Mr Chairman, the hon member for …

Is that the same speech as yesterday’s?

My dear friend! Mr Chairman, you know what the difference is between the hon member for Losberg and the Treasury? When the Treasury prepare their notes for the Budget Speech they concentrate on saying different things in the same way every time. When that hon member speaks he says the same thing in the same way every time. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Barberton participated in this discussion yesterday and had quite a lot to say. Inter alia he directed many questions at the new leader of the NP, the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I should like to urge the hon member for Barberton to go and read the speech made by the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on 8 February—as well as his speech made on 10 February. In those speeches the hon member will find that many of the questions he is now putting are completely unnecessary. In those two speeches the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council gave him very clear replies.

When that hon member therefore asks what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, he will find that it is very clear that this Government believes in the right of association, as well as in the confirmation of the right of dissociation, but that those two objectives are achieved as far as possible with goodwill towards and co-operation among the groups and people involved. That is the essence of the whole story.

I know that hon member to be a true gentleman. Actually I hold the hon member for Barberton in high esteem. I have always considered the hon member to be a gentleman, and I have always felt that he is a person who is sitting on the wrong side of this House. I had thought that a time would perhaps come when the hon member would again be sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member said two things which I think he should reconsider. Firstly the hon member attacked my hon colleague the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and said that he should go back to the academy. I want to tell that hon member that South Africa …

Education and Development Aid.

Education and Development Aid, sorry! The hon member said that the hon the Minister should go back to the academy.

I want to tell the hon member that South Africa can be grateful to have people of that calibre and integrity in public life. [Interjections.] We must be very careful not make public life so ugly that it becomes unacceptable for such people. That would be a great pity for South Africa. [Interjections.]

A second point the hon member should ponder is honesty in the administration of this Government. The hon member referred to that when referring to my hon colleague. I want to tell the hon member that he should be very careful with the term honesty, because the criterion is not to see whether there are swindlers in the Government or in any other profession.

†The test is to find out how society reacts towards people like that. Does it accept them or reject them? Does it repel that sort of behaviour and does the system repel such behaviour and find it repulsive? As far as this administration goes, it does.

He failed for ten years! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am talking to the hon member for Barberton now. I want to say that he should be careful with the statement he made because he is not in fact denigrating the hon the Minister. The hon member for Barberton is in fact denigrating the Public Service, because he spoke about the tip of the iceberg. The hon member is therefore denigrating the Public Service. [Interjections.] Oh yes, the hon member is saying that there are hundreds of people in the Public Service who are actually a bunch of crooks!

That is right!

That hon member is denigrating the Public Service! [Interjections.] It is unacceptable! I want to tell him that we in South Africa are very fortunate to have the calibre of people in the Public Service that we do in fact have! [Interjections.]

†I want to tell the hon member that the difference between a civilised and effective country and an uncivilised and ineffective country lies in the quality of its public servants. South Africa can be proud of its public servants. [Interjections.]

*They said Jerusalem was a clean city, because everyone swept in front of their own doorstep. I think my administration is a good example of the administration as a whole, and I have looked up a few figures in my administration. I take no credit whatsoever for this. I give all credit to my officials. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that I have one of the largest administrations as far as the financial responsibility for that matter is concerned. We have 87 366 officials in that administration. We had a budget of almost R6 billion. Between 1 April 1988 and 20 February 1989 we issued 1,920 million Treasury warrants.

†We sent out 1920 million Treasury warrants, or cheques if you like. That is a huge number of cheques and a large amount of money that was handled and ultimately posted. It is a huge department that is decentralised on a provincial and a local basis.

*I want to tell the hon member for Barberton what dishonesty there was in this entire set-up. Do hon members know what dishonesty there was? In the entire set-up there were eight cases of irregularity. [Interjections.]

†There were eight cases. That is 0,0004%. Go and look at the shrinkage factor of Pick ’n Pay. Ask any of the big companies in South Africa when they start talking about this kind of percentage.

Let me tell hon members about the eight cases.

[Interjections.] Out of R6 milliard and 1,920 million cheques, only eight went wrong and we have recovered three of the amounts, two officials have been fired and there are investigations pending on the others. The total amount of money lost out of the R6 milliard that was at issue was R34 000. That is a magnificent achievement. [Interjections.]

Order! Many interjections are being made by members on my left-hand side. They must make fewer interjections.

I want to tell that hon member that by and large, South Africans are honest people, and this Government rejects dishonesty. My Ministry will root out any dishonesty. We shall absolutely root it out. This Government will root it out and those hon members should be grateful that the Government responds in the way it does.

*The hon member for Kuruman made a very good speech here yesterday. I just want to ask him to find out for me whether Yzerfontein is in the new Woestynland or not.

It is!

Oh, my goodness!

It is not!

Oh, is it not? I do not know. He must find out for me.

They do not know themselves!

They must first ask Carel Boshoff. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville spoke here about Senator Dellums and the impact of his recommendation. He attacked us, as well as the CP, on Boksburg. He asked what a Dellums actually meant, how he should defend us and what he should say. He also asked the CP and us questions.

I support what the hon member said. The CP has much to account for, particularly because we are under threat of sanctions.

†The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis wants to carry on where Senator Dellums left off. What does Dellums want to do? He wants to place those things on the sanctions list which are not yet there, amongst other things the strategic minerals, and Derby-Lewis wants to help him. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member cannot simply say “Derby-Lewis”.

If the hon member will permit me, I want to quote from an article …

Order! The hon the Minister cannot refer to the hon member as Derby-Lewis.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis.

†In The Star of 25 May 1988, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis said the following:

So, he wants to do what Dellums wants to do. He wants to help him. In fact, he wants to do it before Dellums does. [Interjections.]

Here are all our efforts to stop sanctions getting worse! This country’s fundamental wealth is based on our capacity to rely on the export of strategic minerals. Most of our wealth is derived from that. It is the whole economic basis of this nation and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis wants to help Senator Dellums bring about the fact that they will no longer buy our strategic minerals.

I cannot blame you for not understanding it.

He says we must boycott them.

*He says we should impose sanctions on them. [Interjections.] He goes on to say:

Then the hon member said a very interesting thing. He said:

strategic minerals from the Communist Soviet Union.

†He wants to deny South Africa the ability to defend itself in terms of the revenue that we earn from the sales of our strategic minerals and he wants that money to be spent in the Soviet Union, the main antagonist facing us across the frontier.

So speaks the Commandant! He wants to enrich the enemy and make us defenceless. [Interjections.] Then the hon member must not say things like that. I can only judge a man by what he says. I do not remember that the hon member ever repudiated it.

*The hon member for Barberton is a person one can rely on. You must please speak to these gentlemen and keep them in check. They cannot say such things.

†I want to ask him a question if indeed he wants to apply the sanctions.

*He now wants us to apply sanctions. Allow me to tell hon members, in parenthesis, that we are referring to almost R7 billion. We are not talking about tickeys and sixpences; we are dealing with an amount of R7 billion.

†The hon member must tell us now who is going to compensate the mining industry for this loss. Is the hon member going to? Is he going to nationalise the mines? If so, which ones? Is he perhaps going to nationalise Anglo American? He must answer us which ones he is going to nationalise or is he evenhandedly going to buy up some of the minerals they would have exported and stockpile them. If he is going to do that, where is the money going to come from?

He is going to relocate the mines!

If it results in the people buying strategic minerals from South Africa switching to other minerals, materials or sources and never coming back to the South African mining industry, I want to ask the hon member whether he is going to compensate the shareholders for the loss of profits? If so, how is he going to tax the people of South Africa in order to do that? He must tell us.

You would not understand it if I did.

I am not playing games. I am telling hon members that this is a serious business. He is not talking about some peripheral activity. He wants to tear the heart out of the South African economy. That is what he wants to do.

Are you in favour of boycotts in Boksburg?

Is the CP aware of what it is going to cost the taxpayer?

*If one gives a little consideration to the absurdity of the policy of those hon members and argues their standpoints for a while one realizes why South Africa is focusing on the NP. South Africa realizes that those people are not an alternative. If they were ever to become an alternative, they do not have a feasible policy.

These hon members on the opposite side in the PFP are very busy coming to an agreement, but it is still going to take them years to do so.

†The hon members have my sympathy. I have a lot of friends whom I feel sympathetic about.

*They must just indicate whether I should come and help them. I therefore do not find it strange that the hope of South Africa and the future is in the hands of the National Party.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I think it is a good opportunity, with the introduction of this motion, to extend to the hon member for Uitenhage, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Committee on Environment Affairs, the appreciation of this side of the House for the role he has played in the past few years as chairman of this committee. I think that this side of the House, including the hon the Minister and the department, speaks very highly of, and has great appreciation for, the hon member’s dedication to the activities of this committee and his interest in these matters. It will be a pleasant experience to attempt to follow in his footsteps.

During the past few decades the interest and involvement of people and communities in matters affecting the environment as a whole have increased dramatically. The increasing strain placed on the environment as a whole by economic development and increases in the population has, over the past 15 years, given birth to more studies, investigations and programmes than ever before. Hon members will agree that in South Africa, too, where until fairly recently we have had a relatively widespread and sparse rural population, environmental sensitivity has increasingly gained prominence amongst members of the general public when it came to any matter which gave the slightest indication of having some or other effect on the quality of the environment as a whole.

We in South Africa are fortunate in that environmental affairs are largely still a non-political issue. In many countries of the world there is unfortunately the phenomenon of environmental affairs being politicised because of the wide sympathy these issues elicit. As in the case of labour matters and matters involving the Church, environmental affairs are exploited, frequently by ultra-leftist organisations, for their own ends rather than for the sake of the environment.

The German Greens are an example of how the politicising of environmental affairs can alienate the traditional and scientific equanimity in regard to environmental affairs in a community. With conduct which is dissolute and disrespectful to the disciplines of tradition and normal development, fanatics from the ultra-left of the political spectrum have done the cause of environmental affairs and environmental management more harm than good.

†If there is one fundamental aspect to the success of environmental management, it is the fact that the interactions within the whole environmental system are more important than the sum total of the separate parts thereof. Organisations of a leftist nature, like Green Peace for instance, have done a lot of harm to the balance in the management of the global environment. As much as they pretend to strive towards equilibrium in the environmental system, so much are their approach and their actions lacking in balance, because they tend to concentrate on social conflict and on poverty and other structural injustices as if these separate parts of environmental management could be addressed in isolation.

It has been established in studies, for example by the Club of Rome in their Limits to Growth and World. Dynamics, and also in studies like the Global 2000 report to the President of the United States, that the environmental system is a result of the mutual interaction of its demographic, industrial and agricultural subsystems. Each one should be managed as an integrated part of the total system.

A system of integrated environmental management, as was proposed to the hon the Minister by the Council for the Environment, should therefore be free of the limitations imposed by pressure from sectional political interests.

*In this regard I want to record this side of the House’s appreciation to the Government for the legislative framework which it introduced in 1982 and in terms of which the Council for the Environment was established. This council, with the aid of the new, comprehensive environmental legislation which is to be published shortly, will in my view be one of the most dynamic mechanisms we have yet had in this country, mechanisms with which to launch a programme of integrated environmental management and have it succeed.

As a result of the new kind of pressure being placed on the environmental system, a need arises for the development of new management systems and a new management approach.

One of the obstacles giving rise to the need for a new approach is that in many respects we in South Africa still allow developments to take place on the basis of measures drafted when completely different circumstances applied and when the needs and the pressure, for example as a result of land-usage patterns and urbanisation, were quite different to what they are today. In the meantime the period within which the population figure doubles, in which there is a doubling in water requirements and pollution, has also become shorter.

This in itself imposes a major responsibility on the Government, and specifically the Minister of Environment Affairs, to ensure, by way of the iynamic measures such as the new environmental legislation we shall probably have published in due course, that environmental values have a decisive influence on developmental decisionmaking. I want to thank the Government, the hon the Minister and the department for the comprehensive new steps and express the hope that the new legislation, which we shall be seeing soon, will achieve the envisaged objectives.

In South Africa we are in the difficult position of experiencing a strain on the environmental system from two opposite poles. On the one hand increasing pressure is being placed on the environmental system as a whole by the developed section of the population, with the manifestation of increasing industrial pollution, increased water consumption and pressure on limited agricultural land. On the other hand, the underdeveloped section of the population places a burden on the overall environmental system because of too high a population growth-rate, the disparity in living standards and a structural inability to move away from a natural, resource-based livelihood to a technologically-based one.

†Our ability in South Africa to reach towards equilibrium in the environmental system is severely inhibited by disparity in the style and standard of living between our various population groups. As agriculture reaches a space limit, as industrial development reaches a natural resource limit, and as both of these reach a pollution limit, then the quality of life can fall far enough to stabilize population in the same manner as we see in the rest of Africa where thousands of people are dying of hunger and disease.

On the other hand the Club of Rome in 1970 suggested in their study of world dynamics that there may be no realistic hope of the present underdeveloped countries reaching the standard of living currently demonstrated by the industrialised nations of the world. In the case of South Africa, if we take account of our water supply as an example, we seem to be running to the point of decreasing the quality of life within less than 100 years unless we do something about it.

*The burden relating to pollution and also natural resources, which one individual in a developed society can place on the overall environmental system, is estimated at between 20 and 50 times more than the burden generated by one person in an underdeveloped community. In South Africa there are four times more underdeveloped than developed people. If, in the next 100 years, the living standards of all underdeveloped people must be raised to the present level of those of individuals in the industrial community, it could place a burden on natural resources and cause a degree of pollution which is ten times more than the present burden. If we bear in mind the erosion and degradation which has already taken place on land, in the air and specifically in the sea, if we take the uneven distribution of water sources into account, and the fact that rainfall in most parts of South Africa is equal to or less than the potential evaporation, it would seem as if the overall environmental system does not have the ability to carry such an increase in living standards.

The point I want to make is that an integrated environmental management system is not restricted to dealing with urban refuse, the prevention of water pollution and the regulation of coastal development and urban and industrial expansion. This implies a comprehensive management system, with the population development programme probably being one of the most important components.

I want to conclude by thanking the Government for the successful steps that have already been taken. As examples let me quote: The population development programme which, after a limited time, has begun to show the first signs of success; the establishment of the Council for the Environment in 1982, a move which laid the foundations for a management system which could comprehend and co-ordinate the dynamics of our environment as a whole; the policy document drawn up by the council for integrated environmental management, a document which, together with the new legislation we shall be seeing soon, will in my view become one of the most dynamic cornerstones of development in South Africa; the White Paper on Environmental Education which is the result of interaction between various disciplines which were previously in opposing camps; the new environmental legislation which we shall be seeing soon and which, in my view, is a milestone in resolving the traditional feud between developers and conservationists; and the water sources, indigenous and foreign vegetation and types of timber dynamically being developed and administered by the Departments of Forestry and Water Affairs.

As encouraging as these campaigns may be, and as much appreciation as one must have for them … [Interjections.]

†I must say—and I would like to address myself to the hon member for Bryanston—we accept that these measures may in future prove to be far from adequate to meet the challenges we face. If we want to wipe out worsening poverty, environmental degradation and conflict because of disparity in standards of living, we must also know there are no quick fixes.

*The solutions are complex and long-term ones. Although we shall always be able to point out unutilised opportunities to one another, we must have some appreciation for the comprehensive steps the Government has already taken on this long road. I have referred to certain steps which are being taken locally, on which I congratulate the Government and wish the hon the Minister and his department every success. As far as these matters are concerned, I think we have much cause for concern, but also much reason for an ample measure of appreciation and gratitude for what has been done. As far as the Government’s international campaigns are concerned, other speakers on our side will refer to that aspect. Let me content myself, Sir, with telling the hon the Minister the following: “Mr Minister, everything of the best. We look forward to the new environmental legislation”.

Mr Chairman, allow me firstly to congratulate the hon member for Caledon on his chairmanship of the joint committee. We regard him as a good member of that committee and he has always made a good contribution.

Allow me to also thank the retired chairman, the hon member for Uitenhage, for what he did in the past. I also think that he was a very good member of that committee when it came to dealing with environment affairs.

I should also like to enter into a debate with the hon member for Caledon at a later stage, when the environment affairs legislation is being discussed. However, I should now like to concentrate on two other aspects of environmental conservation.

Those of us in the CP are actually very surprised that the NP did not use this opportunity to score other political points and that they came forward with such an innocent little motion. [Interjections.] Here the Government has come forward with a harmless, depoliticised motion. Where are the Boksburgs, the Brakpans, the Carletonvilles, the open-and-closed Vereeniging, the Pietersburgs, the AWBs, the Volkswag and other derogatory statements levelled at the conservative Afrikaners? Has everything fallen flat, or is everything beginning to boomerang?

Look at the letters in today’s letters column of Die Burger. There hon members will see “Kraaifontein-leier verdien medaljes” and “Saldanha het mooi strand vir gekleurdes”. There are also other articles with regard to corruption in the country. It is clear that the smoke-screen that the NP attempted to create in order to avoid their internal problems, has failed miserably. [Interjections.]

It is always a pleasure for me to participate in a debate on environment affairs. However, one often tends to associate the department with only that which is beautiful and pleasant. Although that is the ideal, an enormous amount of research and active involvement is required of the government of a country to protect the environment of that country sufficiently for all its inhabitants. For this reason it is absolutely necessary that timely evaluation and monitoring of detailed research on the ecological effect of various schemes and projects on the environment be conducted.

This brings me to an aspect which I should like to discuss for the purposes of this debate, on the one hand to express criticism, but on the other to suggest steps whereby the repetition of the oversights of the past can be prevented. I should like to refer to the fact that virtually no detailed research, either local or international, exists with regard to the ecological effect of, for example, the inter-basin transfers, and this can have serious repercussions, to the detriment of the country and its people.

If it is taken into account that inter-basin transfers are being used to improve the quality of life of a country and its inhabitants, for example, the Tugela-Vaal scheme, then it is with great concern that I read the following in the Tydskrif vir Wetenskap of October 1988:

submission of an environmental impact statement; environmental, not ecological.

We read further under the heading “Sound ecological impact assessment for inter-basin transfers”:

While we would all like to contribute to the conservation of the country’s ecological norms and systems, the government of the day should ensure that short- and long-term impact studies of projects are done. The alternative strategies must also be looked at, for example, the use of the inter-basin transfers must be weighed up against the use of effluent. A comprehensive and objective evaluation should be made of such a scheme before it is implemented.

If the Tugela-Vaal project had been properly evaluated and alternative strategies looked at, very interesting recommendations and decisions might have been made.

If we look at the Lesotho Highlands water scheme, which is already under construction at considerable cost, we find that only recently have some aspects of an ecological impact study on, for example, the water plants, water animals and water inhabitants been made available. This is the case even though one cannot make a realistic assessment in advance without detailed knowledge of the particular system or, for that matter determine how serious the impact of that particular system will be and how it will influence the situation.

Any mass transfer of water from one separate geographical river basin to another may not only result in provincial and international conflict, but may also have serious consequences with regard to, inter alia, the loss of bio-geographical separation, the change in water quality, the introduction of alien vegetation and animals, the distribution of disease vectors and the change of the hydrological regimes. For this reason it was disappointing to hear that only two of South Africa’s inter-basin transfer schemes received the necessary ecological evaluation before implementation, namely the canal and borehole scheme and secondly the Riviersonderend-Berg River project. The Amatola and the Mooi River-Umgeni schemes were not subjected to any planned research as to how these schemes were going to cope with, inter alia, the flow fluctuations and the long-term effect on the donor systems.

For this reason it is not strange that the authors of the ecological impact studies on inter-basin transfer schemes came to the following conclusion, and I quote:

I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to avoid a repetition of these oversights in the future, as I have tried to indicate.

I should like to address another aspect which, in my opinion, actually creates far more serious problems, namely air pollution on the Transvaal Highveld, and more specifically in the southeastern parts, which is being caused by Escom in the process of generating electric power by means of large coal-burning power stations.

In a report by Prof Peter Tyson, a climatologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, which incorporated four year’s research, extremely alarming information is given with regard to sulphur pollution of the environment. In the report he refers, inter alia, to the high annual sulphur fall-out in West Germany, which along with acid rain has already caused incalculable damage to forests, agricultural crops and buildings; this is the case while the sulphur fall-out in those countries amounts to 7,3 tons per square kilometre per annum. Compare that to the pollution on the Eastern Transvaal Highveld, of 57,5 tons per square kilometre per annum. This shocking pollution, which exceeds the pollution levels of the large industrial countries of the world, can definitely not continue undisturbed and uncontrolled. It is unthinkable that a responsible government could allow pollution to take place on such a large scale without taking immediate drastic steps to decrease the pollution levels.

Furthermore, it seems that with the continued erection of power stations in those particular areas, the fall-out could even amount to 80 tons per square kilometre per annum, a total which is unacceptable as a pollution level. It also appears that measures which are being applied at present are not limiting pollution and are in no way addressing the problem. The erection of higher chimneys at considerable cost is simply transferring the pollution from the immediate environment to another environment a few kilometres away.

As a native of the Witbank district, I am familiar with the problems which Rand Carbide of Witbank has caused. This factory, which is situated next to the residential area, constantly produced an ash deposit which settled on the corrugated iron roofs in the area, causing them to rust. As a preventative measure, the first high chimney was erected. The immediate surroundings benefitted from this, but residential areas several kilometres away inherited that pollution problem. In the same way, high chimneys of power stations and other factories have not solved this problem. The estimated size of the affected area is approximately 30 000 square kilometres, an area which generates an estimated 80% of the country’s electricity, but which also spans 50% of South Africa’s high-potential agricultural land. This high-potential agricultural land is already being detrimentally affected by acid rain with a pH balance of 2,8.

Although the pH balance can be rectified with the use of agricultural lime at considerable cost to the grain farmer, the damage to forests cannot be reversed. The damage to buildings, power lines and wire fences caused by rust as a result of acid rain, amounts to considerable sums of money. At the moment there is no solution to or lessening of the problem in sight.

The quality of surface water in the area is also being affected and the purification of this water could lead to an even greater increase in costs. An estimated R500 million has already been spent on control apparatus and control mechanisms. These measures will have to be more strictly applied because long-term damaging effects of pollution will cost the country considerably more.

The monitoring of pollution as well as the implementation and enforcement of better control measures will have to be urgently considered by the Government. It is not only the environment which is being irreversibly damaged by pollution, but the health of the inhabitants can also be seriously affected.

Seen in the light of this motion in which the Government is being thanked for comprehensive measures with regard to the protection of the environment, we should like to make a serious yet urgent appeal to the Government to take immediate and active steps to ensure that the Eastern Highveld region remains capable of maintaining life for the generations to come.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to congratulate the hon member for Caledon upon introducing this private member’s motion. It is a subject which is very dear to my heart and I believe is of considerable importance to the future of South Africa. I must apologise that I was not here for the beginning of his speech. Unfortunately, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works sat down a little faster and made a much shorter speech than I thought he would.

