Mr Speaker, at the outset I should like to thank the chairman and all the members of the Joint Committee on Education very sincerely for their contribution towards making the amending Bill under discussion possible in its present form. I am particularly pleased because of the acceptance of a suitable amendment to clause 4 which is aimed at amending section 34 of the principal Act.

This Bill amends the Education and Training Act—Act No 90 of 1979—firstly in order to insert a definition of “subsidy” to make provision for the fact that the granting of assistance to a State-aided school need not only be in the form of money, but can also include school furniture, equipment, stores, stationery and other assistance in kind.

Secondly the principal Act is being amended in order to make provision for the fact that apart from regions and inspection circuits, the department can also organise its activities or any part of such activities in areas, thirdly with a view to bringing the principal Act into line with the transfer of the responsibility for furnishing school health services from the Department of National Health and Population Development to the provinces and, fourthly, with a view to empowering the Director-General: Education and Training, on the recommendation of the controlling body of a public school and after conducting an investigation, to refuse admission to any person who applies for admission as a pupil to the relevant school if such person’s presence at the school would be prejudicial to the interests of the school or the provision of education.

The first three matters I have just mentioned, i e the insertion of the definition of “subsidy”, the introduction of areas and the amendment of the Act in accordance with an already existing arrangement owing to the transfer of the responsibility for school health services are not contentious measures and should therefore not meet with any opposition. The definition of “subsidy” is necessary to place it beyond all doubt that the department can provide furniture and other assistance in kind. According to the normal meaning of the word “subsidy”, assistance is only measured in monetary terms.

The amendment with regard to the introduction of areas reflects the present organisation of the department which has been geographically changed to make provision for the classification of regions and areas in regard to which area offices have been established.

The third matter, which relates to the furnishing of school health services, is only a consequential amendment. It arises out of the transfer, to the provinces, of the responsibility for the furnishing of school health services, something which took place as far back as 1 April 1988.

†As regards the last matter, that is the refusal of admission to a school, I want to say that this measure is solely intended to protect the vast majority of pupils who do want to study against the small minority of intimidators and perpetrators of violence whose sinister motives have nothing whatsoever to do with the promotion of education. It is the intention to state without doubt that the department possesses the power to refuse undesirable persons admission to public schools.

That the communities affected by these persons have now had more than enough of lawlessness, violence and intimidation appears from many press reports which are in the possession of the department. I quote a few extracts to prove this statement.

In Business Day of 18 January 1989 we read:

The Sowetan of 19 January 1989 writes as follows:

The Sowetan of 20 January 1989 writes as follows:

The City Press of 22 January 1989 writes as follows:

The necessity for this measure as contained in clause 4 appears clearly from what I have just quoted and I trust therefore that hon members will support it.

Mr Speaker, it could be considered remiss of me if I did not first refer to two matters of cardinal importance to Black education before specific clauses of this Bill were dealt with.

The first matter involves the large-scale investigations into corruption, maladministration, selfenrichment and irregularities which are being conducted in both of the hon the Minister’s departments, ie the Department of Development Aid and the Department of Education and Training.

There is a lack of clarity about many of the particulars of that investigation, but about one thing …

Order! Could the hon member just tell me under what clause he is now addressing the House?

Mr Speaker, I am not referring to a specific clause, as I stated initially. I am discussing orderly activities.

Yes, but this is a Bill now before the House and not the Vote. The hon member must confine himself to the Bill.

As you please, Mr Speaker.

The Official Opposition supports this Bill, though with reservations.

Clause 1 is inserting a definition of “subsidy” so as to include assistance in kind. Clause 2 envisages amending section 2(2) of the principal Act, which at present only makes provision for the department to carry out its activities in regions and inspection circuits.

Firstly what the proposed amendment envisages is that the pertinent role already being played by the Commission for Administration will, in future, be acknowledged in this context.

Secondly provision is being made for further decentralisation, in the form of areas in addition to regions and inspection circuits. In the Northern Transvaal region, where no fewer than 19 inspection circuits exist, four areas with their own offices are envisaged, ie the Pretoria Central, Pretoria North, Warmbaths and Pietersburg areas. Under the Warmbaths area office there are four inspection circuits, ie those of Naboomspruit, Warmbaths itself, Thabazimbi and Ellisras.

The benefits of these new areas, which slot in between the regions and inspection circuits, are firstly the more equitable distribution of the functions of regional administration and greater overall responsibility, on the part of circuit inspectors, for all the schools under their jurisdiction and, secondly, the fact that the area office will be able to accommodate an efficient administrative component. The administrative tasks of the whole area will be centralised here.

Thirdly, the circuit inspectors’ task will be more professional and less administrative in nature, and they will therefore be able to concentrate more on the effectiveness of school personnel and sound school administration. Because the circuit inspectors’ offices will be more decentralised, less travelling time will be devoted to school visits, and because they will be stationed so much nearer to the schools under their control, this will promote efficiency, particularly as far as the control of schools is concerned.

The new system is particularly welcome because pressure on the professional component of the circuit staff has become too great. There has been tremendous expansion in head office staff. Numerous ambitious projects have been tackled, many of which have meanwhile had to be curtailed, but additional circuit inspectors were not provided. Subject advisers who were supposed to alleviate the problem could not adequately be employed in the disciplines in which they had been trained because up to 80% of their time was taken up by these ambitious projects. We hope this will now be rectified.

Surely it is true that this new system has been implemented since last year, and I think it is inexcusable that a change in the system requiring a statutory amendment, and therefore parliamentary approval, is first introduced, with Parliament then being asked to act as the rubber stamp. This is an irregularity which unfortunately confirms the wide-ranging concern about extensive irregularities in the department, including those at other levels.

This definitely does not attest to proper Ministerial control, and the hon the Minister owes the House an explanation, if this can be explained at all, which I doubt. The Government simply doing as it wishes, regardless of legal provisions, is contempt of Parliament and a valid reason why the electorate should reject this Government at the very first possible opportunity.

Clauses 3 and 5 bring the principal Act into line with the transfer of the responsibility for the furnishing of school health services from the Department of National Education and Population Development to the respective provincial administrations.

Clause 4, in its initial form before the joint committee, could have achieved the object for which it was proposed. Unfortunately we again had to witness the dismantling of this provision, in the name of consensus, and we are now left with a watered-down, impaired if not hopeless clause 4. The initial formulation was quite simply aimed at empowering the Director-General of Education and Training to refuse admission to any person who applied for admission as a pupil to a public school if he was of the opinion that such a person’s presence at the school would be prejudicial to the interests of the school or the provision of education.

There was a good reason for such an amendment. In fact, evidence available to the department, indicating that the present expulsion procedure is inadequate, is generally accepted. The Council for Education and Training was also consulted, and it supported the initial formulation. The object was to place an instrument in the hands of the Director-General, and those authorised by him, enabling them to take effective and prompt action against isolated criminal elements and manifestations of thuggery and agitation.

The existence of these elements is not questioned, nor is their ability to jeopardise an orderly system of education or the need for strict and prompt action. Newspaper cuttings supporting this aspect were submitted to the committee and were not questioned. In fact, the hon the Deputy Minister has just quoted extracts from many of them. I could likewise quote extracts too.

Instead of hon members of the NP on that committee supporting the strong case the department made out and also recruiting the support of hon members of the other Houses by persuasion and the convincing elucidation of the facts, they retreated at the first signs of doubt about whether the proposed clause were not possibly too strict. The first phase of retreat—something we have had to grow used to by now—was immediately followed up by a second phase of falling over their own feet to compromise for the sake of compromise. The stage-name for this is consensus. The third phase is that of piecemeal patchwork which leads to poor legislation.

Apart from the PFP, which always distrusts the department and which has even failed to gain support from the other Houses for their even weaker amendments, in this case the committee could really have arrived at better legislation if hon members of the NP had only tried to adopt a course of persuading people to support a good cause.

In terms of the amended clause before the House, the Director-General, or his duly authorised representative, can no longer act promptly or on his own initiative at all, because two things must first take place. Firstly, in a relevant school where an undesirable element applies for admission, its parent committee—I am using this term so as not to have to repeat the technical definition of section 7—must first be convened to make a recommendation. If the relevant parent committee is not functioning, or the parent committee or the majority of its members are being successfully intimidated by the criminal element, this is taking up valuable time in which there could already be loss of life and damage to property. This is, in fact, what happened at the commencement of the present school year.

Secondly, after the parent committee has made its positive recommendation—if the committee has done so—there must first be an investigation in which the relevant undesirable elements must be given a hearing. If the person concerned is a minor, a parent must also first be given a hearing. Let hon members picture this for themselves: Those who are dubbed “thugs” by Black newspapers and Black pupils themselves are now, nicely and reasonably, notified of the time, place and nature of the inquiry, and if the person concerned is 20 years old, for example, as the majority of these elements are, his parents must also be notified, and then the investigation must take place. After how much loss of life, after how many assaults and bumt-out items of school furniture and motor vehicles, is the Director-General in a position to refuse the thug admission to the school? The present clause 4, however, is nevertheless better than nothing, and we therefore support it, also for the sake of the other clauses in this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is difficult to determine from the poisonous way in which he criticised the Bill at the end of his speech, whether or not the hon member for Potgietersrus supports it, but for the sake of his quotation at the beginning as well as his last sentence I must thank him for his support of this Bill.

In the first place I want to thank the hon the Minister for the way in which success has been obtained in Black education, especially during the past two years. Unlike the hon member for Potgietersrus, I must congratulate the department on the speed with which they have made up the backlog that has built up in Black education over the past few decades and for the quality of the work that has gone into this.

There was a tremendous task that had to be done. There was a tremendous backlog that had to be made up and an enormous backlog in respect of trained personnel. There was a tremendous backlog in respect of the establishment of standards and the whole question of subject methods, the interpretation of syllabi and all related matters. These are all fundamental to education in its totality. These things are not done in a year or two. Masses of work had to be done, and we want to congratulate the department on the success it has achieved and the level it has reached at this stage.

I have a second point of difference with the hon member for Potgietersrus. Education remains a matter in which the teaching corps itself has to take the initiative, but there must also be considerable initiative on the part of the parent community. The teaching corps alone cannot develop education to its fullness. The teaching corps alone cannot develop the brain power, let alone the character-building which is the second leg of education. It needs the co-operation of the community, the family and the total school corps. This includes a number of things, from disciplines to attitudes to fife, which must be developed and shaped before one can start talking about standards and success.

To say that the department has to come to Parliament before it can take initiative in education is, in plain language, academic absurdity. Tremendous work can be done by means of regulations and the introduction of methods within the framework of the prescribed Acts instituted by this Parliament with regard to education without this having to be laid down by means of a section in an Act.

That is why the department has effected changes with regard to the content of education in its regulations. What remains now is to pass the legislation to confirm the structure that they found would function best. I want to congratulate the department on the way in which and the speed with which it has dealt with this.

In its initial form clause 4 meant that the Director-General: Education and Training could take direct initiative to rectify problems within education. By way of discussions with regard to this clause we found a better measure than the original one, because—I come to this point once again—if one wants effective education, one must have the co-operation of the pupil, but also that of the parents and the community.

In other words, if one wants to take the kind of action that we want to have justified here against pupils who do not want to submit to education, it would not have as good an effect as it is going to if it was enforced upon them from the top by the department. The parent community itself is now involved in the matter and has to take a decision on it. The parent is called in as well and is shown why this child does not want to co-operate and why this step is being taken against him. In this way the parent, the family and the community are persuaded and the community is educated with regard to what can be tolerated and what can not be tolerated in education.

If, therefore, we reverse the requirements by saying that this matter must come from below and that the community and the teaching corps as a whole must become involved—viz when we decide that according to certain requirements, the presence of the pupil is not effective or beneficial to the spirit of the school and that of those who would like to learn—eventually a whole group of people will be taught what teaching standards are and within what minimum teaching can take place. That is why I think this is a improved clause.

I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that when I went to school, White education was experiencing precisely what we are experiencing in Black education now. [Interjections.] When I was still at school, when I was still an infant, we had children in std 2 and std 3 who should have been in high school long before then. [Interjections.] During the fifties White education attempted for a full decade and longer by means of an adjustment class system to sift the kind of pupil which the hon member for Potgietersrus referred to from the age groups to which they no longer belonged. [Interjections.] There was an enormous amount of resistance concerning this point in White education. Eventually we won the point, however, and later refined and modernised it within differentiated education. With the experience we have with differentiated education today, the programme with regard to the same problem in Black education can probably be implemented more quickly. I think the department learnt from this too. The content of the education of today and the way in which the department implements it show that the department has learnt from these things.

In totality and as things are at present and with clause 4 at our disposal, and with the co-operation of the partnerships within the teaching structure, we can effectively and quickly reach a point that will ultimately promise Black education in South Africa in its totality one enormous advantage. I should like to support this legislation and I want to thank the hon the Minister for submitting legislation to Parliament on this level.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brentwood has made a number of comments about this Bill and I will be referring to some of them during the course of my speech this afternoon.

I would like to say that I agree entirely with the hon member for Brentwood on one particular point that I think is important. For clause 4 to work satisfactorily, it cannot be a from-the-top-down thing, and one has to convince the pupil, the parents and the community if this is going to work. A great deal of what I want to say this afternoon relates to that and what I believe to be deficiencies in that clause.

Before I return to the clause which I am planning to address my remarks to, let me just say that the other clauses in the Bill, some of which are virtually consequential ones from previous legislation and changes that have been made, enjoy the support of the PFP but clause 4—the major one—is the one that gives us problems and I wish to comment on that.

I believe that this Bill represents an admission of failure on the part of the Government to provide a system of education that is acceptable to the Black people of this country. It is an admission of failure of being able to run schools without resorting to arbitrary and authoritarian measures and it is an admission of failure to ensure that children have adequate protection against victimisation.

Let me at the outset say that we accept entirely that there needs to be a procedure to exclude from schools those pupils who, continually and deliberately, seriously disrupt effective education. With that intention we have no problem. I might also say that we accept that there are such children in many parts of the country but it must be to exclude those who continually and deliberately seriously disrupt effective education at schools.

At the same time it also needs to be accepted with equal emphasis that to refuse a child admission to a school—to refuse a child easy access to education—is a very serious thing to do and requires stringent safeguards.

We are aware that the vast majority of Black children are not subject to compulsory education laws so there again we have to be even more careful.

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to intimidators and thugs who need to be kept out of the schools. We would concur with him that intimidators and thugs need to kept out of the schools but the question, is how we do it and what safeguards we provide. Our fundamental opposition to this Bill is that it does not provide adequate safeguards.

If we look at the background against which Black education and this Bill will operate, it illustrates some of the points that we need to make.

The first is that Black school education takes place in a highly politicised community environment and in many cases—I am talking about high schools in particular—in highly politicised schools and education environments.

Secondly, we need to recognize that there is a very different relationship between the parents, the teachers and the Black students compared to that which exists in White education. It was interesting to hear the hon member for Brentwood refer to some problems in White education in the 1940s and the 1950s when one had problems of much older children in primary schools and so on. One certainly can learn some lessons from that period. At the same time one has continually to bear in mind the fact that in high schools, on average, the Black students are older than White students are. The teachers on the whole are younger in many cases and in some cases are not all that well qualified. They often struggle with very large classes. They are in a politicised community. Quite a high proportion of the parents are not well educated and, in some cases, are totally illiterate. So the whole relationship between the parent, the child, the teacher, the school and the community is very different from what it is in White society. When we judge the impact of various measures that we take, we must not simply look at how that measure would be relevant or applicable to White society and to White schools in this country.

A further aspect of the background is the history in our townships of security authority interference, harassment and victimization of students. We have found over the years that the moment that there is a problem, SRC leaders get picked up, irrespective of whether they were directly involved or involved at all, and this causes a great deal of anger and irritation.

Finally, in respect of the background to a Bill and a clause of this nature, one needs to point to the question of the breakdown in parent, pupil, school and departmental communications. I cannot overemphasize that the lack of effective communication between particularly the department and the parent, and the school and the parent, is something that continues to cause very severe problems in many of the schools.

Now, we moved an amendment in the joint committee. It is interesting to see what the Government would not accept as an amendment because I think it illustrates the differences in approach to this Bill. There are two important and necessary safeguards that we tried to have built into this clause. The first is the right of the child and the parent to be heard before the school committee makes a recommendation, and for such a hearing to be in the absence of any departmental official.

One would have thought that this is not a very controversial matter. We are saying that before a school committee—or whatever the governing body happens to be called in that school—makes a recommendation to the department and the Director-General that a pupil be refused admission, that pupil—and if it is a minor, the pupil’s parent as well—be given a chance to put then case. Presumably that school committee is going to make a recommendation on the basis of some information supplied to it, either by other parents, teachers, principals, officials or whatever. We would not have thought that is was an outrageous request that that child and the parent be able to go there and put their case to the school committee before they make a recommendation.

Secondly, in respect of this one, we requested that the hearing be in the absence of any departmental official. Again it relates, to some extent at least, to different communities but in most school committees the school principal sits on that committee and in many cases he completely dominates the committee. Our belief was that the school principal would clearly be the one who would primarily be putting the case as to why a particular child should not be admitted. If the other people are putting their case, or were not there when he was putting his case, they—the parent and the child—should not feel intimidated by having the principal or an inspector or another official there. They should sit with the parents and give their side of the story.

Both of those were unacceptable to the Government and I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why this is so, what the problem is and what major disruption that would have caused.

Secondly, in terms of safeguards, we requested that the Director-General may only refuse admission to a child if he has good reason for doing so. The Director-General is clearly going to delegate a lot of this responsibility. With approximately one and a half million pupils in 7 000 schools around the country, he is clearly not going to be involved in each case.

Once again, all we wanted in that case was to say that the Director-General has to have good reason in order to refuse admission to a child. The Government was not prepared to put those words in. A legal adviser claimed that one could read it as being there anyway. However, that is not so. There are Acts in this country in which “for good reason” is inserted and it provides an extra protection. If the child or child’s parents feel that they have been victimised or unjustly treated and they wish to appeal to a court, with the words “for good reason” the Director-General has without any doubt to show that there is good and substantial reason for having excluded that child.

The Government refused to accept those two simple amendments. These safeguards are not provided for in this Bill and were specifically rejected by NP members on the joint committee.

We will not have peace in Black schools until there is effective participation by parents in the decision-making processes. The proposed new structures which are in the process of being introduced have not been designed together with parents after wide consultation. The committees and councils which are coming into being will often be viewed with great suspicion. Against this background refusal to admit children could cause very serious problems.

I call on the hon the Deputy Minister to recognise the importance of seeing to it that justice is done and is seen to be done. If he is committed to effective education in a peaceful environment, he should take heed of what we have called for.

We cannot support this Bill in its present form.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is sincerely interested in the education of Black children. There is no doubt in my mind about his seriousness regarding that subject; as a matter of fact I respect him for it and I think the hon member knows that.

Unfortunately the hon member’s attitude towards the Department of Education and Training is too negative. He is so negative towards the department that he has difficulty in assessing the situation with regard to Black education objectively. I want to tell the hon member that if he had a more balanced approach, he would also be able to make a more valuable contribution.

The hon member referred to an amendment which he submitted to the joint committee on behalf of his party to the effect that before a control body makes a recommendation on refusal of admission of a child to a school, an interview must be held with the relevant pupil or his parents, but that this must take place in the absence of any departmental official. In effect, what the hon member was asking us as members of the committee to do, was to insert his mistrust in the Department of Education and Training and officials in the legislation. We were not prepared to do that. We thought it would go to far and it would give legal stature to his mistrust.

I should like to put this entire matter concerning in clause 4 in perspective, because I do not think it is necessary for us to discuss the other clauses any further. In the principal Act, the Education and Training Act, 1979, provision is made in section 34 for the way in which children may be admitted to public and State-aided schools. It also provides that persons so admitted may be suspended or expelled from such school in certain prescribed circumstances.

Suspending or expelling a pupil from school always causes an unpleasant situation to arise. It takes up a great deal of the time of the headmaster, his teachers and his management board and it is always embarrassing for the pupil’s parents. Frequently that pupil disrupts the school while the matter is still being investigated. He incites the pupils and intimidates the younger children, in particular. That is our experience.

Under the existing Act the Department of Education and Training actually has no other choice but to admit even known agitators, intimidators and perpetrators of violence to public schools. We know that these people are not really interested in learning and what is worse they are depriving the majority of the pupils of an opportunity to learn. They are destroying the future of thousands of children who do want to learn. Because of this behaviour we are running the risk of South Africa losing a whole generation of its young people that it needs for its future. For that reason it is essential to prevent such undesirable elements from being admitted to the school, as clause 4 is now seeking to do.

I want to emphasize—the hon member for Cape Town Gardens also admitted this—that we are not dealing here with a situation which can, for example, be weighed up against anything existing in White education. To illustrate this I want to mention a few examples of disruption at Black schools and I could mention many more. A ringleader put in an appearance at a secondary school. This pupil threatened the staff of the school with two fire-arms until they stopped enrolling pupils. Can hon members imagine that? A pupil turns up with two fire-arms and he threatens his teachers.

At another school a std 7 pupil set fire to the school hall, causing damage totalling R60 000, and shortly thereafter he was again at the forefront of unrest and disruption of classes at the same school.

At a primary school the std 6 pupils incited other pupils to boycott classes. One of the ringleaders was a married man who was in std 6!

These are situations we are unacquainted with. These are situations we must assess on the basis of the facts at our disposal.

In that specific instance when the std 6 pupils were rioting, one of the pupils involved had already served a prison sentence.

Now we find that the communities themselves are sick and tired of this kind of behaviour. Newspaper like City Press and The Sowetan are expressing their opposition to this. The hon the Deputy Minister quoted to us from The Sowetan of 19 January. That feeling, as reflected in The Sowetan, is also the feeling prevailing in most of our Black communities at the moment. For that reason it would be irresponsible of the Government not to take cognisance of this and do something about it. That is why this amendment to the principal Act has been introduced.

The majority of members of the joint committee discussed this matter with great responsibility, but also with exceptional sensitivity. The result was that the proposed amendment was further amended.

In this connection I also want to deal with the objections raised by the hon member for Potgietersrus, and in this regard I am associating myself with the hon member for Brentwood. Because the parents and the communities in general have given ample evidence that they want to be involved in solving this problem, we have now provided that the process of refusal must be initiated by a board, a committee, a management or another body established for public schools. They must recommend that an applicant’s admission will prejudicial to the interest of the school or the provision of education. Before they do this, the Director-General cannot act. In other words, the parents in communities, who really have the education of their children at heart, will firstly have to see to it that they organise themselves, and secondly they will have to use this provision as soon as it appears on the Statute Book. In other words to a great extent the ball is in the communities’ court.

In this connection, without suggesting that I necessarily agree with everything, I want to quote from an editorial in the opposition newspaper Business Day of 18 January of this year:

Then it states the following important fact and I want to associate myself with this:

What is more, to promote further fairness, the Director-General must, in terms of a further insertion which the joint committee made, give the applicant and, if the applicant is a minor, his parents, a hearing before he refuses admission. The fact that we had to make provision for minors and adults in this further amendment again emphasizes the unique circumstances we are dealing with here. There is no thing of the sort in White education.

I feel we have succeeded in drafting a measure which will deal with a serious situation strictly and with the necessary single-mindedness, but also with fairness and sensitivity. For that reason I believe this justifies the support of us all.

Mr Speaker, I intend to confine myself to clause 4 of the Bill which the hon the Deputy Minister motivated by referring to thugs and vandals who were disrupting schools. I agree with the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that thuggery and vandalism at schools cannot be condoned. It has to be dealt with firmly but I do not believe that this clause in the first instance is aimed at dealing with those blatant and obvious cases. The hon member for Stellenbosch referred to a case where a pupil arrived with two fire-arms. Clause 4 will not be necessary to deal with such a person. He commits a criminal offence. He can be dealt with in a number of ways to ensure that he is not part of that school.

I also cannot understand why the joint committee was not prepared to build in an objective measure into the clause namely the words “good reason”. At the moment, despite the fact that the parents of the pupil are involved and listened to, the subjective attitude and decision of the Director General is at the end the measure that counts. If the words “good reason” had been allowed to be included there would have been an objective measure in order to establish whether the Director General’s decision is reasonable and can be justified. That is the main problem why this specific clause cannot be supported.

