very strong argument. Such a person also has the necessary infrastructure at his disposal. I therefore now want to give the hon member the undertaking that I will not appoint the Director of Security Legislation. The hon member therefore immediately wins on that score. I want to give him the assurance that I shall not do so. I also want to give him the assurance that we shall seek a very suitable official, if there is already such a person in the Public Service; if not, we shall try to find someone outside the Public Service and appoint him, subject to conditions falling within the dispensation applicable to the Public Service. The intention underlying this is actually to allow him also to have the benefits of a pension, etc.

We could also consider, as an alternative, the model the hon member proposed. I do not think, however, that we should allow our hands to be tied by only adopting one model or the other. I nevertheless think it could prove useful to look at the hon member’s proposal.

The hon member also raised a point concerning the question of appeal. We must remember that the decisions taken here are quasi-judicial in nature. The legal principle of audi alteram partem is honoured with regard to specific facets. What do we have here? Here we have administrative law at its best. The conduct of a registrar is therefore subject to review. It is possible, particularly if his conduct were possibly mala fide. There are also other aspects concerning the registrar which could be subject to review.

Our administrative law has reached such a level of development that the Minister’s powers in this capacity are not absolute. The aims must be served, and the Minister’s decision can therefore be taken on review. The courts can also set aside regulations, because this is subordinate legislation. I accept it as such. I cannot find any fault with that.

In conclusion, in my view the hon member for Claremont saw this as an opportunity to steal a political march. He is riot stealing a political march on the NP, nor on the LP. He is stealing a political march on the PFP. Surely one can see that he is trying to gain followers for himself. This opportunity, however, was a poor choice for stealing a political march on the PFP.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.

Mr Chairman, I am going to be very brief. The provisions of this Bill are basically just to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders between the Republic of South Africa and the rest of Africa. After the TBVC countries gained their independence it was found that some people there escaped from their maintenance responsibilities. I am very glad to report to some hon members in this House “hulle gaan julle nou vasvat”! They will not be able to run away!

I think the child is the one who really suffers. This Bill is looking after the interests of children. I believe one is looking at greater efficiency of the enforcement of maintenance orders in terms of this Bill. This Bill also provides powers wide enough to cater for the rest of Africa. Perhaps one needs to see if the perimeters of the Bill cannot even be further extended.

In the joint committee all the clauses were accepted unanimously and therefore I have no problem in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Bill. May I suggest that the hon the Minister consider deleting the words “in Africa” so that one may have Madagascar, for example, as a designated country. I do not think that this changes the contents of the Bill in any way; it merely provides it with greater scope. One could even perhaps make this Bill applicable to European countries if an agreement could be entered into.

Or to Honolulu!

And to Honolulu too, as the hon the Minister says.

We take pleasure in supporting this measure and we should like to support every measure which is aimed at compelling a person to fulfil his duty as regards maintenance. It costs South African taxpayers a great deal because we have to make social welfare contributions to the maintenance of women and children whose ex-husbands or fathers who are responsible for their maintenance fail to carry out this responsibility.

Last year mention was made of community sentences in this connection. I am pleased to see that machinery is being created to implement community service sentences. I hope we shall soon have this machinery in operation.

I want to request, as we have already mentioned, that attention be paid to the problem of tracing fathers who have disappeared.

I think the crux of this piece of legislation is perhaps contained in clause 6 in which it is clear that our courts are capable of amending a provisional maintenance order and changing it into a fair order and that there will even be a right of appeal as regards such a maintenance order which is registered here.

Unfortunately as a committee we did not notice that the same procedure does not apply on receipt of an emoluments attachment order, as contained in clause 9.

If an emoluments attachment order is received from a designated country and that order is unfair, the same amount nevertheless has to be deducted from the man’s salary as is laid down in the maintenance order. That maintenance order is deemed to be an order of our own courts in terms of section 12 of the Maintenance Act. There is no right of appeal against such an order. The employer who receives the order has to deduct everything which the order lays down. In addition it is a claim which has to receive preference above other deductions. One could therefore find that an emoluments attachment order could be received from a designated country which would be unfair in our country. No procedure has been created in terms of which our courts could intervene or the emoluments attachment order be reviewed. I think we should see whether we could not incorporate the provisions of section 6 (4) mutatis mutandis here. As a result of exchange rates or in consequence of incorrect information, a higher emoluments attachment order could perhaps have been issued than would normally have been issued in our country and we must be able to adjust it.

I do not wish to lay the blame on the hon the Minister; it is the committee’s fault because we did not notice this in good time. I noticed it only at this late stage. The hon the Minister is not to blame me because I cannot rectify all the mistakes. We take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to state that we are fully in support of this Bill. The main fact is that interest is paid as far as the child is concerned.

The Bill before us facilitates the enforcement of maintenance orders between the Republic and designated countries.

The hon the Minister said that he was very pleased to see that the committee had arrived at consensus and understanding.

This is one Bill which I have pleasure in supporting because I believe it is a step in the right direction.

Mr Chairman, I rise to support this Bill.

The chief object of the Bill, as its name indicates, is to facilitate the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between the Republic and other countries in Africa.

This Bill, when passed, will enable the maintenance orders to be transmitted through a maintenance court in a designated country. The head of the Department of Justice through the Director-General will transmit such document or order to the maintenance officer where the enquiry will be made.

We have no problem in accepting the amendments brought about by this Bill and therefore I support it.

Mr Chairman, this Bill deals with the protection of those in need of maintenance, especially those who are or may be adversely affected by the fact that the person liable for maintenance moves across the borders of states in Southern Africa. Its object is also to prescribe an effective and smooth method for the enforcement of maintenance orders which are issued in one country so that a person cannot escape his obligation to pay maintenance by moving outside the borders of jurisdiction of the court which has issued the order. I wish to emphasise that this Bill is a splendid example of the co-operation which has already arisen as regards the administration of justice among the countries of the Southern Africa Economic Community or the SATBVC countries.