Initially, when reading the wording of the motion, I had a little difficulty because I felt that it could well lead to a great deal of complacency among South Africans, but listening to the way the hon member expressed himself I believed that he was taking a very realistic and thoughtful view of the future. He talked about erosion, land problems, air problems and specifically—something close to his heart—sea problems. He called for an integrated environmental management system. This is something that we must have in the future if we are going to preserve our environment. We hope that the proposed new environment legislation is going to be a milestone towards the future of environmental conservation in South Africa. I think that it is now in its third draft for comment by outside parties and we hope to see it very soon.

The hon member for Nigel quite rightly talked about environmental impact assessments and the necessity for these, particularly in the Tugela-Vaal system and the Lesotho Highlands Scheme. I must say of my own knowledge that I know that already there are environmental impact assessments taking place about the whole of the Lesotho Highland Scheme. Also he spoke about air pollution as a result of the power stations and Sasol in the Eastern Transvaal and the fact that something between 300 and 600 tons of sulphur per day is dumped onto the agricultural land and the cities of the Eastern Transvaal. This is an enormous problem that we are going to have to solve because the growing problem of acid rain and acid attack to our soil and our artefacts is something that cannot be allowed to continue at its present level. Eventually there will be absolute disaster.

I talked about the wording of the hon member for Caledon’s motion because I felt that it might lead to complacency. I think we have to be very careful about this complacency among South Africans about our international standing among environmentalists in the international community at large. We can be very rightly proud of our considerable achievements in the field of conservation and there is no doubt in my mind that we have done as much as if not more than most countries to conserve our environment. On the other hand we must not be complacent and I want to warn that we are in the very near future going to have to face up to considerable international pressure because in certain areas the international community does not believe that we are doing an adequate job.

I think it came as a great shock to many of us when, towards the end of last year, in a statement made to a subcommittee of the US Congress, the conservation, environmental and animal welfare consortium in the US, a body known as Monitor, accused South Africa of being, and I quote: “One of the largest wildlife outlaws in the world.” Monitor claimed that a massive smuggling ring had been operating for years, with the complicity of South African officials at the highest levels of Government and the military, to funnel ivory and other contraband out of Africa—channelling it through South Africa. They said that South Africa as a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, otherwise known as Cites, although it projected an image of a conservation model for Africa, was in reality anything but that. They claimed that the South African military had cynically aided the virtual annihilation of the once great elephant herds in Angola—said by Monitor to have been in the region of 100 000 elephants. I must say that is a figure which is totally inaccurate and totally wrong. They claimed that ivory from many parts of Africa was being funnelled through South Africa and distributed to many other parts of the world.

When this evidence which had been given to the US Congress was brought to my attention I immediately took a copy to the hon the Minister of Defence, who took action and appointed a military board of inquiry to investigate these allegations. The results of a fairly exhaustive investigation which then took place seem to indicate that there was no truth in those allegations. I have not yet seen a copy of the report issued by the board of inquiry, but it certainly gave the SA Defence Force officially a clean bill of health.

During the course of the investigations I contacted the Monitor official myself, a certain Mr Craig van Note, who had given this evidence before the US Congress. I urged him to back up his allegations with some hard evidence. This he was not able to do. He was not able to do so in spite of my very strongly expressed point of view that failure to do so could possibly allow any trade that there was in ivory to continue. I could not see why he was not willing to supply this evidence. It became quite apparent to me in the end that he had no real evidence and that his allegations about complicity of officialdom and high-level military were based on rumour and conjecture and that they were largely untrue.

Now, Sir, this was obviously a great relief. The hon the Minister of Defence, to my mind, behaved absolutely correctly, and I believe that everything possible was done to discover whether there had been any official complicity in the ivory trade. I may say that I was myself given the opportunity towards the end of last year to inspect aspects of the SADF’s conservation programme, and I must say that I was most impressed by the efforts being made towards the protection of the environment in various areas under military control. Hon members may or may not know that the SADF is the fourth largest landowner in South Africa. It controls in the region of 60 training areas, with a total area of more than 525 000 ha.

The SADF’s ecological services operation was put in hand in 1977, and presently uses the services, almost exclusively, of national servicemen to look after conservation. I saw some of them in operation at places like Hoedspruit, in the Transvaal, at Riemvasmaak, at Augrabies Falls, and also up in the western part of the Caprivi Strip. I was very impressed with the dedication shown by the whole Department of Ecological Services, headed by one Permanent Force man—a Major. Otherwise the people carrying out the work are all national servicemen. They are doing a tremendous job. They are keen, dedicated conservationists. We can be very proud of them.

At this stage, however, I should like to comment on the implications for conservation of the South West Africa peace negotiations and the ultimate withdrawal of the SADF from areas such as West Caprivi. It became quite apparent to me, as during my visit I viewed herds of hundreds of elephant and buffalo in the Caprivi Strip, that it was the army that was preventing areas such as this from being poached bare. This was admitted by the South West African Administration’s nature conservation department, which does not have nearly enough personnel or sufficient funds to police those areas adequately.

The implementation of Resolution 435 has very grave implications for conservation in that area, and the international community should take note of this because unless adequate funds for conservation are made available, it is my forecast that most of those areas will be stripped of their wildlife within months of our Defence Force moving out.

What I have been describing are major plus factors for the way we conduct certain of our conservation operations but, unfortunately, there are many minuses as well on the other side of the balance sheet. For example, within days of the report of the Military Board of Enquiry, news was received from the United States of criminal charges pending against certain United States citizens, as well as against two members of the SA Defence Force and the wife of one of those members. These criminal charges had to do with the illegal importation of rhinoceros horns, parts of leopards and cheetahs from South Africa and Namibia, and in addition, of course, these people were accused of smuggling AK 47 rifles. How they managed to do this without authority catching up with them, I do not know!

I have read the sworn affidavit of the special agent of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service who went undercover for a period of eight months to investigate this alleged smuggling. It reads like something out of James Bond! The unfortunate aspect of this story is that SA Defence Force personnel were involved. I understand that extradition proceedings are under way to extradite Major Meiring and his wife, as well as Sergeant-Major Schutte to the United States, and I can only hope that nothing will be put in the way of these extradition proceedings and that these individuals will face the charges made against them.

It has become quite apparent to me—I have worked very hard at this and have been very much involved in the investigations—that there is a great deal of, shall I call it “private enterprise” smuggling that has taken place from South West Africa to South Africa and then beyond. The recent confiscation of a huge shipment of ivory and rhino horn in Botswana on its way to South Africa appears to me to be part of a regular traffic which is continuing to take place. The estimated value of that one consignment from Namibia was in excess of R6 million so one must understand that there is very big money indeed in this, that it is attracting international criminals and that we have to take action.

Unfortunately, every time a case of this nature is known—that it was going to go through South Africa or passed through South African authority’s control to elsewhere—it reflects on the good name of South Africa. I understand that at the next meeting of Cites members, South Africa is going to come under fire because of a belief that we are not policing the Cites regulations adequately and that large quantities of illegal goods are being smuggled from and through the RSA.

I regret to say that to my own knowledge, such traffic is taking place. It is taking place today. As a result of my interest, a lot of information and evidence has come to me concerning this illegal trade. This information, of course, has been channelled to the police and I must say that immediate and very efficient action was taken by the police. I must commend them for the way in which they have handled the matter. They have already intercepted certain consignments and other investigations are taking place. This to my knowledge is being done efficiently and I must congratulate the police sections involved.

The regrettable part of this exercise is that this major problem has ever been allowed to reach the proportions that it has. I believe that it is absolutely vital that as soon as possible in terms of the secrecy of some of these continuing investigations it is important that wide publicity is given among the international community as to what we are doing to bring this illegal trade to an end.

I want to urge the hon the Minister to consult his colleague the hon the Minister of Law and Order with a view to establishing a special squad whose sole responsibility should be the policing of conservation matters.

There are other areas where this sort of police action is needed. I can mention many. I have for example recently been informed of exports of cycads which are protected in terms of Cites and they are very rare and sought after plants. I am at present investigating certain large shipments that are alleged to have left South Africa. It appears to me that these exports took place possibly in contravention of the Cites embargo or, at very least, against the spirit of the Cites agreement. I have placed certain questions on the Question Paper and more questions are in the pipeline as to who gave authority for these exports.

Again, a specialist police squad could be of assistance in this matter. I must say that when a large consignment of cycads, possibly worth in the region of half a million rand, is sent to Madeira by Mr Joe Berardo, who is well-known in Johannesburg government circles, I begin to get very suspicious indeed. This whole affair will count against us in the international community and we cannot afford to be complacent about it.

Oh yes, another one!

Yesterday and today we heard threats coming from the United States of America concerning the possibility of their imposing further sanctions on us if we do not put our house in order with regard to Cites. The United States has already taken action against Somalia and is contemplating action against us. This action could include a ban on legitimate ivory exports coming from elephants culled in the Kruger National Park and also a ban on all wildlife products. This could be disastrous in terms of the very lucrative trophy-hunting industry which brings in large sums of foreign capital at the present time.

Last night I spoke to a Cites official—not in South Africa—who has been investigating the export and import figures of ivory and other products from South Africa to the Far East, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan, using largely figures from those countries. He tells me that until 1985, the quantity of ivory that was received in those centres from South Africa was far in excess of what we were legally entitled to export or in excess of what was reflected in our own export figures. It is, of course, good news that the situation improved considerably from 1986 to 1988, but the fact remains that we are accused of not doing an adequate job in policing the rules of a convention to which we are a signatory.

Are you going to do something to help?

The trouble is I have done a great deal to help, a good deal more than that hon gentleman!.

Yes, they just talk.

The trouble is that we approach the whole environmental conservation issue in far too haphazard a manner and we must take urgent action to put this right. I am especially pleased that on the Joint Committee on Environment Affairs we have had such dedicated environmentalists as the ex-chairman, the hon member for Uitenhage, and the new chairman, the hon member for Caledon. I believe we are still approaching things in far too haphazard a manner.

The Department of Environment Affairs does not have the powers that it should have to deal with conservation matters both internally and externally. Responsibility is too divided. Let me give some examples of what I am trying to say.

Control of the development of the coastline has been devolved to the provincial authorities. A case in point recently has been the public outcry against a suggested development in Plettenberg Bay next to the Robberg, a landmark which is of national, if not international, significance. I believe that this control should still be vested in the hands of the hon the Minister’s department. I have already said so on two occasions in this House. In terms of the Sea-shore Act it is still the responsibility of the hon the Minister to intervene.

Let us take another question. We have the provincial authorities there. Let us take the question of air pollution. In answer to a recent question of mine regarding ozone levels in the atmosphere and to one last year on the subject on atmospheric pollution by Sasol—raised by the hon member for Nigel—the hon the Minister told me very courteously that atmospheric pollution actually falls under the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. If I require an answer to any of my questions involving the various provincial nature reserve or conservation bodies, I have to direct my questions to another Minister, in this instance the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who carries the responsibility for the problem.

He does everything!

We are now dealing with three different Ministers. This split responsibility just does not make sense. The hon member for Caledon talked about an integrated approach to conservation and this is vitally important. The sooner it comes the better.

I wish to urge the department and the hon the Minister to take a much stronger line on conservation matters. When I talk about a stronger line, I want to take one particular instance recently and here I want to take the hon the Minister to task. I want to take him to task about something that he has done to Walker Bay.

He had better not go to Hermanus!

I know that a compromise has been reached but I do not consider this to be at all satisfactory. The late Mr John Wiley, when he was Minister of Environment Affairs, took the courageous step of closing Walker Bay. This hon Minister has seen fit to partially reverse this decision.

It is a shame!

He never should have done that. I do not believe that an adequate marine environmental impact assessment has been done in coming to this decision. I know that the hon the Minister may or may not have been advised on the basis of the resource being sustained, which it might well be, and that it can stand some fishing but I hope that he appreciates that this is not the whole story. I know that he was probably under considerable pressure from the fishing industry but he must resist this sort of pressure in the interests of the long-term future of all the people in the area. He made a very wrong decision in this case and I hope it is not too late to change his mind. He must realise that things like the tourist trade are important. [Interjections.]

All in all I do not believe that we should pat ourselves on the back about what we have done because there is still so much to do. Our performance both nationally and internationally is very vulnerable because of what we have not done. I am the first to admit that we are doing a considerable amount and that we are getting better at it but we must not become complacent. We cannot afford to sit back. The protection of the quality life of all the people in our land is at stake and no effort must be spared to do a proper job.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to associate myself with the other hon members who have extended their congratulations to the hon member for Caledon on his appointment as chairman of the Joint Committee on Environment and Land Affairs. The hon member has a fine sense of judgement and feeling for matters pertaining to nature and the environment. This is apparent from the many excellent and first-rate contributions he has already made in this House, as he has done once again this afternoon. We wish him everything of the best.

I also want to convey my gratitude to those people who referred to my chairmanship. Now is also a good time to extend my thanks to the hon the Minister concerned, as well as to the department and all the hon members who served on that committee, for their co-operation, their considerable patience, and the good work that was done.

The Republic quite rightly enjoys international recognition for the quality of the control, management and preservation of our environment. That is quite something if one takes into account the fact that we are a developing African country, with an acknowledged large Third World component. Development and conservation are difficult policy directions to reconcile with one another. The striking of a healthy balance remains a very vexing and continuing problem. Public opinion ought also to play a very large role in this, and that is, in fact, what is happening in the Republic at present. As an example of this, is a further aerial cableway to Vlaeberg required for tourists? The answer may possibly be yes. However, I most definitely say no, because it is simply not worth it.

One could go on giving this sort of example. We had the same situation a number of years ago when there was talk of a slide on the Tygerberg. Fortunately, this idea died a sudden death after vehement public protest.

Commercial interests in the RS A today are, to a certain extent, being checked by growing public opposition. This is a healthy state of affairs and the Government is very sensitive and highly attuned to public opinion.

This motion quite rightly expresses gratitude to the Government for the conservation measures that are being taken. I think that by implication this is not only taking place at the first level of Government but it also encompasses the other levels of Government, namely the provincial administration and local government levels. I think it would be entirely in conflict with reality if the considerable contributions of these levels of Government did not also enjoy recognition, because the devolution of power is an accepted policy of this side of the House, namely the Government. There will be an acceleration with regard to these aspects, also insofar as conservation is concerned.

The Cape Provincial Administration recently announced new hunting regulations. I want to congratulate them on these excellent measures because in them they have quite rightly afforded recognition to the farmer and the landowner for the mammoth contribution they have made in the field of conservation. They have now arranged the hunting ordinance in such a way that balanced utilisation may take place over a longer period, with far fewer prescriptive regulations. In truth this complements the entire conservation action of landowners. That is why the increase in our wildlife stock in fact runs directly contrary to the trend elsewhere in Africa, This is conclusive proof of the success of the Government’s measures.

The hon member for Bryanston referred to the application for a small boat harbour at Plettenberg Bay. I also want to tell him at once that I am not in favour of that particular development, but I think the Administrator of the Cape deserves a very big pat on the back for his handling of, and for his actions relating to, this very contentious and sensitive application. All members of the public have had ample opportunity to address representations to the Administrator. Furthermore, they have also had an opportunity to take part in verbal discussions and to state their case. By way of this frank handling of a very difficult situation, the Administrator has succeeded, whatever his ultimate decision may be, in assuring the largest measure of public participation, which in turn will make the acceptance of his ultimate decision so much easier. I understand that this decision will be announced shortly.

Another such provincial example is that of the Natal Parks Board. They are geared to react particularly insofar as public opinion and the enjoyment and comfort of the public are concerned, and that is why they enjoy such great popularity both internationally and locally.

†My attention was recently drawn to an article in the Financial Mail of 21 October 1988. On the front page are the words “Toxic waste disposal could earn us billions—what’s the risk?”. The article itself is headed: “Waste not, want not. Should South Africa bury the world’s industrial poisons for a price? It makes sense.” The author of this article tries to make out a case for this dangerous and highly controversial but profitable business. I want to quote from this article as follows:

The article continues:

This article mentions our favourable resources, technology and so forth, and comes to the conclusion that we should have a serious look at this particular industry.

First of all, I would like to say that the hon the Minister reacted to this idea by means of a Press statement in which he said the following:

I think that is the proper view, with respect, because sure, we have the high technology and the expertise.

It is a source of income for that ethnic state. [Interjections.]

It is probably a good thing for them to do.

†Our own nuclear disposal site in Namaqualand is evidence of our know-how and also our concern in regard to this particularly dangerous industry. We certainly have the climate and the population distribution to embark on a project like this and it could very well be that internationally we could enhance our position if we were to do something like this through the auspices of a United Nations agency. Sure, there is big money involved and substantial foreign currency benefits. However, whatever these pro-factors may be or whatever weight may be attached to them, I believe that this Government will never give its blessing to this particularly dangerous and very obnoxious industry. I am quite certain that no self-respecting nation or country would involve their own territory for the benefit of First World and well-developed countries that want to foist this responsibility onto other countries that do not have the technology to even deal with it in return for money.

Decisions in regard to this particular aspect will have an impact over a period of up to 500 years. The Citizen of August 1988 made mention of this very fact under the heading “Toxic waste—Europe’s ‘ugliest export’.” They continue by saying:

We have a situation here where the First World is definitely trying to shift its responsibilities and problems to countries that have difficulty in withstanding this pressure.

There is another point that I would like to stress and that is that we not only have a duty towards ourselves in this regard but certainly, as the regional leader, we should set the example also for our neighbours and I would like the hon the Minister’s assurance in this regard.

I want to conclude by referring to the new environmental legislation which will appear before the committee shortly. This legislation has been published twice and I think that if it is accepted, it will bring far-reaching changes to both the public and private sectors in co-ordinating action regarding conservation. This Bill, if accepted, will further enhance this country’s stature on these issues. I therefore support the motion.

Mr Chairman, I seldom sympathise with the hon member for Caledon, but I am as disappointed as he is that his motion has attracted this large crowd he is addressing here today. When I look at the empty benches, I feel it really disappointing that he could not attract a bigger crowd for this resolution he has moved.

The same thing happens at NP meetings.

I am saying this in lighter vein, and I understand that this debate cannot actually be a political debate because the hon member for Caledon and the hon member for Bryanston are both equally liberal. I want to say that I am not going to bring politics into this debate either. In the same spirit I am not going to quarrel with the hon member the Minister because I have heard his colleagues are gossiping that he is just as conservative as I am! We shall therefore not cross swords in that respect either. [Interjections.]

That hon member has no idea what politics is. I actually want to congratulate the hon member for Bryanston on his speech today. I think it was a remarkable contribution. He did a great deal of research, and I am also glad that he tried to rectify what is misrepresented abroad. I suppose all of us in this House owe him a debt of thanks for that.

I want to touch on several other aspects. I want to say something about the combating of soil erosion. We find that through the effects of water and wind every year tons of top-soil are carried away and end up in the oceans or elsewhere where it is of no use at all. The encroaching desert is drawing nearer.

I want to appeal for us to establish a positive scheme and modus operandi through which we can again tackle and combat soil erosion as a problem in this country. I believe it is a good thing to put up contour banks but as matters now stand, every farmer puts up a bank as far as the boundary of his farm—then he still has to go to all the trouble of making a drainage channel there. I know that an agreement can be reached for neighbouring farmers to link up their contour banks across the boundaries of their farms, but if we could tackle this on a broad basis, on a national basis, from Messina to the Cape, we could contour the entire country properly, and we would achieve greater success. In this way one contour could link up with another irrespective of farm boundaries. This will also involve the cooperation of the national states and even the TBVC countries.

I do not want to debate today whether national servicemen are being used productively all the time. I do not think this is the place for it, nor do I have any criticism of the existing national service system. However, we know that complaints are frequently received in this regard. In future we could perhaps consider also using national servicemen to do agriculture land service in the form of soil conservation. We also know that some of the other peoples are against national service, but I am sure that we could negotiate with them to ascertain whether they would not be prepared to do land service in their own areas, where their services can be used to establish soil conservation works and they can in this way do land service over a period of two years.

Next I want to say something about veld fires. Veld fires are controlled by the Forest Act. We know that the Forest Act provides that if a fire were to break out on my land, it would, for example, be assumed that I had been negligent—until I proved the contrary.

In the near future we are not only going to be dealing with negligent fire-raising. We are going to be dealing with arson in every sense of the word—when it is done deliberately. We are aware of rumours in this regard. I think we must act timeously, before an absolute political connotation is attached to this too, to introduce stricter measures and heavier penalties, so that fires can be prevented. If one travels in July and August from Pretoria to the Eastern Transvaal or from the Rand to the Eastern Transvaal, one will virtually not see a farm which is not burnt black. The nearer one gets to the Rand the worse it is.

I want to suggest that we can take a few steps. In the first place many of these fires start on the farmers’ farms. I want to suggest that, in cooperation with the Agricultural Union—I can say that the Agricultural Union is prepared to cooperate—the job is tackled of seeing to it that firebelts or fire-breaks are constructed around the houses of farm workers, so that the fire cannot spread from there, if a fire should start there as a result of the making of fires and the use of cooking facilities. In this way we can prevent a great deal of damage to ourselves and our neighbours.

However we shall have to go further. We shall have to introduce measures which actually make it compulsory to construct and maintain firebelts. I know it is an added burden, but in this way we are going to prevent a great deal of damage in future. We know that people even travel by motor vehicle to start fires.

There are several more minor aspects which have for the most part already been touched on, which I also wish to touch on. I should like an explanation from the hon the Minister as to why he has made the Walker Bay conservation area smaller. We should like him to give us an explanation for this.

The matter of the smuggling of ivory has already been dealt with and I have already expressed my thanks in this regard. However, I was rather alarmed to learn that my colleague, the hon member for Bryanston, was so concerned about the ability of the future Black majority government to apply wildlife conservation in South West Africa. I do not know whether he has the same fears with regard to other areas.

I should also like to know from the hon the Minister what progress has been made with the Vaalbos National Park, specifically regarding the position of Pniel. Has an agreement been reached yet, because I have received reports that there is fairly widespread squatting in that area, and is the hon the Minister making progress with the environmental conservation which should be taking place there?

In conclusion I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider taking steps to ensure that lorries transporting coal are covered with tarpaulins. I have mentioned this at several places, such as Sasol, and they assure me that no dust blows of the lorries. I do not know where they test that dust, but all they need do is drive behind that lorry. One’s windscreen gets dirty and fine dust settles on everything. I feel this is something we can prevent, because it is causing damage to vehicles. I not am saying that large pieces of coal blow off and I am not saying that all the dust comes from vehicles travelling to Sasol, but this is a problem which is easy to solve, which we can solve by covering the lorries so that that dust does not settle on motor vehicles.

Mr Chairman, I would like firstly to quote a paragraph from the November 1988 issue of Custos, which reads as follows:

Today that is history. Never ever will we see those animals again.