It is an attempt to deal with the real problem, but I wonder whether the hon the Deputy Minister is not once again dealing with symptoms rather than with the underlying problem of Bantu education as it is called. The hon the Deputy Minister will know that whether Black community organisations are moderate, conservative or radical, the concept of separate but equal Bantu education is rejected and is continually under attack. How can that be addressed? By clause 4, or by more and more schools for which the department ought to be complimented? That is not going to address the underlying problem of separate but equal Bantu education.

I agree with the hon member for Brentwood that the department should be congratulated upon the tremendous expansion programmes which it has initiated in terms of educating teachers and building schools. Once again, however, Bantu education cannot be improved if one only reiies on the expansion of facilities, greater numbers of teachers and a better teaching environment. It cannot be improved unless one goes to the root problem and that is the response and the priorities which the community itself feels as far as Black education is concerned. That relates to quality of education from their perspective, the relevance of that education in their lives, the philosophy underlying the education system and Black participation, decision-making and control.

The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid indicated a year ago that he was prepared to look at aspects of people’s education, and I believe that was a positive initiative because he conceded that there were elements of people’s education which needed to be looked into. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to take the initiative to demystify the concept of people’s education and to take the initiative to take elements out of that concept and throw them out into debate with the community at large in order to make Black education more relevant and acceptable.

Also, Sir, the De Lange Commission report needs to be dusted off again in order to look at the concept of one single department of education. We must not forget those recommendations. The underlying issue of community involvement and the question of people’s education, however, need to be looked at. The initiative should be taken by the department and not again, as happens so very often, be a reaction to initiatives which come from outside.

Mr Speaker, this is my third session in this Parliament, and this is the first time I have heard of Bantu education. It seems to me, therefore, that we are dealing with a unique term here today. Perhaps the hon member for Durban Central is just a little behind the times. [Interjections.] Whatever the case may be, I am pleased to be speaking after him. I should also like to comment on a few of the matters that he mentioned.

I want to deal with clause 4. It seems to me that clause 4 is an extremely sensitive matter for hon members in this House because it includes a measure which is designed to prevent troublemakers and even thugs from entering schools. Now one gains the impression that there is not a great deal of confidence that departmental officials will indeed be able to ensure that the interests of the schools are served, but that it is thought that they will be out to do people an injustice in some way or other. I believe that by adopting this sort of attitude we are actually expressing a motion of no confidence in the departmental officials, even when we ask, for example, for a commission of inquiry, or that the parent association should come together in order to give a hearing to the matter without the presence of an official at first, as was stated in the proposed amendment which was, of course, not accepted.

According to newspaper reports and according to evidence that was given, it is apparently not even necessary to hold such a hearing by the people concerned—the parents and the principal—to determine whether it really is trouble-makers, and not small, defenceless children who are causing the disturbances, but in fact, people who are old enough to succeed in intimidating and terrorising even adults and teachers.

When people say that we do not understand the situation in Black education, we must not simply try once again to implement a measure which would work in White education. If that situation is so foreign to us that we cannot understand it or that it cannot be compared to the situation in White education, it would be senseless to implement a measure which could, in fact, work in White education. We simply cannot say, on the one hand, that a comparison is not possible and, on the other hand, apply our own norms, our own methods and our own procedures in that situation which is so very foreign to ours.

This is a very necessary measure which is being proposed. It is also educationally correct insofar as the parent community is concerned. It is true that we must cease to be paternalistic towards Black people; that we must refrain from always taking the initiative. It is true that we must give them the responsibility.

To give them this responsibility now so that they can ensure that order is restored and so that they will be of further help to us once the initiative comes back from them, is indeed the correct thing to do. It gives them responsibility and thereby educates them to be able to deal with their affairs themselves.

With regard to the other clauses, I do not think any further elucidation is required. I just want to remark that this is a clause which was formulated in this way after consensus had been reached among all the groups except the hon members of the minority opposition. I want to indicate that it is easy to criticise in retrospect and to say that we again gave way and ran away, and that it is for that reason that we have achieved consensus. It is easy to criticise as long as one does not have to deal with the matter oneself. It is a different matter when one has to deal with the matter oneself and accept responsibility for it. [Interjections.] Then it is very easy to make a Boksburg of matters, and that is probably what would happen if the Official Opposition had to deal with such a matter.

We should like to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, before I come to the contentious clause 4, let me just briefly deal with the other ones because there are a number of points I do want to raise with the hon the Deputy Minister. These are certain points which were addressed in the joint committee discussions and in regard to which we would like the commitment of the hon the Deputy Minister in Hansard so that we have some assurance on this matter.

The first in clause 1 is a change in the definition of subsidy which raises the entire question of the financing of Black education. If I understand it correctly, this form of subsidy in relation to any State aided school now changes the formula for the subsidy of a State aided school from a purely financial subsidy to include a subsidy in material form. This again appears to raise the possibility of a different form for the Department of Education and Training to that which exists in other departments. It is an area where I think we should be looking at greater coordination. As I indicated in the joint committee one of the more complex areas in education today is to understand what is happening in financing from the hon the Minister of National Education and his formula through to the various departments and their formulas to the actual expenditure within each of the departments. We hope we are going to get the assurance of the hon the Deputy Minister that this form of subsidy which he is looking at—which we understand has already been carried out—is a form which can normatively be applied to all other executive education departments.

Secondly, on clause 2 we see that the creation of areas on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration is recommended, also from the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech. A subject that was raised in the joint committee was that this would be or could be brought about with no expansion in the bureaucracy of the department. When I use the word “bureaucracy” I am not referring to the professional officials—that is those with educational and other professional qualifications in the interests of education—but to those who are in fact the clerks and the administrative personnel. We received the assurance that there would be as little as possible expansion in the bureaucracy of this department. We hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will give us an absolute assurance that in the creation of areas all that they are looking at is the devolution of personnel from the one level to the area below.

Clause 3 and its attendant clause 5 deal with the fact that school health services are carried out in conjunction with those of the provincial administration but there is a more serious point that we think the hon the Deputy Minister should pay more attention to and that is the question of funding. One of the problems of funding in the provincial administration has been to ensure that the money given through a provincial administration is utilised and can be handled by the particular services which are being funded.

Let us take this particular point. School health services currently do not fall under provincial administrations. Whilst the provincial administration has some control over some aspects of executive health services in a province, it does not have control over all. The own affairs, for example, controls hospitals and certain clinics.

We are concerned that when the school health services of the DET go through to the provinces, they will be adequately funded. That point we raised in the joint committee and it a point we know the department is also concerned about. We hope that the hon the Minister can address it.

I now come to the controversial clause 4 and I would like to support my colleague, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, on this matter. I would like to raise several other fundamental points.

When we asked the department at the start of the joint committee about the reason for this clause, we were assured that it took the form of what could be called a belt-and-braces measure and that it was already possible for this department to refuse admission to a pupil. The department told us that. They told us that there are regulations which allow this department to decide whether a pupil should be admitted or not.

We added to that and pointed out that this department has no compulsory education in 85%, if not 90%, of the schools under its control. There is in fact no obligation upon this department to admit pupils at all, if it so chooses. There is certainly no obligation on the parents to send the pupils to the school or for the pupils to seek admission. There is no compulsory education.

What are we looking at? We are looking at a measure that is designed to prevent admission. That is the key. It is not designed to expel or suspend. Here I want to point out that in the Government Gazette of 25 November 1988 contained the new regulations for the suspension or expulsion of pupils. These regulations allow for summary expulsion. This cuts right across many of the arguments put forward by the NP about it being a time-consuming process, and this, that and the other.

The question we kept coming back to was why this department wished to prevent pupils from being admitted to a school. It is not the case of the two-gun pupil who terrorises the school because he is already a pupil and one will have to expel him. It is not the case of the pupil who causes fire damage of R65 000. He is already a pupil and one will have to expel him. It is not the number of cases of pupils that were quoted from the Sowetan and from Business Day and who are already pupils in a school. We are talking about admissions. The question I come back to is why this department requires such a measure to prevent a pupil from being admitted.

It may well be that there are very strong reasons why this department does not wish to have a pupil admitted to a school. Here I would like to pose a question to the hon the Minister. Let us take the case of a pupil in standard six at a school as an example. He creates a problem at school but he is not expelled. The term ends and he leaves that school. At the beginning of the following year he is due to be readmitted to the school. Under normal circumstances, he would not have to apply for readmission. Is it the intention—this is the question I pose—of this department to require pupils to be readmitted every year, even to the schools they already attend? If it is, I can understand the reason for this clause.

Thus, we in the PFP, in seeing a possible necessity, ourselves wish to build a belt-and-braces situation because we accept that the normative conditions in the schools of the DET are such that there are individuals whom this department may wish to keep out. We wish to ensure that we are not talking about the department simply making a decision out of executive fiat in order to keep a pupil out of this school. For that reason we proposed the clause that was defeated in the joint committee.

Because, as I have stated, the clause as it now stands excludes what we would like to have built into it, we will not support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the subject under discussion has now been very thoroughly elucidated from all sides and for that reason I do not want to go into a long-winded argument myself and, in the process, simply repeat what has already been said.

Nevertheless, with reference to what the hon member for Pinetown said, I just want to make the following observation in reply to his remarks about the transfer of duties with regard to medical services to the provinces. I should like to give the assurance that I have the assurance of the members of the Executive Committee in Natal for example, that they were, in fact, fully consulted in this regard, that they will be able to take on these new duties and that they are, in fact, looking forward to doing so. Therefore, I do not think we need to worry that it will not work very well.

In fact, I think the hon member for Pinetown will agree with me that we have here a case of the devolution of power closer to where the action should take place, and in this case it is in Natal. If I understand the hon member’s party correctly, particularly with regard to Natal, they are very interested in the devolution of authority and powers instead of the centralisation of these in Pretoria, for example. So, I do not think that we can argue in this regard.

However, I now come to clause 4. It is very clear that the PFP have a problem here. In fact, the PFP is the only party that has a problem with this and that has objected to this particular clause. One now has a very interesting scenario within the framework of the PFP, because if one looks carefully at the hon member for Pinetown, one will find that in his heart of hearts he does not really feel as strongly and, I am tempted to say, as radically, about clause 4 as his colleague, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens.

In fact, I was given the impression that if the hon member for Pinetown had been left in peace, he would probably have gone along with us and voted with us on behalf of his party. Unfortunately—this seems to me to be the case particularly with regard to Black education—he is under the banner of, and I am tempted to say, the thumb of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. I listened with great admiration to his speech here today and to the conviction with which he tried to state his case. It is definitely a team effort and I want to compliment him on it. He put on a good show, but I think that the inner conviction was lacking and there is a lack of agreement between those two hon members. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pinetown will realise that I am actually complimenting him by conveying these sentiments to him.

I now come to the official standpoint of the PFP in this regard. What do we find here again? When one really analyses the motion of the PFP, one finds that despite all the rhetoric, it is once again founded on a deep-seated mistrust of the public administration, in the first place,—I think the hon member for Cape Town Gardens admitted as much in the joint committee—and also with regard to the departmental officials. For that reason they want to make provision for the absence of departmental officials when evidence is heard and examined in terms of clause 4. In my opinion this is a motion of no confidence in such a school principal or in whoever the official might be. This is not acceptable to us.

It is true that in practice, and not only in this case, the PFP’s arguments are often to the advantage of the troublemakers and the radicals with whom we have to deal, and serve to protect them. The hon members should understand at once, that clause 4 is intended to contain the radicals and the instigators of unrest who want to deprive their fellow scholars of an education. Despite the intellectual rhetoric, it is true that the attitude of the PFP often boils down to the choosing of sides and implicitly the choosing of the side of the instigator of unrest and the radical.

In this regard I think that what was said in the editorial of Business Day of 18 January 1989, is characteristic, and I quote:

Here we actually see an accusation levelled at the attitude of the PFP to which I referred. They helped to create this residue of indiscipline which is referred to.

I want to appeal to the hon member for Pinetown in particular, to strive to bring about a more sober approach in the ranks of his party with regard to Black education.

We must also not allow Black education to merely become a political football for us, because that is often a great temptation on both sides of the political spectrum. Let us restrain ourselves from allowing that to happen.

I want to quote from another newspaper, and I think that it is in this light that we should view our own approach. I am quoting from City Press of 22 January 1989:

I maintain that that is precisely what we are envisaging with this clause and that it is going to succeed in this regard. We therefore support this clause, because we believe that we owe this stability to the Black children in the Black schools where the disruption is taking place and also to the teachers in those schools, but also to our officials who often have to carry out their tasks in very difficult and even dangerous circumstances. For that reason, we as a party, as well as all the other parties in this House and in the other Houses, are displaying this sense of responsibility by striving to make it possible for our officials and our pupils to continue their tasks in peace and quiet.

I want to conclude by thanking these officials of the department for the work that they are doing in that regard and by issuing a final invitation to the PFP to think again about their somewhat negative, often derogatory, left-wing orientated and almost radical attitude in this regard. [Interjections.] Once again I want to encourage the hon member for Pinetown to do a little conversion work in the ranks of his own party.

Mr Speaker, despite certain amendments I believe that this Bill ought to be opposed today. The powers that are being afforded to the Director-General are intended to do nothing other than further strengthen the Government’s stranglehold on Black education.

Refusing politicised Black students admission to schools, will not put an end to the crisis. Only fundamental political change will be able to accomplish this, and instead of achieving this, the legislation is simply giving the department even more powers to refuse admission and to strengthen their hold even further.

Considering the fact that the State already has exceptionally wide powers to expel students from schools, why is there a need for this legislation? It is my conviction that the Government now wishes to make the powers which the security forces presently have to debar students in terms of the emergency regulations, a permanent part of the normal education legislation. By introducing this legislation the Government is, in truth, declaring a permanent state of emergency in our Black schools.

Although the Director-General must, in fact, hear representations with regard to the student’s case—this is definitely an improvement—he need pay no heed to them whatsoever, and at the end of that process of consultation he may do precisely what he intended to do in the first place. †To whom is the Director-General accountable when he takes decisions with regard to refusing students admission? He is definitely not accountable the community. They did not appoint or elect him. Practice shows that he is normally accountable to his political masters, who are not elected by that community, and to the security system. This Bill will further entrench this situation.

Let me give an illustration. Last week two students from Oudtshoorn who stay in Willowmore were removed from their school. They were refused admission to their school or to any other Willowmore school. They were taken from their hostel at the senior secondary school and thereafter continuously assaulted in the veld outside the town by two security policemen, WO Fietsie Fourie and Sgt Van Staden, who told them that they had now been evicted from their school and had to return to Oudtshoorn because they were allegedly Saamstaan activists. The two policemen, while assaulting them, threatened them with death and asked them whether they knew that what had happened to Cradock activists Matthew Goniwe and three others could also happen to them.

Back at their hostel, while their rooms were searched, they were again repeatedly assaulted and told to report to the police station.

Order! What has the assault on these two pupils to do with the Bill before the House? Can the hon member point out to me to which clause he is referring?

Mr Speaker, I am referring to clause 4. I am discussing the admission of students to schools and the way in which it is controlled. I am giving an example of how, in actual fact, students are being evicted from schools.

Order! The hon member is moving a little too far from the Bill. He must come back to the Bill.

I want to illustrate what is at this very moment happening in practice,—the way in which students are being removed from schools by the security forces. The question that has to be asked is whether the applicable department approved of the action, whether they knew of that action and whether those students can be readmitted to that school. The student has very little protection because the officials who control this matter are not accountable to that community whatsoever.

*The problems in the education system will not be solved by the legislation before us. There is rebellion among our Black youth against the present political system. It will not help to meet that rebellion with oppression. It will only help if we introduce true fundamental political change which will not make it necessary for students at school to devote a portion of their time to political action.

Mr Speaker, to begin with I should just like to thank hon members on this side of the House, namely the hon members for Brentwood, Stellenbosch, Walmer and Umhlatuzana, most sincerely for their valuable contributions and support, also in the committee. I think they did some very good work there and I should once again like to express our thanks and appreciation to them. [Interjections.]

I should like to begin with the hon member for Claremont. I am glad that you, Mr Speaker, pulled him up short due to the fact that he had deviated from the Bill.

Order! The Speaker never pulls an hon member up short.

Mr Speaker, I apologise. I agree wholeheartedly with your ruling. I am glad that you reprimanded him.

The hon member alleged that the Government …

Now you have been pulled up short!

Perhaps we all need it occasionally.

The hon member alleged that the Government wanted to use this Bill to strengthen its stranglehold and that we wanted to deny students education by means of this legislation. Initially, in my Second Reading speech, I tried to prove the contrary. Our problem is that hon members only notice one, two or three people who have problems. They do not see the thousands of other pupils who would like to make use of the opportunity. These they do not see. It is not important to them, but when action is taken against one or two ringleaders, the impression is created that we are trying to place a stranglehold on Black education. I think it is unfair that this type of standpoint should be adopted and that this type of image of Black education and of the activities of the Department of Education and Training is being projected.

We are committed to making equal educational opportunities and the best education available to our children. What amazes me is that the Black people to whom we talk and with whom we associate in the school arena, accept this. However, when we enter this Chamber, there are people like the hon member for Claremont who want to tell the world that we are placing people in a stranglehold and that our point of departure is to deny people education. I think it is time these hon members gave credit where credit is due. The aim of this legislation is to make it possible for children who would like to study to utilise those opportunities without being distracted. In that regard we are asking that they accept our credibility.

I should like to come to the hon member for Potgietersrus and thank him and his party for their support for this Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon member said with regard to clause 2 in the new system and the advantages of the new area offices. However, he then said that he just wanted to make the statement that he believed that the fact that these area offices were already in operation this year, was irregular. The hon member said that we wanted to use Parliament as a rubber stamp.

Against the background of the allegations which he initially wanted to make about irregularities in the department, he wanted to say that it once again indicated a lack of ministerial control over the department. The hon member said that he expected an explanation, and I should like to give him one. It is a pity that the hon member did not make a few inquiries in this regard, because he would then have seen that this arrangement with regard to regional offices, area offices and circuit offices deals with bodies that were formed in terms of section 3 (2) of the Public Service Act, Act 111 of 1984. [Interjections.]

The recommendation of the commission with regard to this arrangement was obtained at the correct time. It is true that after consultation with the commission it was felt that as education matters were dealt with by Act 90 of 1979, it was necessary that provision be made for the organisation of the department so that public service offices could also be incorporated in this legislation. By implication this is therefore consequential legislation to bring this into line with the legislation which justifies these steps. [Interjections.] It is therefore quite untrue that there were any irregularities.

The hon member also referred to clause 4. It is interesting that one always has those people to the left of the middle who have certain standpoints, and then those to the right of the middle who have the opposite standpoints. [Interjections.] The hon member said that clause 4 was weakened as a result of consensus. He knows what the original clause looked like.

The fact of the matter is that we would probably have given greater preference to this, but we are working within a system in which we cannot go ahead in order to meet the challenge of South Africa if we are not prepared to listen to other people’s standpoints as well. We are involved in Black education and for that reason we must take that into account in the arrangements that we make. However, the hon member said that he himself also felt that this clause was better than nothing. I think there are many advantages in this clause. It is very important that we take this clause to its conclusion because by doing so we will be able to bring about greater involvement of the community in Black education. I think that in this regard the clause is a great improvement.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens indicated that in his opinion the legislation before the House is an admission of the failure of this department to provide education for the Black children of this country. I do not of course agree with that at all and I think—some of my colleagues have made mention of this—we can show progress in many ways. Of course, we are also facing many historical backlogs as far as Black education is concerned but I do not see this at all. as an admission of failure to provide education. I think we have a responsibility as far as the majority of our pupils are concerned and if it is necessary to find measures to make this possible, we have to do that. I agree with the background which the hon member tried to sketch. I have no problem with that.

The hon member has a problem, with reference to his amendment, in that he believes this department is not willing and is not giving attention to the right of the child and the parent to be heard.

*I cannot agree with that view of the hon member at all; in fact, we are making it possible for the parent and the child—if the child is a minor, for the parent—to address their representations to the regional chief director. We plan to delegate this legislation up to the level of regional director and surely that gives the parent and the child the right to be heard according to the rule of audi alteram partem.

If that regional director were to decide to refuse the child admission, that child would have the right to appeal to the Director General. There are therefore two occasions on which the parent and the child have the right to a hearing. To ask for a further opportunity to address the school committee is, in my opinion, taking the matter too far. [Interjections.] Furthermore, it is true that the school committee is made up of members of the community and should, therefore, be fully aware of the circumstances.

Furthermore, in his amendment, the hon member asked that this hearing should take place in the absence of an official. If there was ever a motion of no confidence in the officials of our department, this is it. We are not prepared to do that. Despite the fact that there are many people who wish to question the credibility of our officials, I want to say today that we cannot enforce the proper discipline in our schools without the wholehearted co-operation of our officials. If the hon member wants to take offence because we do not want to jeopardise the credibility of our officials, we accept that, but we greatly appreciate the work that our officials are doing under very difficult conditions in order to make the best possible education available to our Black children. The hon member also objected because he felt that the words “for good reason” should be added.

†This is true, therefore I think that we must accept that we differ as far as the legal interpretation hereof is concerned. Our legal advisers tell us that this is implicit in the legislation. I think that we should agree to differ on that issue.

The hon member also referred to the new regulations regarding the establishment of management councils. He states that these regulations have not been negotiated with parents. I do not think that that statement is true. We have fully negotiated these matters with the Council for Education and Training and the hon member knows that in discussions with him and the education forum I have invited those people to come forward with suggestions.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is not so that here in the Western Cape he, or one of his senior officials, gave an undertaking that discussions would be held with parents in this area before these regulations were implemented? If he agrees with that, and I believe it is so, is it not true that those discussions have never taken place prior to implementation?

Mr Speaker, the hon member is quite correct in saying that I undertook to do that. I also supplied those people to whom I had promised it with all the necessary information and furthermore invited them to come and discuss it with me. However, until this day they have not reacted to that invitation. I am still willing. My door is open and if they wish to come and discuss it, then let them do so by all means. We have always had an open door on these matters. For many years on the whole matter of the communication structures I went public and invited the public to address me on these issues.

I am still willing to do it. I just think that it is wrong to create the perception that we are not willing to talk because I believe that if there is one department that is willing to talk it is the Department of Education and Training.

The hon member for Durban Central also made mention of the words “for good reason” which they felt should have been implemented in the amendment. The hon member’s problem is that the Director-General is subjectively involved and that he should look at these matters in a more objective way.

*I think that standpoint is, to a degree, an important one and for that reason we also made it very clear in the discussion in the joint committee that there were certain guidelines according to which we would like to implement these regulations. For that reason we said that a very important aspect of this was that we would take action on the grounds of the particular person’s proven contraventions.

†In other words, we will consider recommending refusal of admission to a person who for instance intentionally damaged, destroyed, abused or appropriated property of the school or of any other person or body; who intentionally contravened any examination instruction; who was convicted in a court of law of an offence which, in the opinion of the management committee, had seriously prejudiced the maintenance of order or discipline for the effective provision of education at such a school; who instigated a boycott of school classes or functions or instigated protest marches, sit-ins or any riotous action in relation to any school.

*I should like to say that we will therefore try to deal with proven contraventions and I think the hon member had a valid point when he said that we should look at these matters in an objective manner.

The hon member also mentioned that education could not function without the community. The hon member also referred to certain elements of people’s education. I think that the undertaking that the hon the Minister gave in this regard, still stands. We believe that education must certainly be made more relevant to the world of the Black child. At present we are revising certain syllabuses and I think that, to a large extent, one can go along with that standpoint of the hon member.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether his department has a policy about the readmission of pupils who have been detained under the emergency regulations? There are about 99 of those presently in Diepkloof prison, Johannesburg.

Mr Speaker, I do not know exactly how that fits in with this legislation, but I am prepared to tell the hon member—I have already stated this in public—that if she knows of any children who are experiencing problems in this regard—the hon members on that side of the House know that my door has always been open to them—I will be prepared to consider their case and to consider how we can provide them with education, because despite what the hon member for Claremont says, it has always been our intention to provide education for children rather than to deny them education. If the hon member experiences any problems in this regard, my door is open to her. Unfortunately my time is running out.

What about Pinetown?

I am coming to Pinetown.

†The hon member for Pinetown made mention of subsidies. I think that there are many advantages to our department in respect of subsidies in kind.