This co-operation became a reality in April 1985 when the Multilateral Technical Committee of Justice began functioning. Apart from various pieces of legislation which have already gone through the process, a most interesting conference on legal reform has already been arranged. Legal reform is an aspect which is extremely important to all the states of Southern Africa.

I consider this a suitable opportunity to thank departmental representatives in the committee concerned for their contributions in the sphere of the administration of justice and its development in Southern Africa. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, since the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act was placed on the Statute Book 26 years ago in 1963, it has been amended only once, in 1970.

It is well known that most of the maintenance orders which are dealt with under the said Act are the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between South Africa and the TBVC states. The provisions of the aforementioned Act came into operation before any of the TBVC states gained independence. The present procedure involves the use of diplomatic channels, which is a long and cumbersome procedure. Facts such as the close proximity of the TBVC states and the frequency of liability for the payment of maintenance across the borders demand the simple and swift enforcement of maintenance orders. The object of this Bill is to provide for such a simple and expeditious procedure.

In terms of clause 3 a procedure is envisaged whereby the transmission of maintenance orders is effected directly between the administrative heads of the Departments of Justice of countries designated by the Minister of Justice in terms of clause 2 of the Bill.

Clause 4 provides for the registration by a maintenance court in the Republic of maintenance orders made by a maintenance court of a designated country. Likewise clause 9 makes provision for the registration of emolument attachment orders.

In terms of clause 6 of the Bill provisional maintenance orders made by a maintenance court of a designated country may be confirmed by a maintenance court in the Republic of South Africa. South African provincial orders may also be transferred to designated countries. Clause 6 also provides for the procedure to be followed upon receipt of a provisional maintenance order.

In terms of clause 10 any sum of money payable in terms of a registered or confirmed maintenance order under provisions of the proposed Act shall be payable to the clerk of the maintenance court where such order has been so registered or confirmed.

I am of the opinion that the abovementioned provisions will do much to facilitate the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between South Africa, the TBVC states and other designated countries, and therefore I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this legislation is not contentious and, as previous speakers have already indicated, it was drawn up to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders. The pieces of legislation which have now been repealed were already a century old, for example the Deserted Wives Act of the various provinces.

The legislation under discussion contains nothing new in principle; we are merely making it easier for the wives and children in the neighbouring independent states who have been abandoned to get their porridge money.

We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must admit that I have a confession to make. This is a very simple Bill, and has been explained to us by at least four speakers this afternoon.

I have listened with great interest to the hon members for Daljosaphat, Bonteheuwel, Sundays River, Bethal, Northern Transvaal and particularly the hon member for Actonville. My confession is that I cannot think of another thing to say about the Bill. So I will just say that we support it.

Mr Chairman, the title of the Bill already gives us an indication of its content. The objects of the Bill are largely to facilitate the hon the Minister’s task as regards this legislation between the Republic and countries in Africa. For instance, in terms of clause 2 of the Bill the hon the Minister may apply this measure by means of a notice in the Gazette and also revoke it by means of such notice. Clause 3 provides for action as well as the transmission of maintenance orders between the Director-General and the Department of Justice of other countries.

The Joint Committee on Justice worked their way through this legislation thoroughly and this is why we support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the two basic principles upon which the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, Act 80 of 1963, is based, are being retained in this Bill, namely:

Secondly:

And that they may thereafter be enforced. Then also, of course:

The Bill differs from the 1963 Act, however, in that certain different and additional procedures are prescribed in order to put these basic principles into effect. As has already been indicated, this Bill facilitates the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders.

In terms of the 1963 Act, South African maintenance orders must be sent to the Minister of Justice who, in turn, must send them through diplomatic channels to the recognised authority of a designated country. Likewise, maintenance orders of courts in designated countries must be dealt with through diplomatic channels.

However, this Bill now provides for a procedure whereby the transmission of maintenance orders is to be effected directly between the administrative heads of the departments of justice of designated countries, since it has been found that the requirement of making use of diplomatic channels has been one of the chief causes of delays in the transfer of maintenance orders.

The requirement in the 1963 Act in terms of which a statement of the grounds on which the making of a provisional court order could be opposed, had to accompany applications for confirmation of provisional maintenance orders, is not being imposed in this new Bill. In terms of this Bill, the maintenance court must confine its investigation with regard to provisional maintenance orders to the determination of the amount of maintenance payable in those instances in which the court is convinced that the respondent has received reasonable notice of the proceedings at which the provisional maintenance order was made.

In terms of this Bill, certified copies of a provisional maintenance order or of the statements of witnesses will be admissible as evidence in a subsequent investigation. The 1963 Act is not being repealed, but remains in force with regard to those designated countries that are not also being designated in terms of this Bill. This Bill is a decided improvement on the 1963 Act and, as has already been indicated, there is most definitely a need for a more streamlined procedure for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders, particularly with regard to the TBVC and other neighbouring states.

I hope and trust that it will be possible for the hon the Minister to designate more and more countries in terms of this Bill once it has become law. I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the department on the introduction of this measure, and I am also pleased to support it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to hon members.

The hon member for Bonteheuwel issued a lighthearted warning. I assume that he was not talking to hon members of Parliament, but rather in general, to those who want to shirk their responsibilities in the pursuit of adventure and so on. For that reason it probably makes sense that one should make a mechanism available—and once again, I am saying this light-heartedly—in order to include Mauritius, for example, and other places where people go on holiday occasionally. I am saying this light-heartedly, knowing full well that people do travel around.

The point raised by the hon member for Bethal in regard to emoluments attachment orders is one which we must investigate. I am not suggesting that the Bill will be handicapped unless this is put right now, but I believe this is a matter that deserves attention. Perhaps it is true that another regulation which makes provision for that aspect already exists. It is also true that we will only get adjudication in this regard where participating members have the same laws that must be administered and which result in maintenance orders. Therefore we shall study the question in order to establish whether we can do something about it.