This afternoon I want to deal particularly with the poaching of black rhino and elephants. Let me give hon members some statistics. In 1970 there were some 65 000 black rhino in Africa. In 1984 this number had dwindled to somewhere between 8 000 and 9 000, in 1986 to 3 800 and in 1988 to 3 500, of which 610 are in South Africa and approximately 400 in SWA/Namibia. Between these two countries we control almost a third of the total black rhino population of Africa.

If one looks at the southern white rhino at the turn of the century—the 1900’s—there were less than a hundred. Around the 1960s and 1970s the white rhino was due to become extinct. Due to the efforts of the Natal Parks Board and the other parks boards in South Africa a massive campaign was launched which saved the white rhino and took it from the danger list. Today we are proud to have 4 600 animals in both South Africa and SWA.

The northern and the southern white rhino is almost non-existent in Africa. There are approximately between 400 and 500 animals left in the rest of Africa. If one looks at the dwindling populations of black rhino, if they are slaughtered at the rate that they are presently being slaughtered the black rhino will become extinct by the turn of the century, except of course for South Africa and SWA.

Let us look at the plight of the elephants: In 1980 there were some 1,1 million elephants roaming the continent of Africa. Seven years later in 1987 there were 750 000 elephants roaming Africa. In other words, within seven years 350 000 elephants were slaughtered. If we look at that rate of poaching then the African elephant will become extinct in the first decade of the 21st century.

That is a brief statistical background to the rhino and the elephant.

What is the problem of the rhino? Rhino horn is used mainly in certain Middle-East countries and mostly in Far-East countries for certain illnesses and as an aphrodisiac. Elephant tusks are of course used for ivory. It is said that rhino horn—the hon member for Bryanston referred to this very briefly—is finding its way from Africa through the ports of South Africa to the East. I would like to quote as follows from the editorial of the magazine Quagga, No 24, Summer 1988, on page four:

I would say that there is a possibility that this ivory and rhino horn could have come from certain African countries through South Africa to the East. As the hon member for Bryanston mentioned, I am very pleased that whatever he has discovered, he has handed the cases over to the police. I also appeal to the Endangered Wildlife Trust to bring any information to the attention of the police and I am sure they will give all the support they can.

Has anyone thought of the question of the other African ports? If we look at Kenya and Zaire: Are they going to poach in Kenya and transport those horns all the way to let them go through South Africa? That sounds ridiculous. It is almost impossible for our customs officials to go through every container that crosses our borders, to go through every railway truck and examine all the boxes. This is a physical impossibility and it is also impossible to control our long borders with our neighbours. I can assure hon members that the police are doing whatever they can. Some of these investigations take a long time to catch these criminals. Our credibility stands in the outside world because we are the only country in Africa that could prove to the outside world that we could save the rhino.

The black rhino is getting off the danger list in South Africa but we need the assistance of our neighbours. Our neighbours are also members of Cites. We want to find out what they are doing about the problem. It is no good when the rhino horn gets to the border and we catch the culprits, because that rhino is already dead. We have to catch the people before they kill it, not after they have killed it. They too have a responsibility being members of Cites.

An area that we can look at is the penalties which we have here in South Africa. Rhino horn fetches a price of approximately $1500.1 believe that the time has come for us to have a serious look at our legislation. At the moment our legislation provides for a fine of R2 000 for poaching. He pays it with a smile. Our penalties must be increased drastically. We should put it at R100 000 like some other countries including the United States have done. R100 000 should be the penalty for a first offender and 10 years effective jail sentence should be given too. If we do not do that, then we certainly will loose credibility in the outside world as far as the protection of our game is concerned.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I want to concentrate on only one aspect of environmental pollution, and I want to devote all the time at my disposal to it.

Whoever neglects and disregards his environment, disregards not only his God-given gift of his living space on earth, but also the living milieu that must be created for future generations. Whoever destroys and neglects his environment cannot say that he loves his children and his grandchildren.

Pollution has nothing to do with the natural conditions of nature outside. The actions and way of life of people are directly linked to pollution.

There is a source of pollution which our forefathers did not know, but which is an important destructive link in our living space today. I am referring to plastic waste. This product, which since the forties has replaced the traditional hessian and paper packaging, has come to stay. It has many advantages over the old packaging methods and materials. It is known for its strength and can withstand tension and pressure better than ordinary paper. It is light. The contents do not become much heavier if plastic is used as the packaging material. It is also durable. Water, wind and time do not have a destructive effect on it, as is the case with paper. Sunlight and bacteria have a little effect on this material. It is this durability which creates the endless problem of pollution by plastic material. If one takes into account that it is only for the past 40 years that we have had this plastic in our midst, and there is already pollution caused by discarded plastic waste, one can imagine what matters will be like 400 years hence if we do not intervene and do something drastic to combat this source of pollution. In 1970 it was found that there was enough plastic waste to cover the whole world, as an apple or an orange can be wrapped in paper.

What is the extent of this source of pollution? Must we take action or must we allow it to carry on? Must we do something positive or must we simply close our eyes to it?

Research at 60 South African beaches has indicated that the position concerning the pollution of the sea is more serious than is generally accepted. Even remote beaches are polluted, and most of the pollution is caused by discarded plastic containers in which food and beverages are packed. It has also been ascertained that thousands of pieces of plastic waste are trapped in every square kilometre of sea sand. Some people are already talking about plastic sand.

In Insig of June 1988 an important article appeared under the caption “Plastiek wurg ons see dood”. In this article Mrs Nan Rice of the Dolphin Protection Association of Cape Town is quoted. She maintains that plastic waste causes just as much devastation among marine life as oil pollution. In the USA it was recently alleged that 100 000 sea mammals die annually as a result of plastic pollution. The tragedy is that they die a slow, agonising death. Dolphins, whales, and other marine animals drowning after months of suffering, nooses around the necks of unfortunate animals, which cut deep into the flesh—this is only a small part of the tragic story. More than a thousand pieces of plastic were found in one sea turtle. The waste material causes blockages in the animals’ intestines and this results in toxins being secreted which are fatal to marine life.

It was recently found that no fewer than 30 species of our sea birds eat this lethal waste material. I need not even spell out the consequences of this to the House. The sea bed is also polluted in this way. The marine life is adversely affected and the ecology disturbed. It is estimated that plastic waste material can remain laying on the sea bed for up to 450 years without decaying. On land it is becoming an unsightly characteristic of many of our roads. On a windy day strips of plastic can be seen flapping on fences like the laundry of yore. This makes our environment look untidy. Animals, particularly calves, like to chew this plastic. Abattoirs indicate that the intestines of cattle sometimes contain bundles of plastic as large as soccer balls. When material of this kind causes the animal’s death, it suffers for a long time before dying.

Even people do not escape unscathed. This waste material can also cause skin diseases. It frequently causes serious burns. Yet the demand for plastic is increasing every year. At the moment South Africa needs approximately 650 000 tons of packaging material every year, of which approximately 37 000 tons is plastic. From the housewives’ dust-bin to the garbage dump, 7% of all waste is plastic. After decomposition on the garbage dump this percentage rises to 70% owing to plastic’s resistance to decomposition. There is no doubt that it is going to become an even more serious problem.

Now the question is whether there is an instant solution. Is there a solution we can immediately put forward and say we have a solution to this extremely serious future problem? At the moment I cannot think of such a solution. Can we prohibit this kind of material? I believe it has come to stay. Economically it is beneficial. It is convenient and saves time. Researchers have tried to find a solution to the question on how to combat this problem.

A lecturer at the University of Cape Town has recommended the following four steps for consideration. He suggested that this product should be replaced by non-plastic. However, the problem is that non-plastic is not as economical as plastic. It was also suggested that supermarkets should not make plastic bags so freely available that every Tom, Dick and Harry can take as many as he likes.

Perhaps they should start using paper again.

Yes, perhaps they should start using paper again instead of plastic. More should also be paid for the plastic bags made available at supermarkets. We can also think about the educating of people. We must train the public not to be litter-bugs. We should teach people discipline; then the problem will be solved. Of course that is the real solution. That is the solution which would make all the problems disappear. How can we reach every member of the public, however?

There is also the notion of the recycling of material.

That is a very important aspect!

Unfortunately this is not economical. It nevertheless remains a good idea to use and re-use material. One can never ignore the value of this.

But then the Bureau of Standards must recognise this.

Then there is another important aspect. If these other forms of saving combating do not work, legislation must be introduced again. This is not the ideal situation however, but if the other methods fail, it is probably the only solution.

I am asking the hon the Minister today to consult the department on provisions to see whether the durability of the plastic material cannot be shortened in certain cases, so that it will not lie decomposing on our roads, beaches and garbage dumps looking unsightly. This is merely creating problems for us.

In 1980 there was a White Paper—A National Policy regarding Environmental Conservation. This White Paper contained wonderful intentions, but what become of them? The could-not-care-less attitude of some members of the public must make way for a deliberate combating of plastic waste. We shall have to convert the could-not-care-less attitude of our public into a deliberate attempt to say that we are going to eradicate this evil from our national and environmental life. South Africa is streets behind countries like Japan, which is a clean, neat country. Should we not also try to keep our country clean and neat by not simply dumping our waste wherever we feel like it. South Africa will have to decide whether it wants to apply a Third World standard, or are we going to take the bull by the horns? I am appealing to the hon the Minister to take the lead and not only be known for his words. We ask the hon the Minister still to be known for his actions. I am appealing to the inhabitants of South Africa to combat this evil. I am appealing to the hon the Minister to take the lead, because we will support him.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to react to all these positive contributions which have been made. I should like to say one thing. I found one of the remarks by the hon member for Bethal very interesting, namely that we should use our national servicemen to implement conservation while doing their military service! I do not know where the hon member is going to get those national servicemen from, because they are asking for the continuation of the war in SWA. He does not want Blacks or people of colour in the Defence Force either!

The objections you have just raised are really stupid!

I think the hon member should keep quiet, because we are going to have him stuffed so that future generations can see what the CP looked like! [Interjections.]

I should therefore like to associate myself with my hon colleagues who have already …

Your stomach is too big.

Just listen to who is talking! … expressed their thanks and appreciation to the Government for the comprehensive measures taken in this regard.

I should like to concentrate briefly on a few of these. For the past week or so … [Interjections] … oh, just listen to that!—there have been a number of articles and news programmes on the so-called “hot-house effect” which has apparently originated and been created by the destruction of the ozone layer, to which that hon member also referred. There would seem to be a difference of opinion among scientists regarding whether this is a real threat or whether the present phenomenon of apparent changes in climate in large parts of the world is really being caused by the alleged destruction of the ozone layer.

In October 1987 Time magazine published an alarming article on this subject, in which it was stated that the so-called ozone opening above Antarctica was getting bigger. This would result in ice starting to melt and sea levels would consequently rise. This would have adverse consequences for the world.

According to some scientists man is changing his environment totally by burning substances which release millions of tons of carbon dioxide which can no longer be converted into oxygen by normal processes in nature. As a result serious changes in climate within the next 50 to 100 years will create totally new climatic conditions in which the sun’s ultraviolet rays will even pose a threat to man. Ī wonder whether Prof Carel Boshoff also took this aspect into account when he decided on the homeland where the Boerestaat, or CP homeland, would be, in which the people would have to go and live.

Certain other chemical substances which are used freely by man, are allegedly making a further contribution to the destruction of the ozone layer. This has caused so much concern that in 1987 a united national environmental programme was established. This led to an agreement known as the Montreal Protocol. This protocol will also be supported by South Africa; so I understand. Perhaps the hon the Minister can give us further information on this.

No one can read a speech like he can!

South Africa’s environmental programme under the leadership of the hon the Minister—thank you very much for that compliment—therefore endorses the concern existing in the world, and is consequently also making a contribution to the protection and maintenance of the environment.

The Protocol controls the production and consumption of two groups of chemicals which can have an effect on the ozone layer. The Protocol came into effect on 1 January 1989 and is supported by the most important manufacturers of chemicals in South Africa. There is only one manufacturer who manufactures those specific products. This is linked to a time-table. By July 1998—by that time the CP will have disappeared—the annual consumption of the relevant chemicals must be only half of the 1986 consumption. Perhaps the hon the Minister can give us an indication as to whether we will be able to meet these requirements. South Africa’s consumption of the products controlled by the Montreal Protocol only represents 1% of what is used internationally. The envisaged signing of the Protocol will therefore prove yet again that this country meets its obligations to the world to maintain and conserve the environment.

I should also like to refer to the measures taken inside the country to promote the protection of the environment.

Splendid!

South Africa has become world famous for the way in which nature conservation is applied here. Koos should say “splendid” again! The Kruger National Park and other national parks now rank among our biggest tourist attractions. In general South Africa is considered …

Order! The hon member for Germiston District cannot constantly refer to another hon member by his Christian name.

I shall refer to the hon member.

The hon member Koos!

The hon Koos. [Interjections.] Our Kruger National Park and other national parks now rank among our biggest tourist attractions. In general South Africa is considered a leader in Africa as regards conservation measures taken to protect our wildlife. The Government’s environmental awareness has communicated itself to the population as a whole. Various organisations in South Africa have been established with only one objective, namely to conserve our natural heritage for future generations. By the enlargement of our national, provincial and other nature reserves, this Government has done its duty to create a healthy balance and to conserve our environment for the present and for future generations. We must take grateful cognisance of the continued efforts by our Government to develop this further.

The National Parks Board and the Natal Parks Board are doing tremendous work to create an ecological balance in our parks. Recently I was privileged to acquaint myself with the management philosophy of the Parks Board, specifically in the Kruger National Park. The efforts which these people are making to develop the Kruger National Park as an ecological unit deserves the praise of this House. Their objective is to protect one of the greatest assets of our country for future generations according to scientifically founded data.

However, I have a few points of criticism, but I hope that the hon the Minister will accept this as constructive criticism. Perhaps I should not address all this criticism to the Parks Board. If this asset, which after all is a national asset, is being conserved for the people, the public must also have the opportunity to enjoy and utilise it fully. A visit to our parks must not simply consist of an opportunity to have a holiday, to braai meat in the evenings and to spend the days looking for rare animals, particular predators. It must also be an educational experience. The success of a visit to the Kruger National Park should not be judged by the numbers of lions, elephants and buffaloes one has seen after driving for kilometers.

I am therefore asking that the public visiting the parks should be given more information on what is actually going on around them. The Parks Board is already doing a great deal by means of the introduction of hiking tours, under the leadership of biologically trained officials. I believe that escorted bus tours in the Kruger National Park, for example, can make a big contribution towards opening new doors for our public.

Another aspect which is perhaps being neglected is the secrets of the night life in the Kruger National Park. The illumination of a water-hole in the Etosha Pan in South West Africa has in my opinion, already proved that this does not disturb the animals and their habits. I believe in the years ahead the Parks Board can give more attention to this aspect. I am also asking for escorted night visits which can be paid for and which can be arranged for the visitor to the game reserve by the National Parks Board.

It must not be thought that I am advocating commercialisation or am trying to create an atmosphere of change in this resort. The game reserve must retain its atmosphere. It would be a sad day when five-star hotels were built in the game reserve, as some people have advocated.

However, I do believe that there must be some places, particularly water-holes, where the wildlife photographer must have the opportunity to get closer to these water-holes and drinking places and take photographs without disturbing the wildlife. In conclusion I want to pay tribute to the hon the Minister and those organisations and interested groups that make such an appreciated and enormous contribution to the protection of the environment in our beautiful country.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Caledon on his appointment as chairman of the committee entrusted with environment affairs. We know he is well equipped to be chairman of this committee and that he will make a success of it. We should like to thank the hon member for bringing this motion to the House of Assembly.

There was a remark from the Opposition a moment ago that it was very strange that the Government was coming forward with so neutral a motion, whereas there is so much that we can talk about in the way of politics. Hon members know that we can get so tied up in politics and talk so much politics that we forget to consider our country’s urgent needs.

We should like to leave this country to our descendants in a better state than that in which we found it. Politics is important, but politics is not everything. What would this country look like if we concentrated only on politics, as is the case in certain parts of the world, where the environment and natural resources are not even considered? I think it is essential to take a rest every now and again and to prise ourselves loose from political thoughts in order to see what is important to this country we are living in on a daily basis. We thank the hon member for Caledon very much for bringing this motion to the House of Assembly.

There is no doubt that there is an increase in interest in the environment worldwide. To an increasing degree people are becoming more sensitive about the diminishing assets we have, and to the same extent conservation of the environment is being made a political issue. I think that is a great pity. I encourage conservation bodies to make themselves known and to promote their public image, but at the same time I warn them not to become a pressure group like the Greens in Europe.

Every action has a reaction. These Greens have made themselves very unpopular because of their politics. Consequently people are actually aggressive towards people who originally meant well. We must be careful, therefore, in how we act.

I want to congratulate the hon member for Caledon, because I think he made a very good speech and maintained a very high standard. He broached the whole aspect of environmental conservation in general. He addressed the problems we have to contend with on both the national and international levels today. I also want to thank him very much for the good wishes he expressed with regard to the handling of our environmental legislation later in the year. That is a very important piece of legislation.

†I am sure that many hon members, especially the hon member for Bryanston, are looking forward to debating that Bill. I think it will be controversial in many respects because it will deal with the protection of the environment on the one hand and development on the other.

*If one places development and conservation one against the other, one has a conflict situation, but I am confident that we shall manifest the necessary seriousness in dealing with this legislation when it appears. If I have any time left, I may say a few more words about the legislation later.

The hon member for Nigel said this was an innocent motion. That is true, but it is an important motion.

I merely wanted to get you going.

Very well, he said we chased up clouds of smoke about politics. Let us chase up another, right here and in a friendly spirit, about environmental conservation. Let me put as friendly a question to the hon member for Nigel, since he wants to talk a bit of politics. Suppose his party should come into power. Would he throw the national parks open to all population groups or not?

Now that is debatable! [Interjections.]

It should be easy for the hon member to answer that. Are they going to or not?

I think that is debatable.

He says it is debatable. [Interjections.] I take it the hon member is not quite sure of what he is going to do. I therefore assume that he will probably want to maintain the status quo. If he does not intend to do that, he must say so. [Interjections.]

In addition I want to ask him, also in a friendly spirit … [Interjections.] I do not want to fight with him.

Of course not!

If they should demarcate a homeland, more or less as proposed by Prof Boshoff, a new park we are developing, viz the Richtersveld Park, will fall within that homeland.

That is their heartland!

Yes, it is a heartland or White land or homeland; I do not know the difference. [Interjections.]

The land of that park belongs to the Coloureds and is part of their rural area. We have an agreement with them. Would the CP keep to that agreement with the Coloureds? Would the CP allow them to keep the land?

That is a question for Prof Boshoff. [Interjections.]

Oh, it is a question for Prof Boshoff. [Interjections.]

If we wanted to, we could even make politics of environment affairs and nature conservation affairs, but I do not think we should do that. [Interjections.] There will still be time. I shall talk some politics again in a moment. [Interjections.]

The hon member broached a serious matter. He spoke about water transfer schemes where we had not made environmental impact studies. Let me tell the hon member immediately with regard to the report that he referred to that we have reservations about its correctness. We should like to discuss this report with the CSIR. The fact is that ecological evaluation is carried out by the department in loco in the case of each water scheme it builds. It is the department that is responsible for the purity of our water and for the protection of the environment in the catchment areas. How could we not make a thorough study of the ecological impact of a dam before building it? That would be the most stupid thing on earth. No, I want to assure the hon member that we make thorough studies before we build a dam.

With reference to the question of air pollution in the Eastern Transvaal, I want to tell the hon member that when I was at Witbank recently to plant trees—it was arbor day—I congratulated the local authorities on the fine day and the beautiful pure air. I know this was not only their doing. It is because of a programme to combat air pollution that we can even see blue sky in Witbank once again. This is a very serious pollution problem and hon members will wonder why it falls under the Department of Health Services instead of under my department. The answer is that air pollution holds a direct health risk. It has an immediate influence on health. It not only looks ugly, but can affect people’s health. That is why it falls under the Department of Health Services. There is the closest liaison between my department and the Department of Health Services, to such an extent that funds are made available by means of the weather bureau, which also falls under me, for monitoring air samples which are then analysed, in co-operation with the Department of Health, so that we can determine the levels of pollution. In addition the Department of Forestry is a good monitor of air pollution levels because young plantations are extremely vulnerable to acid rain and polluted air. This is constantly monitored by the Department of Forestry, and we are satisfied that we have the question of pollution under control to a reasonable extent at this stage, although it is not perfect, †I now come to the hon member for Bryanston. He is afraid that this motion may create a reaction of complacency. I want to assure the hon member that there is no reason for complacency.

*Naturally we do our best, but we are conscious that there are still many shortcomings.

†Our international standing, I think, is quite high as we have done much. I agree with the hon member that we are facing up to international pressures. Yes we are. Definitely so. Especially with the Greens’ world-wide appeal, there will be more and more international pressure. I will take note of international pressure but I will not succumb to appeals made by the Greens.

*They must forget about that now. I am deaf to anything that sounds as if the Greens may be involved. I will listen to ordinary, logical representations from abroad about environmental affairs, yes certainly, but I do not listen to the Greens.

†The hon member for Bryanston dealt with Monitor’s accusation against us concerning rhino horn. I want to say immediately that the action taken by the hon member when he became aware of this deserves praise. I want to thank him for the very responsible way in which he dealt with the matter. Following on the advice I received from the hon member, I acted immediately and informed the National Parks Board and several other bodies about the accusations against us and action was taken.

*I want to tell hon members today that there is grave concern among all the conservation bodies about these accusations, and upon the initiative of the conservation bodies we have already contacted all the members of Cites to explain our position in respect of these allegations.

†When we meet later this year at Cites, I think they will be well informed as to what action we have taken and as to our position in the international world.

*The problem is that people do not understand that we provide a thoroughfare to traffic from a number of neighbouring states. As much as 95% of Malawi’s exports go through South Africa, for example—and also their imports. We have arrangements with these countries—and I do not think it is possible for us to inspect every container that comes from our neighbouring states to be exported from the coast. What does happen is that when a container which is exported from Durban arrives at its destination, wherever that may be, they say it comes from South Africa, because it has been exported from Durban. This creates the impression that those smuggled goods come from South Africa, which, of course, is totally wrong. That is the problem.

†I want to assure the hon member for Bryanston—he is well aware of it, I think—and I want to give the assurance to this House that police investigations are going on.

*The police view the matter in a very serious light. I am not in a position to give hon members details. I received a report from my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, which I have with me. If the hon member for Bryanston is interested, I shall show him the one I have just received—fresh from the oven. I merely want to assure everyone that the police are doing their utmost to combat this smuggling. The SADF took immediate action. If people are guilty, we must simply clamp down on them, and we shall.

†The hon member for Bryanston also referred to the devolvement of certain executive functions to the Provincial Administrations. Yes, it has been done. In many instances we think that the Provincial Administrations are in favourable positions to execute these functions.