*I should like to tell the hon member that I think that there are many advantages in dealing with the matter in this way. It is merely another way of providing financial subsidies. In the long term it is in the interests of the education of our children that we do it in this way, because seeing that the department makes purchases by means of a State contract, it is cheaper to do so in large quantities. The department is in a stronger bargaining position than individual schools. The department also retains ownership of the equipment and can therefore use it elsewhere if such a school is closed down. It is important that certain standards are maintained. The same standards must be maintained nation-wide. If a school in Putsonderwater has to purchase supplies, one can understand that long distances have to be covered, bargaining is difficult and the necessary standards cannot be maintained. Logistically as well as administratively, there are many advantages in this.

I think I have now tried to deal with the arguments of all the hon members. I believe that, by means of this legislation, we are once again making an attempt to ensure that we are able to provide our children in our department with better education. I trust and hope that we will receive the support of the House in order to pass this legislation.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Speaker, we have heard the comments of the hon the Deputy Minister and other hon members and it has not changed our views. We note that virtually all the quotes by hon members on the governing side from newspaper articles which were distributed by the department to the joint committee relate to problems of pupils already in schools, which actually have nothing to do with this Bill at all. This Bill has to do with admitting pupils not expelling them. To suggest in many cases—even in examples used by the hon the Deputy Minister—that the ordinary law should not be the way one should take action against people with revolvers or who are involved in arson—that one does not call the police and charge such people—seems very odd indeed.

I think there are three specific points that need to be made in respect of this Bill. This first is that one accepts that there needs to be a mechanism whereby proven trouble-makers, who continually and deliberately cause disruption are able to be excluded from schools. That is accepted by everybody.

The second point—this is where the difference arises—is that we believe refusing admission of a child to school is a very serious matter indeed and therefore one has to be certain that the safeguards for the child and the community are adequate. We do not believe that the provisions as provided here are adequate and we have stated our reasons for that.

The third important element that was raised in this debate is that treating the symptoms of the problems of Black education will not solve the problems. The point made by the hon member for Brentwood that one has to convince the parents, the community and the pupils that what one is doing is just, is the critical point. It is clear to anybody who has eyes to see or ears to hear that the Black community of this country—irrespective of what their views are on other issues— reject separate Black education. Until that changes we are going to be continually confronted with legislation of this sort.

Mr Speaker, I shall be very brief.

It is very clear from the speeches of hon members on this side of the House, as well as from the introductory speech of the hon the Deputy Minister, that the Bill before us is concerned with curbing the irregular actions of a small minority of participants in the school system for Black children, to the benefit of millions of children who are, in fact, interested in receiving a proper education and who also have the support of their parents in this regard. It is the protection of their interests that is at issue here. That is what this legislation is all about.

I should just like to add the following. It is of the utmost importance that those children who wish to attend school, be given the opportunity to do so. After all, the future of this country will depend on the quality of education and the numbers of children who have passed through the educational system. Our greatest problem in this country is apparently not a political one. Our greatest problem in this country is the problem of poverty which stems from illiteracy and ignorance. For this very reason it is in the interests of South Africa’s future, and of its constitutional future, that this measure should be placed on the Statute Books. For this reason we on this side of the House support this legislation.

The House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Dalling, D J; De Beer, Z J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Malcomess, D J N; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed.

Bill read a second time.

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

In dealing with this resolution I intend to confine myself more specifically to that part of the resolution which is concerned with group areas. At the present moment we are probably experiencing the greatest degree of lawlessness which has ever existed in the history of this country. [Interjections.] There are literally thousands of people throughout the length and breadth of this country who are openly defying the provisions of the Group Areas Act. They are not only doing so openly; they are doing so defiantly and contemptuously. I shall come back to the cause of this situation later.

I submit that the Government is responsible for this lawlessness. [Interjections.] It is the Government’s fault that this situation exists! It is very easy for the Government to put a stop to this situation in which people are living. They must make a simple choice. That choice is to repeal the Group Areas Act. Repeal it, and then all these people will be living within the provisions of the Act! The other option is to implement the Group Areas Act properly. What I mean by implementing it properly is that it is of no avail if an Act exists which makes it an offence for a person to live in a specific way in a specific area. That Act is only implemented properly if it results in an eviction order when a person contravenes it. Without an eviction order this Act has no power. [Interjections.] It is pro non scrip to if one cannot implement that Act in this way.

The problem is that the Government has a dilemma with regard to this Act. If it were to implement this Act properly its entire reform policy would collapse! On the other hand, if the Act were to be openly repealed, this Government would definitely not be the government of the day any longer. The Government therefore had to make a plan, and this caused the Government to opt for this constant lawlessness. This is what is making us a laughing-stock in the eyes of the world. It is disgraceful that we are going on in this way. As I have already said, the Government was faced with this problem and it had to find a solution. The solution it found was not one it formulated for itself. That solution fell in its lap. It came in the form of the well-known case of The State v Govender.

The Government’s problem was a simple one, namely how it could deal with the situation without abolishing the Act, otherwise it would have meant that it would no longer be governing. How could it deal with this? Then along came this case in which a verdict was returned that one could not evict a person unless there was alternative accommodation and other additional factors. The Government could not afford to make a clear choice to one side or the other, and then this case fell in its lap. It was like manna from heaven.

What was the position? This enabled it to get away with what is probably the worst kind of fraud that could ever have been committed in this country, namely to tell the public and everyone in the country that the Government is not responsible for this. The Government says it wants to implement this Act, but unfortunately the Govender case is standing in its way.

Of course that is what they said!

That is the trouble. The Govender case is now the problem. The Government says they want to implement the Act. I say this is a lie, because the Government does not want to implement the Act. Here they have an excuse and an opportunity, which they have seized with both hands. I say this was used in a corrupt way. They do not want to implement the Act and they know it. They want to and have to allow the chaotic state of affairs to continue. This is the only way it is possible for them to carry on.

Then we came along last year and pulled the rug out from under their feet with regard to this excuse they were always advancing. We pulled the rug out from under their feet and proposed a little one-letter Bill. We said all they need do was change one sentence, one word, in the Act and their problem would be solved. They should not allow the Govender case to stand in their way. There the Government stands exposed to the world, because now it no longer has any excuse.

Then—this is true—the Government made an amendment, because it always knew that the Act could only mean something if an eviction clause was inserted. It then inserted in that Act that on conviction a person had to be evicted. It inserted this, but then it got a fright. It realised it was in trouble, because it had taken sides, but the wrong side. It should not have taken that side and then it got a fright. It stopped right there and again made this Act powerless. That is where we stand today. Today we are faced with the irrefutable position that the Government wants the state of affairs caused by the Govender case to continue.

The other day the hon member for Parow was confronted with problems in his constituency. What did he say? He said they were in favour of implementing this Act, but the Govender case prevented them from doing so. [Interjections.] This happened only the other day! This is how we are going on. Suddenly we are back to the Govender case. [Interjections.]

That is not all that is at issue. We ask what the consequences of this are. The consequences are that the own community life which we would guarantee has been lost.

Last year the Government brought this Bill to the House and said in Leef en Laat Leef that this legislation was essential. It was an opportunity for the formation of an own community. An own community, an own community life and own land tenure had to be ensured and the established rights of communities had to be protected. That was the objective of that legislation. It was said that in order to achieve and ensure this objective, it was necessary for the legislation to be implemented more effectively.

The Government came along and introduced a clause which made eviction possible. In other words, the community could only be protected if the legislation was implemented in a specific way. As we stand here today, we have been deprived of our security and guarantee, because we are again faced with the Govender case. We are still there. What is the Government going to do now. Which way does the Government want to move now?

The Government has a problem and this is how the Government is going to resolve the situation. The Government decided that the solution would seem to lie in the Free Settlement Areas Act. What a beautiful name, but what an ugly measure! It is an abominable piece of legislation. I want to tell hon members that the truth of the Free Settlement Areas Act is that the Government says that the present lawful inhabitants and owners of properties in the existing residential areas have vested rights in the present character of those residential areas. This is where the importance of this lies. The Government goes on to say that it will not easily deviate from this interest. The character of those laws will not easily be assailed. They will be protected. In other words that Act must not be implemented lightly. This is where a specific situation arises. The question which arises is how we should set about retaining the character.

The hon the Minister of National Education stood up in this Parliament and told us that we were not going to change the character of a specific area, unless a large percentage of the lawful voters in a specific area voted for it. Not a majority, but a large percentage. I suppose he means that 60% or 66% of the people must say yes before we can tamper with this. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is sitting there confirming this. He says it is the legal inhabitants who are on the voters’ roll who must say yes.

The Free Settlement Areas Bill is going to become law next Wednesday. The hon the Minister of National Education stood up here and said he himself was giving the assurance that it would be implemented, and not only that but he also committed the Ministers’ Council to stand by it. He is the newly elected leader of the NP and I believe he will keep his promise. I cannot imagine that he will deviate from it. I want to tell hon members that that cannot happen. He will keep his promise.

We know him!

I want to ask the hon members what is going to happen if the voters are asked and the Government does not get 40% of them supporting it; what then? Where to then? The Government must tell us, because they are seeking the salvation of an own community life in the free settlement legislation. If they do not get this percentage, because they must ask the voters—I wonder whether the hon the Deputy Minister informed Mr Kruger that that was what they had to do—where will we be then? The one assurance we had with regard to the eviction measure in the legislation has now disappeared. If they do not get the 60% majority there will be nothing left.

Now you are advancing a very weak argument!

The hon the Minister can improve on it. We shall give him that opportunity. [Interjections.]

It is beyond him!

It has been said that 60% of Hillbrow’s lawful inhabitants must vote for an open area.

Yes. [Interjections.] Then we go a step further. The new Act which has emerged will apparently mean our salvation in another way as well, in that according to the hon the Minister a new situation is going to arise. People can of their own free will join a so-called new group, which will be an open group, and those people will possibly live in such a free settlement area. Now we want to tell the Government that this is an illusion which can never become a reality.

The evidence that people want to live apart is overwhelming. It exists throughout the world. An investigation hon members are aware of, which was made by experts in America, indicated that unless people are forced together and are placed and kept in a specific residential area, they would never ever live there together as a group. They go either to the Black side or to the White side, but there is no such thing as a so-called open group, and this has been proved throughout the world. [Interjections.] There is no such thing.

Those hon members are seeking the solution to this problem by adopting this specific course. It must be an open area for them. We say here must be separate areas for the different population groups. There is no such thing as an open area, but the Government is holding this up as an option. They say people must get together voluntarily, and then they must be given order.

However the Government is forcing them into a place. [Interjections.] Then they say: A group of people are living there; they want to be in an open group. [Interjections.] There is Hillbrow and many other examples of this.

Even the proposed idea is not valid. It does not hold water, and for that reason we must tell the Government frankly that we are going to blame this total lack of protection of an own community life squarely on the NP. They must decide whether they are going to implement the Act, as we explained a moment ago, or abolish it. For all practical purposes this Act has already been abolished. They have made their choice.

Pressure has been exerted on the Government to move to the left. [Interjections.] The statements we have heard from the new leader of the NP tell us that he has opted to move to the left. He has been pressed into moving to the left. He is going to hold to that course, or he will lose his position. If he veers to the left, we are going to pass him on the right. We are moving in that direction.

The Government is responsible for the lawlessness existing here at the moment. The Government which is the executive authority in this country is just as committed to implementing the laws of this Parliament as any citizen of this country. The Government is therefore compelled to implement the Group Areas Act properly. The Government is setting an example of lawlessness in this country because it is negating the laws of this Parliament and it is not entitled to do so. The Government must come back and repeal those laws. The Government cannot pass a law and not implement it, because then it does not deserve to be the government of this country.

Apart from the constitutional position in this regard we say that it is the Government’s duty and it cannot decide selectively whether or not it is going to enforce a law.

Alexander agrees.

The Government must also clear up this matter with the voters. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, let there be no doubt on this score. The NP and the Government are and remain committed to maintaining, protecting and ensuring the right of members of each and every population group to their own community life.

Nonsense!

Having one’s own community life necessarily presupposes having one’s own residential area, one’s own school and one’s own facilities.

The basic error of reasoning which hon members of the CP make, and which is borne out by the motion of the hon member for Ermelo, is that the only possible way to establish one’s own community life is by means of laws that are inflexibly implemented, as though people were chess-set pawns to be shifted around on the measured blocks of the chess-board in terms of sundry laws, rules and regulations.

There was a time when this side of the House also thought in these terms about the structuring of South African society, but the practical realities of South Africa have proved unequivocally that it does not work like this. In fact, laws which are ostensibly aimed at the structuring of society and the preservation of an own community life can even prove counter-productive when it comes to the achievement of the stated objective.

The reason why hon members, who once sat on this side of the House with us, are now sitting in the CP benches, is, inter alia, that they refused to accept the reality of South African society … [Interjections] … and to learn the hard practical lessons. [Interjections.] They insist on adapting the realities to the laws, and this cannot be done. Laws, in fact, form the framework of a democratic society, but it is the people who are the flesh and blood of that society.

This brings me to the Group Areas Act and the Government’s alleged hesitant attitude in implementing it.

The Group Areas Act dates from a period in which it was deemed necessary to regulate South African society by means of legislation.

Is it no longer necessary?

I will not comment on that; I am talking about the present-day situation.

However, since then South African society has undergone dramatic developments and adaptations. The Act has been amended many times in order to adapt to changing circumstances, even when those hon members still sat in these benches with us.

It is therefore quite clear that the Act itself has never been regarded as a sacred cow. However, the guidelines and object of the Act have always been the effective maintenance and protection of the own community life of population groups, with justice for all.

There is no simplistic recipe guaranteed to maintain, protect and ensure an own community life for the respective population groups of the RS A, because the matter is too complex and multifaceted. Therefore the simplistic recipe suggested by the hon member for Ermelo simply does not hold water. In the onslaught on own residential areas one can distinguish a short-term and a long-term onslaught or rather, a small-scale and large-scale onslaught. [Interjections.] Both cannot be dealt with in the same way.

It is claimed that professional burglars sometimes make use of small children whom they have enter the building through an open window or through another small opertune. Then when that little one is inside the building, he opens the doors from inside so that the burglar can enter. This little one can be kept out by means of burglar bars or similar devices.

The same is true in the case of the Group Areas Act and its implementation. Initially there are one or a few families who transgress … [Interjection.] … and who can be dealt with by timely and effective action in terms of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many interjections from the Official Opposition. This must cease. The hon member may proceed.

However, where there is a massive influx of unauthorised people, one quite simply cannot salvage the situation by means of the enforcement of the Group Areas Act alone. It is quite simply not possible. Anyone who thinks that areas such as Woodstock and Salt River in the Cape, and Hillbrow and others on the Rand, can be changed into own residential areas with an own community life by means of the enforcement or the implementation of the Group Areas Act, does not have the vaguest idea of the demographic, economic and social realities of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] To make the voters out there believe that this can be done, is nothing short of political dishonesty.

The fact is that unless adequate and acceptable provision is made for housing and facilities for other population groups as a matter of urgency, no laws or apartheid signs are going to keep them out of the White population group’s residential areas and facilities. They cannot be kept out by a law. [Interjections.] However, the reverse is also true. Provide these other population groups with adequate and acceptable land, housing and facilities, whether in the form of free settlement areas or in the form of separate areas, and no laws and/or signs will be necessary to protect and ensure the community life of Whites in their own residential areas. [Interjections.]

So why does the Government retain the Group Areas Act?

But I have just said—in order to keep the “little ones” out of the house! [Interjections.]

Experience is now teaching us that it was specifically certain laws, placed on the Statute Book with a view to ensuring an own community life, which are now frustrating efforts aimed at promptly and effortlessly identifying land and establishing adequate and acceptable housing and other facilities for other population groups.

In conclusion I want to say a few words about the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act against the background of the Boksburg debacle. [Interjections.] Nobody expects one to allow a park or swimming-bath in a White residential area such as for example Monte Vista or Panorama to be overrun by people from Bonteheuwel, Nyanga or Guguletu. However, it would be the height of stupidity to reserve the Company’s Gardens or the Good Hope Centre exclusively for members of one population group. Established facilities with a national, provincial or regional character, or facilities that have previously been opened to all population groups, can simply not be reserved exclusively for one population group by means of so-called apartheid signs without disrupting the entire fabric of society. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the abolition of apartheid legislation, only after it has been disregarded and contravened on a massive scale, is the story of the NP reform. [Interjections.] Time and again the Government has scrapped discriminatory legislation after it was proved to be unworkable by large-scale contraventions, followed by the Government increasingly turning a blind eye to these contraventions.

Therefore reform so far has rarely been a matter of Government initiative, but rather a matter of the Government sluggishly bringing the law into line with political reality. [Interjections.] The hon the State President, when challenged on the abolition of influx control, said in Afrikaans: “Ek het die stryd teen die werklikheid verloor.”

Shortly before the abolition of influx control the Government’s statistics indicated that no less than 43% of the Black population of the Western Cape were living here illegally. The number of Blacks arrested in terms of influx control in 1983 was 262 022. This gives an indication of what I mean. In the case of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, significant numbers of people were getting married across the colour line before its scrapping, in spite of the risk of having a legally invalid marriage. The number of persons charged under section 16 of the Immorality Act during 1984 was 207, a significant number of contraventions. In the field of labour law it is common knowledge that a number of Black trade unions were functioning and negotiating with some effect, long before they were legally recognised or even allowed to exist.

This illustrates what I am saying, and that is that the Government does not initiate reform, but merely at a very late stage sluggishly brings the legislation into line with the political reality which exists, but which they do not necessarily like.

The hon member for Ermelo mentioned lawlessness in his motion before us. As a fellow lawyer I share some concern with him for the disregard of the law created by the style of reform of the Nationalist Government. If people are not expected to obey some laws, why should they feel obliged to obey others? If disregard for certain laws is an essential element of Government reform because they are too spineless to either scrap them or apply them, as was so eloquently stated by the hon member for Langlaagte, then one must expect people to feel more free to decide for themselves which laws they will obey and which not.

Make no mistake; illegality is part of the style of the NP reform.

If there has been no illegality those laws that I have just enunciated would still have been on the Statute Book. These arguments are all valid arguments. Where I disagree with the CP is whether the solution lies in the abolition of apartheid or the application of it. Clearly, I believe it must be scrapped and scrapped without delay.

The point that both the Government and the CP always seem to miss is that a sound moral base is essential to the long-term success of any legislation. If a significant proportion of a country’s population believe that the law is essentially unjust or immoral, they may obey it only to stay out of trouble but they will certainly not obey it because of a moral imperative. If in addition that law is in conflict with economic, political and demographic realities their inclination to obey will be reduced even further. How does one expect a Black family who cannot find a house to live in in a Black area not to occupy a vacant flat in Hillbrow if they can afford the rent? To cap it all, the Government that makes and applies all these laws suffers a serious legitimacy crisis in the eyes of most Black South Africans.

The fact is that the degenerative process that afflicts all apartheid laws is inevitable and terminal. It is hardly necessary to point out that separate amenities in many parts of our country are no more than a dead letter at this stage. In a few instances that I know of Government decisions on the opening of beaches are still pending, pending after months and in some cases years. Some of those decisions are irrelevant even before they are made by the Government because those beaches will simply not be segregated again.

Boksburg and Kraaifontein are trying hard but if apartheid is to survive in those towns then those towns will not survive in any worthwhile sense of the word. Incidentally, while referring to Boksburg and Kraaifontein, it is worth noting the different styles of the CP and the NP in respect of these two cases. In Boksburg the town council with the full backing of the CP is pushing ahead with re-erecting fences and rebuilding barriers in both the literal and the figurative sense of the word. In Kraaifontein where a small child got kicked out of his creche the NP member of Parliament blames the mother for being so insensitive to the racial prejudice of the local people as to allow the child to be fetched by his Coloured uncle. It is difficult to decide which of these attitudes is more deserving of contempt.

*The Group Areas Act is, without doubt, in a very advanced stage of this process of decay which I referred to. The scrapping of the Group Areas Act is inevitable; it is merely a matter of time before it will take place. It is my estimation—the hon member for Ermelo referred to it—that a few hundred thousand contraventions of the Group Areas Act take place annually. Of those contraventions, roughly a thousand, more or less a thousand, are investigated annually by the police and of that thousand only an average of five per year end up in court by way of prosecution. Where will a person need more evidence that this Act is in a process of decay?

No one should deceive themselves and think that integration in residential areas is restricted to areas such as Hillbrow, Mayfair and Woodstock. I want to say that there is hardly a suburb of Cape Town which does not already accommodate an appreciable number of Black, Coloured and Indian people. To think that this process can be reversed or that it can be accommodated by means of further tampering with the legislation in order to bring the Act into line with that specific reality in that specific area in a strange, peculiar or ad hoc kind of way, is futile. We are wasting our time.

It seems to me there is a suggestion in the motion before us, that lawlessness can be the result of a situation in which Black people or other people move into a White area to reside there. If that is so, because it is possible that I am misinterpreting the motion, I want to make the point that there is no empirical evidence to prove that it is the case in South Africa or Southern Africa where racial intermingling takes place in a residential area, that this leads to increasing lawlessness in the sense of violent crimes. It is purely lawlessness in the sense that people are of course contravening the Group Areas Act and a person only talks about it in exceptional cases.

It is a fact that people who are searching for a roof over their heads are searching for stability. There is hardly a human inclination that is less likely to lead to lawlessness or criminal behaviour as the need for a roof over your head or to find shelter and stability. There is no theoretical or practical reason to believe that if the legal separation of racial areas were to be lifted, it would lead to increasing criminal behaviour.

The suggestion and the indication is continually coming from CP and NP circles that a proper community life, whether in the sense of a White community life or whatever, actually becomes impossible or difficult if a specific residential area is integrated or if Black people and people of colour move in. It is simply not true. How can it be that the colour of your neighbour’s skin influences your choice of the social activity which you want to be involved in or with whom you want to associate in your personal life? It is nonsense. If we are honest with ourselves we must admit that the motivation behind every apartheid law that has ever existed in this country and still exists now, has nothing to do with the bringing together of communities in some commendable activity or other in order to build their community or to enrich themselves culturally or otherwise. It has to do with the exclusion of those towards whom we feel a kind of almost animal-like resentment because they do not have the same skin colour or shape of nose. Let us not continue to sully praiseworthy ideas regarding community life or cultural life with these racistic ideas which are so … [Interjections.] … often thrown in with it.

The Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act are useful to racial discrimination. They are not useful for promoting a healthy and meaningful community life. They have nothing to do with that. It is time to start trying to build a feeling of solidarity … [Interjections. ] … to try to establish reconciliation and stimulate the qualities in all our people in order to enhance those that can mutually enrich our community rather than being the source of our destruction. Last year the Government thought it best to satisfy everyone in this country—left of the PFP and to the right of the CP— with a trilogy of Bills dealing with group areas.

It is difficult.

The hon member says that it is difficult. It is not only difficult; it is impossible, as it finally proved to be.

One of those Bills has been relegated to the waste-paper basket and of the other it is said that it is going to be implemented shortly. We, but particularly the Government, shall see how much trouble and misery it will bring them.

Finally there is no justification—moral, economic, political or otherwise—for the fact that we must keep laws such as these on our Statute Book, and for that reason I cannot associate myself with the motion of the hon member for Ermelo.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay referred to the little ones who climbed through the windows and later let the big ones in. He said that one had to guard against this by taking timeous action against those individuals who were moving in. I now want to ask the Government whether it is going to take action against the twelve families that have just moved into Windmill Park. They are Indians. There is still time to take action against them. [Interjections.] If they take action now against those people who have moved in there illegally, they will still be in time to do so.

However, what do we find? We immediately find that the one who breaks the law, the one who moves into a particular area illegally and in contravention of the Group Areas Act, becomes the poor aggrieved party; it is he who receives the sympathy. The criminal, the man who breaks the law, receives the sympathy. After all, when someones breaks the law, he does commit a crime. Crimes are created by specific laws. The law-breaker is now being portrayed as the hero and as the one with whom people should sympathise. [Interjections.]

There on the opposite side of the House sit the hon members of the NP and the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and they are not taking any action against the law-breakers. [Interjections.] What do we find in this country? We find that there is a Parliament here which makes laws. I think we all agree that that is the democratic process. What is happening now, however? An Act is no longer repealed by Parliament. The Minister now simply takes the law into his own hands and decides that he will abolish a law by not implementing it. [Interjections.] He does not come to Parliament. He is at the forefront of lawlessness because he is permitting a law which he is not prepared to enforce to remain on the Statute Books. [Interjections.] That is the example that is being set to us by the Executive Authority. That is the example which the Executive Authority in this country is setting to its citizens. It is the one that has decided that a law need not be obeyed; it may simply be broken. [Interjections.]