The hon member made an interesting suggestion, namely that maintenance orders should also be made applicable outside Africa. This is a matter that we must investigate thoroughly because it implies an agreement. It is a very idealistic view and if we get to it, we shall try to find a solution. With regard to the rest of the world, we do not have the necessary machinery as we have, to a degree, in the case of the TBVC countries and Africa.

This Bill had its origin in the Multilateral Technical Committee on Juridical Matters, which is a subdivision of the activities of the Economic Community of Southern Africa. It is also true that we would enter into such agreements within that framework. While I am replying to the hon member, I want to take this opportunity to say that we should strive to extend the activities of this juridical committee, which includes all the agencies of the Economic Community of Southern Africa, so that it operates over a wider field than merely the TBVC countries. That is a beautiful ideal and the foundation for this is now being laid to an extent.

One must realise that it would virtually be too far-reaching for us, with legislation of this nature, which merely deals with one facet, to risk moving into countries outside Africa where the necessary machinery does not yet exist, but where we may be able to achieve something in a different way by means of diplomatic channels. The hon member’s sentiments are—if I may say so—anything but conservative. They cover a very wide area and are directed at everything but a little White homeland somewhere in Southern Africa. The hon member’s thoughts are particularly fine, grand and wide-ranging. [Interjections.] He made a valuable contribution and we shall investigate the matter that he raised. We shall most definitely follow it up and my office will get back to him in this regard.

The hon member Mr Razak supported the Bill, as did the hon member for Northern Transvaal. I believe he supports the same rugby team as other hon members of Parliament. The hon member for Sundays River, in his customary fashion, made a quick analysis of the Bill, which gives me the opportunity to point out that results have, in fact, already been achieved in various areas by the multilateral technical committee. Various Bills have already come to light and more are still to follow.

He also referred to the fact that a law reform conference had already been held by the interested parties. I want to add that over and above such a law reform commission—I mean a conference that we held on a small scale at first—we also held a similar conference in one of the neighbouring states towards the end of last year, which coincided with a conference of ministers of justice. There we discussed matters of common concern. Even at that stage we considered common problems and took decisions which could have very positive results, for example, with regard to legal costs and uniformity of a number of relevant measures.

Things are moving quietly. They are definitely moving in such a way that Parliament ought to know about them and take note of them. The hon member for Actonville supported the Bill; so did the hon members for Daljosaphat, Sandton, North Eastern Cape and Umbilo.

Underlying all this is the fact that, in every country, there should be an effective system to ensure that parties who bring children into this world, fulfil their duties towards those children. Underlying everything is such a system.

I indicated that adjudication in the various courts would ultimately be made easier because there would be uniformity, but that implies that we will have to negotiate further with one another on such an effective system. While I am reluctant to say anything about the maintenance systems of other countries, I hasten to tell hon members that we are aware of shortcomings in our own system in this regard as well. We are only too aware that fathers in particular—there are perhaps mothers as well—fail to fulfil their obligations towards the children that they bring into the world.

We are only too aware that as a result of loopholes which human ingenuity is forever finding, such people do not appear in court, and their earnings are not attached properly or in time. I could entertain hon members with stories that would make their hair stand on end about the irresponsibility of individual parents.

Very often the system is blamed, because the system should keep up with the tendency of these people to evade their commitments. With a view to this, we gave the department the task of scrutinising the whole question of maintenance, in co-operation with other departments quite some time ago. We conducted a very thorough investigation and we have now sent out a provisional report for commentary and we hope to finalise matters in March. This will undoubtedly mean that once Parliament adopts the legislation that will probably emanate from this, negotiations with other states will ensue. We shall strive to give them the benefit of our experience.

Having said that, I want to conclude with a reference to my experience at this discussion of the ministers of justice of the TBVC countries, inter alia about maintenance. They left me with no doubt that these countries were very proud of their family and community life—that the family was seen as the nucleus of order and that they strive towards protecting that unit. Having listened to them, I compared the extent of our problem within the borders of South Africa, and I am talking about all groups, with theirs.

I concluded by telling them: “Sirs, we, the whole of South Africa, have a lot to learn from you”.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, we are setting a lot of records straight this afternoon and it appears that the hon the Minister and his department have taken special care to look into the problems confronting the womenfolk in this country.

I will be very brief. The Bill before us is one that we will definitely support. This Bill seeks to allow for and streamline the financial benefits for parties that are divorcing and it also makes provision for a divorced woman to share in the pension benefits of her former husband. I believe that this is definitely the right step to take and we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to support this Bill on behalf of the CP. It actually clears away a great deal of uncertainty. In the case of divorce, debates have been conducted for many years now on the question as to whether pension interest ought to form part of the common estate and whether it ought to be taken into account upon division of the common estate. That problem is now being solved; legal certainty is being achieved and that pension is also being protected so that if the wife is indeed entitled to a portion of it, it may be paid out to her on the payment date. I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I support this Bill. It emanates from an investigation by the SA Law Commission. The commission came to the conclusion that the existing financial arrangements pertaining to divorce were unfair because at present, a party’s pension benefits are not regarded as an asset. This legislation now provides that a divorced woman is entitled to the pension benefits of her former husband.

Permit me at this stage to convey my gratitude and appreciation, as well as that of my hon colleagues, to both the legal advisers and the chairman of the joint committee. Guidance must be given in this manner, particularly with regard to this legislation and all the other legislation for which the committee is responsible.

Mr Chairman, as a woman and a lawyer it gives me great pleasure to join the previous speakers in supporting this Bill, which effects a long overdue amendment to section 7 of the Divorce Act. It will result in a much more equitable distribution of assets between the spouses on divorce, as has already been pointed out.