*Certain functions can probably be performed better by the CPA than when this has to be done from Pretoria, because the former has such a large conservation component. If we see that certain functions do not work, we should take another look at them. I am prepared to do that. tSeveral hon members have mentioned Walker Bay. Let my say at once that Walker Bay has never been a reserve.

*In all probability Walker Bay has unique characteristics, but it has never been declared a conservation area. The only thing we did when we issued permits to the trawlers—and only to the pelagic trawlers—was to place a restriction upon them in terms of which they were not allowed to catch fish within a certain line from one cape to the next. That was one of their permit conditions. I must tell hon members immediately that those permit conditions to trawlers were not based on scientific grounds. I could not trace any recommendation made by scientists with regard to those conditions.

In the first place these were largely emotional representations, which my predecessor had reacted to. In the second place it was a good thing to see what happened to such a large expanse of water if it were closed to pelagic trawlers over a period of a few years. In the third place the so-called throwing open of Walker Bay simply means that trawlers that catch pelagic fish, viz sardines and anchovies which move on the surface, will now also be able to sail in a certain restricted area where the southeaster blows strongly. In the fourth place Walker Bay is not the breeding ground of pelagic fish. The only thing that happens is that the pelagic fish pass by there when they move around the coast and when certain weather conditions apply, they will enter the bay, stay there a while and then continue their journey. They are migratory fish. In the fifth place there is no indication that there was an increase in the catch of line fish as a result of the prohibition on pelagic fishing in the bay. No evidence to that effect could be found; in fact, what we do know is that catches of line fish have improved somewhat in this whole coastal area during the past year. Whether pelagic fish were caught or not, the line fish catches improved in any case. The pelagic catches also improved as a result of a number of reasons, including the conservation measures we instituted, better monitoring of the biomass, etc.

This throwing open of Walker Bay aroused strong emotions. Hon members must remember that there are people who make their living from fishing, and others who fish for pleasure. We do not want to tread on the toes of those who fish for their pleasure, but at the same time we cannot deprive people of their living. [Interjections.]

This decision was taken after thorough consideration and after scientists’ reports had been studied. In fact, I cannot take decisions other than upon scientists recommendations, because that would be silly. I must see what my scientists recommend and then take decisions accordingly. In this case too, the decisions were taken upon the recommendation of the scientists.

The tourists, holiday-makers and my good friends who go there on holiday, will not see a trawler near Walker Bay during December or January. They will not be there. Those with boats that have outboard motors can do as they please in the bay then and catch their line fish, because the pelagic fishing boats will not catch the line fish. I can assure hon members of that. Anyone who knows pelagic fish will tell hon members that line fish, such as kob, stay on the edge of these large schools of fish. They do not allow themselves to be caught in a school of sardines or anchovies. What happens is that those small fish suffocate the large fish if they end up in those large schools. Anyone who has any knowledge of the pelagic fish industry will be able to tell hon members that.

Do not begrudge the Gansbaaiers the bit of fish that they are going to catch there. We monitor their catches thoroughly, and they will not catch the line fish. Let us catch the maximum possible quantity of anchovy and sardines in the national interest. We need that, because there are people in this country who cannot afford any protein other than fish. Fish remains our cheapest source of protein.

That is changing fast!

Of course the price of fish will go up but it is still, in comparison to other protein sources, by far the cheapest, especially tinned pilchards, and I have asked the anchovy industry to do studies on the use of anchovy for human consumption. They are making very good progress. I am sure that in time we will have anchovy available for human consumption, more than the usual kinds available.

That is all I want to say regarding Walker Bay, except to add that this regulation at Walker Bay is not necessarily for all time. We will look at it again. We will look again, we will investigate again and if necessary will close it again and then open it again because we will manage it.

Open and shut!

“Open and shut”, one may call it that. We are managing the marine resource and that is what we must do. We must farm the sea.

I want to thank the hon member for Uitenhage for his services as chairman of the joint committee. The hon member has done good work for us and I wish him well with his new responsibility. The hon member referred to toxic waste. Until today there has been no change in the Government’s policy. What I have stated on toxic waste still stands and that is still the Cabinet’s opinion. Let me say this: Toxic waste is becoming an international problem.

*Toxic waste in the developed countries is becoming an enormous problem. There are ships that sail around the world, laden with toxic waste, seeking a country that will accept it to process it or will allow them to dump it. I do not think any country in the world would be keen to have toxic waste dumped there.

We have a toxic waste problem in our country. In Johannesburg the other day I went to see what the Waste-tech company does with toxic waste. As our industries develop, this toxic waste increases. At the moment the stuff is put in large drums and then poured into concrete blocks and stored at our refuse dumping sites.

At some or other stage even we in South Africa will have to start considering the processing of our toxic waste. We shall also have to consider—I am telling hon members this now—the scope of the size of such an industry. If our own industry is not large enough, we may be able to accommodate other countries in order to establish a viable industry, but with the greatest circumspection.

Immediately after the publication of the article to which the hon member referred, I instructed the Council for the Environment to make an investigation. Very quickly, because they work with these things constantly, they gave me a beautiful report. I gave it to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, as the co-ordinator of this industry. We are considering the matter in depth. I should like to give hon members the assurance that as far as the dumping of toxic waste is concerned, the answer will remain no, no, no.

I want to come to the hon member for Bethal, but my time has almost expired.

Hear, hear!

The hon member is not really that pleased about it.

The hon member for Bethal made an interesting speech. I merely want to tell the hon member that when it comes to trucks that give off all kinds of things in traffic, I agree with him. I shall look into the matter. It is not only a matter of coal; there is also gravel, sand and stone which damage one’s motor car, and there are papers that are blown off the trucks. I shall look into the matter.

†The hon member for Durban Point referred to the poaching of black rhino and elephant. I think that I have already dealt with that. I would like to thank him for his speech. The hon member for Witbank spelt out the dangers of plastic.

*I also have objections to plastic. I have lengthy discussions with the producers of plastic packaging material. That was the case once again this morning. Of all the plastic that is used in South Africa, approximately 25% is recirculated. I think we are making very good progress. I shall soon open a large installation for the reprocessing of plastic in the Cape.

The hon member for Germiston District is absolutely correct. We agreed to the signing of the Montreal Protocol. I do not know whether it is possible to reach that target date. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their participation in the discussion and their support for the motion.

I move:

Agreed to.

Draft resolution withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House shall support the Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Bill as amended by the Joint Committee on Finances. If one wants to extend the basic policy of shareholding in banks and bank controlling companies further and also conduct banking business in a more practical manner, the Bill effects a very useful change because it regulates the notification of the conditions of deposits accepted by the mutual building societies and building societies better and also because certain anomalies are now being rectified.

I do not want to elaborate on the correcting of an error that appeared in the Afrikaans text of the Bill. It probably happened inadvertently. It is not all that important.

In terms of clause 3 the Minister of Finance may approve that a financial company and its associates may exercise the voting rights attached to all the shares which are registered in their names. This measure eliminates possible confusion.

Mutual building societies and building societies can now amalgamate with a bank, but a bank that accepts cheque deposits and was allowed into a clearing-house, was prohibited from doing its banking business through a person in its part-time employ. We know that agents do a large part of the building societies’ work, and this could have given rise to a situation which may have prevented the amalgamation of banks and building societies. This problem has now been solved because provision has been made that in future banks will be able to do banking business through agents with the approval of the Registrar of Banks and subject to conditions laid down by him, as embodied in clause 4.

What is also important in this amending Bill, is the higher fines being imposed. Recently the public has suffered serious financial losses. I have not seen these offenders, but saw many of the offences reported in the newspapers.

We therefore feel that a fine not exceeding R100 000 or five years’ imprisonment for anyone found guilty of this offence—I refer specifically to clause 6 of the Bill before the House—should prove to be a very good and adequate deterrent; as will the fine of R5 000 for other offences. Because institutions of this kind certainly do not always have to deal with sophisticated depositors, and it is also obvious that as regards the opening of a savings or transmission account or the investment of fixed deposits, comprehensive information documents had to be given to these people, we welcome the fact that the Bill under discussion makes provision for such information to be given in an abbreviated form, as approved by the Registrar of Building Societies.

Last but not least the Bill makes provision for the property transactions which officials of mutual building societies and building societies are involved in. We are satisfied with these amendments because a considerable and unnecessary workload of both the registrar and the mutual building societies and building societies has now been lightened and because the prohibited transactions are now restricted to properties which are sold by or at the instance of the mutual building societies or building societies. We therefore support the measure under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Delmas for his support of this legislation. The measure presently before this House today is in a completely different form to the one in which it appeared before the joint committee.

†Mr Chairman, I should like in this regard to thank the officials who were involved, Dr De Swardt and Mr Van Rensburg. I should also like to mention the name of the hon member for Yeoville, who, I believe, played a most constructive role in reviewing this legislation. I think we in the joint committee are indebted to him for the positive approach he has taken in this regard and also for the diligence with which he approached this measure.

This amendment seeks to co-ordinate banking in Southern Africa. This is a principle which is internationally acknowledged. We find that amongst the so-called group of ten there exists the so-called Basle Concordat to ensure that all foreign bank establishments are subject to supervision. I certainly think South Africa endorses this approach, and clause 1 of this Bill aims at achieving this. It means that banks registered in the TBVC countries will also have to be registered in the Republic if they wish to do business here.

We are aware that the Banks Act, 1965, is to be revised in its entirety. We are also aware that this will take time and that this amending Bill is an interim measure to plug certain loopholes which have existed and have been exploited by certain people to defraud the public. Clause 6 has therefore been specifically introduced to give teeth to the measure in order to combat these irregularities. I believe the South African public has been shocked in recent months by disclosures of fraudulent activities in this regard.

I believe that in certain respects the South African public must also look to itself. The hon the Minister of Finance recently referred to the kubus mentality of South Africans. There are still people in our country who believe in Father Christmas, and if somebody comes along and offers them 40% interest they fall for it. I believe the name of a responsible body such as Sentraoes should be mentioned in this regard, because this is a responsible organisation and yet they fall for promises of ridiculous interest rates.

*I believe we should tell the people out there that Father Christmas is dead.

What about the children?

I think what is also perturbing is that while the media have very correctly reacted to fraudulent activity of members of the public sector, they seemed to be very reluctant to criticise members of the private sector who engaged in similar activities. [Interjection.]

Mr Chairman, I believe it is our responsibility to mould public opinion. Fraud, wherever it comes from, whether it comes from the public sector or from the private sector, has to be stamped out. We as representatives of the South African public cannot condone any activity of this sort. I believe that this Bill is a positive one and on behalf of this side of the House I gladly support it.

Mr Chairman, may I first of all thank the hon member for Wynberg for his kind words. I also want to say that I am a little sad at what he said about Father Christmas because I thought he believed in Father Christmas. There are tens of thousands of little children who are going to be very upset with the hon member for saying that Father Christmas is dead! I think Father Christmas is alive and well for those who deserve him. He is not alive and well for those who do not deserve or need him. I trust the hon member will take that in the spirit that I mean it!

The problem with the issue which the hon member for Wynberg has raised, is that it is not only the fact that there are people who are dishonest. It is actually human greed and that, to some extent, is the problem in South Africa. It is also the problem elsewhere is the world. We are not unique in this! When the kubus people were finished in South Africa, some of them went to the United States of America which is supposed to be such a sophisticated place and they perpetrated exactly the same schemes on those allegedly very intelligent people in the United States. So we should not knock our own people because we are as bad as they are but they are as bad as we are! The problem is that people do not understand that high yields mean high risk. That is what we should make the people understand.

One of the problems I think arises—and it comes to a very simple issue—is the preparation of our children to be equipped to deal with real life when they leave school. What do they learn at school? Do they learn how to enter into a hire purchase agreement? Do they learn what interest rates mean? Do they understand what the ordinary things in life are all about? I wonder if one of the real problems is not only educating adults but also equipping our children to deal with the real world. I think it is wonderful to know Latin and to know why Julius Caesar won the Gallic wars. I think it is a most fascinating subject but I also think it is a little bit more important to understand what real life is about. I think there is something wrong with our education system and this is why people do not understand the things I have mentioned.

I now come to the provision to this Bill in relation to the taking of deposits. This has arisen because of the activities of people in the independent homelands—in the TBVC countries. Those who run the TBVC countries expect us to co-operate with them. They expect the taxpayer of South Africa to assist them, and so the taxpayer should, but in return a degree of responsibility is required from those who govern the homelands in order to ensure that those places are not used as bases in order to exploit things which are not permitted in South Africa and which we regard as being undesirable.

Everything in life is a two-way deal. Somehow we have to get it across to those who run the home-lands that they must exercise a greater degree of responsibility in allowing this kind of institution to be registered and exist there. They have a duty towards us in the same way as we have a duty towards them.

The other matter in this Bill refers to the question of shareholding. We all know that part of this legislation is due to the fact that there is a major merger pending between a bank and a building society and therefore this legislation has to go through quickly. If Parliament should adjourn for some reason—some hon members suspect it will and some hon members may know—there will be terrible trouble because an election would actually ruin this merger. Hon members should bear that in mind. Now we have to rush it through on a Friday afternoon to make sure that this merger can take place, in case someone talks about an election before this Bill can go through.

It is a Thursday.

Sorry, it is a Thursday afternoon. I lost a day. We have another day to spare.

We all know that but there are other implications to bear in mind. The first is whether we in South Africa are in favour of mergers between building societies and banks. Both the chairman of the committee, the hon member for Vasco, and I have said South Africa is overbanked. It is overbanked and there is no doubt that mergers will take place. I do not think we should discourage mergers and similarly we should not discourage entrepreneurship and the creation of new institutions, provided that they are soundly based. We cannot afford to have mushrooming institutions which go bust and where people lose their money.

We just have to look at the United States. One of the problems facing President Bush right at the beginning of his term is that there are dozens and dozens of savings and loan institutions in America that are going to go bust unless the government bails them out. Were it not for the fact that there is insurance on deposits up to a limited amount—in most cases $100 000—then there would be millions of people who would lose their money. The reality is that we need to profit from that and I have repeatedly said in this House that we shall have to look at deposit insurance. What we have mainly at present is that the Reserve Bank is the insurer. We know that the economy cannot afford to have a major banking institution going bust. South Africa cannot afford it. If anything goes wrong, the Reserve Bank has to stand behind it. What is happening at the moment is that we are actually getting deposit insurance for free. That is a matter which needs further consideration and we need to think about it. We cannot ignore this aspect of our banking situation.

The other question is whether banks should or should not have big brothers. We have had this argument in the committee, we have had it outside and we have had it in the House. It is a fascinating argument and there are matters to be considered on both sides. We all feel strongly when a small institution that is rooted in the heritage and history of South Africa is sought to be taken over by a big institution, sometimes not in a clear and open manner. However, one then wants to come to their assistance. One has to bear in mind what would happen if one did not have big brothers.

Can hon members imagine that there are two major banks in South Africa that had to be rescued by big brothers? Both of them had to be rescued and if it had not been for the big brothers we do not know what would have happened. The Reserve Bank would have had to dish out money otherwise people would have lost out substantially. So the question of having big brothers in banking cannot be ignored. I think we need to look at that, at the question of voting power and at what shareholding is. I do not think the last word has been said about it in this Bill. I think it needs much more thinking and more debating until we find a satisfactory answer to it.

Another question is that of operating through agents. Because of the merger between a major building society and a bank, we are now going to have a provision whereby, with the permission of the Registrar, one can operate through agents. There is no doubt that that institution will continue to operate through agents, at least for a while.

We have to bear in mind that what one institution can do, we cannot deprive others of doing. What one has to do, is to make up one’s mind. Either everybody can operate through agents or nobody can—that the provision which we are now inserting is intended to be an interim provision that will be phased out, or alternatively, that we shall have to allow agents for everyone.

If one allows agents for everyone then one is entering a new minefield because agents can be very dangerous. One can have money disappearing and we have to make it clear that the responsibility for loss when it comes through an agent, is that of the institution and that one does not get one’s depositor to sign a piece of paper which says it is his fault if the money is lost. This again requires further investigation.

There are two other matters which I want to touch on. The first is the question of insider trading which is dealt with in the question of the buying of property. I think we have to be very careful here because one of the problems in our country is that it applies not only to the buying of property when it is sold in execution or at a public auction where one person knows he can get a bond and the other person does not know. The one knows what the limit is to which the building society will go and the other one does not know. These are insider trading facts.

However, insider trading is something which is prevalent in many activities in South Africa. The Stock Exchange has it. There it needs to be tightened up in terms of the Companies Act and the Stock Exchange regulations. The reality is that insider trading as a whole is unfair trading. It is something which in principle we have to look at and see that all these activities are eliminated.

The last thing is the question of consumer protection. Here again there is a provision which we have inserted to ensure that the unsophisticated person who deals with a financial institution knows exactly what he is getting and on what terms he is getting it. There I think the committee has done its job to protect consumers and I think that consumers should know that the Joint Committee on Finance as such is to a large extent the watchdog for consumers in South Africa.

Lastly, and I am pleased that the chairman is here, I want to say to him that as usual he has handled this thing well. I actually enjoy that committee and think that it is a committee where politics plays a relatively small part and where we do produce results by co-operative effort, not only the co-operative effort of hon members of this House but of all the Houses. If the committee system works anywhere then it works in the Joint Committee on Finance.

Mr Chairman, I thank the opposition parties for their support of this legislation. I do not intend to moralise or go fishing as did the hon member for Yeoville but I do thank him for his support and expertise in the joint committee.

I believe it would be fair to say that the joint committee made quite a meal of the amending legislation that was first considered and the bones that remain, as we have just heard, are very different to the original body presented to that committee.

The most important amendments have been dealt with but I would like to make some comments. In the original Bill considered, amendments were proposed to limit the acquisition of shares in a bank or bank controlling company by another bank or bank controlling company and, secondly, limit the voting power of a shareholding bank or bank controlling company if the defined shareholding limit was exceeded. This was as a result of the perceived threat to the independence of the institutions. In addition it was seen by some that this independence would be further impaired by the fact that the Bank Act places limitations on the shareholding of a bank or bank controlling company.

The threat of so-called unfriendly take-overs was discounted by the joint committee in favour of a free enterprise economy, and this proposed amendment was therefore rejected. The threat of monopolistic conditions in any discipline or industry always exists but in the banking sector the myth of monopoly appears to have been over dramatised. The fact is that at present there are 62 banks, building societies and banking institutions in South Africa.

In the past two years, aside from the move towards banks and building societies entering their respective traditional businesses, seven new banks have been approved by the registrar. Perhaps it is true to say that we are overbanked. Certain banks are said to be too large, but is this true? According to some recently quoted figures, shareholder funds of the Standard Bank Investment Corporation, which is reputed to have the largest capital base of any South African banking group, are only about one fifth of the equity of Anglo American. However, the Competition Board was considered able to act and set the necessary limits should monopolistic conditions be seen to develop. At present the unshackling of a free enterprise economy must, I think, be given preference.

It is of interest that in the USA President Bush recently announced an ambitious plan to rescue the virtually bankrupt savings and loans movement, as mentioned by the hon member for Yeoville. The cost to the US Treasury is estimated at as high as $200 billion. In South Africa, bearing in mind deregulation and the recent rash of mergers and takeovers, I believe that the position of small banks and building societies will have to be watched carefully to avoid a similar situation.

A further important amendment concerns stricter deterrent penalties—these were mentioned earlier—to be imposed on those who contravene the Banks Act by carrying on business as banking institutions when not registered as such. The registrar has been forced to take steps recently against those persons involved in illegal deposit taking. The Reserve Bank was of the opinion that in view of the amounts that may be involved and the potential prejudice to the public, various deterrent steps should be taken.

We heard that the redrafting of the Banks Act in its entirety is presently under consideration, but it is not foreseen that the process can be brought to fruition within the next year or two. In the mean time, therefore, there was a real need for much stricter penalties, so an increase in the fines from a maximum of R1 000 to an amount not exceeding R100 000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years was considered by the committee to be justified in the circumstances.

Other amendments which have been mentioned or discussed include the relaxation of the voting power of shareholders in a financial company with the approval of the Minister of Finance. Banks will also be able, with the approval of the registrar, to conduct banking business through agents. The present dispensation is an impediment to the amalgamation of banks and building societies. We have heard of a merger that is due to take place shortly, so the amendment is obviously urgent.

The other amendments clear up anomalies and define conditions.

With those words I have pleasure on behalf of this side of the House in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to thank hon members for their support of this Bill. I must agree with the hon member for Yeoville that this joint committee always does good work, and it is a pleasure for me to join them. I argue with them now and again, and they often win, but on the other hand I have won sometimes too.

In summarising the thoughts that emerged here, we must remember that regulation, or the Banks Act which we are changing here today, exists to develop a sound banking system in order to protect the depositor and create confidence in our financial system. I think one must see that as one’s point of departure, because hon members mentioned the protection of the depositor and confidence in the banking system. Consequently the authorities have an obligation to establish a legal framework within which banks and building societies function. That legal framework must constantly be adapted to the conditions.

It is also important for the Government constantly to monitor the banking system by means of the Reserve Bank to ensure that institutions comply with this legislation. I want to make it clear that we must not try to confuse the functions of the Government or the Reserve Bank with fraud. That was mentioned by the hon members for Wynberg and Pietermaritzburg South, as well as the hon member for Yeoville. It is not the Government’s function to keep an eye on the liquidity and solvency of the banks. It is not the function of the Government constantly to monitor where the banks invest and from whom they accept deposits. We must be clear on that matter, because there is a great deal of confusion and unnecessary criticism.

I want to go further. We must constantly adapt the legal framework and we shall be coming forward with very important changes again shortly, because we are living in a very dynamic world. We have been using the word “deregulation”, but actually that is the wrong word. We are constantly reforming regulation, and we must be careful in this process, because we are removing the walls between financial institutions such as banks and building societies. That was one of my problems with clause 3, because when we start getting this process of amalgamation and takeovers, we must beware of imperfect competition in the market.

†It is important that the function of the Reserve Bank and the Government is to be the watchdog in regard to the competition in the financial world.

*An attempt was made in the original clause 3 to prevent one bank from being able to take over another. Restrictions of 10% on the shareholding were proposed. I did not argue too much with the joint committee, because I see their problem. We cannot prevent the normal movement of the market. We must be careful, however. I know that the hon member for Yeoville and I have spoken about this and on occasion have agreed to have the Big Daddy there, but in my heart of hearts, when I consider the present Finance Act in Britain, I am afraid that we shall always have to ensure that we do not hurt or prevent competition. If there is a Big Daddy who needs money, and interest rates are high, and can continue to increase, and the small man cannot afford to borrow money from a specific bank, Big Daddy is going to ensure that his businesses get the money. We must be very careful, therefore, but I also want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that recently I have begun to have greater sympathy with him concerning the whole idea of deposit insurance.