Scandalous! Absolutely scandalous! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to say …

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that hon member presently. [Interjections.] He and his Government must simply ensure that the laws of the land are enforced. [Interjections.] They must please just try to do that. [Interjections.] A teacher who does not apply the rules at school, becomes the laughing-stock of the school. A Government that is too spineless to apply the laws of the land will be rejected by the people of South Africa and by all peoples, because we laugh at people like them. [Interjections.]

When a child has not listened to what his father has told him and he also goes out and breaks laws in society, it does not help to later cry like a woman because one was unable to apply discipline like a man when it needed to be applied, [interjections.]

There are a few aspects that are giving rise to lawlessness in this country. Firstly, there is the failure to make a law. Secondly, there is the failure to apply the laws. Thirdly, there is selective application of the law. Fourthly, there are the so-called trials by the Press, and all selective trials in this regard. Facts are being distorted. The law-breaker is being portrayed as the hero. Civil disobedience is being propagated. The Government must exercise its option now. The Government must abolish these laws if it does not wish to apply them; alternatively, it must apply them. It does not help, to allow those little ones to climb in through the burglar-proofing and to do nothing to them. Those little ones climbed through the burglar-proofing the day the Government abolished the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Then many of these little ones became legal. [Interjections.]

One does not make regulations and say that people may not engage in boycotts and that they may not preach in favour of boycotts of municipal elections and then, when Bishop Tutu takes the pulpit and publicly advocates boycotts, say, like the hon the Minister of Information, that those regulations were not meant for clergymen. [Interjections.] When we in this country come forward with selective application of the law, with selective regulations which apply to A but not to B, then we are creating problems. Whenever I or my family commit a transgression, action must be taken against us. The same holds true whenever someone in the Government or one of their family members is guilty of a transgression. Then we would have far less corruption. Then we would have far less lawlessness in this country. Let us once and for all make a decision like men and apply it. Let us make laws and apply them like men. Alternatively, Mr Chairman, if the Government does not have the courage to do this, let them please abolish those laws, but do not let them make fools of themselves.

I want to say something more about selective application of the law; selective things which we come across in the Press. Mr Chairman, have you seen—I am not going to refer to the name, because everyone will know about it—a man standing in the dock in court being filmed on television; how those television cameras remain fixed on the man’s parents like leeches? Mr Chairman, have you seen television cameras filming a Nat murderer or a Prog murderer or another CP murderer, or even a UDF murderer or an ANC murderer in court? What is the reason for this creation of atmosphere? What motivates us to single out people for different treatment to that which other people receive? This is the selective creation of atmosphere, which is, in reality, a misdeed that is being committed against our entire community!

Like the mayor of Volksrust!

There we have another one! My hon friend is referring to the mayor of Volksrust. In order to get at the CP and to hang a label around the CP’s neck, it is being said that a CP mayor has been charged. Apart from that, the poor man is also a Nationalist! Let us move away from the concept of asking every accused who stands in the dock to tell us, before he pleads guilty or not guilty, whether he is a Nat, a CP or a Prog. [Interjections.]

I should like next to dwell for a while upon the circular which was sent to Police chiefs, in which they received certain instructions with regard to the contravention of certain laws. I quote:

What does prevailing NP policy have to do with a law? [Interjections.] What does the application of a law have to do with what the prevailing policy of the NP is? The laws would have to be amended every day, because the NP changes its policy from day to day! [Interjections.]

When Durban beaches are swamped by Blacks and Mr Klotz wants to open everything up, he is suspended from the NP! When Boksburg wishes to close its lake, there is a great hullabaloo about it! Why does the NP not open up its beaches?

Why do you not talk a little louder.

I should talk louder, because deaf people like that hon member will never hear as long as they live! [Interjections.]

What instructions are the Police given here? I quote further, as follows:

The Police are therefore being told here that if a man drives through a stop street and someone sees this, he is to fold his arms and look the other way. If one sees someone committing theft, one must close one’s eyes to it. Do not taken any action! Do not take the initiative! An Act is being contravened, but please pretend that you have not seen it.

Let us take a further look at what is said here:

You are struggling, aren’t you?

Yes! Anyone would struggle if he was dealing with the kind of mess the NP has made!

No, take his name and address and make an appointment with him to come to court at a later dated! Do not even set bail for him. Treat him entirely differently to any other offender. Merely warn him that he must appear in court on a certain day. If he does not turn up on that day, I want to see whether they would arrest him.

We now come to the last paragraph, which I simply must mention. It has to do with the action to be taken when a person walks around with bare breasts.

That has nothing to do with little ones!

It is said that the five generals should kindly not be telephoned in this instance; probably for fear that they would then take the initiative! [Interjections.] Heaven forbid that they should take the initiative! However, the constable should not take the initiative either, but he must beware if the lady takes the initiative. I do not know what he is supposed to do then. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Law and Order has created a precedent which he will not be able to get away from in his lifetime. When a hunger strike took place, he released certain people. I am not in favour of detention without trial, but I know that it is sometimes essential. It is also essential that the hon the Minister, who then acts as judge, should continually evaluate the situation. He may not detain a person longer than is absolutely necessary. He may not detain him for 32 months if he ought to have released him after 24 months. If he had done his work and his evaluation, he ought either to have released those people earlier or not to have detained them at all.

What happened then? Boesak turned up and the hon the Minister yielded. Tutu turned up and the hon the Minister folded. If there were ANC newspapers in this country, one would have seen big black headlines the next day: “Adriaan buckled! or “Vlok vou”. That is all that what would have happened. He could not stand firm when he ought to have, because he had not done his work beforehand. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I trust that Parliament’s sound system has been re-activated so that I can address hon members in a normal tone of voice.

When I got to the piece about lawlessness when I read this motion before the sitting today I was sorry the hon member for Ermelo had not mentioned the increasing lawlessness by which our monuments are damaged by people who drive into the gates. It is a great pity that that was not mentioned here.

The hon members for Ermelo and Bethal must get very uneasy when they hear about Pontius Pilate, because he said: “What I have written, I have written.” These two hon members have relatively strong standpoints with regard to the Group Areas Act, but in their recent past they were co-authors of a book with the title Witman, waar is jou Vryheid? On page 48 of this publication these hon members said the following:

Until recently that was the standpoint of these two hon members. [Interjections.] Their standpoint was that group areas was no solution, yet today they make moving appeals for the preservation of the Group Areas Act.

Read what the solution is. Read a bit further! [Interjections.]

Order!

As I have said, the hon member for Ermelo made a moving appeal for the preservation of group areas. He quoted scientific tests and investigations which were carried out in America, which prove the exact opposite of what he is advocating. The exact opposite!

You would not understand!

By means of those tests or investigations, the hon member tried to prove to us that people live in groups naturally, and that if one wants them to live together, one has to introduce legislation in order to make them do so. I do not understand what the hon member was trying to say at all. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately those two hon members on that side of the House are not the only ones who have something of a past when it comes to standpoints on integration. Unfortunately not. Let us take a quick look at the track record of hon members on that side. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into this in detail, but hon members will concede that the White Paper on the Erica Theron report which was tabled in this Parliament on 12 April 1977 …

’76!

’77. [Interjections.] The hon member should rather allow me to make my speech, because then he will get the correct facts.

The White Paper which was tabled here in ’77 makes provision for and recommends the selective throwing open of facilities. That was accepted by this Government.

The hon member for Waterberg, or the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon members for Brakpan, Barberton and Soutpansberg were members of the NP when this White Paper was accepted, yet today they complain about the selective throwing open of facilities. Surely that is true. The hon member for Barberton is shaking his head. Did he object to that in the caucus? [Interjections.] Where were the hon members’ principles at that stage?

You are not reading what it says!

I can read.

Where was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition on the night of 23 May 1981 when the State Theatre in Pretoria was thrown open? This was a mixed occasion. At the time the hon member was the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. He was there that night.

Let us take a quick look at the present people and at what is going on at the moment. I do not want to talk about Boksburg again, but I do want to make this one remark about it.

You should not talk about Boksburg. You do not even understand what is going on there.

I learned an old Dutch saying:

“Eers gegeven, dan genomen, erger as een dief gestolen” (to give something and then take it back is worse than stealing). That is what it is all about. If one has thrown facilities open, one cannot go and take them back again, and that is why hon members are experiencing the present reaction in Boksburg and Carletonville. [Interjections.] The hon members are going to experience more problems with this kind of thing.

Are you advocating boycotts now?

Let us take a look at new members of Parhament who do not have the albatrosses of former NP members around their necks. Let us see what is happening in Pietersburg. It is a CP seat. The town council is controlled by the CP. The parks there are open to all races. Therefore there is integration in the parks.

Disgraceful!

The pay points at the municipality are open. They are integration points. In April Pietersburg’s stadium will be used for a mixed sports meeting with the approval of the town council, and the hon member for Pietersburg will concede that.

Is it an international meeting?

With the approval of the town council! [Interjections.]

Let us talk about this “international” to which the hon member was referring. It is an international meeting which a number of Black athletes from America are going to take part in. That is correct, but tell me, which country do the Black athletes from South Africa who are going to take part there represent? Which country do they represent? Not a word. [Interjections.]

There are questions with regard to the future of the CP policy to which we must find answers. We must have answers to those questions, because they are presenting themselves as the alternative government of the future.

When are you going to reply to the motion?

Don’t get so frightened, Koos!

I want to know whether the CP, should they come into power, will close all the facilities that have been thrown open. That is not an unfair question. I want to know whether they are going to say that the cable car at Cape Town will be only for Whites or only for Blacks.

No, it is international.

When we look at Kirstenbosch, I want to know something. Let us suppose that Kirstenbosch falls in the White homeland which the hon members have been talking about. We have no certainty as to what Kirstenbosch is going to fall under, nor are we going to get the answer. Nevertheless, the CP’s Programme of Principles reads as follows under point 5.3(b):

Does preference at Kirstenbosch mean that on a Sunday afternoon, when most people visit the gardens, all the Whites will go in first and that if a few Coloured people are left, they will also get a chance to go in? [Interjections.] Are they perhaps not going to get that chance? If they do, and I trust the CP will allow them that chance, is that not mixed use of a facility or an amenity?

Where do you spend your holidays? In Kleinmond with the apartheid signs, not so?

I am pleased the hon member for Losberg made that remark. The hon member was a professor at a mixed university. [Interjections.]

You have not mentioned my standpoint about that. [Interjections.]

The hon member may have had a standpoint about it, but he had to choose between sticking to his principle and earning his living, and the hon member chose the latter. Standpoint and principle are two different things. [Interjections.] I may spend my holidays in Kleinmond, but I do not work at a mixed place against my conscience. [Interjections.]

You work at Parliament!

So do you!

Part of Potchefstroom falls within the hon member’s constituency, not so?

Yes!

Have they not just decided that non-Whites can live in a White group area?

No! [Interjections.]

Someone must tell him one day. What about the students there? [Interjections.]

I want to ask whether mixed sport is permitted on that hon member’s municipal fields. [Interjections.] He must tell us; then we shall talk about Kleinmond’s signs again. [Interjections.] The hon member must prepare himself properly before he tries to tackle me.

In conclusion I want to say that my community life is not dependent upon separate lifts and separate parks. [Interjections.] My community life is not dependent upon total separation. We shall continue our policy of throwing open facilities in a selective way where this is necessary and desirable. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Parow is unable to explain the signboards at Kleinmond, he can hardly expect me to react to anything which he has said. [Interjections.]

I wholeheartedly support the hon member for Ermelo’s draft resolution because the non-application of legislation, especially that which is intended to ensure a community life of its own for the White population group, promotes increasing lawlessness in the country; in fact, it nurtures a tendency to criminality which is breaking out like measles throughout the country and national administration.

If the Government can be politically corrupt by giving assurances of a community life of its own to a population group on the one hand and on the other developing a strategy for integration specifically to undo those assurances, why can other people in the national administration not also act dishonestly and in a corrupt manner? The Government is setting the example. This Government is certainly a government with a tendency to political criminality, corruption, immorality and dishonesty. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There are crimes which are closely allied to politics and I suggest that to say or to allege that the Government is guilty of political criminality or promotes political criminality can hardly be acceptable.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?

Order! As far as the concept of “political criminality” as such is concerned, I shall give a final ruling later. At this stage I shall permit the hon member to proceed.

The hon the Deputy-Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s portfolio should actually be changed to Constitutional Disruption and Africanisation (Verswarting) because after the Doyle affair in Mayfair West that hon Deputy Minister came up with the pious warning that all the parties involved were not to take the law into their own hands.

If that was intended as a reflection on one of those two parties, that is the Whites of Mayfair West, I want to tell the hon Deputy Minister two things. In the first place, the hon the Deputy Minister ought to know that the Criminal Procedure Act, read in conjunction with certain sections of the Group Areas Act, empowers even a civilian to make a citizen’s arrest of an offender in specific cases in terms of the Group Areas Act. If the hon the Deputy Minister wants to say that the law was taken into their own hands by any of the White residents of Mayfair West, I think this debate is the opportunity for the hon the Deputy Minister to do so.

I want to continue that this was a sinister warning from the hon the Deputy Minister because it is politically dishonest toward the Whites of Mayfair West to imply that they were acting unlawfully while the hon the Deputy Minister of all people is very well aware of the facts. Let us examine those facts.

This began in 1987 when the residents of Mayfair West were told that, if the majority of the residents of a specific residential area requested the admission of people of colour, in that case and only then would people of colour be admitted. They conducted a survey and questioned 80% of the White residents and 98% of the 80% said that they did not want anybody who was a non-White in their residential area.

In 1988 the hon the Deputy Minister held a meeting and addressed them on the non-Whites living in Mayfair, not Mayfair West. He refused to grant the residents of Mayfair West and Homestead Park an interview on the problem which they were starting to experience. They then laid charges as many other Whites have had to lay charges over the years because the Government does not apply the Act, but little happened.

They decided to hold a meeting and they got an officer from John Vorster Square to address them and he said that they were to be patient because there were only six of them working in the group areas unit which had to handle more than 6 000 dossiers. He added that, if they wanted to prevent non-Whites from moving into their residential areas, they were to see to it themselves that non-Whites did not move in because the Police had instructions to refrain from taking any action.

They made inquiries about the charges which had been laid and the replies they received were that 100% of the charges which they had laid in respect of non-Whites in Mayfair West were not prosecutable. Prosecution was refused in 100% of the cases in Mayfair West.

An interesting event then occurred in July 1988. An Indian by the name of Minakium moved into the centre of Mayfair West. The White residents approached him and asked him what he was doing there and he indicated that he had received permission from the Police at John Vorster Square to live in Mayfair West. I shall read a sworn statement which this Indian person made voluntarily at a police station.

When the present CP city councillor, Mr Hendrick Claasen, brought this case to the attention of the Police at John Vorster Square, he was subsequently visited by officials of the Police at his home and threatened with a charge of criminal defamation. [Interjections.] That is what happened. If one wants to protect one’s own people at their request, one receives this type of treatment. Today that Indian person still resides at that address in Mayfair West.

Such was the resistance of voters against people of colour moving into that residential area that they returned a CP candidate to the city council with a majority of approximately 400 votes in that election.

They then found out that from December 1988 to January 1989 there had been a 100% increase in people of colour whom they found to be in their residential area. They started to keep their eyes open and one Sunday they found Mr Doyle— actually Dayal—moving in. They approached him and told him that he was unwelcome because it was a White residential area. He then reacted by saying that he had been “misinformed”! About an hour later, after he had departed, he returned with the police who then informed the White residents that they could not prevent Mr Dayal from moving in because he was legally— lawfully—entitled to live in Mayfair West. The residents put their case. The police and Dayal left and later returned. The police then said that they had spoken to Mr Dayal and explained to him that it was actually illegal to go and live in Mayfair West among Whites. Hon members are aware of the remaining incidents.

To the best of our knowledge the steps taken were legal. The fact is that the persons wielding the sceptre in this Government, who hold the effective power and represent the majority opinion in the NP, have long since taken leave of the Group Areas Act, but, because they have been advised that the voters will offer fierce resistance against its abolition, they use every method imaginable to make the Act powerless and meaningless before abolishing it.

The most effective way of making this Act so powerless is simply by not applying it. The Government gave instructions that the Group Areas Act was not to be applied where this was in any way possible, in other words where they had the slightest chance of getting away with this. The full force of the predominant Black numbers and Coloured, Black and especially Indian financial muscle must be permitted to oust, buy out and drive Whites from their own residential areas.

In a recent TV programme the hon the Deputy Minister made the following statement. He said that the Act was actually being applied and people were being prosecuted. With all due respect, if that were true, what was that hon Deputy Minister doing in the offices of public prosecutors in Johannesburg when he was still an ordinary MP before he was vested with the power which he now holds, namely to exert influence not to permit prosecutions in terms of the Group Areas Act?

In the second place—we shall pile up the lies and deal with them one by one—what meaning does it have if the Act is supposedly applied and prosecutions instituted … [Interjections.] … if hon Ministers have to admit at question time in this House that only 4 prosecutions have taken place since 1984 after more than 1200 complaints have actually been received?

The hon the Deputy Minister says that a perception has arisen that instructions have been given not to prosecute. He is trying to imply by this that there has been no such instruction. Am I interpreting the hon the Deputy Minister correctly? That is what he said recently in a television programme. The hon the Deputy Minister is silent. I put this again: He said it was a perception, it was not a fact. Surely that is not true. That cat has long since been let out of the bag. [Interjections.]

It was the Attorney-General of the Transvaal himself who said in September of 1986 that of some considerable time no prosecutions had been instituted in terms of the Group Areas Act. The police no longer report offences, he stated, and a police officer confirmed that the police no longer instituted prosecutions themselves. “Nobody wants to prosecute any longer,” the officer concerned declared. A Johannesburg afternoon newspaper reported at the same time that according to informed sources senior prosecutors and the attorneys-general had been officially instructed some considerable time before to discontinue instituting prosecutions. Is that a perception and not a fact?

What about the evidence of the police officer that they have more than 6 000 complaints on their hands whereas there are only 6 persons in the group areas division to try to deal with them? If that is a perception and not a fact, why does the Government itself, according to the publication The Dismantling of Apartheid, published by the Bureau for Information, broadcast it to the world that—I quote:

Then we are not dealing with perceptions but certainly with facts.

This Government has been stripped of all political credibility. They have already decided that the Group Areas Act is to be phased out and it is unforgiveable that police officers, who should be looked up to for the maintenance of law and order, should be used to do the Government’s dirty work. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to confine myself to that portion of the hon member for Ermelo’s motion in which he refers to the Government’s hesitant attitude in implementing the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act.

The hon member for Overvaal, who is the Official Opposition’s chief propagandist, says we are hypocritical. The NP is hypocritical, because the Official Opposition in Boksburg is merely implementing NP policy. Just the other day the hon member for Barberton asked what precisely the NP’s policy on separate amenities was.

I am now going to give a practical illustration of the differences between the NP and the Official Opposition, and perhaps there is someone else in their ranks who will understand it.

A public facility, for example the Cango Caves, cannot be duplicated, and the NP’s standpoint is that this should be open to all population groups. A holiday resort on the banks of the Vaal River can be duplicated, with equal facilities for people of colour, facilities erected with “White” money because the Black people simply do not earn enough to pay sufficient tax for all the facilities they need. [Interjections.] They are therefore erected with “White” money, and the policy is implemented discreetly and with a sense of human dignity.

My question to the Official Opposition’s chief propagandist—I wonder whether he has the guts to reply—is whether the Official Opposition would close down the Cango Caves if the CP came to power. I am saying that the chief propagandist of the namby-pamby (papbroek) party does not have the guts to say what his party’s policy on this issue is. [Interjections.] That is precisely the difference between the NP and the Official Opposition as far as this is concerned. According to the Official Opposition people of colour must be satisfied with inferior facilities.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to say that another hon member does not have the guts to do something?

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am saying that the chief propagandist of the namby-pamby party does not have the guts to state his party’s views on this issue.

His party says that people of colour must be satisfied with inferior facilities and that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act must be implemented in a humiliating fashion. [Interjections.] No wonder the CP intellectual, Prof Carel Boshoff, says that the CP’s partition will bring only revolution and poverty. What is he saying these days? The CP’s policy of partition is also immoral. There are no moral grounds for that policy. The statement I am making is that the CP’s propaganda is immoral, because just listen carefully to the CP’s propaganda about “White” money. The party’s Programme of Principles and Policy which a certain Mr Fanie Jacobs—I suspect this is the hon member for Losberg—helped draw up, states that every population group should handle its own taxes, budgets and financing. This is to be found on page 10, section 7.1(b), of the Programme of Principles and Policy. This has been the case ever since the establishment of the party in 1982.

In 1985 Mr Koos Kemp, on behalf of the party’s information committee, said that White taxpayers’ money should only be controlled by the Whites, and he even ventures to say: “Dit is ’n geval van elke groep se persoonlike algemene verkoopbelasting en maatskappybelasting moet vir hulself aangewend word.” There is no doubt about that. “White” money is “White” money.

I have here a very ugly red pamphlet which is being distributed and in which it is stated how little tax the Black people pay. It was compiled and published by a certain W A Theron of Pretoria in 1987. I also have here another ugly Official Opposition pamphlet distributed by a certain B Swart of Bloemfontein. The pamphlet, on which a small White man is depicted with a large Black man hanging onto his neck, states: “Nee! Ons weier om ’n abbavolk te wees.” They are not prepared to carry the burden of Black people’s facilities. The hon the deputy leader of the Official Opposition …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should just like to know what aspect of the draft resolution the hon member for Sasolburg is speaking about now. [Interjections.]

Order! I am listening to the hon member for Sasolburg. For the moment he may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am saying that facilities for people of colour in this country which can be duplicated, should be duplicated, even if this is done with “White” money. At the beginning of the municipal election campaign in 1988 the deputy leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, said on behalf of the namby-pamby party that the days of “pasella wêna” would be over when the CP came to power.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order to refer to the deputy leader of the CP as Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg instead of the hon member for Lichtenburg? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am quoting from a newspaper report. I also have here one of the Official Opposition’s official information documents in which the CP’s policy in regard to local authorities is spelt out. It was compiled under the auspices of Mr Pikkie Coetzee, the hon member for Middelburg. From this it is apparent, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the CP advocates that each population group should pay its own local authority’s taxes. They say the Whites should pay for their own separate facilities, and the other groups should also pay for their own facilities in their own areas. They say so completely without qualification.

In the same election they distributed a pamphlet in which it was stated: “Wit geld is Wit geld”. It is true that the same terminology is not used, but there is no doubt about the intention. It was compiled by Mr J H van der Merwe. I take it it was the hon member for Overvaal. [Interjections.]

Immediately afterwards, when he had been driven into a corner, the hon the leader of the namby-pamby party revealed that his party’s propaganda throughout the years had been a lie. [Interjections.] He admitted that it was a lie. He said that in future “White” money would also, in terms of CP policy, be employed for Black development. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that the right-wing radical party is an immoral party. [Interjections.]

What do the voters say? Every CP voter in this country, when one walks into his house, says that the NP is giving everything to the Blacks. The hon member for Overvaal’s propaganda has worked. “White” money is “White” money. Amongst their supporters there is no doubt about that. The money may not be used for Black development. And here the hon the leader of the CP came along and said that this was all a lie. Today the voters are saying that it is no use voting for the CP because they either lie to one or are too weak-kneed (papbroekig) to implement their policy in practice. After all, say the voters, they do not keep their election promises. [Interjections.]

What does the NP say about this? [Interjections.] The NP says that group rights would specifically be destroyed if, as that namby-pamby party wants, they were implemented in a humiliating and discriminatory fashion. The preservation of group rights for Whites depends on whether their implementation …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it your ruling that one hon member may continually refer to another hon member’s party in the way in which the hon member for Sasolburg is now doing by continually using the words “namby-pamby party”? This could only lead to our doing the same thing.

Order! I shall give a ruling on this at the end of the hon member for Sasolburg’s speech.

And meanwhile he continues to do so! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon chief propagandist of the Official Opposition must not take offence at my saying that they are too weak-kneed (papbroekig) to implement their own policy in practice. He says the CP is merely hiding behind the NP’s laws. [Interjections.] That is what they are doing in Boksburg. None of the other CP towns is prepared to implement CP policy in any shape or form. [Interjections.] The hon member must therefore not take offence when I say that his party is a namby-pamby party. [Interjections.]