All due credit must be given to the hon the Minister of Justice and the SA Law Commission for this latest in a succession of laws relating to the improved status of women—financially and otherwise—in recent years. In this regard I can mention the increased protection for women who were rape victims in giving evidence, the increase in intestate succession portions for the surviving spouse and the improved rights for Black women as far as property rights and contractual rights are concerned, to name but a few. One can therefore really say that during the past few years the legal status of women in South Africa has been enhanced and improved by the initiative of the hon the Minister.

Two other Bills on today’s Order Paper—one we have already dealt with and the other is still to be debated—also give momentum to this effort. It has been felt for some time by the legal profession, particularly those members of the Bar and Side Bar with a divorce practice, that the basis for determining the value of assets of a spouse—usually the husband—at the termination of a marriage was unfair, usually to the wife. So often in the past one had the experience of a wife being left destitute on divorce while the husband had accumulated substantial pension benefits which would come to him alone in due course. It was felt that regard should be had to items such as the spouse’s interest in pension fund benefits and retirement annuity benefits when assessing these assets.

As has been pointed out this Bill has a long history. The principle of the right of a wife to share in her husband’s assets—including his pension interest—on divorce in terms of an order of court was actually accepted in the Divorce Act 10 years ago, but only after extensive investigation—which was chiefly carried out by the Law Commission in 1986 and 1987—was the methodology found to include this and a satisfactory formula decided upon, with this Bill as the result.

As stated in the memorandum the Bill therefore provides that the accumulated pension benefits of a spouse who is a party to a divorce action shall be deemed to be an asset in his or her estate for the purposes of the equitable division of the assets. Here we are not only talking about the woman’s right to share in her husband’s benefits, but it works both ways, as many wives nowadays build up a considerable pension benefit themselves. I was glad to be able to tell my husband this when he challenged me on the point.

This amendment is very much in the spirit of the introduction of the concept of community of profit and loss and the accrual system in our marriage regime in 1984. Accordingly the only marriages which are now excluded from the provisions of this Bill are those contracted on or after the date on which the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984 came into force, which specifically exclude the accrual system.

As has already been said, the main difficulty in implementing the principle contained in this Bill lies in quantifying the benefits to be awarded. A number of outside bodies made submissions to the Joint Committee on Justice and we accepted the recommendation of the Life Offices’ Association of SA, which clarifies the determination of the amount of the pension interest which might be deemed to be part of the spouse’s assets and therefore subject to an order of court.

The Bill therefore now provides that this amount is the benefit that these party would have been entitled to if he had resigned from the pension fund on the date of the divorce. The fund records will therefore be endorsed to that effect. I have been informed by pension fund managers that this amount is easily ascertainable, especially if it is calculated as the cash amount involved. The amount of the benefit will of course only be payable to the spouse to whom it is awarded when the pension benefit accrues, in other words when the spouse retires or resigns from his job.

In my view this Bill represents a job well done by all those concerned in its making and in practice its effect will no doubt be to considerably alleviate the financial hardship of many divorced women.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to speak after the hon member in her maiden speech in this House. My wife was also very pleased when she heard of the benefits which she would enjoy if we should get divorced. For the hon gentlemen in the House it is becoming more and more difficult to get divorced these days.

This Bill makes provision for a divorced woman to share in the pension benefits of the former husband. It basically now states that pension forms part of the assets, just as one’s house, the car and everything else forms part of one’s assets when one gets divorced.

As the previous speaker said it applies to both partners. We have no problem in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the main purpose of this Bill is to include the pension benefits accrued to any spouse or any pension which may be paid to a spouse, or to which a spouse will be entitled, in the assets of such spouse so as to enable the other party to share in such benefits upon divorce. This has not been so in the past and it was unfair to the wife, or the other party as it were.

In terms of this Bill now, any pension benefits and retirement annuity will be equated on the date of divorce with the contributions up to the date of divorce so that the other party may share fairly and equally therein.

Section 7(8), in the amended form, will make provision for the pension interest to be paid to the other party in the case of a divorce. The court is so directed to make an order.

I think that this is fair to both parties in the marriage. I think this was overdue and has been required for a long time, therefore we have no difficulty in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make just a few comments. I think the significance of this Bill lies in the very considerable value which an interest in a pension fund often has. To quote the South African Law Commission on whose investigation this Bill is based, “a person’s accrued frozen pension interest is often his most valuable possession”. I think this is very true. One will find that most couples today, particularly living in the modern world as we do with vast insurances and provision for old age, will pump an enormous amount of their matrimonial wealth into pension schemes and retirement annuities. Their house will be bonded to the hilt, their car will be on HP or on lease, and at the end of the day when they have paid for their children’s university education, public school education, or whatever they have to do, they are usually living from hand to mouth and do not have much in the way of material assets which could be divided on divorce in terms of section 7 of the Divorce Act.

This is therefore not just a minor addition to the present system; in fact, it is a very significant addition, because in the day and age in which we live one will find that pension schemes are a very significant part of the common assets.

What is also significant about this legislation—not specifically this Bill because it is merely another chapter in the legislation which has flowed since the introduction of the Matrimonial Property Act in 1984—is that it has brought an entirely different approach to the whole question of divorce and of the attitude which the parties, the courts and the lawyers should have towards the division of the spoils of marriage.

I believe that before 1984 there was a very unhealthy trend in the attitude towards marriage. Our common law system of community of property was a very equitable system. It did have the disadvantage that the husband controlled the estate and the wife was subservient, and possibly for this reason, and because of the emergence of women’s liberation, the marriage in community of property became very unfashionable. The ANC was very often insisted upon by the papa of the little girl who was getting married because he did not want her potential assets to be swallowed up by the husband. The result in the end, however, as we know in most cases, is that the husband is the breadwinner and goes out and accumulates wealth while the wife, who is probably doing a much tougher job, is staying at home and producing babies, entertaining the husband’s business clients, etc.