The problem with deposit insurance is that the depositor has to pay for that insurance in any case. That is the first point. The second point is that if that bank’s management knows that the depositor is protected, as is a fact in certain cases, this leads to the banks taking dangerous chances with risky investments. That is also a danger.

I begin to sympathise with the hon member’s train of thought when he points out, as he and other members put it, that we are getting rid of structural control.

†We are moving away from structural control. We are moving away from an Act to control the building societies, an Act to control the banks and an Act to control the Stock Exchange. We are moving towards one Bill or Act to control all deposit-receiving institutions. By moving away from structural regulation, we are moving towards what they call conduct regulation. If one moves in this direction where one is trying to regulate the conduct of a financial institution, one requires good information. It is extremely difficult to get the correct information. Therefore we have certain lobbies or schools of thought again starting to talk about the possibility of reregulation—that is the word they use—but which is actually reform. When moving from structural regulation to conduct regulation where one has the weaknesses in this new type of regulation, maybe it is important to look again at deposit insurance for South Africa. I am quite prepared that the hon member for Yeoville and I take this up again in a discussion.

*I also want to agree with hon members that our people too readily make investments at interest rates of 40% and 50%. Truly, that is a problem that not only we in South Africa encounter. We had it in the past, and we are going to have in future as well. I think the hon member for Yeoville is correct. We must pay far more attention to educating our young people in our schools. I am very honest when I say I went to do B Com and did not really know what a cheque looked like when I got to Stellenbosch, even though I had taken accountancy at school. One never learnt about what happens in practice. When I was a lecturer, I really felt that we should pay attention to making our young people in our schools aware of what is going on in South Africa’s economy and business economics.

†I also think the hon member for Yeoville is correct regarding insider trading. At present we leave it to self-regulation but I think we have to see, especially when we come along with the new banking legislation, that we give more attention to the gainers in respect of insider trading in South Africa.

In regard to agents I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that we have to control them. It may be an easy way for—I do not want to use the word—corruption but it is something we have to be very careful of.

*The hon member for Wynberg also mentioned education, which I agree with. The hon member and other hon members also mentioned the problem of the TBVC countries. We realise the problem. On 6 September last year we had discussions about the problem of banking legislation and the regulation of banking activities between the various states. We cannot allow different tax structures with regard to the respective countries. Nor can we allow different banking regulations. We are going to experience increasing problems if the banking activities and banking legislation of these countries differ.

I want to conclude. I think this Bill is a step in die right direction. We are looking forward to the subsequent new Bills. Once again I thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this Bill deals with the problems in regard to medals that may arise when the Railways Police are transferred to the SAP. If anyone can find a reason to oppose this Bill, he deserves a medal. We could not find a reason and are not looking for medals, and for that reason we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the previous speaker of the Official Opposition for his support for this Bill. As the hon member said, this is not a controversial amending Bill; that is why I also take pleasure in supporting this legislation on behalf of the Government.

Mr Chairman, we members of the PFP will also be supporting this Bill.

I should very much like to address the hon the Minister and talk to him about safety on trains, as I spoke on a previous occasion to the hon the Minister of Transport. I do, however, realise that you will probably not permit me to do so, Sir, because the Bill simply does not make it possible to discuss the matter. That is why my support for this Bill will have to suffice.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the hon members of the House and the chairman of the joint committee for the speed with which they handled this short but very important measure for us. We shall perhaps still consider awarding the hon member for Ermelo a medal for another reason, but in the meantime we thank him for supporting this Bill on behalf of the CP. I thank the hon members for Algoa and Green Point for their support. As far as the hon member for Green Point is concerned I am also concerned about the safety on our trains, but we are looking into this.

With those few words I move that the Bill be read a second time.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the other day the hon member for Griqualand West made a tremendous effort to speak English in this House. I want to wish him every success and express the hope that this will go a long way towards correcting the wrong attitude in his constituency.

Today is another of those days on which we are dealing with technical legislation, and I ask my hon colleagues please to exercise the necessary patience.

It is important for any country that its banking system should be financially sound. This ensures that there is confidence in banks, that investors’ money is safe in banks and that the country’s system of payment is not disrupted. In order to maintain a financially sound banking system in South Africa, it is necessary to have banking legislation which is aimed at ensuring that banking business is conducted in a sound manner and that countries take the necessary precautions against events which could adversely affect their business. The same is true in the case of building societies now that legislation has been passed enabling them to amalgamate.

In the South African Reserve Bank, Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Act which was passed by Parliament last year, fairly comprehensive amendments were made to banking and building society legislation. Further amendments to this legislation this year are very limited, their object simply being, in the first place, to place beyond all doubt the validity of certain arrangements in terms of the existing legislation, secondly to increase penalties for offences under the Banks Act and, thirdly, to eliminate practical problems experienced in the running of banks and building societies.

Government supervision of banks is aimed at establishing and promoting a financially sound banking industry, at protecting the general public’s investments and at maintaining confidence in the banking system. I repeat, this is the main object of this legislation.

In the legislation now before the House it is placed beyond all doubt that banking business, as defined in the Banks Act, may only be conducted by institutions which are registered in terms of section 4 of the Act. This includes unregistered institutions as well as institutions registered in other countries, but not in the Republic of South Africa. Banks which are registered in other states in Southern Africa will therefore not be able to conduct any banking business in the RS A without also being registered in terms of the South African Banks Act.

This Bill was essential, particularly after the well-known Albert Vermaas incident when many depositors in South Africa who had made deposits in Euro Bank and Euro Trust, lost money.

Furthermore it has been established beyond all doubt in the amending Bill that if the hon the Minister of Finance, before the commencement of the South African Reserve Bank, Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Bill, 1988, had granted approval for the shares in a bank or in a bank controlling company to exceed the maximum, as stipulated in section 28D(1) of the Banks Act, the full voting right in respect of that shareholding may be exercised with the approval of the Minister. This is now left to the discretion of the Minister, which means, for example, that a financial company which previously had a share interest in the bank of more than the permitted 30%, can exercise its voting right in respect of all its shares if the Minister approves it.

The South African Reserve Bank Act was amended last year in order to grant greater powers of inspection to the registrar of banks and building societies. This year there are again proposed amendments to this Act as a result of the infamous Vermaas incident. The unauthorised conduct of banking business by unregistered institutions which recently came to light, requires these powers of inspection to be further increased. Consequently section 39 of the Banks Act is being amended to give the registrar the same powers of inspection as are granted to a registrar as contemplated in the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act, Act 38 of 1984.

In the 1988 amending Act, to which I referred earlier, the opportunity was created for a bank to take over the assets and liabilities of a building society. Hon members all know the SA Permanent Building Society and Nedbank are amalgamating. A practical problem has arisen because building societies conduct an important part of their business through agents, but in terms of section 29(1) of the Banks Act a clearing bank is prohibited from conducting business through a person who is not in its full-time employ. The last-mentioned prohibition could therefore constitute an impediment to the amalgamation of clearing banks and building societies—for example the announced amalgamation of Nedbank and the SA Permanent Building Society.

Section 29(1) is consequently being amended to authorise the registrar to grant approval for a clearing bank, subject to the conditions deemed necessary, to conduct business through agents, as in the case of building societies.

A further matter which receives a great deal of attention in this amending Bill is penalties for offences. Penalties for an offence which may be imposed under the Banks Act are currently very light and a fine not exceeding R1 000 may be imposed. However, because millions of rands are involved, the committee felt that the fine should be increased considerably. It is therefore being proposed in this amending Bill that maximum penalties be increased, particularly in respect of the unlawful conduct of banking business. According to the proposal this offence will be punishable by a fine not exceeding R100 000 or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or both.

Furthermore, existing building society legislation requires that a building society must inform prospective depositors who want to open a savings account or a transmission account, or want to make a fixed deposit, in writing of the conditions applicable to the deposits concerned.

We support this idea because we specifically represent the unskilled and unsophisticated saver, because the new legislation stipulates that this information need only be furnished to the prospective saver at his request. The compromise that was reached was that we would henceforth ease the administrative burden of building societies, and therefore it is proposed that only an approved summary of the relevant conditions will be furnished to depositors on opening an account.

Another matter which is covered in this Bill is the abuse of insider information, particularly by officials in the employ of a building society, when a dwelling has become available because bond payments were not met and the property, of course, has to be disposed of by way of a legal seller.

In order to prevent this abuse of insider information by an official or employee of a building society, it is at present an offence for such an office-bearer or employee to purchase a property which belongs to the building society concerned or on which the building society holds a bond, unless the purchase transaction takes place at a duly advertised auction or has been approved by the registrar. It was felt that this restriction was somewhat too severe, and it is now proposed that the restriction should apply only in respect of properties which were attached by the building society concerned and which are sold by or at the instruction of a building society.

At the same time it is also proposed that the restriction be extended to properties which are mortgaged to the building society concerned and which are sold by means of a legal sale on the instructions of any other person.

It is a pleasure for us to announce that we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I rise to support the … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is entitled to put his case.

We support this Bill. In doing so I want to talk about a few points. I think my colleague on the other side of the House has covered most of the field.

The joint committee met on this legislation more than once. We did so inter alia to afford those institutions affected a reasonable chance to make their representations—and they did so. Secondly, we also met more than once in order to afford ourselves the chance really to look at the matter in depth, as well as at any problems hon members of the committee might have had with this piece of legislation. We even called in the hon the Deputy Minister. He was there to address us on some of the clauses.

I must also thank hon members of the majority party in the House of Representatives for condescending to work together with me on this legislation. They were kind to me and I appreciate kindness. As a result of this our united force in the House of Representatives was instrumental in having a new clause 6(a) added, especially when it comes to the fines. It was on our insistence that these fines be increased to R100 000 instead of R50 000 and the imprisonment of 5 years instead of only 2 years. The same applies to the new clause 6(b) where a fine not exceeding R5 000 instead of merely R1 000 was proposed.

Our people suffered quite a lot under clause 10, especially here in the peninsula in the early days when some of our people took out bonds they subsequently could not repay. The bonds were cancelled and gives what happened next? Somebody else who had inside information bought the property—as my good friend has said—for next to nothing. The result was that the poor person just had to vacate the house without a cent in his pocket.

Now he has a different story. This legislation stipulates that it has to be sold by public tender, which means one may only owe R10 000, but get R20 000. One gets some change, and therefore one cannot really be declared bankrupt, because one will still have some money left. In the light of our people having suffered such terrific losses in the past, we welcome this clause.

New clause 10 also introduces some sort of protection measure by way of this penalty clause. This piece of legislation also sets out the conditions applicable to the opening of savings accounts and the depositing of money. Clause 7 deals with savings accounts, clause 8 with transmission accounts and clause 9 with fixed deposits. The banking institution will, at the request of a depositor, supply the necessary information.

For these reasons we support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the two hon members who support this Bill. I know the joint committee has done outstanding work.

The hon member Mr Douw said that it was a very technical Bill. The hon member for Matroosfontein referred to how people used to be taken in in the old days. The small print is on the back, and before you know it, your house is sold out from under you.

I do not think that there is anything else quite as important for us ordinary people as legislation on financial institutions such as banks and building societies. The object of this legislation is, in point of fact, merely to make certain changes, because we are re-examining legislation regarding building societies and banks.

In the USA the Savings and Loans Institutes (Thrift) are going bankrupt one after another. These are small businesses in which the man in the street loses his money. This is going to cost the USA billions of rands. The policy of the American government has always been to ensure that these small banks proceed on their own as far as possible, and to prevent amalgamations from taking place. However, then the idea was to deregulate everything, and what happened next was that private interests came in and people began to speculate. They began to speculate with land and made sound investments for individual enrichment. Now one scandal after the next is taking place. Here in South Africa we talk about scandals, but one should go and have a look at what is now taking place in the American banking world.

If a person who saves loses his money, one of the main pillars of our society is destroyed. Hon members know themselves that if one has saved to buy a small plot of land, etc, and one discovers the next day that the bank has closed its doors, this has a destructive effect.

The hon member mentioned one particularly interesting aspect here—he put it very well—and that was confidence. We must have confidence in our financial institutions, in our banks and in our building societies. A modern society cannot function if this confidence is lacking. The hon member also referred to another very interesting aspect, which was also mentioned by the hon member for Matroosfontein. He said that we must take action against those who take deposits without registration having taken place. We have seen an example of this. I am glad that the fine has been increased, and that there is imprisonment, but hon members know how easy it is, in all communities, to pull the wool over our people’s eyes when one is approached with an offer of earning 40% interest on one’s money. This is surprising, particularly if one thinks of the former kubus industry.

Get rich quick.

Yes, get rich quick, but it is only human. It surprised me that both rich and poor were deceived, for example in the Vermaas case. It surprises me that intelligent people are also deceived. This is why we must take very strict action by passing Bills such as this one before the House which has the support of hon members—as the hon member for Matroosfontein said when he spoke about imprisonment and fines—in order to protect the man in the street. This Bill is a step in that direction.

The last point I want to make, which was also mentioned by hon members, is the question of information which must be furnished on documents. I am concerned that we do not always read the fine print, because we are, after all, only human. I hope the recommendation of the joint committee offers a solution, namely that the most important information must be furnished when one makes a deposit, but I am afraid that people will not always read what is printed there—I know what I am like, for example. Therefore we must continually review this legislation—which we will do next year again—in order to protect our people against exploiters, corruption, etc. I thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a the second time.

Mr Chairman, I want to focus my attention on two aspects concerning my constituency. The first is the envisaged rezoning of, and the lifting of restrictions on, plots 1092 and 1247 in Warrenton. The town council wants to erect a bone-meal, carcass-meal and blood-meal factory near the industrial erven and the residential area of Warrenton. This would have an adverse effect on the growth and development of the town. The accompanying stench from such a factory is an irritation, something which impairs the quality of life in and around Warrenton. Once such an industry has been established, it would not be all that easy to relocate it. Our neighbouring town, Jan Kempdorp, is a striking example of this, the inhabitants continually being subject to the neverending stench caused by such a factory. I want to make the salient point that there is no objection to progress in the industrial area. If this industry were established far beyond the town limits, it could give rise to the establishment of more similar industries, which could benefit the town.

If this objection were to be ignored, let me, as the MP for the area, insist that the relevant industrialist furnish undertakings and guarantees that the town will not be subjected to any obnoxious odours.

A high school is being planned for the Coloured community. The school will be in close proximity to the envisaged factory. The obnoxious stench from such a factory would have an adverse effect on the pupils.

It is also the intention to build 158 dwelling units in Warrenvale which lies in the industrial area. The establishment of such a factory would very definitely lead to opposition and extreme dissatisfaction on the part of the present and prospective inhabitants of the town.

On behalf of the Transka holiday resort and the campers I also object to the rezoning and upgrading of the said plots. It would have an adverse effect on the resort owing to the stench that might pervade the air if such a bone-meal, carcass-meal and blood-meal factory were erected in the aforementioned industrial area.

We are still suffering the effects of the stench of sewerage and slop-buckets dumped near our areas. [Interjections.] I am therefore asking the hon the Minister to take action so as not to allow the envisaged factory to be erected.

I now come to another point I want to talk about, ie our holiday resort, Transka. I quickly want to give hon members the background to our holiday resort and then set out our objection. Our holiday resort, called Transka, consists at present of 20 six-bedroomed chalets, eight four-bed chalets, two 34-bed chalets, plus ablution facilities for both men and women. There is one kiosk, one office building and a residential dwelling for the manager. The resort is on the banks of the Vaal River, with a main line from Cape Town to Johannesburg serving as the second boundary. It is approximately 2,5 km from the town of Warrenton and also very close to the main route between Kimberley and Johannesburg.

In my opinion Transka has a very high potential for better utilisation, thus enabling it to furnish a better service to the public, whilst nevertheless keeping running costs as low as possible. Shortcomings that obviously impede the running of Transka are, inter alia, the lack of a well-equipped hall with dining and conference facilities, a playground for children, a large planned and serviced camping site. The kiosk must be extended to include restaurant facilities, a miniature tennis court must be erected and also a parking area for large vehicles that park there overnight.

As a result of the shortcomings we find that organisations such as the churches, schools and youth groups are drifting away from Transka in search of resorts with better facilities. Because Transka is centrally situated, organisations would prefer to visit our resort. In the past we have had a considerable number of requests in this regard.

We are therefore asking the hon the Minister or his officials to have an official investigation launched by his department, in conjunction with the management committee and the resort manager, as quickly as possible, and then to draft a master plan and have it implemented. The survival of Transka is very important because there is a need for something of this kind in the area.

Mr Chairman, consolidation …

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Northern Cape must please not do that. The hon member for Esselen Park may proceed.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to make it very clear to the hon the Minister this afternoon that the Official Opposition with which those hon members are going to be dealing this year will always act responsibly. [Interjections.]

We wholeheartedly supported the Budget that the hon the Minister introduced. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the recent no-confidence debate. It is our democratic right to conduct a no-confidence debate, but on the other hand we also have the right, on behalf of the people whom we represent here, to put our case to the hon the Minister when he raises a matter here. I am therefore so glad that even the hon independent members sitting in the opposition benches conducted themselves in an extremely responsible manner yesterday. We must become responsible individuals if we want to make progress and consolidate matters. [Interjections.]

Yes, all 36 of them!

I am very glad the crown prince is also sitting here making a noise, but let me tell him that children must keep quiet when we are discussing money matters. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister submitted an amount of R929 million. This afternoon I do not want to hear a word about “opposition”, etc. The hon the Minister must just tell us how that amount is going to be allocated to the various departments. How much is going to be spent on housing? How much is going to be spent on education? [Interjections.] If I knew that, I would be completely satisfied.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Haarlem must restrain himself. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The truth really hurts.

I would be glad if the hon the Minister could give us a breakdown of that amount this afternoon. That is what a Minister of Finance does. I trust that this hon Acting Minister will do likewise.

In regard to his attacks on an issue I raised here concerning the Deciduous Fruit Board’s workers, we must not simply ascribe everything to apartheid. The workers do not know what is happening in Britain. My people are going to lose their jobs and their children will go hungry, and then they are not going to ask me, or the hon Acting Minister, whether that is because of apartheid. That is the reality this House is facing. We must get away from those aspects and get back to the people who brought us here.

All 36 of them! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister must explain to the House to what extent the fears of the temporary teachers last year have become a reality. Nowhere in his reply did he clarify that issue. Those fears were extensive, because many of them felt they would lose their jobs. Those are the kinds of answers I want from the hon the Minister this afternoon. That is the way we act when we are acting responsibly.

Then, in connection with his department, I also want to know to what extent “affirmative action” is being employed there. Let me mention, for example, the fact that in Worcester a senior official of the Finance division was dismissed from his post. Before we knew where we were, a White woman had been appointed. We are not opposed to that.

My question is whether there are not young Coloured men and women who have not, during the past four years, undergone sufficient training to take over that job? Or are we merely going to pay lip-service to this? I am asking the hon the Minister whether there is any “affirmative action” in this department? [Interjections.]

An hon member here in the House mentioned small business undertakings. To what extent can small business undertakings be subsidised by the department? There is a trend amongst our people towards involvement in the small business development which has now taken hold in South Africa. I am asking the hon the Minister to spell out the extent to which his department can subsidise the small business industry.

Mr Chairman, as I was listening to the hon member for Esselen Park, I wondered why he still keeps that sign outside his office which indicates that he is a member of the LP. I wondered whether he was going to remove that sign and hang up the correct one to indicate which party he really belongs to.

He cannot even spell that party’s name.

Yes, that is true. At the same time I wondered why the hon member wanted to resign from the party he now belongs to the other day, and whether he did not feel at home in that party? This is merely a question.

The hon member for Esselen Park has just said here in the House that he hopes that the hon the Minister will act as Minister when the funds made available to us during this Second Reading are distributed. I can assure the hon member after listening to the hon the Minister’s reply, that it is clear to me that he has one thing on his mind, and that is the upliftment of our people. It is also clear to me that he is faithful to the endeavours of the LP, faithful to the principles of the party and faithful to the leadership of the party. He is a man who acknowledges his leader in humility and who regards the needs of his community as his first priority.

The LP has set itself the objective of advancing the course of development—development in which the needs of our communities will be identified, analysed and addressed without deviating from our ultimate purpose, viz the complete upliftment of our people’s standard of living and norms. Just as important is the establishment of a new South Africa with one nation, one country and one common South African people.

In our endeavour to attain our objective, the LP is not going to deviate from the purposeful policies which our leader spelt out to us during the most recent congress in Bloemfontein and which were accepted by us. I believe that the LP will not allow itself to be misled by petty concessions or hollow promises which hold nothing constructive for our people at large who always come off second best.

†The LP is here to build bridges. [Interjections.] They are here to create a climate of greater understanding and to enkindle a new love for this country and all its people. Outside these walls there are millions of underprivileged people. They are people who are waiting patiently for a sign of hope. They are hoping for a better tomorrow and something to keep their hopes alive. They are people who at times feel that they are not loved, but are just tolerated. It is for those people—our people—who love this country of their birth, who heeded the call of their mother country during war and who took to arms. They fought and died. Some came back and on their return they suffered a great deal. They bled and some are still bleeding. We in the LP feel that we owe them something and therefore we are fighting to see to it that they get what is rightfully due to them.

*For these reasons the strategies followed by the LP in this House and its entry to the tricameral system should not be seen as capitulation or a desertion of our people’s endeavours and aspirations, but rather as a strategy to fulfil those endeavours by means of politics of negotiation. That is why we are positive in our quest and why we do not hesitate or vacillate on this course we are taking. Nor shall we allow ourselves to be misled. We shall work and strive for the unqualified upliftment of our people, especially in the sphere of education. That is why we welcome the increase in the funding that we see in this budget. That is not our ultimate objective, however. We came here to negotiate the equal distribution of the prosperity of South Africa on a basis with regard to which skin colour will play no part. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Fish River must return to his seat and make interjections from there if he must.

We came here to improve our people’s standard of living as a whole. We are striving for an education system which will be equal in all respects. It must not be inferior to those of any of the communities in this country. We are striving for equal pensions and welfare services for all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race or colour. We also want to tell the hon the Official Opposition that our people must enjoy the same advantages as other groups—even if they did receive only 36 votes! We are striving for the elimination of the backlog in the norms of civilisation to which our people have been exposed in this country. We are striving for the elimination of the housing needs of our people—also those of the depressed communities in the Southern Free State. One day when we have fulfilled our ideals, we do not want anyone in South Africa to have lagged behind; we want everyone to be on an equal footing. It is our endeavour to erect community facilities such as clinics and community centres in areas where our people do not have them yet. These are the ideals that we in the LP have set ourselves. I want to tell the hon members of the Official Opposition that the public at large has become aware of the LP’s noble endeavours, and in plain language I want to tell them that they are going to come short (gaan hulle gatte sien) in the coming election. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member used the word “gatte” on purpose. He must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr Chairman, let me explain it to you.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally!

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir. [Time expired.]

Debate interrupted.

Order suspended and precedence given to Order No 2.