I am saying that the preservation of group rights for Whites depends upon whether their implementation is perceived as being fair, dignified and just by people of colour and whether this is how they are actually experienced. It is the NP’s duty, under its chief leader, the hon the Minister of National Education, to place under scrutiny the three remaining Acts regarded by people of colour as discriminatory, i e the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act, so that the Whites in South Africa can know that their own group rights are based on justice and that there are no longer any legal provisions preventing the possibility of ensuring real long-term peace in South Africa.

Order! I stand by my ruling on the words “politieke misdadigheid”, which were used by the hon member for Potgietersrus.

The hon member for Sasolburg also said that the hon member for Overvaal did not have the guts. There is a Speaker’s ruling that this is out of order and may not be used. The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members frequently make use of expressions and phrases in this House which have an offensive connotation. Hon members must stop doing that.

Words such as “papbroek”.

Order! Yes, amongst others the word “papbroek” which has perse been declared to be unparliamentary by Mr Speaker. It is not permissible to link this word to a party in an effort to evade the issue. The object of debate in this House is to maintain the standard of such debate at a very high level. We must not descend to a level of discussion that is not worthy of us. Hon members must try to avoid expressions which border on the unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the comment made by the hon member for Green Point in dissociating ourselves from the motion before the House today by the hon member for Ermelo. Before I get on with that I must say in all honesty that I believe that there is a great deal of truth in the accusations levelled by the CP against the NP that the confusion and the contradictions around the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act are largely of the Government’s own making. There is no doubt about that. Those two Acts are creatures of the Government. They have been on the Statute Book since 1950 as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned and 1953 as far as the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is concerned. It is no good the Government trying to escape the consequences of leaving those two abysmal pieces of legislation on the Statute Book all those years.

I want to come to the hon member’s motion. At the outset I want to say that I find his motion a sad reflection on his confidence in the White population group’s ability to retain its own identity and to ensure its own community life, unless it is bolstered up by laws to prevent free association. That is exactly what his motion entails.

Let us take the US as a prime example of the melting pot of nations, with its population of over 230 million people, diluted over the years by fresh waves of immigration from Europe, Africa, Ireland, Puerto Rico, Far East, Mexico and, most recently, from Vietnam and Cambodia. These people encompass all religions—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist. They encompass all colours—White, Black, Yellow.

Every year down 5th Avenue, New York, different national days are celebrated, gathering together people from the various countries of origin, demonstrating that even unto the fifth generation, community and language ties remain strong despite the common Americanism that is also proudly displayed on those occasions.

The point I am trying to make is that none of these communities has found a need for the US Government to take steps to ensure the continued existence of their community life, or has requested legislation to this effect to be enacted. [Interjections.] Actually exactly the opposite has happened. Such legislation is in fact invalid. Any attempts to prevent free association are invalid in the US. Yet every community, like the White population group here, is a minority in relation to the whole.

The hon member for Ermelo wants the Government to apply two of South Africa’s most racist laws more stringently to ensure a community life of its own for the Whites—that is the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act.

The Group Areas Act of 1950 has in fact done nothing to ensure the community life of the White population.

What it has done is to destroy the community life of the Coloured and Indian people, as exemplified by the sad stories of District Six in Cape Town and of Pageview and Sophiatown in Johannesburg. The Group Areas Act has resulted in immense human suffering and financial loss for all those Coloured and Indian people who have been displaced by the Group Areas Act.

In the debate on the drastic amending Bill, which has now thankfully being withdrawn as a result of the recommendations of the President’s Council, I pointed out that the people on the receiving side of the Group Areas Act and its drastic proclamations were Indian and Coloured, especially Coloured people where residential areas were concerned, and Indian people where business interests were affected.

I want to refresh the hon member for Ermelo’s memory. Or the families resettled by the Group Areas Act between 1950 and 1984, 98,08% were Coloured and Indian families. Of those presently under threat of removal, 95,98% are Coloured and Indian families. Of people removed from business premises, 98,05% were Coloured and Indian people. Did the hon member for Ermelo object when the entire community life of the Coloured population of District Six, something like 40 000 people, was destroyed, leaving a desolate hillside with a couple of churches and a mosque? Did the hon member spare a thought for the vibrant mixed community in Sophiatown when it was forcibly removed and was replaced by the White suburb, ironically named Triomf? Was the hon member troubled at all when the Indians at Pageview and Mayfair were dispossessed of their houses, businesses and schools and moved 16 to 20 miles out of town to Lenasia? Or when the Indians at Rustenburg lost their business rights to trade in the town, given to them by none other than Paul Kruger at the turn of the century, in recognition of and gratitude for the part which had been played by the Indian traders in helping the Afrikaner farmers who had been so devastated by the rinderpest at that time?

What of the lawlessness mentioned in the hon member’s motion? Did the hon member utter one word of reprimand to the White residents of Mayfair who contributed so much to peaceful race relations in that suburb when they hung up their symbol of good neighbourliness with the hangman’s noose? Does the hon member have no idea of the stigma that such disgusting behaviour brings on South Africa among civilised people all over the world? Does it not occur to the hon member that his motion epitomises the racism that has made our country the pariah of the world?

I welcome the Government’s directive about the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act—that breaches thereof are now to be considered on the same basis as traffic offences and that no arrests should take place. This means one thing. It means that this stupid law is eventually going to disappear altogether through disuse, just as the law against adultery, which remained on our Statute Book long after it had ceased to be enforced, finally came off the Statute Book simply through disuse.

If the Government does not have the guts to scrap those laws, which we on these benches believe they should do, then let them disappear peacefully through disuse.

As for the CP actions in Boksburg, Carletonville and other places where they have won local government elections, I have no doubt whatever that the economic effects of consumer boycotts on shopkeepers and the relocation of industrial and commercial enterprises as a result of the reimposition by those councils of those insulting “Whites Only” notices and other petty apartheid by-laws, will soon bring the local White population to its senses. It will discover, contrary to Dr Verwoerd’s prediction so many years ago, that it is not preferable to be poor and White rather than rich and mixed. I wonder how many hon members in this House remember that prediction. I know my hon leader does.

Finally as regards the reference to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, the third Act in need of attention according to the hon member for Ermelo, he must surely, in all honesty, concede that it will not help one jot to preserve White community life by uprooting the squatters whose so-called lawlessness and homeless plight is the direct result of four decades of refusal by the Government—of which the CP was a part until 1981—to accept the inevitability of the permanent urbanisation of Black people due to the impoverishment of the Black rural areas, and the failure to provide land and to build houses for the increasing Black population in the urban areas. So now there is a shortfall of something like 800 000 houses in the urban areas for Blacks and that that is the major problem which should be tackled in South Africa, as well as the lack of any amenities which can facilitate the creation of decent community life among Blacks.

I believe it is the solution to that particular problem which should be exercising the nimble mind of the hon member for Ermelo and not the stricter application of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act, and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. That is the way in which a peaceful future lies for South Africa, not the way the hon members of the CP have presented their case this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parow has referred to the standpoint I adopted whilst lecturing at the University of Potchefstroom. I should like to tell him that there was never any doubt about my standpoint … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

There was never any doubt about my standpoint in regard to a mixed university! At the time I stated my views as clearly as I have done today, and that is that I am opposed to it.

I want to ask the hon member what his standpoint is in regard to the apartheid sign in Kleinmond. Has he written to the town clerk stating that he adopted a standpoint in Parliament opposing apartheid signs and was therefore being honest enough to request the town clerk to remove that apartheid sign? [Interjections.] No, Mr Chairman, he would not do so, because politically he is not honest enough to do so. He would like to hide behind that apartheid sign in Kleinmond, however, because he can enjoy the privilege of swimming at a White beach, [interjections.] That is the standpoint and the political hypocrisy of that side of the House!

The hon member for Sasolburg asked what the difference was between the NP and the CP. I want to tell him what the difference is. We do not want people of colour swimming in Boksburg Lake and they do not want Rev Hendrickse to swim in the sea! [Interjections.]

Here we are dealing with a motion moved by the honmemberforErmelo.Inthismotiona number of charges are made. Our first charge against the NP Government involves the increasing lawlessness in the country.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask you which of the hon NP speakers have replied to these charges of increasing lawlessness. They cannot, because they have no argument on which to base such a reply, and “silence is consent”. Not one of them has said that there is no lawlessness in South Africa.

Our second charge against the NP Government, in terms of this motion, relates to its failure to ensure a community fife of its own for the Whites. [Interjection.] I now want to ask which of the hon NP speakers, including that hon member making the interjection, have answered this charge in which we state that the Government has failed to ensure a community life of its own for the Whites. [Interjections.] Not one! They could not do so, because they could not bring themselves to be even more hypocritical—about this too—than they have been on other occasions!

There is a third charge. We charge the NP with adopting a hesitant attitude in regard to the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. Let me ask which NP speaker has thus far had the courage to stand up and say that he is in favour of the implementation of the Group Areas Act.

Let met rather tell hon members what the NP’s standpoint is. I now want to invite the hon the Deputy Minister to reply to me on this issue. If he does not give me and the CP an apposite reply in simple, understandable Afrikaans, we are going to tell the electorate that the NP has not relinquished this standpoint. In a recent television programme the hon the Deputy Minister said:

Be careful, you are now walking into an ugly trap!

I quote further:

Overnight!

Is it the hon the Deputy Minister’s standpoint that the Group Areas Act should be abolished or not? Is it his standpoint that it should not be abolished overnight but, in fact, at a later stage?

In conjunction with that, let me also quote this standpoint of another hon Minister of the NP Government. On 9 March 1987 the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:

If these two standpoints, ie that of the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and that of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are read in conjunction, both are telling us that for the time being they are still interested in maintaining a community life for the Whites, but only for the time being, because they cannot abolish the Acts overnight, since this would turn the voters against them.

With this motion we wish to obtain an apposite reply. Whilst I am on this subject, we made some quick calculations. There are slightly more than 30% of the NP members present at the debate on this motion. If that is an indication of the extent of the NP’s regard for own community life, we are going to convey that to the electorate. I am now placing it on record that fewer than a third of the NP members are present and that they are not taking any notice of a community life of their own for the Whites. They are not prepared to state their views when they have an opportunity to do so. We are going to tell the electorate that the NP is not interested in an own community life. We also see that there are only three hon Ministers on that side of the House during the discussion of this motion.

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

I do not have time to answer any questions now. I should like to say a few things …

Order!

… about this very thin line between the executive and legislative authorities in a democracy.

Where is your leader?

In any civilised society or democracy this thin democratic line is maintained. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

I do not have any time to reply to questions. [Interjections.] What do we have in regard to the motion under discussion? We have a government that wants to call itself a government, a government of South Africa which, in the past, has emphasised its reliance on honesty, but which is now not prepared to say it is abolishing certain Acts or implementing them and not maintaining them. Surely it is nothing short of a public disgrace that this Government of ours is not prepared to take an honest approach and adopt one of these two courses.

Let me specifically elucidate this with reference to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. On several occasions last year we debated the question of squatting. The hon the Deputy Minister has been in parts of my constituency where he could see, with his own eyes, how conditions relating to squatting have deteriorated. In June 1987 the number of squatters in South Africa totalled 1 310 000. The present estimate is that there are between 3 million and 5 million illegal squatters. The Urban Foundation even speaks of 7 million. I specifically want to know from the hon the Minister how many squatters we now have in South Africa.

He does not know.

If he can tell us, I want to ask him whether he intends to implement the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act and do something about these illegal squatters.

Must all of them be brought to court?

Here we have an interjection in which we are being asked whether all of them should be brought to court. Must they all be brought to court? That is the problem. Recently the hon the Minister of Justice announced that he would appoint a special legal team to investigate cases of corruption on the strength of the Harms Commission Report, but the hon the Minister does not want to do so for an own community life for the Whites. That shows us where the hon the Deputy Minister stands as far as an own community life for the Whites is concerned. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to permit this dialogue. The hon member may proceed.

If they are serious about Act 104 of 1988, this new amending Act prohibiting squatting in conjunction with farming, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must also tell us whether they are going to implement it or not. If they are going to do so, the hon the Deputy Minister must tell us where he stands with regard to the policy of forced removals, because the two cannot coexist. The hon the Deputy Minister cannot sit on two constitutional stools. The hon the Deputy Minister cannot, on the one hand, want to remove these squatters in terms of last year’s legislation whilst, on the other, saying that he maintains a policy of no forced removals. A choice must therefore be made, and one can, after all, expect a government to take the lead in our social context. This is what we expect of the Government, and we expect answers to our questions. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall address the two pertinent questions which the hon member for Losberg put regarding our standpoints on lawlessness as is alleged in the draft resolution and the question of the maintenance of one’s own community life.

I first want to refer to a specific comment which the hon member for Bethal made. He expressed his concern about the fact that television cameras were focused on a certain accused person in the dock and asked why it did not happen in other cases that questions were asked as to what the accused’s political connections were.

We have to concede that this specific offence was one of the most exceptional offences in the history of South Africa and consequently the specific focus in that case.

What about the necklacings?

A clergyman once gave his induction sermon before a congregation and the people were most impressed and congratulated him.

It wasn’t you.

I have received some congratulations in my time!

Then you were still a CP!

When he gave the same sermon the following Sunday, the people were somewhat surprised but they left him to it. When he preached on Ruth for the third Sunday, because that was the subject of his sermon, they decided to send a delegation to him to tell him to change his theme. They sent an elder. The clergyman then said to the elder: “Brother, I want to ask you just two questions. Who was Chilion and who was Mahlon?” To this the elder replied: “Goodness, I don’t know.” The clergyman answered him and said: “Brother, I shall preach on Ruth again next Sunday.” [Interjections.]

In this case the CP reminds me of this elder. In spite of the fact that these matters concerning the Group Areas Act have been debated ad nauseam in this Place and also in the Other Place—I myself am now making my eighth successive speech on group areas and related matters—the CP displays a total lack of understanding of the essential problematic aspects regarding the Group Areas Act and its application.

This ignorance also emerges from the wording of this draft resolution and this also brings me to the question which the hon member for Losberg put to me. It is implied in this draft resolution that there is increasing lawlessness in the country. There is actually a suggestion that there is no longer anything like a residential area for a specific population group in South Africa but that is patently untrue. As hon members of the CP are sitting there and as we are sitting here, surely we live in established residential areas of our own. Surely that is the general pattern in South Africa. [Interjections.] To come and suggest now, however, according to the wording of this draft resolution, that there is no longer a residential area of its own for a population group in South Africa is just not true.

It is true that metropolitan areas are experiencing problems as regards the application of the Group Areas Act. That is true but there are certain factors at work which cause these problems. [Interjections.] If the CP were to come to power tomorrow, those problems would not disappear. One of the fundamental problems underlying this question is the oversupply of housing in White ranks and the undersupply of housing in the ranks of other population groups. [Interjections.] This will not disappear.

I also want to remark that the CP in a certain respect—I do not want to generalise—also aggravate the situation with their propaganda because they dish up certain cases which are not contraventions of the Group Areas Act as if they were contraventions in terms of it. [Interjections.]

Such as?

On the West Rand 84 cases were reported in 1988 in connection with alleged contraventions of the Group Areas Act. The police found 51 of those cases to be unfounded whereas the vast majority were related to presumed contraventions of section 26.

That is not true!

Section 26 is that provision which authorises a worker to live in a specific area without a permit if he is legally in somebody’s service. In terms of that section numerous supporters of the CP keep Black people in their back yards causing a great nuisance to other people. [Interjections.]

I want to revert to the argument which I put forward a while ago. If the CP were to come to power, the cause of the problem would not disappear. The CP must tell us this afternoon how they intend handling a situation like Hillbrow. We have two conflicting standpoints on Hillbrow. The CP’s chief information officer, the hon member for Overvaal, said by means of an interjection when this subject was being debated here that the CP admitted that they could not make Hillbrow White. The hon member for Ermelo is on record as saying at the congress at Amanzimtoti last year, however, that the CP was committed to making these mixed residential areas White again. The CP must tell us how they intend handling Hillbrow.

The NP is addressing this problem. That is why it cannot be said that there is any question of increasing lawlessness. The NP is addressing the problem in two ways. One of them is to issue a permit and countless permits are certainly issued. [Interjections.] Now I should like to ask the CP, if they were to come to power, whether they would issue permits in certain cases in terms of the existing Group Areas Act. Are they going to issue a permit in Hillbrow? If they do so, surely they are doing exactly what the NP is doing and then they are just as lawless as the NP. [Interjections.]

The NP is dealing with this problem timeously but the hon member for Ermelo says in his draft resolution that we are not taking timeous or adequate steps. The object of the Free Settlement Areas Act is precisely to bring about legal certainty in de facto mixed residential areas. Will the CP do this? I do not believe they will. [Interjections.] Then only one possibility remains and that is to remove people physically from Hillbrow. That is the only method which remains and that is why the CP must tell us this afternoon whether they intend exercising that option. [Interjections.]

I think it is high time—and the chief leader of the NP showed the way—that, in the light of this problem, some new thinking be done on the way in which White residential areas or residential area of their own for all population groups can be maintained effectively on a non-discriminatory basis. That is the challenge which is facing the NP. At this stage it looks as if housing will play a decisive role in the long term. If that is the answer or part of the answer, it should be addressed seriously.

I offer this comment in conclusion. The NP is one of the majority parties which is governing the country. It has to account for its actions. Let the CP tell us forcefully, like the hon member for Bethal, that they intend putting out people left and right and that they intend taking firm action here. The CP is not Hable for the consequences of that statement or claim but the NP has to calculate its consequences. It has to ask what effect this action will have on possible international sanctions against South Africa. It has to ask what effect it will have on the search for a constitutional solution for our country. At the end of the day it is all very well to sit entrenched in residential areas of our own, and I prefer that, but if we do not find a satisfactory constitutional solution, we have lost out in any case. The NP always has to take this into account in its standpoints and that is why the NP will continue to search for a solution regarding these problem areas. It will do this responsibly and not permit itself to be chivvied but will not leave its own people in the lurch in the process either. I do not support the hon member for Ermelo’s draft resolution.

Mr Chairman, as one was listening to the speeches of the CP an astonishing note of desperation was clearly discernible. They are on the defensive, and it is clear that Boksburg placed them in this position. Boksburg has wounded the CP. I was interested to see how a wounded CP was going to react—whether they would react like a wounded buffalo or like a wounded bull, because one would have expected to see them charging the NP and all their other critics. What did happen was that the CP remained on the defensive, behaving like a confused little buck walking around in circles to see whether it could not recover. [Interjections.] There was no indication of any blood-enraged charge. The CP have remained on the defensive this entire session.

If one considers the NP, I ask myself who was speaking today. What NP was speaking today? Was it the NP of Mr P W Botha or was it the NP of Mr F W de Klerk?

Who is your leader? Zac or Dennis?

Where do the hon members who spoke today fit in? The NP of the hon the State President clings to the group definition and the Race Classification Act, while the NP of the leader-in-chief questions all three Acts. They say there must be a new group. [Interjections.] They say there must be free association. Who are we dealing with? [Interjections.]

Order!

If one looks at the Sunday papers it is clear the hon the State President has become an albatross around the necks of the NP. They do not want him anymore.

Who are you going to follow?

The NP of the new leader-in-chief has shot past the hon the State President and he has become an embarrassment to the new NP. [Interjections.] He has caused …

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to tell us who his leader is? [Interjections.]

If the hon member thinks that I am going to help him out of his dilemma by answering that question, he is wrong. [Interjections.] He must tell me who is now laying down policy in the NP. Is it the hon the State President or is it the leader-in-chief?

The leader-in-chief.

Why does the hon the State President snub the leader-in-chief of the NP? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should just like to know which portion of the motion the hon member is dealing with now.

I am listening to the hon member for Durban Central. He is digressing a little from the motion. The hon member must come back to the motion.

Mr Chairman, a note of desperation has also crept in as far as group areas are concerned, quite clearly from the CP. If we look at what has happened in Windhoek, where the Group Areas Act does not apply, all these fears and exaggerations of being swamped and overrun have not been proven true. These things have not occurred in Windhoek or in Harare. [Interjections.]

The hon members of the CP are now beyond the stage where they will manage to instil fear in the overwhelming majority of Whites about the Group Areas Act. If the NP, depending on whether the new leader determines the policy, does open up the debate on the Group Areas Act—on new, voluntary association—they will bypass the CP because the developments in Namibia and inside South Africa will show that, whilst Whites prefer to live in their own areas, research has shown that once they find themselves in a mixed area, they accommodate that quite easily and continue to live in harmony. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by considering the motion moved by the hon member for Ermelo. It is very interesting. The hon member made certain statements in his draft resolution and then he said that he was making these allegations on the basis of the alleged non-application of three Acts: The Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Prevention of Unlawful Squatting Act. Four or five speakers on their side participated here this afternoon and not one discussed the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. One of them referred in passing to the Prevention of Unlawful Squatting Act but the remainder of the speeches dealt with nothing but group areas.

This is a very interesting point because it demonstrates that these hon members themselves have an Achilles heel in respect of this subject. It is true. There is something I must unfortunately concede—and I do not readily do that—to the hon member for Durban Central. The hon member accused us, or made allegations in respect of the Government, of the non-implementation of these Acts, while they themselves have problems in respect of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. They know it, because just look at the way they have changed course on this matter in their own councils during the past few months after the municipal elections.

They veered to the left.

They veered to the left—that is quite correct—and so did their leader. Let us consider for a while the following councils which openly changed course in public— that we know about—in respect of their standpoint on this matter, in that they adopted one standpoint only to change it a few weeks later. The Potchefstroom town council …

That is not correct!

It is correct! I understand it even happened under pressure from a CP member of Parliament. That town council decided to throw facilities on that campus open again, facilities which at one stage they had wanted to reserve.

That is not correct!

In this way there was a definite change in direction in the case of Krugersdorp with the congress of the Medical Association there. There was a change in direction in the case of Welkom, of Odendaalsrus and Brakpan. There are scores of other … [Interjections] … in respect of club rugby—that tournament which took place there. [Interjections.] Let us take another example. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow hon members to participate continuously in the debate while the hon the Deputy Minister is speaking.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: These hon members are making interjections because the hon the Deputy Minister is continually uttering untruths. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The reason for all the shouting on that side of the House is very clearly because those hon members know I am referring to facts. [Interjections.] Let us see what a change of direction there was in the case of Pietersburg. One of the Official Opposition candidates who stood in the municipal election there and was subsequently elected, kicked up a great fuss in the election campaign about a R500 000 claim he was going to lodge against the NP. He proceeded with the claim, which he withdrew in the end, after offering to pay costs, simply because he was not prepared to defend the policy of that party in court. [Interjections.] Those are the facts.

Also in the case of Pietersburg—the hon member for Pietersburg is here—a declaration appeared containing 360 signatures from the owners of businesses in that town. I heard on good authority that some of those signatures were those of CP supporters. Supporters of that party, who signed the declaration with 360 signatures, said in other words that they were not prepared to move back to petty apartheid in the case of Pietersburg, and they opposed the efforts of the town council in this connection. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the hon member obviously has a problem with his supporters in Pietersburg. It seems to me he is conceding that point. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal who is talking at the moment has his own problems with subjects of this kind. After all he conceded as much in that interview with Mr Norman West. [Interjections.] Four years ago he said that he knew the Group Areas Act could not be applied in Hillbrow. [Interjections.]

Order! From now on the hon member for Overvaal will not make any interjections.

The fact of the matter is that hon members have problems in respect of this specific aspect, and the fact that they did not discuss it this afternoon, despite having described it in a motion, is a clear sign of their difficulty on this point.

I should like to reply to the other parts of the arguments that we used. First of all let me come to the hon member for Ermelo and say that it was interesting to observe how that hon member was as bold as could be this afternoon, but when he participated in the debate in the Chamber about a week or two ago, it was not at all the same person who spoke this afternoon. Yet it is interesting to hear the hon member speaking here. If he thinks it is important for him to be forceful here, he is, but when he has to do so in the presence of people to whom he should be forceful, he is suddenly scaled down to his real value.