The ANC was not a good trend at all. I think that the stage we have now reached since 1984 is a far better approach to the marriage as one of partnership, which in fact is what it is. It is however not only a matter of partnership during the marriage, but the courts and we as divorce lawyers have also been given a new insight into the fact that when parties split up on divorce it is not a question of each one grabbing and retaining whatever he can. The old style of divorce where one goes to court and fights over assets, getting involved in protracted litigation, is disappearing, specifically because of the new attitude which has been brought in since 1984. I think it is a far healthier attitude.

I speak with a certain measure of experience in this matter having done numerous divorces in my life. The current approach I think is really so very much better in that upon divorce parties approach their lawyers and the court with the attitude that they want to arrive at an equitable settlement and walk out of the marriage as friends, able to talk to each other and able to deal with each other when they meet their children, etc. I believe that this has been brought about largely because of the general approach to our law which is embodied in the Matrimonial Affairs Act.

Mr Chairman, we also see this particular piece of legislation as a large step forward on behalf of women. It really provides for a more equitable distribution of the assets in the estate when it comes to the question of divorce.

That applies even more to the poor housewife who has been at home. Perhaps she had no profession or if she did have a profession she gave it up when she got married. She has had children and has brought them up. Her job has been that of a housewife. The husband, most probably, has been at work in his office or business. When he almost due to retire—this does happen sometimes—he takes a shine to his secretary and ends up getting a divorce. Under the old system of the antenuptial contract without accrual that poor woman who had worked in that home and brought up the children ends up with practically next to nothing. For that reason we support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I rise once more to support this Divorce Amendment Bill. This Bill makes it possible for parties involved in a divorce action to share the benefits accrued from the assets. The Bill also makes provision for a divorced woman to share the pension benefits of her former husband.

This Bill is the result of an investigation by the South African Law Commission. The aim in view is making provision for a divorced woman to share in the benefits of her former husband’s pension. It also makes provision for her husband to share in the benefits of her pension. In short this Bill covers both husband and wife. We have no problem in accepting this Bill. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to elaborate much further this afternoon on this legislation, which has already been supported at fairly great length by hon members before me.

In a lighter vein—the hon the Minister will understand my saying this—I want to say that I am now in a privileged position in that my marriage will one day be excluded from the terms of this Bill because I shall marry after 1984, and if I marry out of community of property, my wife will not have any claim to that pension. [Interjections.]

This is a very fair amending Bill. It has been adapted to modern circumstances. When I was in New York recently, I met a lady at the mission of the South African Embassy who is doing an absolutely splendid job there as a diplomat. An article appeared in South Africa about her husband and herself, in which it was clearly stated that her husband had basically taken over the role of housewife. He looks after the little one, changes nappies and cooks the food. When they return from the UN and she decides that she wants to fire him, he will at least have a claim to a portion of her pension.

Without expanding much further on this very sensible amending Bill, it is a wonderful privilege for me to lend my wholehearted support to it.

Mr Chairman, we are all in a good-humoured frame of mind on this late Friday afternoon. Someone sent me a note: “One small step for woman, one giant leap for mankind”. [Interjections.] I shall meditate about the application this has.

The other point deals the hon member for Pretoria Central. I find it very interesting that a practising celibate can take part in this kind of debate with so much enthusiasm and knowledge. [Interjections.] Without being prophetic—I know people with the same convictions who adopted standpoints at various points about precisely what they were going to do—I want to hazard a prediction that the day will come when the hon member for Pretoria Central will not decide how he is going to get married and whether he is going to get married, but will be grateful to be able to get married. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at the background of this Bill. When we passed the Matrimonial Property Act, we included in it a very important provision, viz that under certain circumstances our courts could intervene to decide how parties’ assets would be divided if they could not do this properly themselves by way of agreement, or in the absence of for example the accrual system, etc. On that occasion we also said we intended in due course to include provisions which would state very clearly what assets we were talking about and what was at issue here.

If the hon member for Groote Schuur would give her an opportunity to do so, the hon member for Houghton would be able to hear what I am saying. She questioned us on that occasion in connection with pension as an asset which could be prejudiced. We told her we would look into the matter, and subsequent to that discussion we asked the Law Commission to consider whether or not the accumulated pension—I am talking in general, understandable terms—would not also be an asset.

We referred the matter to the Law Commission, and in their usual incisive way, they researched and decided on the matter with great responsibility. They had to get past a very important point, however, viz that it is generally accepted that a hope or expectation, which someone has if he knows he is to be his rich uncle’s heir, for example, is something that person cannot pawn, give away or cede. In the case of divorce it cannot be halved, negotiated or bartered either. They had to get past that point, and spadework was in fact done in that they came to the conclusion that the relationship between the member and the pension fund should be regarded as subjective and in particular as a personal right, and not merely as an expectation. This enabled us to come forward with this breakthrough today. We can make further deductions from this, and I see there is a professor here and practitioners—including the hon member for Daljosaphat—who are looking at me in astonishment. Perhaps we shall no longer be here when we have made that much progress. I am also talking about the hon members for Bethal and Ermelo. Both hon members are senior counsel.

This paves the way for the development of the concept “asset”. What is a mere expectation, and what is in fact an asset? I therefore think this development is very interesting. This is not merely a development that can be under discussion in this situation, however; it can have meaning with regard to law of contracts, or ultimately with regard to law of succession. I want to eliminate one misunderstanding at this point, however. One or two hon members argued as if by implication the Bill would be to the advantage of only the wife. That is not the case, because the wife’s pension benefits and not only those of the husband will also be regarded as an asset when it comes to division. With this Bill we are also acknowledging, and I say this in lighter vein, the realities of the South African economy, as we did with the Matrimonial Property Act. The wife has also become an economic factor, a factor which can accumulate assets and build up an estate.