Order! The Whips of the various parties have agreed that as a result of unusual circumstances, this Order is to be suspended, and precedence is to be given to Order No 2. The Minister responsible is now in the House, and before I hand over to him, I should like to welcome him here and thank him for what he has achieved recently for South Africa.

Mr Chairman the railways police have been completely integrated into the SAP since 1986. This integration took place so smoothly that one did not even notice it. During its existence, the railways police received orders, decorations, bars, clasps and ribbons in terms of the Conditions of Employment (South African Transport Services) Act. In terms of section 22(2) of the Police Act of 1958, decorations and medals, as well as bars, clasps and ribbons are instituted, constituted or created by the State President and are awarded to a person by him or the Minister. These decorations, medals, bars, ribbons and clasps are protected by section 23 of the Police Act.

The question that was unanswered was what protection existed for the awards made by the SATS to members of the former Railways Police. Although they are now full members of the SAP, the matter of these awards has been left hanging in the air and a legal deficiency exists because those policemen are no longer connected with the SATS and their awards are not protected by the Police Act either. Section 10A is to be inserted into Act 83 of 1986 in order to remedy the deficiency, and my party and I support this amendment wholeheartedly.

In conclusion, I should like to bring a problem to the attention of the hon the Minister. The South African Railways Police have become part of the SAP. However, we have a problem, particularly at airports. The hon member for Addo surely deserves better protection when he parks his car at the airport. His car has been damaged repeatedly. It appears that it does not get scratched accidentally, but that somebody stands at his car and scratches the bodywork with a nail or a pen. The hon member for Addo has a particularly attractive car. It is bright red, and it attracts everyone’s attention when it is parked at an airport. The car was very badly damaged during the past weekend and it has scratches on three sides. I should like to request the hon the Minister to ask the police to keep a more careful watch so that the hon member for Addo does not have to incur unnecessary expenses.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by thanking you and this House as well as my colleague in the Ministers’ Council, for their friendly gesture in accommodating me. I really appreciate it very much indeed. I thank hon members for being prepared to suspend their business in order to assist me.

I should like to thank the Chairman of the House and hon members personally for their kind words and gestures in connection with the handling of the so-called hunger strike. It was a very difficult situation and I should like to say here today that we were able to resolve it only because of the co-operation of all those concerned and with the help of grace we received from Above. Let us also say this to one another. We would not have been able to resolve the matter if we had not had the goodwill of everyone concerned. I greatly appreciate hon members’ recognition of that and the support they have given me. I should like to express my sincere thanks.

I should like to thank hon members of the joint committee on which the hon member for Riversdal as well as other hon members served, for their support of this measure. I know that they dealt with it very swiftly and I want to thank them for that. I want to assure the hon member for Riversdal that the problem he mentioned about the hon member for Addo’s car will be investigated. We shall keep an eye on things so that we can find out what is going on, but I can assure him that we will investigate it and come back to him or the hon member for Addo so that we can give him some feedback on what is happening there because I do not approve of that kind of service. I am not prepared to allow it. I shall look into the matter.

Order! Does the hon member want to put a question?

Yes, Sir.

Sir, the hon member may put a question.

Order! The hon member may put his question.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister what one should do when one’s hub-caps are stolen at the airport and when one informs the policeman, he says that one should be grateful that one’s car is still there.

I do not know how to solve the matter, but I think the hon member must give me more details. If the hon member would be so kind as to give my office some information as to when it happened, I shall be able to have investigations done and find out what happened. If we find the hub-caps, we will gladly return them to the hon member.

I should like to conclude by thanking the hon member for Riversdal once again. I think he grasped the matter very well. This is a small measure, but it is of very great importance to those people in the Railways Police who came over to us that they will now enjoy this protection. I think the hon member showed a good grasp of the matter when he summed it up.

I want to thank hon members once again for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! We will now resume the discussion of the Part Appropriation Bill (House of Representatives).

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members who took part in the Second Reading debate.

I want to start with the hon member for Esselen Park. There are no children in this House. As far as the leader of the LP is concerned, there is no crown prince here either. If the hon member for Addo is a crown prince, I am one too. [Interjections.] I want to tell him not to be petty; he is a great man and we respect him greatly.

I want to draw his attention to a few matters. The result of the 1984 election in Esselen Park was as follows: J Johnson, 1 956 votes and his constituency comprises only Worcester and district; P A C HENDRICKSE, 4 388 votes. The young man whom the hon member for Esselen Park calls a child had 15 towns which he had to visit. His area extends from Hankey to Patensie, in front of and behind the mountain, to Grahamstown. He therefore had to cover an enormous area, but he drew 4 388 votes whereas the hon member for Esselen Park received only 1 956.

The latter member’s town and district is large and he is right on the spot, but now he is talking about children. The hon member for Addo worked just as hard and still harder than he did.

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

No, Sir, I am sorry but I have only 20 minutes at my disposal. I shall give her an opportunity when I have finished. I want to dispose of this matter first.

Something else which I want to mention to the hon member for Esselen Park is that we should not humiliate hon members. The hon member for Addo is one of the most hardworking members of the LP, whether we want to admit this or not. I admit it and a former minister of religion does not lie easily. [Interjections.] Now he is being humiliated, however, by being called a child. Such behaviour does not befit the hon member for Esselen Park.

It is written that he must become as a child.

Yes, he can become as a child, humble as I am. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that he is not to forget how many votes he drew in the last management committee election. I do not want to mention the number because it is not fitting for me to do so.

The matters which he mentioned in connection with temporary teachers will be clearly and thoroughly spelt out to him by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also the Minister of Education and Culture. He will explain from A to Z what goes on in his department. He is man enough to do this.

As regards the deciduous fruit farm workers, I want to say that the hon member must admit that action would not have been taken against our country if we had not had the despicable system of apartheid. He must admit this. We are concerned about the fact that, if these sanctions are to be applied, that large number of people will suffer. We are aware of this.

This is why the LP is doing everything in its power to steer the NP in a certain direction. I said in my introductory speech that we were pleased to see that tJfs new chief leader of the NP, the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Acting State President were voicing different opinions now. We are pleased about this but now we should like to see positive steps taken to move away from the despicable system of apartheid. As soon as that happens, there will be no more boycotts against us. They will not be imposed. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to the matter of affirmative action. I do not have sufficient time at my disposal today but, as soon as the Additional Appropriation is dealt with on Monday, I shall spell out a large number of matters concerning affirmative action and say what the LP has done to improve the quality of life of our boys and girls. We shall spell this out. We are not afraid to say that we have applied affirmative action in the LP. [Interjections.] I shall now tell hon members how we distributed that R929 million. Education and culture was voted R510 million, budgetary and auxiliary services R29 million, local government, housing and agriculture, R100 million and health and welfare R290 million. This amounts to R929 million.

As regards the small business sector, hon members must realise that this does not fall under our department. It is a general affair and hon members should raise that matter when the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation speaks in our House.

Then there is the question of the White woman in the branch office at Worcester. She is not the head of finance and did not take over from an officer who was moved either. The woman represents the personnel component of the branch office and has been there for more than a year already. Because my responsibility for this department has covered only 23 days, however, I am not in possession of full details and request the hon member to talk to the Director: Personnel Management in this connection. The hon member could well take the few steps to the head office concerned. We shall then furnish him with every particular. He is an MP and is entitled to full details. I therefore request him to visit the Director: Personnel Management. I hope I have replied to the hon member in full.

I next get to the hon member for Griqualand West. The hon member should raise these matters during the discussion of the Vote: Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. The hon member may also raise them during the discussion of the Main Appropriation. We shall then prepare a thorough reply for him. I want to ask him, however, to put all those details down in writing and send them to the Ministers involved. We can then see whether we can accommodate the hon member.

I want to thank the hon member for Southern Free State. He accomplished his task excellently and spelt out to us what the LP would like to do. We agree with him that we are here to make a very real contribution. After all, that is why we are here. We are here to ensure that the quality of life of the Coloured population component in particular is enhanced.

I want to mention a few matters in connection with this department. Both the Additional Appropriation and the Main Appropriation are still to come. I am doing this to inform hon members on the other side of the House thoroughly.

The object of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services is to furnish the Administration: House of Representatives with specific management and auxiliary services, to deal with financial administration, to provide and utilise personnel and to promote safety consciousness.

The department is responsible for the personnel administration of the four departments of the Administration: House of Representatives. Secondly, the department is responsible for furnishing services related to the objectives of the Administration: House of Representatives. These services include the following among others and this is what hon members should discuss in future. Firstly, they include the provision of pensions to former members of the Coloured Representative Council, as well as study loans to needy students. Mr Chairman, we cannot grant all our children bursaries, but a certain part of the budget is earmarked for study loans. I want to ask hon members who are the representatives of the people to bring it to their attention that such study loans are available to needy students. They may pay them back later, but it will probably happen that we shall say that we shall waive the debt and grant them that money because they are needy.

Thirdly, financial assistance is also available to officials for study purposes. Provision has been made for the award of bursaries outside education too. This department also has to look at computer services of the Administration as well as its civic services, for example the appointment of marriage officers, and all elections in which this department is involved have to be arranged. We in this department also have to scrutinise transport schemes; this includes the transport of school children on a contract basis. This department also has a provisioning function. This comprises the provision and maintenance of office furniture and equipment in respect of the department.

These are inter alia this department’s objectives and functions. I expect that, when we deal with the Additional and the Main Appropriations, those who participate in the debate will also discuss these matters.

I want to thank the three hon members again who participated in the debate.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! Before calling for any Notices of Motion, I just wish to give a ruling on an inadmissible Notice of Motion.

I wish to inform the House that the motion of which the hon member for Havenside gave notice yesterday could not be allowed and that the Secretary had been instructed to remove it from the Order Paper because in terms of Rule 96 it is blocked by Notice of Motion No 2 appearing on p 61 of the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Springfield. In addition, the proposed suspension of Rule 96 has not at this time been agreed to by the House.

Mr Chairman, this was one of the Bills that came before the Standing Committee on Security Services, where every hon member agreed to the principle of the Bill. When the transfer of the Railway Police to the SA Police took place, there was a serious omission as it was not established whether the Railway Police would be able to use the decorations and medals that they were awarded when they served in the Railway Police force. This particular section brings this into line. The former members of the Railway Police will in the SA Police make use of the decorations and medals that were awarded to them while in the service of the Railways Police. We have no objections and we approve of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is clear that the protection and control that was afforded to the orders and medals awarded to former members of the Railways Police force ended with the transfer of the Railways Police force to the SA Police.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I heard the hon member Mr Thaver tell the hon member Mr Nowbath: Shut up, you drunken fool.

Order! Did the hon member Mr Thaver say it?

I did say the hon member was a drunken fool, and shut up, you drunken fool. I withdraw it.

Order! I think hon members must not use parliamentary privilege and facilities here to repeat such words. The hon member Mr Thaver should merely have stood up and said that he said it and that he withdraws it. Hon members must not impugn one another’s dignity in this House. The hon member Mr Thaver must unreservedly withdraw those words.

I unreservedly withdraw, Mr Chairman, but I said it under strong provocation.

Order! The hon member Mr Thaver says that he did it under strong provocation. The hon member must unreservedly withdraw it.

Yes, I do so, Sir.

Mr Chairman, the deficiencies are obviated by the Bill and the object of this Bill is therefore not only necessitated, but applauded. We support the Bill as proposed.

Mr Chairman, during the previous debate the hon the Minister of Law and Order expressed disappointment that I did not pin a medal on his lapel for reacting so quickly to the interpellation of last week. I would like to take the opportunity now, while we are debating this Bill, to do just that. I would like to pin a bar on his lapel for the quick apprehension of the murderers of Dr Asvat.

And the release of the detainees.

Well, I was coming to that. Perhaps the bar could be extended to include the release of the detainees as well. That of course falls outside the scope of this particular Bill and I should not like you, Mr Chairman, or the hon the Minister to fault me on that score.

The Bill before us relates to the SA Railways Police Force. Whilst we are debating this particular Bill, I would like to draw to the attention of the hon the Minister—if he in fact does not already know it—that at the present time, due to the lack of police on trains, the incidence of mugging and other crimes is so high that in fact it is unsafe to travel on some of these trains. I appreciate very much that the hon the Minister has difficulty with regard to the number of personnel he has in his department. I would therefore like to take the opportunity this afternoon to assure him that were he to come before this House with an extended budget, which would provide for the employment of more people in his department to do police work, we would support such a budget. I would like to tell the hon the Minister that in fact one sure way of combatting crime in South Africa is to show that we have more policemen, particularly on that beat.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their support of this small but important measure. I also want to thank hon members for their support in the joint committee. We really appreciate that. I say that this is a small measure, but there has been a certain amount of uncertainty about the statutory protection of the various orders, decorations, medals, bars, etc, for the former railway policemen. We are now putting matters right and I want to thank hon members.

I also want to thank the hon member for Springfield for his congratulations. I really appreciate that. I will tell the policemen who have been doing the job. I am not responsible, but I will convey this to them.

The hon member also touched on the problem we have regarding the question of manpower. I agree with him. As I said previously, we do not have enough policemen. There is a problem on some of our trains. We know that people are being mugged. To try and curb that we have established special units and are sending people on the trains in shifts, frequently not in uniform— in an attempt to catch the muggers. I have also given instructions that we again want policemen to be more visible on the stations. We are progressing in this way to have more men available at all times at railway stations and on the trains.

I hope the day will arrive when I can stand up in this House and say to hon members: Now we have enough policemen in South Africa. That would be a very happy day for me. However, I am afraid there is still a long way to go, but I can assure hon members that we realise the problem and are striving in this direction with all the means at our disposal, within the budget allocated for our security forces, including the police.

In the final instance, I thank hon members for their support of this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members who participated in the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill (House of Delegates). Most of the contributions made by various hon members were a repetition of what had been said in the first reading debate. Therefore my reply this afternoon will be as short as possible and will deal with only one or two issues raised in the debate.

The hon member for Havenside spoke about affordable homes, the neglect of the provision of sufficient homes for our people and the snail’s pace at which such homes are being built. Cognisance has been taken by the hon the Acting Minister of Housing of the contribution of the hon member for Havenside.

The hon member for North Western Cape referred to a phase of instability in this House and the paramount figure in this House that caused the instability. He went on to undermine his own advice to hon members not to indulge in castigation. While he advanced reasons why we should not be castigating hon members in this House he himself indulged in castigation of hon members and my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council. I hope that when an hon member in this House speaks of high morals, morality and discipline, he himself will take cognisance of his words and advice.

Neither I nor any other member of the Ministers’ Council intended to single out any hon member, particularly in relation to work in the constituencies. As the Minister of the Budget I have very often received complaints that MPs neglect their constituencies because of their non-presence in the area. When an hon Minister visits the area he is certainly obliged to inform the MP of the constituency of his visit, but when an hon member of this House visits an area on a private matter in relation to, for instance, the party structures, the hon Minister or the hon Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not at all obliged to inform the MP of that constituency of his visit to the area.

It naturally happens that although an hon Minister may be on a private visit to a constituency, people gather around him and make their complaints known to him. Therefore I do not think the hon member for North Western Cape should have taken such umbrage at the presence of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in his private capacity in his constituency.

I now come to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I am ad idem with him on principles of morality and stability in this House because of the turbulence we have had in the past. I go along with the principles pronounced by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, but I want to remind him that if discipline is needed, there are other factors that need to be considered. The paramount consideration of a party is its membership’s allegiance to the party’s principles and constitution.

In the process, however much an hon member may have the necessary ability to conduct the affairs of this House or to bring about discipline in the House, party allegiance comes first. Nowhere in the world have I seen a Parliamentary Speaker who does not belong to, or who has not been appointed by the majority party.

Only independents!

Oh no, I cannot recall any. Be that as it may, whilst I appreciate …

I can give you examples from the House of Commons!

No, I do not think so. That is a different constitution altogether.

Read section 88 of the Constitution.

No, the hon member is guessing. With all due respect, the hon member is guessing now. I would first like to read section 88.

I am speaking of accepted tenets of democracy. That is what I am speaking of.

I now wish to refer to other speakers. As I said during the First Reading debate yesterday, hon members will get their information in writing from myself and my Ministry.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I am given to understand that the hon the Minister responsible for the next debate is on his way. Mr Chairman, I therefore move:

Let us just carry on with the work.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House has moved that the House adjourn for a few minutes until the hon the Minister is available.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The House has business at hand. If the hon the Minister is unable to be here, we sympathise with him. However, the work of this House need not be held up just because the hon the Minister is unable to be here. We should continue with our work and when the hon the Minister comes, we will afford him the courtesy at that stage of adjourning our work and allow him to be heard.

Order! Is the basis of the objection by the hon member for Reservoir Hills that one should carry on with other items on the Order Paper?

Yes, Sir.

Order! I understand that the hon the Minister will be here in a few minutes. For the sake of good order, I think the House will be adjourned for a few minutes.

Business suspended at 14h49 and resumed at 15h05.

Mr Chairman, the Second Reading of the Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Bill in this House this afternoon introduces a new era in banking. Fairly comprehensive amendments to legislation pertaining to banking and building societies were introduced last year. The revision of the Banks Act is currently under way and its completion is expected at any time but in the meantime we had to introduce this new amendment to the Act. The intention was to restrict further amendments to those which were deemed necessary for dealing with new developments, solving practical problems or ensuring that the conduct of banking and building society business is not unduly constrained by legal requirements. Accordingly only a limited number of amendments were presented for consideration in this Bill.

The proposed amendments to banking and building society legislation in the Bill before the House aim to clarify beyond all doubt the intention of existing legal requirements, increasing penalties for offences under the Banks Act and eliminating practical problems encountered in the conduct of banking and building society business within the existing legal framework.

The wording of section 7 of the Banks Act is amended to make it explicit that only institutions registered in terms of section 4 of the Act may conduct banking business in the Republic of South Africa. It means for example that banking institutions registered in other countries including states in Southern Africa may not conduct banking business in the Republic unless they are also registered in the Republic in terms of the South African Banks Act.

We heard recently of certain institutions that were collecting funds but that were not registered in the Republic of South Africa but in one of the TBVC states. The function of this amendment is to stop this.

Section 28D (2) of the Banks Act empowers the Minister of Finance to approve a shareholding in a bank or a bank controlling company which is in excess of the minimum laid down in section 28D (1). This section is now amended to allow, with the Minister’s consent, full voting rights in respect of shareholding which exceeds, with the approval of the Minister, the prescribed maxima. Last year the South African Reserve Bank Act was amended to increase the powers of inspection of the Registrar of Banks and of Building Societies. Recently the unauthorised conduct of banking business by unregistered institutions has become more prominent and it is considered necessary to strengthen these powers of inspection.

In this regard we have seen the present problems that we have with the company known as Star Trek Investments in Pretoria. Accordingly, section 39 of the Banks Act is amended to confer upon the Registrar of Banks the same powers of inspection as those conferred upon the Registrar in the Inspection of the Financial Institutions Act (Act No 38 of 1984).

The South African Reserve Bank, Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Act, 1988, paved the way for a bank to take over the liabilities and assets of a building society. Such an amalgamation is however hampered by the fact that building societies are allowed to do business through an agent while clearing banks are prohibited by section 29 (1) of the Banks Act from doing business through a person who is not a full-time employee.

This section is therefore amended to empower the Registrar to approve, subject to such conditions as may be necessary, the conduct of business through agents by clearing banks.

In this regard we take note that we have small agencies of certain building societies in certain of the suburbs. Now that these building societies are also part of larger banks, it now empowers these building societies that are part of these banks to have this particular part of the business conducted through an agent. The Banking Act is therefore amended. As far as employment is concerned this is welcome because it gives the smaller people, the informal section, more opportunities to do business in the areas where they have predominantly done business previously. I think it is a very good provision in this amendment.

When it comes to maximum penalties which are laid down in the Banking Act for offences under the Act—the present maximum is only R1 000— the amendment proposes to increase the maximum penalties for illegal conduct of the banking business in certain cases. Therefore it is proposed in this Bill that such an offence be subject to a maximum penalty of R100 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or both. The maximum penalty for other offences under the Act is also increased to R5 000.

Existing building societies legislation requires that a building society must in writing inform prospective depositors of the conditions applicable to the different categories of deposits and shares whenever new deposit accounts are opened or new investments made. In the past a person went to the bank or building society to open an ordinary savings account, but did not know the difference between a transmission account, a savings account or call account. He simply signed and opened an account. There were many problems as far as this was concerned. Now the person who opens an account can ask the bank to produce a copy of the prospectus of a particular account, which is a complete statement of how the account is to be operated and how it works. This particular person is therefore no more in doubt and cannot be taken for a ride by certain banking institutions who want to take the maximum investment and do not give the benefits of it in return.

In practice this requirement has constituted a considerable administrative burden. The amending Bill proposes that depositors should only be provided with an approved summary of the relevant conditions, because if a person asks for the whole Banking Act, it will pose a problem as it runs into volumes and volumes. The ordinary man in the street will never be able to read them. The Act is amended in such a way that a revised summary of the particular account that a person opens can now be made available to the depositor.

Yet another section prevents an officer or employee of a building society who has access to inside information from gaining an unfair advantage over others. It is an offence for such an officer or employee to purchase a property owned by or mortgaged to the society unless the property is sold at a duly advertised auction or if the sale is approved by the registrar of building societies. It is proposed in this amendment that this very restrictive requirement be amended to apply only to properties detached by the building society and sold at the instance of the society concerned. However, it is further proposed that the same restriction should apply to properties mortgaged to that society and sold at a judicial sale in the instance of any other person. With these good provisions in the amendment, we fully support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Laudium has covered the entire Bill. There is very little for me to talk about save to say that this Bill is being introduced to bring into line the important changes in recent years in financial markets, banking practices and banking supervisory procedures.

There is one thing that is currently an issue, and that is that banks and building societies have been accused of abusing the Usury Act in that they charge inspection and administration fees which are built into bonds, and I hope the hon the Minister of Finance will look into this matter when the Banks Act is revised.

With these few words, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for supporting this Bill. The hon member for Laudium made a very detailed analysis of the Bill and the hon member for Tongaat also made a very interesting remark about the problem of the Usury Act. The Usury Act is presently under investigation. The problem up till now was that it was difficult to implement the Act. One really needs a police force of hundreds and thousands to implement the present Act in South Africa.

The objective of the Government is to institute a healthy financial banking industry in South Africa, and also to maintain it as a healthy industry. Therefore, we have, on a continuous basis, to adjust the legal framework of laws applicable to the financial industry. That is a very important function we have. Also, on a continuous basis, we have to monitor the financial banking industry in South Africa. Therefore the hon member for Laudium is correct in saying that we introduced a comprehensive Bill last year, and I expect that in the very near future—probably next year or the year after—we will come back with another one, because we live in a very dynamic environment.

There is a movement in the overseas financial world away from the industry separation of having banks on one side and building societies and merchant banks on the other, to a more functional type of development. That means we have banks fulfilling the functions of building societies and building societies taking over banks. So we are at a very interesting period in the development of the financial structure in South Africa.