The hon member spoke about the process surrounding the Group Areas Amendment Bill, which was before Parliament. I just want to ask the hon member, if he makes such a fuss about it, why he did not help us. That hon member and his party did not support this Bill on the joint committee or in Parhament. [Interjections.] I think the hon member should rather keep quiet, because it was an attempt to achieve more effective implementation of that legislation. The hon member and his party did not support it, that is why they are on record as not standing for a more effective implementation of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

The hon member spoke about the Free Settlement Areas Act, which came into operation on 1 March, and asked how it was going to work and how the support is going to be determined in respect of the declaration of whether an area is open or otherwise. But the hon member knows as well as I do what is stated in the legislation. There is a prescribed procedure that has to be followed. The legislation is very clear on the point that every municipal voter in that urban area must receive written notice from the local authority. Then he receives an opportunity to state his case before the Free Settlement Board by way of the examination; the Free Settlement Board in turns receives an opportunity to form its opinion, after having listened to everyone. It then makes its report to the Government in this respect. Consequently I do not know what the hon member’s problem is, but if he would only take a look at the legislation, he would know.

The hon member then went on to make the interesting observation which I should like to single out for the purposes of the record. He said he was convinced that people throughout the world, and also in South Africa, wanted to live separately. The intention of his strange argument was that we did not in fact need legislation. Why should we, if people naturally want to live on their own? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Green Point, to whom I shall refer next, said the Government had the habit of not acting in an initiating way in respect of reform, but waited for things to happen and then followed after. I think that is why this party is in power and not that party, because this party is capable of leading reform in a way in which the South African population can go along with, and not in a reckless way as that party does. [Interjections.] They are not in fact initiating reform, but wish to initiate surrender. [Interjections.] That is their object.

The hon member for Bethal referred to Windmill Park. I do not have time now to go into all the details, but I do want to refer to a few of the Windmill Park details because I think they are important.

I take it the hon member has never been there, and will therefore not know that Windmill Park is a residential area which forms part of the municipal jurisdiction of Boksburg. It is situated—so I surmise—quite a number of kilometres from the centre of Boksburg. On the one hand it is completely separated from the nearest other White residential area by two kilometres. It is a residential area developed by a developer. What has happened now, after that township has been in existence for years, is that there is no demand for plots or for housing in that area. The result is that out of a total residential area of 270 plots there are only 42 houses today. A third of those are standing empty, a third are occupied by Whites and a third by Indians. That is the situation one has to look at.

I want to place this case on record because the hon member is implying that it is a case of exceptionally unusual significance. I think it is important to take these facts into consideration when one studies Windmill Park in its true context.

The hon member went on to make another point about creating an atmosphere, and he then referred to the unfortunate incident which culminated in the trial in Pretoria. I do not think now is the time to discuss this, but I just want to say that if the hon member wants to talk about stirring up emotions, I wonder who is contributing to that. If the hon member considers himself and his party, then I think it is important that we say to them that they, too, should watch what they say when they talk about tigers being unleashed and other kinds of emotional statements.

The hon member also mentioned the SAP, that allegedly would not take action, and he then referred to the circular sent out by the Commissioner of Police. I have a statement here from the Ministry of Law and Order pointing out that arrests relating to crimes of a non-serious nature are in fact excessive. The hon member is an advocate; surely he ought to know that. It is general practice in the action taken by police that they do not make a summary arrest in the case of light offences. All this circular is in fact saying is that when one is dealing with an offence of this nature and it does not constitute a crime in the serious sense of the word one can carry it out by quite simply bringing the person to court by means of a summons. It is stated in the circular.

It means one should close one’s eyes and not see it.

Surely that is absurd. Procedures are in fact prescribed that the police officers have to follow in order to take a person’s particulars so that he can subsequently appear before the court by way of a summons.

He must not initiate it.

Order! The hon member for Bethal cannot continue in that way.

Because of the time factor I am only going to give the hon member for Potgietersrus a reply on one matter. He discussed the matter of prosecutions. I want to refer the hon member to the statement which the hon the Minister of Justice made on 15 February. I do not have time now to quote the full statement, but I am certain the hon member is aware of this. The hon member should take a look at the statement made by the hon the Minister, if he has not read it yet. The point is that the hon member kicked up a big fuss about prosecutions, but there is nothing stopping that hon member or his party from instituting private prosecutions. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister pointed this out. The hon the Minister dealt with the entire question of judicial prosecutions by the Attorney-General. After he had dealt with this he said that if a member of the public felt aggrieved at the fact that the Attorney-General did not institute a prosecution he was at liberty to institute a private prosecution.

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

No, I do not have the time.

Up to the present, according to the information, neither that party nor its members have contributed to instituting private prosecutions.

That is not true either.

That was the statement made by the hon the Minister of Justice, and if the hon member has proof to the contrary, I should like to hear about it. It is unfortunate accusations the hon members are making by saying that they have suddenly discovered the wheel now and are now coming forward with prosecutions in this way.

I must reply to the hon member for Losberg on the question of the allegation he made in respect of what I said on a television programme. I also made that statement in Parliament. It was not a statement I suddenly made on television, ie that the Group Areas Act could not be abolished overnight. I said it in contrast with the argument, and also added that it should be rigidly applied. I also said it in reply to the kind of argument the hon member for Houghton advances when she says abolish the Act. I explained it by saying that neither one nor the other was attainable; to apply this then rigidly, as though one were wearing blinkers, was not possible or feasible. In the same way it is not feasible to abolish the Act overnight. I also said that in Parhament.

The hon member made the point in connection with squatting. Last week I was in his constituency again when I visited Weiler’s Farm. We are going ahead with that relocation. I should like to say this. The resettlement of those people is in the interests of the community. I want to tell that hon member and the hon member for Houghton that the community of Weiler’s Farm itself is not opposed to relocation, not at all, for in the one place they are occupying an area unlawfully and in the other place they can do so lawfully. The important factor is that at Orange Farm they can be accommodated on their own piece of land which they will be able to acquire. [Interjections.]

†They are in principle in favour of this. Last week I spoke to them myself.

*That is the point I want to make, and I should like to come back to the arguments on this matter. If we consider the totality, which we are dealing with, of community relations and community planning which is embedded in the three pieces of legislation that were mentioned here, it is true that today we are dealing primarily with changing circumstances which South Africa did not know 20 or 30 years ago. However if one considers the implementation or non-implementation of measures relating to this, one finds this primarily in the urban concentrations. The reasons are obvious, because it is to those concentrations that the flow of people is taking place today.

I want to tell the Official Opposition that I know their argument is going to be that we have abolished influx control. One of the problems we have today is that we did not implement orderly urbanisation earlier. I should like to say this to hon members. Every example in the Transvaal and in the other metropoles in which we are experiencing problems with squatting and nonorderly urbanisation today is the result of the fact that we did not identify land in time on which people could live better.

Two and a half years after the White Paper on Orderly Urbanisation was published we can look back at considerable positive successes because we are applying that policy and we shall continue to do so.

In fact in view we are of this continuing to identify land where urbanisation with informal housing can take place. The rate at which we are providing land speaks volumes for this objective.

What is important is that we are not going to succeed in our objective with laws alone. With laws alone we are not going to succeed in our objective of bringing about orderly community life in South Africa. This applies to influx control for which an approach of orderly urbanisation was substituted. This applies just as much to the Group Areas Act. With this I am not saying that the Act is going to be or must be abolished. I am merely saying that the problem is not going to be solved on the basis of laws alone.

We shall definitely have to consider the question of what the primary issue is, and that is one of housing. If we do not do what is necessary to ensure suitable housing by way of homes in one’s own community or by way of free settlement for every community in South Africa, we are not going to afford an answer to the problem concerned. Those hon members do not want to understand this. Somewhere along the way they will probably catch up, because in the process they have conceded a few points, as their hon leader admitted.

The point is that if we do not succeed in dealing with the housing need, we are not going to succeed in achieving community peace in South Africa in an orderly way. Relations and attitudes are not determined by laws. Improvement of relations by taking the needs of other people into consideration, and by means of courteous behaviour, are absolute prerequisites for orderly community life in South Africa. Meeting the needs of everyone is an important prerequisite for this.

It is not possible for the State to provide every person with a home, or even a roof over his head. Nor is it the responsibility of the State. The State has a responsibility to ensure that people may live lawfully in places so that it is made possible for them to acquire their own property, in that way upgrading and improving themselves.

Last week I went to see the development of the Black town at Daveyton where we were dealing with a squatter situation two years ago—the so-called Varkfontein squatters. [Interjections.] Hon members will remember that. Last week I went to see what was happening—a year after they were settled there. It is fantastic to see how those people have upgraded themselves in the meantime, within their own communities and without any problems. What is important, however, is that they were offered a valid refuge—a piece of land where they could accomplish these things.

The future of every South African will not be determined by stirring up attitudes of hate and hostility and through confrontation. This must be replaced by a desire to co-operate and to find mutually acceptable solutions. An ingenious approach is necessary to deal with such problems. I also want to emphasise that this is in fact what the Government is doing.

Great goodwill exists in all communities, and we find sufficient evidence of that every day. We must decide whether we want to co-operate to promote this goodwill or whether we want to drive people into the arms of the radicals— right-wing radicals through our emotional statements, which hon members unfortunately are sometimes guilty of making, or left-wing radicals by the kind of conduct for which they are now becoming known, for example in Boksburg. The majority of law-abiding citizens in South Africa—of all population groups—are prepared to support political leaders who want to promote reconciliation rather than stir up confrontation. That is why I should like to reject with the utmost conviction the draft resolution as moved by the hon member for Ermelo.

Mr Chairman, what the hon member for Losberg said was quite correct. We received no replies from the Government side. I really thought the hon the Deputy Minister would at least try to reply to all the statements. He, alas, gave no replies either. To tell the truth he adopted a course which, it seems to me, is becoming habitual to him.

When he was unable to reply to the direct questions I put to him, he came forward with something entirely different. Ostensibly I am not forceful enough to stand up in the Chamber of Parliament and make my statements there. I simply cannot believe that that hon Deputy Minister can say something of that nature. You see, Sir, that is how one twists and turns when one does not have the answers. I have not even participated in a single debate in the Chamber. So how could I be forceful? [Interjections.] How could I be forceful or otherwise? [Interjections.] All I can say is that that hon member is groping around in the dark. I was not even a speaker in any of those debates.

The question he himself had to answer was in fact a very easy one. Nevertheless he failed to do so. I asked him this question. When investigations are being carried out in terms of the Free Settlement Areas Act and a majority percentage has to be determined, what is he going to do in that case? Is he then, in spite of the finding to the effect that the majority of the people in a specific area do not want a free settlement area there, nevertheless going to declare the area in question to be such a free settlement area? What is he going to do about that? When such an investigation indicates that the area in question must remain a White area, I want to know from him what he is going to do with the Black people in that area. What is he going to do with the Coloureds there? Is he going to remove them? Is he going to remove them by force? What is he going to do with them? That is the simple question I put to him. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister is not replying to it at all. He is merely skirting past it. That I can understand of course. He has no answer. The reality is that we did not even have a single real attempt here on the part of anyone to reply to it. I think the hon member Dr Geldenhuys tried to say that there was no increase in lawlessness. All of us nevertheless know that there has in fact been an increase in lawlessness. Everyday when a person goes to live in a place unlawfully, it amounts to an increase in lawlessness. This is an ongoing process.

But surely there is no real increase in lawlessness!

The hon member is saying that there is no real increase in lawlessness. Hon members on the Government’s side do not even try to reply to our statements. Nevertheless I believe that my draft resolution in this sense was a very good one. There is a further aspect to which I want to refer.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that we did not ourselves react to contraventions of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. Of course one now has that specific circular dealing with the lodging of complaints in this connection. The hon the Deputy Minister said that was merely an ordinary circular. It was merely concerned with the implementation of the present situation. I now want to put a question to him. If that is the case, why send around a circular at all? That circular is in fact aimed at telling people they must not take action in terms of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act; they must keep their hands to themselves.

That is the point!

That is the whole point! That is the crux of the matter. We are in fact saying that it is apparent from this that separate amenities do form part of an own community life. That is nevertheless the way in which we live our own community lives from day to day. We do so by maintaining our separate amenities. To all the facets of this issue we received no replies from the Government’s side. The only thing that became clear from this was that this Government has finally decided that such a thing as the Group Areas Act must cease to exist. That Act is as good as dead.

They simply hope that they can get rid of it without the ordinary voter realising it. However we did not hear a word about it. On the contrary, while I was listening to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, it became clear to me that he was saying that there was nothing more they could do about the situation; they simply had to accept it. That is the end of the story, because they cannot allow any action to be taken in this connection, because it would focus attention on them in the eyes of the world.

Furthermore we were confronted with the statement that we would cause people to act in a violent way towards everyone. The hon member for Houghton also said that we only care for the Whites. That is not correct! We say that when the Whites are protected the other groups must also be protected. They must in fact be protected by the implementation of this Act! We look after them, but we have a need because we are of a minority.

Order! I regret to have to remind the hon member that his time has virtually expired.

Mr Chairman, in that case I move:

Agreed to.

Draft resolution withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to make a correction to today’s Order Paper. I am not the Minister of the Budget, I am the Acting Minister of the Budget.

Order! I introduced the hon the Minister as such, but attention will be given to this.

Hon members know from experience that the Main Appropriation is planned and drafted some time before it is tabled in this House. Unavoidably the unforeseeable results in insufficient or no provision being made for specific services in the Main Appropriation. In order to fund these services properly parliamentary authorisation must be obtained. This is the purpose of this Bill being submitted to hon members today for consideration.

†Hon members will take notice from the printed Additional Estimates for 1988-89 that we require an additional amount of R213 219 000 in order to enable the various departments of the Administration to fulfill their financial obligations until 31 March 1989. The Department of Education and Culture requires an additional amount of R123 050 000. The Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services needs R7 999 000 while the Department of Health Services and Welfare requires an additional amount of R15 329 000. An amount of R66 840 000 has been included under Vote: Improvement of Conditions of Service.

Although my colleagues will give full details regarding the additional amounts required by their respective departments, I would like to refer to the following aspects.

Department of Education and Culture

Since the introduction of the subsidy formula for the financing of education, this administration has found it difficult to make ends meet with the funds generated by the formula for the education of our children.

Numerous representations for relief have been presented to the relevant departments, but in the present financial climate, the Government has not been in a position to help us substantially. In order not to deprive our children of a decent education, we had to cut back on other expenditure so that such savings could be transferred to the Department of Education and Culture. Apart from such savings, I had to make use of section 7 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975 (Act No 66 of 1975) to approve that a further amount of R47 million from the State Revenue Fund be utilised in this financial year, to avoid an expected excess on the Education Vote. Unfortunately this means that we will run short on the Revenue Account: House of Representatives as we have in fact approved expenditure in excess of our available funds. We will, however, have to balance our books and the only way to do this will be for the Treasury (Administration: House of Representatives) to suspend an amount of R47 million on next year’s budget. I realise that this action will put us under tremendous pressure to balance our books in the 1989-90 financial year but we will just have to accept the fact that we cannot spend more money that appropriated by this House.

As pointed out, this Administration has found it extremely difficult—or even impossible—to stay within the limits of the funds generated by the formula, and subsequent overspendings have been inevitable. Notwithstanding genuine efforts to curtail our expenditure, sufficient savings could not be accomplished. The result is a request to this House to approve an additional R123 050 000 to cover expenditure up to 31 March 1989. Hon members will agree that we cannot keep on funding our education expenditure from the budgets of other departments within the Administration and I am therefore taking the initiative to request the Department of National Education, who administers the formula, to investigate the problems we are encountering in keeping our education budget within the Emits of the funds generated by the formula.

*Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services As regards the department of my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, the amount of R7 999 000 is needed principally for increased administrative expenditure, the installation of new telephone systems at three regional offices, the purchase of training equipment, the maintenance of external security services and the increased expenditure in respect of existing and new transport schemes resulting from the increase in the number of pupils.

I can assure hon members that my colleague succeeded exceedingly well in keeping the steadily increasing pressure on more services within reasonable bounds without sacrificing efficiency.

Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture

A nominal provision of only R100 is being requested for this Vote. However, it should be pointed out that there was overspending on specific programmes in this Vote, which could be funded by way of a a rearrangement of priorities in the departments. For example, an amount of R16 million is needed for payment to regional services councils for services rendered on behalf of this department on an agency basis.

Further shortfalls totalling approximately R12 million for expenditure in respect of flood damage, rented accommodation and the upliftment of rural areas was also financed from savings. Apart from this further savings were achieved which obviously had to help make good our shortfalls in the Department of Education and Culture. However, the provision of the nominal amount of R1 000 enables this House to discuss the relevant Vote.

†Department of Health Services and Welfare

The additional amount of R15 329 000 now required by the Department of Health Services and Welfare is somewhat misleading. An amount of approximately R60 million is required for firstly, the increase in social pension allowances as from 1 January 1989, namely R30 805 000 and secondly, funds for the taking over from the Cape Provincial Administration of day hospitals and clinics, namely R21 145 000.

This expenditure was partly financed from an amount of R36 621 000 which was suspended by the Treasury Department of Finance. This left a deficit of approximately R15 329 000 which now requires the approval of this House. I think we are all in agreement that sufficient funds for these services are absolutely essential.

*Improvement of Conditions of Service

One of the reasons for the big increase in this Administration’s Appropriation for 1988-89 is to be found in the increase in staff expenditure, for which an additional R66 840 000 must be voted. This may be ascribed to the improved remuneration which our officials have received with effect from 1 January 1989, and I am sure that hon members will agree with me that this expenditure is justified.

During the debate on the Part Appropriation I promised, in consequence of this improvement of conditions of service, to touch briefly today on the Ministers’ Council’s policy of “affirmative action”. Today I can say without hesitation and the Ministers’ Council can say with satisfaction that this policy of ours entails a better dispensation for our public servants. Today all our officials, irrespective of race or colour, compete with one another for promotion posts.

However, the dilemma which the Ministers’ Council is experiencing with this policy, is the availability of qualified Coloured officials for the respective top posts. I shall have more to say about this later. The Ministers’ Council has nevertheless succeeded, with the assistance of our Administration’s Director-General, in temporarily overcoming this shortcoming with a policy of upward mobility. This has resulted in the top qualified posts in our Administration being placed out of reach of officials from other State departments and our officials receiving preference as regards promotion.

Posts are only advertised when merit preferential lists have been exhausted or when specific specialised experience or qualifications are required for a specific post. Through this policy of upward mobility we are therefore endeavouring to fill top qualified posts with officials in our Administration and are only drawing officials from other Government departments in absolutely essential cases. In this way the Ministers’ Council is ensuring that an upward promotion reaction is taking place which only benefits the officials in our Administration. I am mentioning this for the information of the hon member for Esselen Park.

I want to give hon members statistics which show that our policy is achieving the desired results. Between 1985 and 1988 a total of 4 219 appointments were made in the Administration, of which 3 881 posts were filled by members of our community and only 295 posts by other groups. In the same period no fewer than 2 095 officials were promoted, of which 1 682 came from our community and only 419 were White officials.

When our Ministers’ Council took over this Administration, the highest administrative Public Service post which a member of our population component held, was that of assistant director. At present the Administration has three directors, 14 deputy directors and 31 assistant directors. The entire top structure of the Department of Education and Culture is administered by officials from our community. In the Department of Health Services and Welfare officials already hold the rank of director, while senior officials are also found in other departments.

In this regard we are also future-orientated. We do not believe in own affairs, but are using this to eliminate backlogs in all spheres. When we achieve our ideal in future, for example one department of education, health, welfare, housing, etc, we will have well-trained and equipped Coloured officials. This was not the case four years ago.

The abovementioned proves that the Ministers’ Council’s policy of “affirmative action” works. There is no colour discrimination in the Administration and every official is treated the same.

Today I must, however, on behalf of the Ministers’ Council, also express my concern regarding the misconception existing in our community that the only profession for our children is teaching. Every year thousands of our children take courses in education at colleges and at universities, while there are many other professions. Today I want to make a serious appeal to every hon member present here to encourage our children to study in other professional directions.

The Ministers’ Council is at its wits’ end because it cannot recruit qualified Coloured officials for specialised posts in the Administration. We are not concerned here with specific guidelines laid down for these posts by the Commission for Administration. The crux of the problem lies in the fact that there are no people with these qualifications in our community.

The Commission for Administration is accommodating the Ministers’ Council as much as possible, but our community will have to rid itself of the misconception that teaching is the only profession open to them. From now on the Ministers’ Council will also co-operate far more closely with the Commission for Administration to do something about this problem.

I shall also like to make it quite clear that our policy of “affirmative action” does not mean that we are throwing the principles of meritoriousness and merit overboard. These principles must always apply, otherwise we can be accused of lowering our standards and not appointing the most suitable person to a specific post. Take, for example, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture and consider the headaches he has. There are simply no members of our community who can be appointed as architects, industrial technicians, engineers, whether civil, mechanical or electrical, quantity surveyors, town and regional planners, agricultural extension technicians, agricultural training officers, agricultural technicians and agricultural instructors. In the Department of Health Services and Welfare the Ministers’ Council simply does not get nutritionists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, clinical psychologists, dentists and medical officers. In Natal we have reached the stage in the appointment of social workers where we are now approaching other population groups because we do not have these professional people.

As regards education, we also need counselling psychologists, for example. “Affirmative action” works, but to realise it fully, there will have to be a drastic change in attitude in our community regarding professions. I am convinced that every hon member in this House has a big responsibility in this regard. The Administration: House of Representatives has bursaries to assist these students at universities. We must simply inform and support the community better regarding the professions they can study for.

The amount of R213 219 000 needed by the Administration: House of Representatives in the present financial year to carry out its duties properly, will be financed as follows: A transfer from the State Revenue Fund in terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution Act, Act 110 of 1983, in the amount of R98 185 000, plus the implementation of section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, Act 66 of 1975, in the amount of R47 million. In addition, an amount of R10 million for the saving on the 1987-88 financial year, as well as savings achieved by the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, totalling R58 034 000. This totals R213 219 000. I therefore now introduce the Additional Appropriation Bill (House of Representatives), and lay upon the Table:

1. (a) Estimate of Additional Expenditure of the Administration: House of Representatives for the financial year ending 31 March 1989 [RP 8—89].
2. (b) Memorandum on the Additional Estimates, 1988-89, of the Administration: House of Representatives.

Mr Chairman, I believe the Additional Expenditure Bill being considered by this House today should be tested on the basis of two questions, namely whether or not the added expenditure could have been foreseen and, secondly, whether the expenditure was absolutely necessary. The hon the Minister said earlier that the administration has found it extremely difficult to make ends meet with the funds generated according to the formula for the education of our children. Let me assure the hon the Minister—and I think I speak for every hon member in this Chamber—that we concur with him and that we agree with the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. This House and the Ministers’ Council have been under continuous attack by teachers organisations on what they perceive as the retrenchment of personnel so that the expenditure in this regard could also decrease. Anyone knowing the track record of the ruling party in this House as well as its commitment to equality in education would have known that such a decision, if taken at all, would not be lightly considered. As it is said, Sir, “’n boer maak ’n plan”. We saw that again in the Budget before us today.

I would go so far as to say that were it not for the stringent financial constraints the initial amount asked for for education would have been considerably higher. However, we know what took place last year and which seriously hampered the generation of funds to this House. We all know the history of White “kragdadigheid”. Every hon member in this House can well recall what happened last year when White “kragdadigheid” caused cuts in our Budget. After all, it is extremely important that we give our children the best education possible. I wish to join the hon the Acting Minister in his request that the Department of National Education investigates the problems encountered in keeping within the Budget for education, and also keeping it within the limits of the funds generated by the subsidies. ’While on the topic, I also want to address the question of careers. As the hon the Acting Minister said, too many people in our community have believed for too long that teaching is the only career for our people. Hon members in this House will know what I am talking about when I refer to the growing number of matriculants who knock at one’s door in January because they do not know how to prepare for the future. All they were taught at school was that they should become teachers. It is a fact that the colleges simply cannot accommodate all these people.

†Nonetheless, while I believe it to be absolutely necessary that the additional amount of R122 million be be used for personnel expenditure, the same cannot be said of the R547 000 required for the payment of retirement benefits to certain personnel of the University of the Western Cape, as is listed in the Schedule. The university has developed the habit of forcing its teaching staff into early retirement, merely because of the academician’s personal political attitude, which differs from that of a section of people on the campus. These academics, although not longer active in the lecture halls at the University of the Western Cape, have become early pensioners of the State. They qualify for early retirement benefits although they would be able to complete their daily task if given the chance.