One could therefore get a situation, and the hon member for Pretoria Central is looking at me with great expectation, in which a husband could be totally dependent on his wife—something that has certain consequences and certain advantages, but also certain disadvantages. What it amounts to is that we have made progress in the interests of the South African community—in the interests of everyone, not only of the wife or someone other than the husband, but also of the husband. We have taken an extremely meaningful step for all the marital partners in South Africa.

I conclude by telling the Law Commission that once again they have proven themselves to be a worthy institution which interacts with Parliament. When hon members read the first pages of their report, they will see that the commission took cognisance of the debate, of other committees’ investigations in connection with the pension situation, and in fact of this institution as an organisation which can express desires and thoughts which can lead to a scientific result, such as an investigation by the Law Commission. I want to express the necessary appreciation to them for having gratified Parliament, as they have in all other cases.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, This Bill, as hon members probably know, creates a situation where a suspended sentence for an offence committed either in the Republic of South Africa or another country, can be put into operation in another country. In other words, if an offence has been committed in South Africa and a suspended sentence imposed, then such suspended sentence can under certain conditions can be put into operation in that other country; or, if that offence was committed in the first place in, for instance, Ciskei or Transkei and a suspended sentence has been imposed, then on certain conditions the suspended sentence can be put into operation in South Africa.

We have difficulties with the Bill for the following reasons. However, I want to concede immediately that there may be a number of very good reasons why such an arrangement can be beneficial, particularly when one deals with international borders which are crossed very readily and very regularly, as in the case of the border between South Africa and the TBVC countries, but there are certain reservations which have impelled us to oppose this Bill.

Firstly, we are concerned about the quality of the administration of justice in some of these other countries. In a sense, this Bill expresses a motion of confidence in the administration of justice in some of these countries. We are giving the hon the State President the authority to make arrangements and to conclude agreements for the imposition of such suspended sentences. He is being given a very wide authority regarding where such agreements can be concluded in respect of certain offences. In other words, the agreement does not make provision for the hon the State President to take into consideration a host of different factors besides simply the types of offences for which a suspended sentence could be imposed. In other words, if the administration of justice in a state such as Ciskei is inadequate—say, for instance a lower court in Venda or Ciskei operates in a way which we will not tolerate in this country—and imposes a suspended sentence, and that person contravenes the conditions of suspension in South Africa, then a South African court can indeed impose that suspended sentence.

In other words, in a sense the South African court becomes an extension of the Ciskeian court. We are worried about that because, if one reads clause 1(3) carefully, it says that when an application is made in certain circumstances, subject to the terms of the agreement, the court shall, not may, proceed with that application as if the suspended sentence had been imposed by a court in the Republic of South Africa. In the strict sense of the wording it would appear that the court is not entitled to take into consideration the fact that it was not the South African court which imposed the sentence in the first place, but that it was in fact a court in a different country where different circumstances may apply which may follow a somewhat different style of administration of justice, may apply different evidential rules and so forth. This is a matter of concern to us.

In respect of conditions of suspension I would like to make the following comments. This is an area of criminal justice where the presiding officer is most at liberty to indulge his own fancies—I am not saying that disparagingly—because very often the conditions of suspension are used by presiding officers, certainly in this country, to bring about quite important penal reforms—to introduce new concepts of punishing people for offences which are much more in line with modern society, which are much more sensible and much more constructive. There is great room for a positive potential as far as the conditions of a suspended sentence are concerned but, obviously, in the same sense one must concede there is also scope for abuse. Therefore, particularly, it is quite conceivable that the sort of conditions of suspension applicable in another country may be unheard of in our country and vice versa. Hon members all know what kind of conditions of suspension are sometimes applied in South Africa. Hon members all know that sometimes new interesting and novel conditions are applied which are in the main very good conditions, but in some cases one questions the wisdom of the decision. The point I am making is that we are now granting a blank cheque condonation of a system of suspension which we may not necessarily wish to apply in our own country and therein lies a danger. I think there is room for abuse and it is something we have to watch out for.

To sum up, our concern lies in the area that conditions of suspension are difficult to keep track of. They are an area of penal and criminal law where great latitude and great scope for innovation but also abuse is possible. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am very surprised that this is the attitude the previous speaker is adopting, if one considers the fact that it was not the attitude in the joint committee. It is totally wrong and misleading for the hon member to say that the State President is being given a blank cheque, and this has to be corrected. If one looks at the clause, and I would like to advise the hon member for Green Point to have another look at the Bill, one sees very clearly in the first place that the State President may. Then it goes on to the second provision and once again it is stated that the State President may. Even in the last provision it says the State President may. He very shrewdly takes out one provision, subsection (4), where it says the State President shall. It cannot be open to abuse to that extent if one considers that, as stated in subsection (4) it is going to be published in the Gazette.

Other countries and even we here in South Africa need to sort out our internal differences without interference from overseas countries.

We in South Africa should have respect for other judicial systems irrespective of what the system is like in other countries just as we would like people outside our borders to have respect for our system.

We in the LP have no problem with this Bill. We support it. It is a short Bill but as far as we are concerned it is a most necessary Bill. In the discussions in the joint committee it was suggested that the word “Africa” be deleted and that the scope the Bill be made even wider than the African continent. We support it.

Mr Chairman, this Bill merely authorizes the State President to enter into an agreement with other states so as to put into operation any suspended sentence imposed by any such state if any of the conditions of such suspended sentence is breached in the Republic and vice versa, and the manner thereof.

There was no provision of this nature in the past. Consequently an offender could breach any conditions of a suspended sentence without any fear of being brought to book for doing so. A criminal offence is a criminal offence, however. Even when a person wishes to emigrate to a particular country that country will enquire whether such a person has any record of criminal prosecution or whether he has ever been sentenced. I think a suspended sentence for crime must be put into effect somewhere.