However, it also has many dangers. Where one deregulates and abandons structural control—ie control over a banking industry on its own and a building society on its own—in order to change to one integrated type of financial institution, it is then far more difficult to control. They say we are moving from structural control to conduct control. When one moves to conduct control, it is important that one gets the correct information. Therefore, I appreciate hon members’ support, because even this Bill before us, although not comprehensive, introduces a number of important changes.

Let us take, for example, the problem of an outside institution having more than 10% of the shares in a banking institution. Can they vote?

Can they utilize their full voting power or not? The danger in this process of mergers between the Perm and Nedbank, and the United and Volkskas, is that we may probably end up with— I do not want to use the word “monopoly”—an over-concentrated banking structure. At the same time we have to pay attention to world trends, to getting a more efficient building society structure, economies of scale and the question whether it is economically viable to have branch offices of Volkskas, Standard Bank, First National, Perm, United and Allied in a small town. We must be honest about the fact that there is a waste.

In terms of the clause before us the Minister can now decide whether he is going to allow an organisation that has more than 10% of the shares to use their total voting power according to the shares they have in the organisation.

The change in relation to penalties mentioned by the hon member for Laudium is also important. The hon member mentioned the Vermaas case. It is extremely difficult to protect the people against these new schemes coming onto the market. These people borrow money for deposits at an interest rate of 30% or 40%. We as the Government have the responsibility to protect our people.

*What I am surprised at, is that intelligent people and even businessmen have made investments after they have been told that they could get 40% interest on those investments.

†I just cannot believe it, but when we look back at the past two years, it actually happened that people invested deposits on the promise of 30% or 40% returns. We have the responsibility to protect our people.

It is also important that building societies must publish their basic interest rates when one makes one’s first deposit. However, I have a problem. We tend not to read the documents we sign. Maybe we have to teach our people to read before they sign.

I once again thank hon members for supporting this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

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

I would also like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the Chair for upholding the point of order that I raised against the hon member for Havenside for submitting a notice of motion yesterday which anticipated the notice of motion that appears in my name on the Order Paper.

For the edification and information of some hon members of this House who are either incapable of understanding the thrust or consequence of my motion, or who for reasons unknown to me prefer not to give words their ordinary meaning, allow me to explain that all I intend to seek by this motion is the immediate expulsion of the hon member for Arena Park from Parliament. In other words, all that I intend to do is to give effect to what the former hon Leader of the Official Opposition in this House called for in the media and which was widely reported, particularly in the Cape Times of 2 February 1989. He said, and I quote:

He suddenly got scared!

I trust therefore that the hon member for Glenview will be pleased with this motion before us. I hope that he will not only be pleased with this motion before us, but that he will fully support it. I hope he will ensure that as the hon the Leader of Solidarity, he will be able to carry his caucus with him, as well.

Speak for yourself!

I often speak with that hon member, so therefore I speak for him too. That hon member speaks with two tongues. He speaks one language to the Press and another language in this House, and a third language in his caucus!

To be fair to the hon member for Glenview, I must record that on 9 February he did, in fact, support a similar motion which was moved in this House by the hon member for Havenside. I wish to record this. However, I am unable to understand why in these circumstances he has allowed his caucus to put forward a motion yesterday which called only for the suspension of the hon member for Arena Park, which I presume the hon member for Havenside will move as an amendment to my motion this afternoon. The hon member for Glenview must therefore explain to this House and the community his reasons for doing so, and I trust that he will do so.

Yes, in due course.

Whilst I am on the subject of the motion of the hon member for Havenside which was disallowed this morning, let me say that I find it extraordinary that he should have had such a dramatic change of heart, so much so that he now merely seeks to suspend the hon member for Arena Park and whilst suspended, to keep him away from the precincts of Parliament.

What he is saying in effect is that he is prepared to allow the hon member for Arena Park to remain an hon member of this House and an hon member of Parliament, but refuses to allow him to take his seat in this Chamber in order to perform his duties as an hon member of this House. In other words, he is prepared to confer the status of marriage on him, but he refuses to allow the hon member for Arena Park into the bridal chamber to perform the function of such a marriage.

Who is the bride?

Solidarity!

The official records reflect that we in the PFP supported that hon member’s motion …

[Inaudible.]

… despite having proposed an amendment for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider such expulsion. Our reasons for doing so were and remain very clear. We wish thereby to afford the hon member for Arena Park the benefit of the audi alteram partem rule. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Stanger refers to that as the “patata rule”, then I believe he owes us all an apology.

It is obvious that, by their rejection of our amendment, the hon member for Arena Park’s caucus, and by implication he himself, did not wish to avail himself of this procedure. Accordingly our responsibilities in that regard ceased and hence I will renew the call for his forthwith expulsion as contained in my motion.

It has been suggested to me by some hon members of this House that they prefer a suspension rather than an expulsion because they did not wish to deprive the hon member for Arena Park of his sustenance. To that argument I say: What utter balderdash! Are these hon members not aware that despite his expulsion the hon member for Arena Park will still remain among the country’s top salary earners, thanks to the South African taxpayer.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member Mr Nowbath wants to know how much. He has made all the calculations. He should know because that is all that the hon member does in this House.

On the other hand, were Parliament to legislate, as I am informed that it wishes to do so expeditiously, that henceforth no benefits will accrue to disgraced members or to a Minister, it may be to the hon member for Arena Park’s pecuniary advantage to resign now and to take his money and run. However, that is his prerogative.

I would like to remind hon members that we in the PFP have not taken this motion lightly.

All two of you!

Yes, Sir, all two of us.

Two cosmetic Whites!

That hon member does not tell to which party he belongs or to which principle he subscribes. He reminds me of the man who came to me and said: “These are my principles. If you do not like them, I have others”. But now …

Black Whites in a White party!

Order! Will the hon member Nowbath please stop interrupting the hon member while he is addressing the House.

“Mr” Nowbath, Sir!

Order! The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to you for that protection, not that I required it.

We in the PFP believe, as does the majority party of this House, that the hon member for Arena Park has brought grave disrepute to this House by treating it with contempt. He has not shown any penitence for his actions, nor has he apologised for his behaviour.

Such a person’s continued membership of this House, we believe, is incompatible with the dignity of this House and of Parliament. When such a person has been called by a judge “an arrogant, unscrupulous and mean-minded bully who should not be employed in any position that requires integrity” …

A senile man!

Order! Whom did the hon member Mr Nowbath refer to as a senile man?

I referred to a certain Mr James. He was not a judge when he was sitting in the commission of inquiry. He was an ordinary citizen of the country.

Order! Will the hon member Mr Nowbath please stand.

Yes, Mr Thaver.

Order! Will he please withdraw the term “senile”. Mr Justice James is an honourable judge of the Supreme Court.

Since you instruct me to do so, I withdraw it.

Order! Does the hon member Mr Nowbath withdraw it unreservedly?

I withdraw it unreservedly, having shot my arrow.

Order! Will the hon member Mr Nowbath resume his seat now and be quiet.

Thank you, Mr Thaver.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Pursuant to your ruling, I wish to place on record that Mr Justice James is no longer a judge of the Supreme Court.

Order! I wish to inform the hon member for Moorcross that as far as we are concerned he is an honourable judge of the Supreme Court, presiding in the Supreme Court of South Africa, and therefore he is regarded as an honourable judge presiding over that commission.

On a further point of order, Mr Chairman: For the purposes of the record I do not dispute what you have said.

Order! The hon member for Springfield may proceed with his speech.

Mr Chairman, I think it is highly irresponsible for the hon member Mr Nowbath to refer to the Chair as the hon Mr Thaver. He did that on several occasions. [Interjections.] It was highly irresponsible, and I believe that it is this type of interjection that brings disgrace to this Chamber.

Order! Will the hon member Mr Nowbath in future please refer to the Chairman of this House as “Mr Chairman”.

Noblesse oblige, if you understand that.

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath will not say anything other than that he will refer to the Chairman of this House as “Mr Chairman”.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath will resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, it is with great regret that I rise to point out that the hon Mr Nowbath’s behaviour in this House in the last few minutes has been contemptible and in contempt of Parliament. I request that the Chair deal with him appropriately.

Order! The hon member Mr Nowbath will please rise. If he is not willing to respect the Chair, I will order him to withdraw from the Chamber. He may now resume his seat. That is my ruling.

Thank you.

Mr Chairman, the hon Mr Nowbath has once again been emasculated, as indeed was done in this House previously. Hansard records that fact. I trust that that hon member will now keep his mouth shut.

I was making the point, when I was rudely interrupted by the hon member—perhaps it was because my hon benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, shared too much wine with that hon member at lunchtime! [Interjections.] It is not true that that hon member paid for the wine imbibed by my hon benchmate; it was the hon member for Lenasia Central!

I would at least expect the hon member Mr Nowbath to acknowledge the attitude and the gift to him of that wine.

I was merely making the point that when a person such as the hon member for Arena Park has been called by a judge “an arrogant, unscrupulous and mean-minded bully who should not be employed in any position that requires integrity”, and when such a man has been found to have been deliberately false in Parliament, and yet does not find in himself the honour to resign from public life, then such a man has not only disgraced himself, but he has demeaned Parliament as well. I therefore believe that each MP should feel sullied by such behaviour and should do all in his power to regain the credibility of Parliament among the people they purport to represent. When public representatives have been shown to have failed the trust placed in them by the voting public, there must be instant retribution.

If anyone in this House fails to support my motion, he stands likewise condemned in the community, and he is answerable to that community.

Mr Chairman, I am aware that in our South African history there is no precedent for the expulsion of any member. I say this especially for the benefit of the hon member for Southern Natal, who should listen to this.

You have a lot to learn, my friend.

I certainly have a lot to learn, but not from that hon member. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Before the hon member for Havenside proceeds, I should like to draw the kind attention of hon members to the fact that they are not to reflect on any judge, acting judge or judge who has served in the Supreme Court or has served on commissions. The hon member for Havenside may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment to the motion as printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Springfield:

Before I make my submission to motivate my amendments, I ask of hon members to allow me to make certain observations. I fail to understand the hon member for Springfield who, as an advocate and a member of the Bar Council, together with his hon colleague who is a very learned attorney and a member of the side bar …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The Chair previously moved that a motion which is similar or substantially similar to the amendment in phrasing and in intent was not competent. In view of the fact that the hon member against whom a motion of suspension is sought to be introduced by the hon member for Havenside is already under suspension, my submission is that the amendment is out of order.

Order! The hon member for Havenside may proceed.

Hon members will remember that I moved a motion on 6 February calling for the expulsion of the hon member for Arena Park. However, an amendment to my motion was moved by the hon member for Springfield in which his call was that the audi alterem partem rule should be applied and that the hon member had to be given a chance.

You did not listen to me!

Where is his consistency if he stands here today and moves a motion to have that hon member expelled from Parliament? I would like to know what game these people are playing. Their inconsistency reminds me of a Laurel and Hardy comic, because they play for the Press gallery and no more than that. I am surprised that the PFP has accepted these two hon members to be part of their party when they come in here with such inconsistencies. I am even more surprised, in view of the fact that both hon members are attorneys. They are learned people and we expect them to lead the way and be consistent.

I also want to draw the attention of hon members in this House to the fact that when I moved this motion for the expulsion of the hon member for Arena Park, it was laughed at by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He called it a stupid motion. Today I should like him to stand in this forum and laugh at his very own hon colleague and exclaim that he has moved a stupid motion. [Interjections.]

You are being stupid now!

It does not give me much pleasure and joy to stand here and to move a draft resolution to expel and to suspend a person. However, I have a duty towards my country and its people and to the taxpayers as a whole. Therefore I have to try to find ways and means to bring dignity to this House and to Parliament as a whole.

My previous draft resolution calling for the expulsion of the hon member for Arena Park was defeated. I can only hope that sanity will prevail today and that hon members will look at this amendment in the light in which I am presenting it.

Hon members of Parliament in the other Houses treat the actions and the dishonesty of the hon member for Arena Park with contempt. When we walk around in the corridors and the precincts of Parliament we are questioned as to what the House of Delegates is doing to take action against this man’s dishonesty.

If the hon member for Arena Park had any respect the most sensible thing for him to have done would have been to resign honourably. We gave him sufficient time in which to do it but as yet nothing has happened. There is a clear indication that he has adopted a stubborn attitude. As a public figure he should let his head hang in shame because there is a call from all sectors of the community for him to resign.

I think he is completely misguided by his own imagination. He clings to his seat as an hon member when he can see for himself that he is an unwanted person in Parliament. When he walks through the corridors of Parliament we feel embarrassed. We do not want to face the man and we turn our backs on him and walk the other way. [Interjections.] This has happened.

It is in view of this attitude that we have no option but to take the line of action that we now propose. The move that we contemplate sets a precedent. This is a very important aspect. It has never happened before. The rules of the Constitution do not make provision for a line of action to be taken in such cases as it was not anticipated that an attitude as the one adopted by the hon member for Arena Park would be adopted.

The reason for the suspension of the hon member by our previous resolution was based on two reports by the Thaver Commission where it was established that he had in fact lied to Parliament by presenting false information to the hon member for Springfield. This conduct can never be condoned by Parliament. My call for a further suspension is to enhance the dignity and credibility of this House.

The James Commission report clearly indicates on p 87 and I quote:

I would like to know if this evidence is not sufficient to convince hon members that he is an unfit person to hold office. [Interjections.]

I like the laugh of the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He should have laughed himself when the motion was first presented in this House by his colleague …

Do not make a fool of yourself now.

… who in my own opinion is not a very clever person. I think he is one of the stupid ones as well. [Interjections.]

Hon members will note that the decorum in this House has been maintained on a high level in this House ever since the hon member for Arena Park was suspended. Since then the debates have been of a high standard and this forum has not been used for character assassination as was so evident when the hon member for Arena Park was present.

Unfortunately some character assassinations took place yesterday. I was quite surprised that it came from none other than the hon member for North Western Cape. I do not blame him—he has also been disillusioned. The opportunity given to him yesterday was perhaps the ideal time to present his case. We respect him for that.

The utter arrogance and boorish attitude of the hon member for Arena Park in this Chamber were highlighted by Justice James on page four of his report. In view of this I would like to ask if any right-minded hon member in this House can allow the hon member for Arena Park to continue his membership of Parliament. For how long can we defend ourselves against the criticism levelled at us or at Parliament as a whole due to the presence of a disgraced member of Parliament? I would like to quote some of the editorials and comments of a few leading newspapers in the country. They express public opinion in this country. I refer to the editorials in The Argus dated 1 February 1989. I am not going to read the entire editorial, but will quote one or two paragraphs:

… which had happened in this case. I quote further:

I now refer to an editorial in The Daily News, dated 2 February 1989, from which I want to quote one paragraph:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to enter the fray with a deep sense of regret. To participate in a debate, the thrust of which is to deny our people the right of a voice and vote in the highest forum in the country … [Interjections.] Those who are baying for the blood of the hon member for Arena Park will, I believe, rue a notion that history repeats itself twice—once as tragedy, the next time as farce. As recently as about two years ago some of the hon members who want to deny the people a voice were courting the hon member for Arena Park. They were not averse to consorting with the NPP and its leader and embracing its principles and policies. However, they beat a hasty retreat following a successful court action against them. Had they been successful in their defence of their embrace with the hon member for Arena Park and the NPP, I wonder if they would be supporting the motion. Then there were others who had approached us with persuasive arguments such as: We have nothing against the NPP. We would gladly return if only the hon member for Arena Park would step down from the leadership.

Now that hon member has voluntarily stepped out of the party, let alone from the leadership. I have yet to see those hon members of Parliament desert their adopted homes. Let me caution those who sympathise with this motion that they should be under no illusion that there will be unity or stability in Indian politics if this House were to be purged of the so-called Raj. We did not see the hon member for Arena Park as an adversary; or perhaps some hon members in this House do see him as such, not for ideological reasons, but rather that they now want to have a hold on society. There is genuine fear in their minds that if the NPP gains ground, it would be at their expense.

We know that the findings of the James Commission have been referred to the Attorney-General of Natal. Why do we not wait for the outcome of the decision of the court? Why the impatience?

Let me hasten to add that the role played by the hon member for Arena Park in galvanising Indian electoral support has so far been matchless in this Chamber, so much so that I believe that in the next election Indian electoral support will be much stronger than in 1984. What the hon member achieved in the past four years was to convert the House of Delegates, at grassroots level, into a political force, a role which has continually eluded the sympathisers of this motion. The by-elections speak for themselves. [Interjections.] If hon members want to make any submissions, they may do so when they have the opportunity.

The former opposition party must disabuse itself of the notion that it can portray the Indian cause as a national cause, as its national chairman claimed that he wants to get into the mainstream of politics. Let us therefore be coherent about our mandate. We have been saying that we must have unity and stability. I know how fragile the unity is. The fact that we are distinctly divided over this issue illustrates it. We would make a more viable appeal to our opponents if we addressed the main problems confronting us. This is not a cry from the heart, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated in an earlier debate; it is an appeal for sound judgement. Instead of fighting for power in this Chamber, let us remember our mandate and manifestos, as well as our election pledges.

I therefore move as a further amendment:

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Havenside made a statement, he said that the hon member for Arena Park is unfit to be a member of this House. We concur heartily. He quoted with approbation a statement by a newspaper to the effect that the hon member for Arena Park is a disgraced member of Parliament. We concur with that. However, the hon member for Havenside wants that man to be continued to be referred to as “an hon member”. We echo what the hon member for Glenview said: “Tell him to pack his bags and get out.” That is what we say. He is unfit to be a member of this House; he is a disgraced member of Parliament; tell him to pack his bags and get out. That is the substance of the motion by the hon member for Springfield.

However, what does Solidarity want? Solidarity wants to retain him as a member of Parliament. They want to keep him as a member; they merely want to suspend him. It is nonsensical to suspend a man. One normally suspends a person when he has done something wrong and an enquiry is going to be held. Three enquiries have been held. Last week we suggested that the man should be given an opportunity to prove his allegations that the Thaver Committee report was contemptible. He said that he held the Thaver Committee in contempt. In other words, he holds this House in contempt, because this House adopted the Thaver report. He said that the James Commission report is full of lies. We said that he should be given an opportunity to prove his statements.

However, his party rejected that, obviously under his own malign influence. A man is entitled to an opportunity once and not twice and that is why we do not re-extend the same opportunity to that hon member.

Why is Solidarity now so sympathetic to this disgraced hon member of Parliament who is unfit to be a member of this House? I can tell hon members why. The hon member for Moorcross touched on it. Solidarity went into a marriage relationship with this hon member and, of course, when a woman sleeps in a political or other bed with a person who is diseased, the woman can get syphilis, gonorrhoea or Aids. That is what happened. Solidarity has a sympathetic, sentimental attachment to the former political husband. I can understand that they still have a little love for their former political husband but it does not accord with the dignity of Parliament or this House for that kind of relationship to continue.

The hon the Minister of the Budget says that people must be loyal to the principles of a party. The hon member for Arena Park has been disloyal to the principles enunciated by his own party, by Solidarity, and, indeed, by any of the parties in this Parliament, except the CP. The principles enunciated are lofty and he has behaved disgracefully. That is why we agree with the hon member for Havenside that the hon member for Arena Park is unfit to be a member of this House. The hon member for Havenside wants to retain him as a member of this House upon whom he is a disgrace.

Why did you support my first motion?

This disgrace is attached to everyone who wants to retain him as a member of this House.

You called it a stupid motion.

I feel sorry for the hon member. He obviously did not understand. I did not say his motion was stupid. I said it was stupid of him to give me a copy of his motion after he had announced it, whereas his whip had promised to let me see it before he read it out. That was the stupidity and not the motion itself.

How about your colleague who attended our caucus yesterday?

My colleague attended that party’s caucus and he made it quite clear that he did not go along with their kind of nonsense because we stick to principles. We are sure that the hon member for Arena Park has no hold upon us. We know that we have no skeletons in our cupboard which he can rattle. That hon member has publicly proclaimed that if he goes down, he will take others with him. Those who are scared of going down with him, want to keep him an hon member of this House. They are bringing added disgrace to this House.

What are the crimes with which this hon member has been charged? He has been charged with committing grievous defalcation with State property. He has been charged with inciting witnesses to commit perjury. These hon members of Solidarity want to retain as an hon member of this House a man who incites other people to commit perjury and who has himself been found guilty of committing perjury by a commission. I find that utterly disgusting.

The disgust today is not visited upon the hon member for Arena Park only but also upon those hon members of Solidarity who are wagged by one little tail. The majority of the hon members of Solidarity—I cannot divulge the name of the persons—want that hon member out. However, because of a Bhayya syndrome or whatever it is, Solidarity refused and that tail wags the entire body. This is a sad, atrocious, undignified, despicable situation in which the majority party finds itself.

The hon member for Bayview is prepared to support, for the newspaper, an amendment which retains as an hon member of this House a man who is unfit to be a member of this House. Words must have meanings.

Talking about words, I just want to make one little statement here. I used certain words yesterday which could be construed as being offensive to officials. I certainly had no intention of making any disparaging statements about any official of this House. I regret it if my words could be so construed.

However, I make no bones about my words directed at the hon member for Arena Park and those who want to support him, those in the majority party benches—I almost said governing party, but of course the hon the Leader of Solidarity is not Chairman of the Ministers’ Council yet—and those people who still want to retain that man as an hon member of this House even after he has brought such ignominy upon this House.

The hon member for Havenside quoted a newspaper editorial which stated that the hon member for Arena Park was unfit to be a recipient of public trust. It was stated that the hon member for Arena Park was unfit to be the recipient of public trust, but the hon member for Havenside and Solidarity want that man to be the recipient of hard-earned public money! That is the sole purpose of that amendment—to let him continue to earn a salary! That is the awful, nauseating part of it.

Compassion! Show compassion!

The hon member for Havenside quoted with approbation a statement that the hon member ought to quit his membership of Parliament without delay, and yet he wants to retain him as an MP. Is that consistent behaviour? Is that the kind of conduct which we expect from hon members of this House who claim that they want to uphold the dignity of this House? They are prepared to swallow the insults hurled at them and at their Ministers. They are prepared to swallow that—for what? Not because they really want to uphold the hon member for Arena Park. I repeat that the hon member for Arena Park has some hold over them. Then they still talk about wanting stability in this House!

I can assure every hon member of this House that for as long as Mr A Rajbansi remains the hon member for Arena Park, there will not be stability in this House because his malignant influence will be pervasive here even if he is suspended from this House.

He will give you Aids!

He has given other people Aids. He cannot possibly do that to anybody else except the hon member Mr Nowbath! [Interjections.]

Let us consider what other things this man has done. Apart from inciting people to commit perjury and apart from having committed perjury himself, what he did was to utilise State property to benefit himself. The James Commission … [Time expired.]