Similarly, it is a matter of concern that almost R10 million which could have been used for housing aid has not been spent. Let me say right at the outset that I see it is being used for a good cause, but I believe that no hon member in this House would dare to disagree with me when I say that the provision of housing is high on the priority list of the community represented in this House. Rather than not spending R10 million I believe that this House would have had no hesitation in approving it if the original amount budgeted for for housing was exceeded by more than R100 million.

It is, however, to be welcomed that the money will be spent on the provision of State buildings, structures and equipment, and will not be lost to the community.

Nonetheless, I wish to appeal to the department concerned that they should not allow a similar situation to develop again in the future. If the problem lies with local authorities who do not use the funds allocated, then, if needs be, a blacklist of the offending bodies could be drawn up and referred to when funds are next made available.

*We receive too little money not to use it.

†Similarly I think I speak on behalf of all the hon members in this House when I say that we believe that something is amiss when R18 million destined for area development has not been used. Why is this so? This House has the right to know why that money was not spent. In the interim the amount of R18 million is welcomed and will be used to offset the deficit on the Education and Culture Vote. I remind the vociferous teachers and their organisations that R18 million due for area-related development is going to be spent on their own personal salaries.

Over the past year this House has been the battleground over the R36 million which was frozen by the hon the Minister of Finance and which was supposed to have been used to increase State pensions and allowances for the community represented in this House. Although this amount has now been made available to defray the January 1 increase, it is not the answer to the needs of this House. This House foresaw the need to increase social pensions last year in an attempt to bridge the gap between White and Coloured pensioners. The general increase of January—although it results in our pensioners receiving more money monthly—does not offset the problem that they lag behind their White counterparts. The LP will not rest until we have closed the gap for all South Africans.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Diamant for his contribution to this debate and I am pleased that he set it out so well.

I want to read a few points from the constitution of the Labour Party. We have based our political policy, philosophy and strategy on ten principles which have been set out in our constitution. I want to quote the following three points:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I …

Order! The hon the Minister is now actually replying to the debate.

Mr Chairman, my point of order actually concerns his reply.

Order! What is the hon member’s point of order then?

Whether this debate …

Order!

The hon member is asking a question if he phrases it that way.

Mr Chairman, it is my submission that this debate is limited to the Appropriation as per schedule. It does not cover the principles of the LP. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sure the hon member is aware that this financial measure is relevant.

Yes, under certain circumstances, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member agree?

Mr Chairman, I will accept your ruling if you say so.

Mr Chairman, I wish to remind the hon member that he came to this Parliament under the flag of the LP. [Interjections.] He ought to resign, that is what it means. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

I would like to repeat the three principles of the LP:

The LP is dedicated to opposing all forms of racial discrimination because we believe in the right of the individual. The right of the individual is paramount to all members of the LP.

With regard to the topic discussed by the member from Diamant, we are dedicated to advocate a free national education system devised to provide students of all races with an equal opportunity of receiving the highest specialised training.

*Hon members must see it in the following context. We are in Parliament to ensure that all discrimination is done away with and to improve and raise the quality of life of our people. This Additional Appropriation is also based on that.

Additional expenditure can be attributed largely to announcements and concessions by the central Government. We did not make provision for pension increases—the improvements in social pensions and grants which were announced. We did not make provision for the improvement of the salaries of teachers and civil servants. We did not make provision for the increase in military and other civil pensions. Therefore our budget is being adjusted in the light of the Government’s announcement on these matters so that we shall be able to balance our books. That is the reason for this expenditure and if there are deficits, they have to be corrected.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Votes and Schedule agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, hon members know that a national transport policy study was undertaken from 1982 to 1986 on the instructions of the National Transport Commission. The object of the study was to conduct investigations into and to make recommendations regarding a revised transport policy for the Republic of South Africa. This revised policy had to be compatible with current political, economic and social circumstances and also in accordance with the national policy. Transport policy cannot be seen as isolated from national policy and objectives, especially not when South Africa is in the midst of a process of political and social change.

†The National Transport Policy Study ascertained that the then current transport policy in many respects differed from national policy and objectives and accordingly made recommendations aimed at bringing the two policies into accord. The Government approved this method of work in the White Paper on National Transport Policy, which was tabled on 30 January 1987.

The Road Traffic Bill is part of a legislative package comprising the new transport policy. I wish to emphasise this point, for the Bill cannot be seen in isolation. TTie legislative package is made up of the following components: The Transport Advisory Council Act which was passed in 1987, the South African Roads Board Act passed in 1988, the Transport Deregulation Act also passed in 1988 as well as this Road Traffic Bill and the Draft Passenger Transport Bill.

*The first three components have already been passed by Parliament while the Road Traffic Bill is under discussion at present. The Road Traffic Bill is an important link in the implementation of the new road transport and road traffic policy as it relates to the daily activities of all road users whether they are motorists, cyclists, pedestrians or passengers.

†Albeit a voluminous Bill the Road Traffic Bill is based on two main principles.

Firstly, the Bill consolidates the current four provincial Road Traffic Ordinances into one national Act. This will lead to uniformity as regards road traffic in South Africa, with the further advantage that the process of amending legislation becomes simpler and is accelerated.

*The second main principle led to the institution of a road transport quality system which prescribes standards of safety. The implementation of this transport quality system is also a prerequisite for the abolition of the permit system—still currently operative in terms of the Road Transportation Act, 1977—as well as the attendant deregulation of road transport.

As regards the first main principle, I said that this Bill would affect all road users daily just as the current Road Traffic Ordinances do at present. That is why we took it as a point of departure in the consolidation process of the four Ordinances to amend the current provisions as little as possible at this stage.

†Hon members will thus observe that the Bill for the most part, corresponds with the current Road Traffic Ordinances. (Compare for instance chapters 1 and 2, sections of chapters 3 and 4, and chapters 6-11 and 13).

The second principle concerns the creation of a road transport quality system for both freight and passenger transport. This gives effect to the need identified by the National Transport Policy Study for more emphasis on safety and quality in the transport industry in a deregulated road transport environment.

*The object of the road transport quality system is to safeguard the public and at the same time to increase the quality of entrepreneurship in order to ensure that the consumer will have a safe, reliable, economic and effective transport service.

The road transport quality system consists of a set of standards affecting the fitness of drivers, vehicles and operators, supported by effective law enforcement. The road transport quality system forms the framework within which all road transport will take place in future. The road transport quality system sets standards regarding the fitness of drivers, vehicles and operators.

†The provisions of the road transport quality system pertain to road transport quality vehicles which, inter alia, includes the following vehicles: Goods vehicles with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 3 500 kg; minibuses or buses with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 3 500 kg, or which is designed or adapted to carry 12 or more persons (including the driver); motor vehicles which are being used for the conveyance of persons for reward.

Fitness of Drivers:

Driver control is not a new concept. In order to obtain a driver’s licence, certain theoretical and practical tests have to be passed. In clauses 23 and 24 the Bill provides that these tests will deal with prescribed issues. Consequently, for the first time, there will be uniform test standards countrywide.

*A new idea arising from the road transport quality system is the identification of a professional driver and limiting driving hours. The road transport quality system—it is important for hon members to note this—applies only to professional drivers.

In terms of Part II, Chapter III, a professional driver shall have to acquire a professional driving permit and shall have to have that permit with him when he drives a vehicle.

†The period of validity of the professional driving permit, is two years. The principle of periodic issue therefore finds application in this regard. This again is not a new concept, especially if it is kept in mind that current legislation requires that the drivers of vehicles conveying passengers or freight for reward, shall possess public driving permits of which the period of validity is one year. The professional driving permit replaces the public driving permit and applies to the drivers of all road transport quality system vehicles.

*Measures relating to driving hours in Part III of Chapter III are aimed at keeping driving hours within reasonable limits and prescribing minimum periods of rest between driving shifts. The instrument by means of which driving hours will be measured will have to be a prescribed automatic, electronic, electric or mechanical instrument.

Fitness of Vehicles:

Vehicles have always had to be roadworthy and consequently the basic requirements for roadworthiness remain unchanged. Provision is now being made, however, for testing standards to be uniform nationwide as regards roadworthiness.

†The certificate of fitness which applied with regard to public vehicles is replaced by a roadworthy certificate which will be issued on a yearly basis. This requirement is only applicable with regard to the Transport Quality System vehicles.

The above measures entail that substantially more vehicles will have to be tested annually as is the case at present. This bigger workload will be overcome in two ways, namely by means of a phasing in period of two years as well as by the privatisation of testing stations.

*Fitness of the operator:

A new entity, the operator, is identified in Chapter V. An operator is either the owner of the vehicle or the person whom the owner designates and registers as the operator of his vehicles.

†The operator shall be jointly liable with the drivers of vehicles in respect of certain offences committed by drivers in their driving task as well as in respect of the roadworthiness of vehicles. It will, among other things, be the task of the operator to ensure that vehicles are roadworthy and that drivers possess professional driving permits. The aim of these provisions is to hold more than one person responsible for a vehicle.

To facilitate effective enforcement of the Bill, a computerised information system will be created to gather information regarding vehicles, drivers, operators and related matters. By way of such an information system it will be possible to keep record of traffic violations. Such records will be available to law enforcement authorities and will be consulted at the registration of professional drivers or operators or at the renewal of professional driving permits.

*The effective implementation of this road transport quality system is a condition for the deregulation of road transport and is consequently of crucial importance in the implementation of Government policy.

Although this Bill is aimed at the Republic, road traffic should always be seen in a broad South African context because the inhabitants of the different countries and areas cross borders in the region daily. Consequently I can confirm that the principles of the Bill are discussed with the ECOSA states and the self-governing areas and that all of them study this legislation with a view to the adoption of corresponding provisions where possible. Nevertheless this is a decision which each of these states or areas will make in its own right.

†This Bill developed over a period of several years and was the subject of extensive consultation, as hon members will notice from the memorandum on the objects thereof. After the Bill has been accepted the next important and certainly decisive phase is the implementation thereof. To ensure that the implementation is workable in practice and that the authorities who will be involved in the administration of the Bill are ready for their task, the implementation process will be planned and executed in close cooperation with the people involved therewith. Clause 154 therefore specifically provides that any or all of the provisions of the Bill may be implemented in phases.

*As is the case in so many affairs, legislation can take a matter up to a certain point only. From there, and to make a real success of it, the co-operation of the public—in this case all road users—is of crucial importance.

Lastly, the Government’s motives with this legislation are clear. We say “yes” to the road transport quality system, to more transport undertakings, to more competition and to a free market. We say “yes” to everything but we have an emphatic “no” for much less safety on our roads.

Mr Chairman, I speak in support of the Road Traffic Bill. I want to assure hon members that this Bill is colour-blind. I shall try to spell out certain aspects of the Bill while my colleagues will discuss other important aspects in more detail.

We received written and heard oral evidence from all interested parties like Assocom, the Bus Operators’ Association of SA, various city councils, the SA Bus and Taxi Operators’ Association, the Automobile Association of SA, the Institute of Traffic Officers of Southern Africa, the Transport Workers’ Union of SA, the legal revision project and many other recognised associations and organisations. There were many long discussions and thorough, frank debating in the joint committee on this Bill.

I first want to explain the objects of the Bill. The Road Traffic Bill is a consolidation of the four current provincial Road Traffic Ordinances into one national Act. This will lead to uniformity as regards road traffic in South Africa. A new element which is contained in this Bill is the institution of a road transport quality system which prescribes standards of safety and which is a prerequisite for the abolition of the permit system in terms of the Road Transportation Act, 1977, as well as for the deregulation of road transport.

In accordance with the quality system, standards are fixed affecting drivers of vehicles, vehicles themselves and operators. This system will be supported by a purposeful and practical law enforcement programme. In support of the programme mentioned, but also arising from it, a computerised information system will be created by means of which inter alia the holding of driving licences, involvement in collisions and traffic violations will be monitored.

Determining of policy and prescribing of the standards mentioned above will be centralised. The implementation of the Act will take place mainly on the second and third tier of government, that is to say by provincial administrations and local authorities.

This leads me to the road transport quality system. This system is centred on the identification and registration of an operator. In terms of clause 74(1) of the Bill the owner of inter alia a bus or a minibus—with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 3 500 kg or which is designed or adapted to carry twelve or more persons, including the driver—or of a motor vehicle which is used for the conveyance of passengers for reward is the operator of that vehicle. He is also registered as the operator unless the owner has concluded an agreement with another person providing that the motor vehicle may be operated by such person for a period in excess of three months. Subsequently such person is registered as the operator of the motor vehicle.

The owner of a motor vehicle shall notify the registering authority in whose area he ordinarily resides or where a place of business of his is situated which person is to be registered as the operator of such motor vehicle and pay the prescribed fee.

The Administrator registers a person as the operator of a motor vehicle and issues an operator card in respect of that vehicle. The operator card shall be displayed on the vehicle if it is used on a public road. The duties of a operator are set out in clause 78 of the Road Traffic Bill. The most important of these are the following: He shall ensure that the motor vehicle in terms of which he is registered as the operator complies with the fitness requirements as contemplated in Chapter IV of the Bill. He shall exercise proper control over any driver of a vehicle in terms of which he is registered as the operator in order to ensure that such driver complies with all the provisions of the Bill. He shall conduct his operations with due care to the safety of the public.

The powers of the Administrator in respect of operators are set out in clause 79 of the Bill and chiefly comprise the following: The Administrator may caution an operator who is guilty of a contravention, investigate his activities and suspend his operator card. In clause 80 of the Bill an operator who feels aggrieved is granted the right of appeal.

I now get to the professional driving permit. The driver of a motor vehicle in respect of which an operator shall be registered shall not drive such a vehicle on a public road except in accordance with the conditions of a professional driving permit. A professional driving permit is acquired by applying to the registering authority in whose area the applicant usually or permanently resides and upon the payment of the prescribed fees. The Administrator registers a person as a professional driver if he is satisfied that the applicant complies with the prescribed age requirement, is in possession of a valid driver’s licence and that the applicant is a suitable person in the light of previous traffic violations. The medical report which the applicant has to submit has to indicate that he is in good health. Subsequently the Administrator issues a professional driving permit. A professional driving permit shall be carried by him in the vehicle when such vehicle is used on a public road and is valid for a period of two years.

There are three categories of professional driving permits, namely category G for goods, category P for persons and category H for hazardous substances. A category G permit is issued only if the applicant is 18 years of age or above, a category P permit only if the applicant is over 21 years of age and a category H permit only to applicants who are 25 years of age and older. Subject to certain exceptions, a person applying for a category P permit for the first time will have to pass the test for the issue of a driving permit again before such permit is issued to him. A person applying for a category H permit for the first time shall be in possession of a certificate of competence in terms of the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973, before he shall be issued with the permit.

Clause 47 of the Road Traffic Bill grants any person who is aggrieved at the refusal of the Administrator to issue him with a professional driving permit the right of appeal.

†A professional driver must comply with the provisions of the regulations relating to the driving time. A maximum of five hours continuous driving time is prescribed and maximum of 14 hours driving time in a period of 24 hours.

A motor vehicle for which an operator must be registered must contain a recording device capable of providing a record of the driving time and the time for resting from driving applicable to a professional driver.

The Road Traffic Bill provides for the categories of roadworthy certificates to be issued, namely categories A and B. A category A roadworthy certificate is required for a motor vehicle for which an operator has to be registered. A category A roadworthy certificate may only be issued by a testing station registered as a grade A testing station. The testing and examination of a motor vehicle shall be done in accordance with the South African Bureau of Standards code of practice for the testing of vehicles for roadworthiness.

The period of validity of a category A roadworthy certificate is one year. A roadworthy certificate disc will be issued with the category A roadworthy certificate and such disc must be affixed to the motor vehicle concerned.

In general note must be taken of the provisions in clause 87(5), (6) and (7) of the Road Traffic Bill. The provisions of this clause have nothing to do with the road transport quality system, but they are related to the deregulation of transport. These subsections cover the power of a local authority to install parking meters. They read as follows:

1. (a) to provide for the issue of permits allocating particular special parking places or subdivisions thereof to particular persons or vehicles for their exclusive use;
2. (b) to prohibit the use of any special parking place or subdivision so allocated by any other person or vehicles
3. (c) to charge fees in respect of the use of special parking places; and
4. (d) to provide for matters incidental thereto:

The introduction of the road transport quality system is a prerequisite for the deregulation of transport. It is expected that there will be a significant increase in the number of taxis as a result of the deregulation of the transport market. The operator and driver of a taxi will be subject to the provisions of the road transport quality system as contained in the Road Traffic Bill.

*It is well and good to describe this legislation as a good beginning but further amendments will definitely have to be made in future. Nevertheless it does not benefit us at all and it is of no value if legislation is beautifully recorded and law enforcement is poor. This reminds me of the chap in the Sierra sitting under a shade tree. He is limited as regards the number of kilometres which he may drive per month and the quantity of petrol which he may use per month. Now he is obliged to sit there and watch offenders driving by while he cannot travel any further. [Interjections.]

If a shortage of funds or manpower arises, the Minister must provide for that. As far as I am concerned, the point at issue is the safety and the protection of the people who want to furnish good service. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in support of … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

And the hadji who cannot become a Minister. [Interjections.]

We support the legislation since it is a direct consequence of the White Paper on National Transport Policy which was tabled on 3 January 1987. I feel that there are a few matters that should be mentioned. Firstly the Bill is a consolidation of the existing four provincial ordinances. In the past, when one drove to the Transvaal from the Cape Province, one had to adapt to an ordinance which differed from that of the Cape. And when you drove to Natal the same thing happened. Now the four ordinances have been consolidated into one Act, and I think this will contribute greatly to the proper control of traffic. [Interjections.] It is a noble effort. Some of these hon members are sitting here without an unemployment card. [Interjections.]

The establishment of the road transport quality system for the abolition of the permit system in terms of the Road Transportation Act of 1977, as well as the deregulation of road transport, is a new element to be found in this Bill. However, what is important is the quality system by means of which standards and … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the quality system and the standards involving drivers of vehicles are thoroughly dealt with in terms of the responsibility of the operators. This quality system is supported by a purposeful and practical law enforcement programme. A computerised system has been established which will, among other things, monitor driver’s licences, involvement in collisions and traffic offences. It is very important to monitor how many accidents a particular person has been involved in before he may renew his operator permit. We are losing approximately 10 000 people per annum on our roads. This is an important matter.

Furthermore I am also thinking of the problem with the pirate taxis and, more specifically, the recent problem in the Cape of confrontation between those that are authorised and those that are not.

With the aid of the computerised system we can also examine how some people obtain their driver’s licence. With regard to the testing for driver’s licences, I feel that testing should not only be carried out at the traffic centre. It should be done on the streets. The driver should get out of his car and his eyes should be on the spot. Many of us who are drivers do not even know that we are almost blind in one eye. [Interjections.] Some of them do not even know whether they can see properly and I feel therefore that since devices are used to measure the volume of noise and the quantity of smoke in the air, devices should also be available to spot-test the driver’s eyes in the street. I am sure there are many drivers who would benefit from this. [Interjections.] Now I am livening up the debate, not so? [Interjections.]

†This Bill is the direct result of the investigation and recommendations of the White Paper on the National Transport Policy with regard to financial inequities, public safety and the quality of operators and the road freight quality system. [Interjections.] Yes, we will be getting other glasses. There is at present a transport Bill before the select committee. It involves the scrapping of the provisions of the traffic Bill involved and the scrapping of certain new concepts as well as the perpetuation of most of the provisions of Ordinance 21,1966. In the new Bill a number of these provisions are retained and 33 new provisions added which I consider a much needed improvement in South Africa.

The success of legislation is also based on its progress and it therefore worries me when the new legislation will be phased in. There should also be an extensive period of publicity because there are people who will have to get used to the new legislation. The public should be given enough time to understand what is being required of them.

It is important that the hon the Minister gives us a timetable in his reply as to when the publicity campaign will be introduced, the Road Traffic Act implemented and the regulations promulgated.

I want to spend a few minutes discussing the new elements which were introduced. Some of them like the registration of the testing station and driver testing licences have already been covered. I welcome the fact that the testing will be done in accordance with the SABS and I welcome the introduction of the new K53 standardised driver’s licence test and the uniform use of the HSRC theoretical test for learner’s licences at testing centres under the new legislation. This is definitely an improvement as we will know for a fact that only good drivers will be granted licences.

The hon the Minister has already discussed the issue of roadworthy certificates in his introduction. I want to request emphatically that when it comes to road certificates all the necessary safetycatches must be built into the legislation because one hears about it and comes across motor vehicles which are registered and for which roadworthy certificates are written out at the traffic department while they are parked at home. I want to see a watertight legal system so that one knows a vehicle has been thoroughly tested before it is used on the road.

A very important aspect of this legislation is the registration of traffic officers. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister with introducing this particular section because it places the traffic officer on a professional basis. After all, his work concerns the life and property of people. I assume that intensive training will take place because if there are not enough personnel to enforce these new regulations, it is no use putting the legislation on the Statute Book. The new legislation will be of no use unless there are the necessary staff to enforce it. I trust that this will be a step towards bringing down the death toll on our roads.

It is estimated that there are approximately 10 000 traffic officers who will be required to register. That is important because when a traffic officer leaves one municipality and joins another, one cannot establish whether he has been involved in crime and therefore he is just employed again. It is important that once this officer is registered he will not be able to move around easily irrespective of the way he has left his previous employer. This provision is therefore definitely an improvement.

With regard to public driving permits I want to point out something I still do not feel happy about.

The recommendation with regard to the professional driving permit is that only traffic offences be taken into account whereas with the old license the whole criminal record was taken into account. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to take note of the situation in our areas where people are being robbed and women are being molested in taxis … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, like my colleagues I want to concentrate on clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36. It is very important to me that control is going to be exercised over instructors. For example, the standard of their training will be the same everywhere in South Africa. For the first time it will be decided when an instructor has to attend a refresher course. If our instructors are trained correctly we can be sure that they will carry out their duties in the prescribed way.

It has also been decided that they have to apply to the Administrator of a province for registration. It is important because the Administrator will then decide what course of action should be taken if an instructor makes a mistake. His registration can, for example, be suspended. Due to the fact that it is the person’s job, it is a matter of great importance to him. He will ensure that he acts correctly and will not expose himself to bribery or anything like that.

I also want to say something about driving hours. Seen from the point of view of road safety this is of great importance. Recently drivers were often involved in accidents because they had had too little rest. The drivers are often compelled to deliver a load at to destination by a prescribed time. This has already caused major problems. We have included a mechanism here which will help to control the hours of the drivers. This is important for us because the vehicles are expensive and the load is insured. This will mean that less will have to be paid out in insurance and that fewer lives will be lost on our roads.

As far as pedestrians are concerned, I must point out that they often encounter problems because the motorist does not yield at pedestrian crossings. I want to appeal to our motorists to be careful and warn them that they are going to be apprehended.

I also want to voice my concern about the number of our people who lose their lives. It is not always due to negligence, but rather because motorists do not stop in time at pedestrian crossings.

I see that the Official Opposition is not here anymore. It is a pity. A pedestrian also has duties. One of the duties of a pedestrian is described in clause 110 as follows:

I want to ask the hon Deputy Minister to point out to the various municipalities that we are experiencing problems in our areas. The pedestrians cannot walk on the sidewalks. There are no sidewalks, because it is so overgrown and uneven that a pedestrian automatically walks on the road surface where it is more even. In this way he is exposed to danger. However, at the same time I want to congratulate the Municipality of Bloemfontein which is at present paving the sidewalks, and I hope that other town councils in the country will follow suit and improve the sidewalks for the pedestrians.

The purpose of this Bill is to consolidate everything in connection with traffic in this country. It is very important to know that vehicles which do not comply with the required standards will be taken off the road and the permits suspended, and that the driver will not be allowed to drive further with such a vehicle. This is important because standards must be maintained. Some people will find it difficult, but their lives are at stake if they make use of the roads with vehicles which are not roadworthy. They can experience problems and can be the cause of other roadusers being involved in accidents.

The hon members know what happens today. Many people—whether they are White or nonWhite—travel in vehicles which are really not up to standard. Therefore I am pleased with the mechanism which was included in the Bill whereby control can be exercised and such roadusers can be apprehended.