The joint committee approved of this Bill and therefore I have no difficulty in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Bonteheuwel, who expressed his surprise about what the PFP had said this afternoon. There was complete unanimity on this Bill in the joint committee. There was no point of dispute, and the only difference was that the word “Africa” was deleted in order to make it possible also to conclude agreements with countries outside Africa. I merely want to tell the hon member for Green Point that no court in South Africa is compelled to implement any suspended sentence in any case, and that the court will consider the circumstances of each case.

In all probability, however, this Bill will be implemented mainly in Africa, and especially in the economic community of Southern Africa. The reasons for that can be sought mainly in the existence of co-operative agreements between the RSA and this economic community with regard to various spheres. These co-operative agreements have their origin in the interrelation of the needs of the respective parties. Because of the way in which these states were established, there is free movement of the citizens of these countries to and from the countries they come from and in which they live. At the moment it is possible to have a series of suspended sentences in one country, but to be scot-free in a neighbouring country. The purpose of a suspended sentence is to serve as a deterrent, but this sword is blunted completely if it cannot be implemented in applicable cases.

In view of the interrelation of these states, the existing loophole does not promote a healthy or just legal system. If the agreements provided for in the Bill can be concluded, this deficiency can be eliminated.

On behalf of this side, it is a pleasure to thank the hon members who supported the Bill, and to express my support of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side support the Bill as it will streamline matters.

I have personal experience of crimes having been committed by a person from Transkei and once that person had disappeared into Transkei one could forget about ever finding him again. Moreover, if he committed a crime in Ciskei or Transkei and came back into South Africa nothing could be done to him.

We from the DRP wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like at the outset to say that I agree with the other hon members who have expressed the fact that on the joint committees we reached consensus and agreed with one another as far as the Bill is concerned. The only amendment we had, was to remove the words “in Africa” from the Bill.

I just want to expand on the argument advanced here that the countries designated, or the countries in Africa, may not have the legal system as far as South Africa is concerned and we may not tolerate that legal system. However, I want to say I agree with the hon member for Actonville that a crime is a crime. A suspended sentence so far thus imposed is in actual fact a suspended sentence.

Let us assume that the crime was committed outside the borders of South Africa and we have that person in South Africa at the moment and we do not have any legislation to impose that suspended sentence, then we are also allowing this man a free hand to come along and start committing this sort of crime, hoping to get away.

Therefore I fully support the Bill before us.

Mr Chairman, I see our new Director-General is present here. We will no doubt welcome him properly on a later occasion, but all of us on the CP side certainly want to wish him all the best and a very successful career!

I noted this afternoon that the PFP were praised to the skies when they for example submitted an amendment. In the case of the previous Bill the CP happened to submit the amendment which was accepted. In this Bill the words “in Africa” were deleted on the basis of a CP amendment, but our side is never referred to as having made any contribution to the legislation; on the contrary, it is usually said in the House that we make no contributions. The words “in Africa” were specifically deleted at my insistence, notwithstanding the fact that the committee wanted to adjourn. I struggled to stop them from leaving so that these words could be deleted, because I felt that it was a measure which ought to have a wider impact.

The constitutional experts tell me that it would have been better to use the word “treaty” instead of the words “international agreement”. I do not object to “international agreement”, but they say the word “treaty” is a better term. They believe that we jurists do not actually adopt constitutional law.

The hon member for Green Point raised the question of sentences imposed in other countries. Let me say at once that I have respect for the legal system and sovereignty of every other country, but at times all kinds of sentence are imposed and passed. For example, in Iran a person is simply hanged or outlawed by decree and it is possible that we might also have problems in this regard.

This is something that was not raised in the joint committee. I think it is a good thing that that hon member raised it here, but I agree with the hon member for North Rand that we are not obliged to follow that sentencing procedure absolutely. For example, we would not have to put a suspended death sentence into operation, because the implementation of the sentence is dealt with as if it were a suspended sentence of our own courts. Where our own courts put their suspended sentences into operation, they take other circumstances into consideration, for example the fact that the husband now has a permanent job or dependants, and they may then suspend that suspension even further. I therefore do not think that this is an insurmountable problem. We are pleased to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is always difficult to participate in the discussion of such a short piece of legislation that has been introduced at such a late stage, because everything which can be said has been said already. All that I can say, is that it is a necessary Bill, that we need it on our Statute Book and that we gladly support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I have always wondered when the Department of Justice would start with its Africa offensive, but thanks to the hon member for Bethal we can go much further with the abolition of the words“in Africa”, and the path of justice is now open to take on the world. I want to wish the hon the Minister every success.

I do not think that we can disregard what the hon member for Green Point said. This party always makes such a fuss of legal systems and always wants to hold up other examples to South Africa, but this afternoon it made a covert attack on the legal systems of other countries. I think that it was quite uncalled-for, coming from this hon member.

This legislation is really necessary for the application of a civilised legal system. I must say, however, that the department and the ministry will have to watch closely that the implementation of this act is not going to entail great difficulty for our courts. I think that there is enough resourcefulness in the department to ensure that this does not happen.

Allow me at this stage to welcome Mr J J Noeth to this department. It is a pleasure to see him here in his capacity as Director-General. When I was still a practising attorney, I was privileged enough to serve on a committee with him when he introduced the small claims court in Cape Town, something he did with great success.

I gladly support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I rise to support this amending Bill. When this Bill was discussed at joint committee level, the feeling was that the provisions of this Bill should not only be restricted to countries of Africa, but should also include countries in other parts of the world.

The proposed new section 297A stipulates that the State President as he deems necessary may enter into an international agreement with any state in Africa on a reciprocal basis for putting into operation suspended sentences in respect of persons convicted within the jurisdiction of the RSA or in other countries. I also support the principle that parties who agree in this regard may amend such an agreement which was entered into should the circumstances arise. With these remarks I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point has made it necessary for me to reply more comprehensively on this Bill, because we cannot allow the hon member, with the short contribution he made, to sow suspicion regarding a matter which is really of importance to us in Southern Africa, but which can become problematic for us if the hon member’s standpoint were to be the yardstick used to assess the parliamentary view on the legal systems of the TBVC states. I immediately want to join those persons who set the hon member for Green Point straight and said that it was totally inappropriate for the PFP to adopt this standpoint, after having supported the Bill in the committee.