Order!

Before I call upon the next hon member, I wish to point out that a point of order was taken by the hon member for Reservoir Hills regarding the admissibility or otherwise of the amendment moved by the hon member for Havenside. The amendment is admissible, because the interpretation is that, should the amendment be carried, the suspension would merely extend from its final date now to some date in the future.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a great day, great in this respect, that I have been put in the very invidious position today of having to criticise the arguments of my learned friends, the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Somewhere along the line my learned colleagues have failed to analyse the consequences of that motion. There is an age-old saying: Look before you leap. Let us therefore examine expulsion versus suspension.

If any hon member of this House or any other House of the Parliament of the RSA is expelled, he immediately ceases to be a member of that House. So far so good.

What are the consequences of the expulsion? There will be a vacancy in that constituency and nothing bars that expelled from recontesting that seat in a by-election.

That is the message!

That is the message my hon colleagues have failed to see. The intrinsic purpose of the motion moved by my colleague the hon member for Springfield is to get rid of an evil from this House—not to bring him back. The very essence of this motion leaves the door wide open for the hon member for Arena Park to come back to this House within 10 weeks if necessary. [Interjections.]

Order! Did I hear the hon member for Camperdown say that the intention of the motion by the hon member for Springfield is to rid this House of an evil?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it unreservedly, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

It is the feeling in my heart which is also the feeling on every man’s mind and I am sorry to express that feeling which is hidden in my subconscious mind.

I fully agree that this House does not need people who bring disrepute to this Parliament. I fully agree with the arguments that the dignity of Parliament has to be upheld. The question is how to go about it. Do we put the cart before the horse and let the horse push the cart, or do we harness a horse to the cart? That is the difference between the amendment moved by the hon member for Havenside and the motion moved by the hon member for Springfield.

Are you afraid of an election?

Once we suspend any member of this House, he is barred from sitting here for the life of this Parliament. He is effectively removed.

You harm the voters of Arena Park!

No, Sir. There is no harm done. [Interjections.] I will repeat that if one expels any member, not only the hon member for Arena Park, nothing precludes or bars that particular hon member from contesting in a by-election. [Interjections.] Then …

Let the ballot box decide!

Let the ballot box decide? He will come back. Nothing precludes him from doing so. [Interjections.] We have no guarantee that the voters of Arena Park will not return that hon member to Parliament.

Is that your idea of democracy?

That is the intention. It has been repeatedly argued across this floor that this side of the House is in favour of keeping the hon member for Arena Park in Parliament. Therefore I construe that the intention of the motion is to prevent the hon member for Arena Park from sitting in this House. If that is not done effectively by the motion moved by the hon member for Springfield, then a suspension of the hon member is the safe method as long as this Parliament stands—be it three months, six months or three years. The hon member for Arena Park will be barred from sitting in this House or entering the precincts of Parliament.

In the interim I am able to say that there are certain criminal actions being considered against the hon member which will take effect during the suspended term and I believe the consequences will allow expulsion in terms of the Constitution Act of 1983. Considering these facts I supported the caucus in deciding on an amendment to suspend the hon member for Arena Park. It is a safe way, a sound way to prevent the hon member for Arena Park—who has brought such great disrepute and disgrace not only to this House, but also to Parliament, and who has impugned the dignity and decorum of Parliament—from sitting in this House. He is not fit to sit in this House. How do we bring that into effect other than through suspension, not expulsion. Expulsion is not a solution; it is only a symptomatic remedy, not a conclusive one.

That is why I said I am surprised. I say to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that words must have meaning. There must be a meaning for expulsion; there must be a meaning for suspension. I am very grateful to my learned colleague who gave me that phrase. Words must have meaning. Suspension has a greater weight of meaning than expulsion. Therefore I support the amendment moved by the hon member for Havenside.

The second disturbing thing is that even before the motion was debated in this House, before arguments were heard for or against suspension or expulsion, the newspapers provided a preview. Yesterday’s newspapers in Natal are speculating and pointing accusing fingers. People who release Press statements before hearing cases should not do so. I would say that they are untrustworthy; I was going to use some other word. I say this because one cannot prejudge anything without hearing the other side, in terms of the audi alteram partem principle which has been cited quite often today. That principle is abandoned by having a preview and packing galleries to listen to vain arguments, arguments which defeat the intrinsic purpose and intention of this very motion. This is done by giving previews, prejudging and accusing innocent people. Everyone has wisdom; no-one can say, “I am cleverer than you,” or “I am holier than thou”. All people have their faults, as I have proved. The mover of the motion and the seconder have their faults. They defaulted by not analysing the consequences of the motion. Can I now level the accusation that it was the intention of the hon member for Springfield just to get rid of the hon member for Arena Park for three months and then get him back in this House? Can I accuse him of that because he misjudged his motion? It is an ugly wrong for any hon member of this House to get up and accuse people on the basis of assumptions. It was presumed that hon members on this side of the House would like and very much welcome, or are afraid of, the hon member for Arena Park. That is not the case. That amendment was a calculated one which effectively achieves the desired effect which Parliament demands. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I enter this debate in a somewhat confused atmosphere. The hon member for Reservoir Hills accused Solidarity of having entered into an unholy marriage, and I have heard by way of interjection that the hon member for Springfield attended their caucus, so there is some confusion.

[Inaudible.]

I am also pleased to enter this debate after the hon member for Camperdown, who has confirmed certain things. To use his exact words: “If the amendment moved by the hon member for Havenside is carried, in effect it would create a vacancy in the Arena Park constituency and the hon member for Arena Park will come back; there is no doubt.” So there is a guarantee coming officially from the majority party that they are afraid that if there is a by-election in that area, the hon member for Arena Park would come back.

We do not rule out the possibility.

It is a fact.

It is a fact, I take it.

One cannot rule out the possibility.

I am in full agreement that there ought to be stability in this House. There must be stability, because the image of the House of Delegates is at a low ebb at the moment.

It has no image!

I agree with the fact and I want to make it absolutely clear that the hon member for Arena Park is no longer a member of the NPP.

He will be forming a new party tomorrow. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of the Budget indicated earlier on in his speech during the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill that the canons of democracy must prevail. In accordance with what he has said, the hon member for Arena Park must be given the opportunity to come and take his seat here in the legislative assembly …

… and talk rubbish.

… and state his case. Why are we afraid of this? [Interjections.] Let us make it absolutely clear in our minds that the hon member for Arena Park is a political maestro par excellence. Nobody can deny that. [Interjections.]

That is why they are scared of him! [Interjections.]

I am not interested in the James Commission.

If you want him to come back, prove it!

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

I am not prepared to take any questions. Solidarity had stated publicly that they would enter into a merger with the NPP and call themselves New Solidarity. There is in effect no difference between the so-called New Solidarity and the old Solidarity. Fundamentally there is no difference between the NPP and Solidarity as far as principles and objectives are concerned. [Interjections.] There is one difference and that is personalities. What we have been doing since 1984 and what we will continue doing, is to argue because we have a personality difference.

When we talk about carrot-dangling, unfortunately there are certain people who state on national television that carrots should not be dangled, but when the time comes for eating those carrots, they eat even the leaves.

The hon member for Stanger mentioned yesterday that the hon member for North Western Cape signed a document in May 1988. If that hon member has signed such a document …

He must have been mad!

… the hon member for Stanger must make that document available, because I do not believe that hon member would sign such a document saying that he would support Solidarity.

Do you want it now?

He might have said words to that effect. [Interjections.] In this Chamber of the House of Delegates the play is not politics or principles. It is merely a play of personalities …

… and carrots.

… and character assassinations from one side of the floor to the other side.

We should have a round table.

The hon member for Springfield read out earlier from the James Commission report that the hon member for Arena Park should not be employed. The operative word is that he should not be “employed”. It does not say that he should not be elected. He is elected by the voters in a constituency. By supporting the motion of the hon member for Havenside, hon members are effectively denying the elected member of Parliament of those voters in the Arena Park constituency to make use of his offices and his Parliamentary privilege, here in this Assembly and in his office.

Now he can look after his butchery and his garages!

Hon members have no right to deny a constituency of its representative in this House.

Well, they have the wrong man here.

That is how corrupt they are.

Another shocking revelation which was made before this House for which there is no place, was in the words I thought I would never hear uttered by the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

He would say anything.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that a “Bhaya syndrome” exists in New Solidarity. There is no place for any man who wants to serve his country or his nation and who then uses that kind of argument.

He is a camel buyer!

There is no place for him in any institution in this country. [Interjections.]

Any man who has not sinned in this House must cast the first stone. Then we can talk about costly expulsions. The hon members for Springfield and Reservoir Hills should read the enlightened judgement of Didcott, J in the State vs Kaneville case in the 1988 volume of SA Law Reports, pg 795. Then we will see what we are talking about. We are talking about sectionalism and about religious lines of free agents.

We are talking of buyers.

Yes, we are talking of buyers. [Interjections.] In the meantime the community outside is suffering. We want to achieve stability and the only way in which we can achieve that is to invite the leaders of all the parties around one table.

Let us have an election!

I support that call for an election. I had in fact moved a motion to that effect last year which was defeated. I spoke to the hon member for Glenview about this. I spoke to the hon the Minister of the Budget about this. I spoke to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture about this. Unfortunately nothing came of it.

The sooner we can get together, put the issue of personalities behind us and have discussions, the sooner we can move forward. All that we are doing at present is to waste valuable time and taxpayers’ money to talk about why we should keep one hon member of Parliament out of his legislative seat to which he was elected.

He abused that seat!

We have a great deal of work on which we rather should be concentrating. We should be of service to our voters, our constituencies and our country. We should not be sitting here talking about the character assassination of one another. It is not getting us or the country anywhere.

Much has been said about the James Commission. The report has been referred to the Attorney-General and the honourable thing for us to do is to search our conscience and to decide to wait for the findings of the Attorney-General’s office. If any prosecutions should then follow, the decision should be taken by a court of law.

After that there will be an appeal.

If there is an appeal after that, we will look at it when it arises. [Interjections.] At this point we must be interested in being of service to our voters and our constituencies. If we are truly interested in serving our country we must forget about one another’s personality. We must be bold enough to say that we are here to serve the constituencies that we purport to represent.

Mr Chairman, I believe that when the legislators sat down to draft the new Constitution they did not really know some of the characteristics possessed by the representatives of the Indian community who were likely to come to this House. [Interjections.] After all, parliamentary convention is something that is old and that has been respected over the years. Unfortunately the hon member for Lenasia Central tried to argue that away as if it meant nothing, and that is also very sad.

However, I want to come to the following: Yesterday I spoke to somebody who I thought was a reasonable man. What he said was simply that one should not use political power in a parliamentary institution to have a go at those whose methods of operation or actions one may not like. He said that one should never create a situation in Parliament where the numbers game can be used against one’s opposition.

It is the duty of Parliament to create the necessary machinery. This is the failing: Parliament has not created the kind of machinery that would take care of the situation which now confronts us. [Interjections.] We are expected to institute measures and take action in the House of Delegates, namely to appoint a committee who will then recommend that the man be suspended or expelled.

Then again, however, the accusation will be levelled against this House that we are both judge and juror. It will be said that we had the report of the Thaver Commission and found the man guilty, and that we now sit in judgement, find that the guilt is further confirmed and then throw him out.

Are you agreeing that we should wait for the court to take action?

All I am saying is that the hon member for Camperdown eloquently highlighted the situation when he said: To expel him might create headlines in the newspapers, and the preparatory work has already been done in some of the newspapers of today. However, does it serve a purpose? Expelling the hon member will result in a by-election, and a by-election gives the man an opportunity to contest his seat again. Whether he comes in or not is another matter, but the fact is that he is given the opportunity of making another attempt to come back to this House. If one suspends him from Parliament at least for the life of this Parliament, the hon member is barred from participating or getting back into the House of Delegates.

Secondly, the hon member concerned has also maintained—he has done so very widely—that we have ganged up against him, that the Thaver Commission, the James Commission and the majority party of the House of Delegates have ganged up against him, as well as that there is a plan to get rid of him for whatever he is. I do not want that kind of statement to gather any more credibility, and whether one likes it or not, in certain circles that has a positive response. Let us be clear about this. If one repeats a lie for a sufficiently long period, people begin to believe it. It happens here, in the corridors of Parliament.

Corridors of corruption!

Order! I want to remind the hon member Mr Nowbath that the hon member for Glenview is talking about the corridors of Parliament and the hon member Mr Nowbath retorted: Corridors of corruption! It is a reflection on this institution. Will the hon member please unreservedly withdraw it.

I unreservedly withdraw it.

What is more is that the hon member for Arena Park has said this publicly and he continues to repeat that he will take the commission’s report to court and prove that he has been unfairly dealt with. Whether rightly or wrongly, the matter has been given very wide publicity. I believe that it is the duty of Parliament to deal with this, and hopefully the Rules Committee will look at the situation in which we find ourselves with no machinery to attend to a matter of this kind. Actually there is no effective machinery to ensure that a man whom a commission has found to be an improper and unfit individual to participate in parliamentary processes, must be got rid of once and for all.

I understand from the explanation offered to me by officials that we cannot even get consensus in the three Houses—so that a parliamentary select committee comprising the three Houses of Parliament can adjudicate on this matter and a parliamentary decision taken as to the future of this hon member—whether to expel him or not. That machinery does not exist. I believe that something has to be done very urgently to ensure that this vacuum in regard to the situation I referred to, is resolved. Without the machinery we are all taking decisions, like the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Obviously he has now learnt that his motion does not help the situation whatsoever. At the very least the Opposition’s motion states that the man be suspended for the life of Parliament, whether it be for six or eight months or a year. Hopefully the other processes which have been instituted will bring a confirmation to the community and to hon members in this House of Parliament that this man is certainly not worthy of being present in this House. On that account I have no doubts.

However, what worries me is that the majority of the hon members in this House must not be seen to be taking advantage of the numbers game to go for a member who belongs to the minority group. I believe that responsibility is really a responsibility of Parliament as a whole and Parliament as such must examine this situation and create some instrument which can be applied to take the necessary decisions in the light of the Thaver Committee report and the James Commission report. I am glad the matter has been referred to the Attorney-General and hopefully in due course some processes may be set in motion. The hon member for Arena Park said: “In a court of law I will get off scot-free.” He said this publicly. If it were to be put to the test one could see what would happen.

However, I am not saying that we must wait until the court case is over, if there should be such a thing. All I am saying is that there is no proper machinery. We have canvassed this adequately and only the House of Delegates can take a decision on this matter. Even appointing a select committee of the House, as far as I am concerned, is just not right, because we and the commission have decided that the person is guilty. The committee can only confirm that and we will be both judge and juror in this matter and my party does not see its way clear to do that.

We are in a somewhat difficult situation here, and that is why we go a little further. Rather than give the man an opportunity to come back here in a blaze of glory should he win that election, we say that he should be suspended from Parliament for the duration of Parliament. Hopefully the message will get through and he will take the decision that any hon member of Parliament should take in the light of all the examples of which we have been told and about which much has been written, namely to resign and to forget about Parliament for the rest of his life.

I cannot agree with the hon member for Lenasia Central. I like the young man, he is a fine speaker, but unfortunately he defends something which is indefensible. He tries to make out in this House that his leader just did not do anything wrong and that we are all crazy.

He says you bankrolled it.

Yes, he says we bankrolled it. I think that is also not entirely correct. The hon member for Moorcross, who is a colleague of the hon member for Arena Park, tried to defend his former leader, but there is just no defence. There is no defence against his wrongdoings. One cannot defend him as a parliamentary leader. I also say that he is a master in engineering elections, but God help those who get caught out! Unfortunately, some of the practices …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, Mr Chairman. Hon members have seen reports in the Press about practices with regard to elections, and nobody can take any plaudits for that. One case has resulted in some damages being awarded to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. If this continues, it will be very profitable for that hon member. He can actually practise on collecting damages.

We have also investigated and established that if an hon member is expelled or suspended, he does not suffer any loss in remuneration. He is compensated either way. Therefore it is not the financial consideration which caused us to take this decision. Whether one expels him or suspends him, he gets his pay. He will get all those benefits which are due to him. All I am saying is that as far as I am concerned, we are doing what is best, in the circumstances, at this moment in time, in the absence of any machinery in Parliament to help us to resolve this matter to the satisfaction of the majority of hon members who want this man out of Parliament, never to come Back here as a member of Parliament.

In the absence of such machinery, we support this interim measure, and hopefully our Whips will take up this matter with the relevant committee and some negotiations will take place with a view to creating that machinery to which I referred to earlier.

Mr Chairman, this august House is often accused by the newspapers and all and sundry of instability due to hon members shifting loyalty from one party to another. However, there are two gentlemen here who have searched their consciences and found a home with Solidarity. I want to read a letter here to indicate the concern of the community regarding what happens in the House of Delegates. The letter concerns the hon member for Eastern Transvaal. I quote:

Allow me to leave my seat. I want to demonstrate something.

Order! The hon member must speak from his seat.

This is a long list of telegrams from various districts in the Eastern Transvaal. I shall let hon members have a look at this to satisfy themselves.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Let it be recorded that most of the sheets are blank.

From 1984 when we came to Parliament there have been many acrimonious debates and these debates have usually been between two people, the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Arena Park. The walls of this House echoed with claims and counter-claims. I remember the finger-wagging hon member for Arena Park saying: “I want you to prove this. Prove this now or declare it outside this House.”

I was a passive listener and very often I thought that the hon member for Reservoir Hills was uttering untruths, until time proved him right. The so-called hon member for Arena Park asked: “Where is your evidence? Locked up in the post box? Locked up in a safe? You will slip on your banana peel.” I have records of all the speeches made by the hon member for Arena Park because I am interested in this gentleman who welded such a cohesion among his members that even his absence holds them together.

I want to make a fervent and honest appeal to those that are still on the other side to bring cohesion, stability and peace into this House for their own sakes and for the sake of the community so that we can proceed with the aims and objectives for which we came here and not with character assassination. This must stop forthwith.

How are we going to achieve this? We will achieve this through a substantial majority. Two other hon members are coming from the other side tomorrow, although they are not indicating this in any of the media. I want to show hon members that with stability we shall be able to deliver the goods which we promised our constituencies.

We have had prolonged debates on the question of expulsion or suspension. I support the hon member for Havenside. I recall that the hon member read out his motion on 6 February. It was not readily accepted by the two hon members of the PFP. They called it the “height of stupidity” that this hon member had put such a motion before the House.

Today we realise that suspension is the only way in which to effectively curb the presence of the hon member for Arena Park in Parliament and within the precincts of Parliament.

And to deny the electorate of Arena Park the right to choose.

We are people of standing in this House. We are people who have stood and won in elections. Some were nominated of course. I want to refer to a very learned person who has attained academic heights.

He has a doctoral degree in education. I hold a single degree. I respected this man, but he misled the House when he said that he did not sign any documents or papers relating to his showing allegiance to Solidarity. Here I have the document in front of me, signed by this hon member His signature cannot be …

Can you prove it? Is it original?

Read the thing! Read it!

Mr Chairman, may I read this? It is addressed to the hon the State President, and I quote:

It is signed M S Padayachy.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member produce the original copy of that document, because copies could easily be manipulated. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have the original copy. We do not go around … [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I want to support the hon member for Havenside. The presence of the hon member for Arena Park will not be conducive to the dignity and standing of this House.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to react to the various issues that have been raised by several speakers this afternoon, except the one that was raised by my friend, the hon member for Camperdown.

However, before I do so, I would just like to address one issue that remains to be addressed in this Chamber, and that is the issue of precedents. I am aware that in our South African history there is no precedent for the expulsion of a member. That in itself should not deter us. After all, this House in its very short history has created historical precedents on no fewer than seven different occasions. It is not my intention to dwell on these.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, Sir. It is not my intention to dwell on these issues, except to say that in this instance, if my motion is carried …

Sam Khan was a member of Parliament!

I will answer that just now. If my motion is carried, a precedent would have been created with honour and in the best traditions of Parliament. These traditions go back a long way in the history of Parliament. The respected authorities in this regard are Erskine May and T E May who deal with this very question in their respective treatises on the subject. They say that the purpose of expulsion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much to punish members as to rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership. It may be justly regarded as an example of the House’s power to regulate its own constitution.

Members of Parliament, according to Erskine May and T E May, have been expelled for perjury, for fraud and breaches of trust or conspiracy to defraud, for corruption in the administration of justice or of conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, and for contempts committed against the House itself. I submit that the hon member for Arena Park, Mr A Rajbansi, qualifies more than adequately for each and every precedent that I have just listed.

On the other hand, both of these authorities are of the view that a suspension from the service of the House is a punishment employed by the House of Commons under its power of enforcing discipline among its members, particularly as the punishment for disregard of the authority of the Chair or of obstruction.

There is no doubt in my mind that every member of this House, if he has any honour, will have no difficulty in supporting my motion. The failure to support my motion is an indication that the story about Mr Rajbansi, the hon member for Arena Park, having dossiers on the activities of some hon members of this House and blackmailing them for their support in return, is in fact true. I would like to ask the hon member for Havenside what the hon member for Arena Park has on him.

I promised to return to the hon member for Camperdown. He began by saying that it was an historical day. For me, having listened to the hon member, it is indeed a sad day. Whilst that hon member was a member of the caucus of the PRP he held himself out to be a democrat and for that we respected him. At the present time he is a member of Solidarity and in the principles and the policy of Solidarity which I amongst others helped to draft, the concept of democracy is enshrined.

But what did that hon member say this afternoon? He castigated me simply because my motion called for the hon member for Arena Park to be expelled so that he could go back to his constituency and if his constituency again gave him a mandate to return to Parliament, then he would do so. The hon member for Camperdown castigated me because he said that the purpose of the motion against the hon member for Arena Park was to keep him out of Parliament.

I ask that hon member to reconsider his position as a democrat. How can he, as a democrat, deny the people of Arena Park whoever they may desire? If they wish to elect the hon member for Arena Park, that is their right and who am I or that hon member, or any other hon member of this House, to deny them that right? There is not only that. I would have thought that that hon member would have taken into account the possibility that the hon member for Arena Park could have resigned of his own accord. If he did that he could go back to the voters of Arena Park and he would then seek their mandate. I therefore wish to express my extreme disappointment this afternoon at my colleague across the floor, the hon member for Camperdown, for saying to us that he is a democrat and for not following that principle. That is indeed a sad day because I have a lot of respect for that hon member.

Mr Chairman, I therefore, without any further ado, put the question.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr M Bandulalla agreed to (National Peoples Party dissenting) and the amendment moved by Mr M Y Baig dropped.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 127, on the basis of the adverse findings of the James Commission and on the grounds that Mr A Rajbansi, the member for Arena Park, has been found to have misled Parliament on more than one occasion and has brought the House into disrepute, the House suspends Mr Rajbansi from the service of the House for the duration of the current Parliament and excludes him from the precincts of Parliament forthwith.