One wonders on the one hand whether the hon member for Green Point does not liaise with his caucus and whether he is still part of the central stream and view of that party, and on the other whether he was pressurised later. This is the only conclusion one can reach. Must one therefore deduce that it is valid for hon members to be pressurised or even ordered—to adopt specific standpoints here after they have adopted another standpoint, without giving an explanation and without revealing the reasons and the origin of that view. We must object very seriously to this practice.

As regards the content of his view, this is even more true because the hon member has now cast suspicion on all four TBVC states. He referred to some of them. What does this mean? It amounts to a general libel. It is an age-old problem that one tars everyone with the same brush. Why does the hon member not say which states’ legal systems he finds fault with so that the other states can at least know that he is not prejudiced against them? I think the hon member owes it to the TBVC states to say which of the four states’ system he considers to be inadequate. Which state’s system does he feel would impose a sentence which would not be upheld by our courts. A pro forma agreement which we would authorise the hon the State President to enter into, would definitely contain the following condition:

In other words, it must be adjudicable in both countries’ courts. We would not enforce a suspended sentence which was not also adjudicable in our courts. We will not recognise unknown, unmentionable crimes committed in any country in our courts by making a provisional sentence enforceable. To do this is a well-known practise in law and it is internationally accepted.

In every agreement with regard to extradition we have respected the principle of collective reciprocity. I really feel that the hon member adopted a standpoint this afternoon—I do not know whether he is going to have an opportunity to set the matter straight—which he must qualify. The hon member for Green Point is not known as a person who apologises either. I can understand this if one does not have the necessary insight. However, the fact is that the hon member for Green Point must reconsider his standpoint and must find a way to overcome the problem; otherwise he will have tarred all four states with the same brush. I submit that he had no grounds for insulting any of the four TBVC states. [Interjections.]

Take, for example, the fact that the judiciary of each of these states is manned by judges seconded from South Africa, and that these judges return to our judiciary after a specific period of service has elapsed, without any objections being raised elsewhere. One must also take into account that the lower courts, which the hon member for Green Point was holding forth on, serve in the same system as our lower courts, and this means that by implication our lower courts are under the supervision of our courts. Recognition is given to this principle by the system of review. In other words if the quality of the administration of justice in the lower courts was at issue here, it would be possible for the higher courts to take a case on review.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether all African countries have a system of review?

Mr Chairman, I shall read the hon member for Green Point’s Hansard. However, I think he referred to the TBVC states.

The Bill refers to Africa.

Now the hon member says that this concerns Africa. Must we therefore accept that the hon member for Green Point did not say or mean this in respect of the TBVC states?

[Inaudible.]

Did the hon member therefore exclude the TBVC states? Does the hon member for Green Point consider the legal system and law enforcement of the TBVC states to be above suspicion? [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue between the hon the Minister and the hon member for Green Point.

I shall study the hon member’s Hansard. I take it that he is now saying that he has doubts about the rest of Africa. Can the hon member for Green Point tell me which African country’s legal system he is discussing? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Green Point has made his speech and that will suffice. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, many hon members spoke about the reliability of a legal system. I want to state at once that a pro forma agreement, which I have read out to the committee, will always have as its point of departure that a crime for which a person must serve a sentence which comes into effect after it has been suspended elsewhere, must also be adjudicable in the Republic or in that state. This is the very important criterion we are dealing with here.

†However, because this matter is of significance for Southern Africa, I should like to spend some time on this Bill. In terms of our law, a suspended sentence that was imposed in a criminal trial under the jurisdiction of another state cannot be put into operation in the Republic if the conditions of the suspended sentence are breached in the Republic. This happened in the Motlhapi case where Mr Justice Hiemstra, Chief Justice of Bophuthatswana presided which was quoted with approval in S v Baloyi 1981(3).

At the moment the only way in which a suspended sentence can be put into operation in the circumstances under discussion, is by extraditing the convicted person to the state where the suspended sentence was originally imposed. This is often a time-consuming procedure.

Although an international agreement authorizing the recognition and enforcement of other states’ suspended sentences is what is needed to address the present problem, this alone is not enough. In international law, treaties which affect the private rights of subjects by virtue of their provisions or otherwise, must receive parliamentary assent through an enabling Act of Parliament, and, if necessary, any legislation to effect the requisite changes in the law must be passed.

We have accepted this principle and have thus come to Parliament in order to grant the hon State President the power to enter into such agreements.

*The Bill makes provision for the way in which an application for the putting into operation of suspended sentences must be dealt with. If an application is made for the putting into operation of a suspended sentence imposed by a court of a foreign state, the court to which the application is addressed, must continue with that application as if the suspended sentence had been imposed by a court in the Republic.

This Bill owes its existence to the Multilateral Technical Committee on Juridicial Affairs, which appointed a task-force as long ago as 1985. This committee did tremendous work in various fields, and it has resulted in our already entering into other agreements. Consequently we are now coming to Parliament to acquire this power, and I want to say that this power is most appropriate because it places the seal on an orderly society in Southern Africa, more specifically in respect of those states with whom we will be interacting regarding the administration of justice.

The hon member for Bethal reproached us for not paying enough attention to the meritorious contributions he makes. I want to say in lighter vein that the hon member must realise that one sometimes has far more difficulty selling a thin, decrepit horse which needs a bit of praise and attention, than a horse which is shiny and full of self-confidence. I want to thank the hon member for his very wide view, which covers the whole of Africa and seeks to go further afield. In that respect the hon member is welcome to the club.

Debate concluded.