The hon members referred to taxis. I feel a bit anxious about the number of taxis on our roads. Many firms are compelled to close and due to the resulting unemployment, many of our people are forced to use their last few cents to apply for a taxi licence. This is blood money and I want to ask the hon Deputy Minister if they cannot have a degree of protection. I do, however, agree that if their vehicles are not up to standard, they must be punished. If they are not apprehended, we shall be faced with a problem and the death toll with increase even further during the following year.

The hon the Minister of Transport said in the House at one stage that vehicles were allowed to drive on the left-hand side of the road, within the yellow line area. It is interesting that experts are of the opinion that vehicles may only drive on the roadway on the left-hand side of the road and not within the yellow line area, because the roadway is not always equally wide at the side of the road. I would appreciate the Minister’s opinion in this respect. Does he also think that in certain areas vehicles may drive within the yellow line area, for example to give way for vehicles approaching rapidly from the rear.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon Deputy Minister in his appeal to all drivers of vehicles to drive carefully and to pull off the road in good time to give other road users the chance to pass without endangering themselves. At present it happens that some road-users attempt to pass a slow-moving vehicle on the left-hand side. If the driver of the slow vehicle sees danger approaching and waits a little too long before pulling off, problems may arise.

It is important—as my colleagues mentioned— that equal standards are set everywhere. We always complained that the standard was not always the same in all the provinces. If a person drives from one province to another, you must obey other regulations and your vehicle … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Road Traffic Bill is an important link in the establishment of a new road transport policy. This Bill is part of a package on transport legislation passed by Parliament during the past few years. It resulted directly from the White Paper on the National Transport Policy which was tabled in Parliament as long ago as 30 January 1987.

The most important element of this Bill is that for the first time in the RSA there will be a uniform traffic policy which will be applied the same, unlike the case at present where each of the four provinces have their own traffic ordinances and different methods of law enforcement exist.

A very important point which emerged in the joint committee was the way in which law enforcement officers conceal themselves along our national roads. Rumour has it that the ghost in the Sierra parked under the tree is doing more damage to the actions of a traffic officer than when that law enforcement offices openly stops a person who has infringed the traffic laws. I am asking that this problem be addressed regarding traffic officers who deliberately hide behind bushes, trees and shrubs in order to apprehend people. [Interjections.]

This Bill also makes provision for the introduction of a road transport quality system which will prescribe important safety standards to make our roads safer for drivers. As hon member know heavy vehicle traffic on our national roads is increasing alarmingly.

This quality system will also result in the objectionable permit system, in terms of which transportation is at present undertaken, being abolished and replaced by a quality system. This is one of the reasons why I personally support this Bill. As hon members know there are at present hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal contractors in the transportation industry who are battling to get a permit to enter the industry legally, but owing to a number of unnecessary obstacles they are compelled to become pirate hauliers.

It is these unfortunate people who are hounded by traffic officers. Although the people want to make an honest living, they are being fined out of the industry. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we cannot support those prosecutions, and I hope that when prospective contractors apply and they meet the necessary requirements and their vehicles are suitable, they will be allowed into the industry. [Interjections.] If the market justifies it, every person will soon find out for himself whether or not he can make a profit in that industry.

In terms of the new quality system referred to in the Bill, specific attention will be given, in particular, to the standards of drivers and their vehicles. The Bill also makes provision for the introduction of operators. This concept will usher in a new era in the transport industry. A prospective operator who wants to enter the transport market will first have to register as an operator. That operator will have to see to it that the driver of his vehicle has a professional driver’s licence.

Another very important reason why I support this Bill is that for the first time driving hours are being laid down which will prevent drivers from spending long hours behind the wheel and in this way becoming exhausted and causing accidents. Research has shown that most accidents in which heavy vehicles are involved occur as a result of driver fatigue. Clause 50 provides that a driver shall not drive on a public road for a period or periods of time exceeding the prescribed period or periods. Several organisations addressed very strong representations to the joint committee regarding this aspect. One of these organisations is the Transport Workers Union of SA. To indicate how serious I am about this point, I shall quote at length from a submission by the above-mentioned trade union:

I have quoted here that this trade union is in favour of the free market system. As a result they are worried about their members, people who drive back and forth on our national roads between the major cities day and night. That is why I want seriously to emphasise the point regarding driving hours. I am continuing to quote:

It is very important for us to ensure that this Bill, when it becomes law, will look after the interests of the drivers. That is why we made it quite clear in the joint committee that driving hours should be set out in the legislation. We can refer to several cases where the driver of a heavy vehicle that is not very old, according to the quote from the Transport Workers Union of South Africa, finds himself in trouble with the law, and then that person is not sufficiently acquainted with the law to be able to put his case. That is why I am asking that this matter be investigated. I am continuing to quote from the document submitted by the Transport Workers Union of South Africa:

Drivers are therefore also referred to here. I am continuing to quote:

I have already mentioned that driving hours are the most important aspect in this Bill. That is why we will have to check up on those hours carefully. I am continuing to quote:

1. 1) The Department of Statistic confirms that most employees in the transport industry are Black, Coloured and Indian.
2. 2) The statistics do not supply the number of drivers, but observations made in the PWV area, Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Kimberley, Bloemfontein metropolitan areas place the averages for commercial vehicle drivers as follows:
   79% Black
   11% Coloured
   8% Indian
   2% White
3. 3) According to the statistics the Black, Coloured and Indian populations were the biggest losers to retrenchment which took place in the trucking industry during the last couple of years.
4. 4) These are the same population groups that have the highest unemployment rate in South Africa.

As a result of many other circumstances most of the people who drive heavy vehicles are people of colour. These people are sometimes placed under great pressure by their employers. The people are ordered beforehand to deliver a certain load at a certain time, and to be back by a specific time. I have already mentioned in this House that a certain company which is responsible for the transportation of goods between Johannesburg and Rossing in South West Africa expects their drivers to complete the journey from Johannesburg to Rossing and back in 36 hours. Is it fair to have to cover that long distance with such a heavy vehicle?

I want to quote another point in this regard, namely what the International Labour Organisation decided with regard to driving hours at their last meeting, which was held in 1979. I am quoting:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, just before the hon member for Bishop Lavis left he said that many hon members in this House will have to go to have their eyes tested. Unfortunately he went out first, I see. He must have had his eyes tested first.

This Bill is necessary to ensure that all the ordinances throughout the provinces are uniform. This Bill also makes provision for the road transport quality system, but there are lots of disadvantages to the Bill as well. Many advantages were pointed out by previous speakers as well as by the hon the Minister. One of the things they are trying to do here, as the hon member for Bishop Lavis mentioned, is to legalise all the taxis. Sir, one can write that one off. The moment one applies the road transport quality system and a licence is taken away from someone so that he will not be able to provide taxi transport anymore, such a person will go back to pirating. Therefore, we can write that provision off. We shall not succeed with that provision in this Bill. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the road transport quality control provisions one will find that it will only be applied in the so-called non-White areas. If one looks around one will find all the traffic departments and road traffic inspectors stand in the so-called non-White areas like a lot of vultures waiting for their prey. [Interjections.] This Bill is going to harm our people more than it is going to help them. Our people are daily being bled to death by the traffic inspectors. It will be getting even worse now. I do not see it as an improvement.

We need a safe road. There is no doubt about that. We need the road we travel on to be safe, but that is not what these people are there for. If the local authority has a shortfall in its budget, one can see what happens in our areas. The people of the traffic department come and they bleed our people to death financially. Therefore I do not see this as being of much help to us.

The same applies to our long distance drivers. The Bill attempts to tell them where to drive, for how long and when they may drive. At the end of the day the consumers are going to pay extra for the goods they are transporting. [Interjections.] They are going to pay extra.

Although there is an attempt to do good, we are not doing so totally. There are many problems with this Bill. It also says in this Bill that no-one who does not have a driver’s licence may drive on a public road. I want to challenge the hon the Minister by asking him whether a toll road is a private or a public road. [Interjections.] If I drive there without a driver’s licence and they catch me, the hon the Minister is in trouble, because that is now a private road and no longer a public road. [Interjections.] This Bill refers to a public road only in this regard. As far as I am concerned toll roads are not public roads. They are private roads and I do not see why provincial or departmental traffic inspectors should be on those roads. There is much work for them to do elsewhere.

This Bill also aims at improving our standard of driving. The way to do that is not by putting up hundreds of speed traps and placing plain-clothes men all over. The plain-clothes men and plain cars must go. [Interjections.] The way to discipline the driver is simple: The moment the driver sees the traffic inspector he acts in a more disciplined manner already. It is not necessary to write out tickets galore because the municipal or provincial budget shows a shortfall. These tickets are responsible for a lot of revenue for these bodies.

Because I was not a member of the joint committee who discussed this Bill I have nothing further to say on the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank all the hon members who participated in the debate sincerely for their support. We appreciate the work hon members did on the joint committee and for coming forward with such a good piece of legislation on which there is general unanimity.

The hon member for Wuppertal gave a very good elucidation of the Bill and in particular he placed emphasis on the operator, the role of the Administrator and the local authorities. He also gave a great deal of attention to the question of the professional driver’s permit. I find it gratifying that he gave so much attention to the safety of the public. What it will amount to, really, is that we are going to cause the transport market in South Africa to operate on a completely different basis to the one on which transport permits worked in the past. Previously people were kept off the road because there were certain interests that had to be protected. It also gave rise to a tremendous number of cases, which cost a great deal of money. We are now coming forward with a different system in which we want to allow more people to enter the transportation market. It is definitely the case that hon members mentioned the fact that more operators and entrepreneurs would now make their appearance. That is precisely what we want. What we do not want, however, is that those entering the market now should endanger the safety of other road-users. The vehicles must therefore be in a good condition and the drivers must be well-trained. The points mentioned by the hon members were in fact the essence of the matter.

The standpoint of the hon member for Klipspruit West is appreciated. His standpoint always deviates a little … [Interjections.] No, I am paying the hon member a compliment now. I am not berating him. [Interjections.] He came forward with a different standpoint, in terms of which he alleged that the traffic policemen were …

Exploiting the people.

Yes, exploiting them and bleeding them dry. That is what the hon member actually said. However, the hon member cannot have his cake and eat it. We are trying to lure people into the market and it makes no difference what the colour of their skin is. It is very clear that the majority entering the market are non-Whites. This applies to managers, traffic officers and operators. It is in fact the smaller entrepreneur, with one or two trucks or taxis, who has to be encouraged to enter the market. If one wants to make the market freer one must learn from the experience of other countries. America, for example, also applied deregulation in this market. They then found—this is the USA—that the so-called Third World measures were not applicable there. What did we find then? When people began to deregulate their market, the first thing that happened was that trucks appeared on the market which were not properly roadworthy. The brakes and the tyres had not been checked and their drivers were poorly trained, with the result that there were more accidents on the roads.

My question to hon members is whether we, who have learnt from this experience, should not only introduce this system gradually, but should also at the same time ensure that we do not make the same mistakes those people made. If one makes the market freer, one must also ensure that the person entering the market is prepared for it. [Interjections.] That is all we are doing. We are merely regulating his driving ability and his vehicle. We are not regulating anything else. That is the crux of the whole situation.

As regards the general public, and I think to a certain extent I am competent to sum up public opinion, they see these heavy trucks as monsters on the road. They do not mind the trucks using the road, but there are a few things these trucks must not do. They must not endanger the lives of road-users. The hon member for Vredendal made the point that the truck driver must be alert. He may not fall asleep, and if he needs rest, he must have that rest.

This change we are now effecting is a form of reform. It is not a retrograde step. It is one of the greatest forms of reform we have encountered during the past half century in respect of transportation in the free-market system in South Africa. It makes that market freer, but ensures at the same time that it is not so free that the ordinary man’s safety is endangered.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis usually makes an interesting contribution on this kind of subject because he has had a great deal to do with transportation and therefore knows the subject. I appreciate the fact that the hon member placed so much emphasis on the monitoring of accidents caused by certain drivers. However, the hon member went a little too far with his request that we should simply test these people on the road. I do not think that will be possible in all respects.

However, it is essential to establish how certain people obtained their licences. In this piece of legislation the matter is now being dealt with in the provisions concerning test stations and instructors. As the hon member for Opkoms said, the instructors will be the right people with the right training to train the right kind of drivers in South Africa.

†The hon member for Bishop Lavis also said that publicity is important and that the legislation should be phased in. Mr Chairman, the implementation of this road transport quality system will obviously take place over a number of years. It is a pity that one cannot phase it in earlier or rather, that one can complete the phasing-in process earlier. I am afraid, however, that this whole phasing-in process will probably take up to two or three years.

[Inaudible.]

I agree with the hon member, but if one does not have enough testing stations and weigh-bridges in South Africa to phase it in, it will have to take time. The phasingin publicity stage is part of the plan which will take us up to approximately 1990 or 1991. Publicity is certainly going to be an important part of the whole project and the hon member’s point will receive the necessary attention.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he could indicate to us what will be done first and what will be done during the second phase etc.

If I should explain to hon members how the phasing-in will take place it will take more than half an hour. [Interjections.] I do agree, however, that the department should compile some sort of a programme which will give a simple explanation to hon members and to the public. That is the only reply I can give the hon member.

The hon member also made the registration of the professional driver’s permit an important point in his speech. He made the important point that we should look into the criminal record of these professional drivers, because women are sometimes molested by these people. That is an interesting but also very disturbing point. I think the department should pay attention to that suggestion of the hon member.

*I have already referred to the hon member for Opkoms who emphasised the training of instructors and the lot of the pedestrian. The hon member made the important observation that in many parts of our country there were no proper pavements, or no pavements at all. I am certain our department has made a note of that point and that we shall give attention to it. The local authorities must take care of that.

The hon member also discussed the yellow line and asked me for my opinion. He also asked us to be careful in this case. Apparently it is illegal to drive on the other side of the yellow line. [Interjections.] Yes, it is, because the yellow line is an indication of where the roadway ends. However, the Act must also be practical. A person who is constantly driving on the left-hand side of the road in the yellow-line area ought to know that he is contravening the Act and that he is consequently endangering the lives of other roadusers. Another thing we do not allow is stopping on the left-hand side of the yellow line. However, if a vehicle has a flat tyre, or something goes wrong and a passenger is ill, for example, a driver will not be forced, through enforcement of the law, to drive off the roadway. Hon members must concede that our law-enforcement officers must be strict but fair in their conduct. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Vredendal emphasised strongly that he did not like law-enforcement officers who set traps for motorists by concealing themselves, and expressed his disapproval of such an attitude. He is probably correct in that there is no reason why a law-enforcement officer should conceal himself on a public road. In fact, the public feel more assured if the law-enforcement officer can be seen. The road-users would prefer to see the law-enforcement officer sitting openly in his motor vehicle on the side of the road, just as everyone would prefer to see policemen patrolling the streets in uniforms.

However, I want to say something in this connection. In the town in which I live there are certain streets in which all motorists take a chance. They speed along these streets although there is a speed limit of 60 km/h. They do this deliberately. Is it inappropriate for traffic constables to stop motorists from time to time? I do not think it is. [Interjections.] I say it is right for them to do it. If I make a mistake I must be prepared to accept it, and I must allow the traffic constables to warn the public from time to time, through such action on their part, that they must be careful.

The hon member also referred to illegal contractors. When this Act is on the Statute Book, there will be no place for illegal contractors. After all, anyone is free to enter the market. Why should there then be pirate taxis? Why should there then be unlawful contractors? [Interjections.] We would then be defeating the whole purpose of this legislation. We are making it free, but we shall do so in such a way that the traffic will not be unsafe. I do not think we can allow that to happen.

I have appreciation for the point the hon member made that many of our drivers are people of colour. They frequently work under very heavy pressure and must complete a journey as quickly as possible because it is in the interests of their employer. Driving hours have in fact been written into the legislation in order to look after the interests of these people. It is a good thing that the hon member even quoted the international labour organisation in this connection.

†I have already dealt with the point raised by the hon member for Klipspruit West. He said we are doing good on the one hand and not so good on the other. The hon member will agree, however, that after a year we have taken a forward step with the road traffic quality system and that the public in general will welcome this piece of legislation. It is part of the whole package. We are doing what we said we were going to do. We are implementing the White Paper. We are not hedging. We may not do it as fast as we possibly can, but nevertheless there is not a single facet of the transport industry in South Africa which in the long run will not benefit from the implementation of the major recommendations of the White Paper of 1987.

*I want to thank hon members once again for the contributions they made.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, by way of introduction to the second reading debate of the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill of 19891 would like to explain certain aspects in respect thereof and would also like to make a few general comments.

The improvement of the wife’s legal position as far as sexual offences are concerned has been addressed by the Government systematically. In the first phase the Law of Evidence and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Act was enacted. I shall refer to this Act in more detail at a later stage.

As a second phase the Immorality Amendment Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1988. These amendments emanated from the recommendations of the President’s Council and particular attention was given to the combating of prostitution and the abuse of women and young children in this regard. At the same time we provided protection for, not only female victims, but also male victims of sexual offences, and the prescribed penalties for sexual contraventions were increased dramatically.

The Bill before Parliament now originates from the recommendations of the SA Law Commission in its report on its investigation into women and sexual offences in South Africa, and, in so far as sexual offences are concerned, it completes the present programme. In its report the commission made various recommendations regarding amendments and reform of the South African Common Law regarding sexual offences. The main objective of these recommendations was the alleviation of the trauma of rape victims.

The Government accepted most of these recommendations unconditionally and some of the recommendations are embodied in the Law of Evidence and Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Act of 1987, which was put into operation on 23 October 1987. The most important provisions of this Act are that the pubheation of any particulars which can lead to the identification of a victim of a sexual offence, is prohibited and that provision is made for the automatic hearing of a complainant’s evidence in camera.

*Two of the recommendations of the Law Commission, however, can be recorded as being extremely contentious and at that stage the Government was unable to give them its unqualified support. Those recommendations which were recorded as being contentious were—just to refresh hon members’ memory—the following: Firstly that provision be made by means of legislation for a husband to be prosecuted for raping his wife, and secondly, that legislation should prohibit questions concerning previous sexual experience with a person other than the accused.

As I said earlier in this House, the Government, although it does not have unqualified support for these proposals, cannot summarily reject them either. Consequently it was decided to include these proposals in a separate Bill and to refer it to a joint committee of Parliament. I understand that the Joint Committee on the Law of Evidence and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Act met several times earlier this year and received comments from various interested parties, including the judiciary. I want to express my appreciation to this committee for the exceptional trouble they took to find an acceptable solution.

As regards the committee’s recommendation that the original clause 1—namely that a husband may be prosecuted for raping his wife—be rejected for the reasons mentioned in their report, I want to refer to what I said in this House on 15 February 1988 concerning the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill. This Bill provided that certain acts committed by persons whose mental faculties had been affected by the consumption of certain substances were punishable. Owing to the fact that this provision cannot be justified on a purely jurisprudential basis, I said at the time that the Standing Committee on Justice had taken a brave decision when they agreed to the provision. I am referring once again to the Bill which dealt with the effect of drugs and liquor on a motorist for example—but which also dealt in general with a crime committed in such a situation.

The decision of the joint committee to reject the original clause 1 and the recommendation that the clause now before the House be substituted for it, was equally a brave decision. Once again what can be expected, particularly from the academic world—those people who read and write analytically about Parliament and its proceedings—is that voices will be raised in protest implying that this is not a purely jurisprudential provision. Consequently we are now vulnerable to attack on the part of the purists in connection with the law.

In its report the committee clearly indicated that the original clause 1 constituted many dangers for the marriage and family relationship and that the community was not unanimous in regard to the introduction of such a crime in our law. The committee further indicated that violence in marriage must be unequivocally condemned, particularly violence accompanying sexual relations. The committee identified a specific need, viz that in marriage the woman must be protected against such violence, and consequently it is being proposed that a court should consider such “violence” to be an aggravating circumstance when imposing sentence.

The attention of the courts is in this way being focused once again on the serious light in which the legislature regards acts of this kind, and at the same time it ought to serve as a deterrent to prospective offenders.

I can appreciate the view of the joint committee. At the end of the day they must reflect the feelings of the community, and not those of the legal purists. I want to congratulate them on the fine judgement and discretion with which they dealt with this matter. I think that their proposed solution is in line with the feelings of the community, and I trust that it will contribute a great deal to combating violence and sexual excesses in the marriage. I should like to support this recommendation.

Mr Chairman, this Bill basically states that a man may be held criminally responsible for raping his wife. I think one must consider what is in the best interest of the lady. Marriage is not a licence to rape.

It is a contract. [Interjections.]

In some cases in our community a husband and his wife are separated in order for the husband to financially support his family. In such instances the husband comes home only once a week or once a month, and we find he feels that he needs to have sex with his wife physically, forcing her to comply, although legally he has no right to do so. [Interjections.] I see this is a very touchy issue.

Before, the lady had no legal recourse. This Bill now rectifies that situation. Having sex with one’s wife should be a combination of the day’s activities. There should be a building up during the day towards the evening. During the day one should compliment one’s wife on things she does around the house. One should send her flowers or chocolates.

Sex should actually only be the cherry on the cake at night, Sir. [Interjections.] Sex is wrong morally and religiously if both partners do not agree to it. [Interjections.]

When a man marries a woman he becomes one with his wife and his wife becomes one with her husband. In fact, there is even a verse in the Bible—in the Ephesians—that says: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cling to his wife.” No matter what anybody says, a man has no right, even on religious grounds, to rape his wife. [Interjections.] Presently a husband cannot go to court for raping his wife and no matter how we argue, the wife is presently unprotected.

And if the wife rapes the husband?

One may have an interdict against the husband but that is all. I must state emphatically that any marital dispute is the death knell to the children of such a family. It does not only hurt the family; it also hurts the community. Sex could be the greatest blessing and the most enjoyable thing, provided that both partners agree to it. A happy sex life will produce a happy family and a happy community. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when this legislation was considered by the joint committee for the first time, there were quite a few differences of opinion and the committee could not reconcile itself with the recommendations of the Law Commission with regard to rape in the marriage relationship. As a result of that and because, to a certain degree, there is enough protection for the husband and wife in general law, the committee effected an amendment. That amendment entailed that it would be regarded as aggravating circumstances when the man assaults the woman if they were not married. As the hon member for Bonteheuwel said, the man can not do as he wishes. He had it wrong; it was the other way around. It also creates the wrong impression. According to my own experience in the township, I felt that the amendment, as brought about by the Law Commission, could rather have remained as it was considering that we find ourselves in a completely different situation and that it often happens. It often happens that the woman withdraws the case at a certain stage. As a result thereof such a case can never be brought before a court. However, we support the Bill as regards the amendment that was introduced.

Mr Chairman, this amending Bill resulted from the investigation by the SA Law Commission into the wife and the instruments of authority in South Africa. This legislation resulted in long drawn-out debate among members of the joint committee, and the committee considered written evidence. The big question was whether a wife could be raped by her lawful husband. As I said previously, this gave rise to protracted debate during which various opinions were aired. That is why I want to point out to my colleague, the hon member for Bonteheuwel, that at this stage this legislation does not provide that a husband can be found guilty of rape.

I want to refer to the Tydskrif-Rapport of yesterday, 26 February, in which a report on recent rape cases appeared. The journalist pointed out that there were various categories of rapists in society who committed this deed under various circumstances. In a marriage it also happens that a husband will rape his wife under certain circumstances.

There was also a report on this subject in The Star of 17 February, and that report confirms what I told my colleague just now, ie that he had quoted the report incorrectly. The headline to the report reads: “Committee finds rape of wife not criminal offence”. It is true that the committee found that it was not a criminal offence when a husband raped his wife. Provision is made for that in common law.

This was the final decision of the joint committee and we support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is actually very difficult to participate in this debate because there is such unanimity among us. We must finish in the shortest possible time now because a colleague of mine is ready with other legislation. I do not think he is interested in hearing how we agree with one another on this matter.

He will permit me to dwell for a moment on the contribution from the hon member for Bonteheuwel. I think that this hon member is a candidate for the midnight programme on M-Net, Ruth. I have not listened to her as yet because my age counts against me. [Interjections.] Firstly they tell me that experience is absolutely essential. It seems to me, taking into account his particular experience and the authoritative statements he made, that the speech of the hon member of Bonteheuwel, who waxed as lyrical here as like the author of the Songs of Solomon about what one could achieve with flowers and cherries, should be distributed throughout the country, in which case it would never be necessary to apply this clause. [Interjections.] I listened to the hon member and now it seems to me it was a question of ignorance—the people did not know how it was supposed to have been done. [Interjections.]

On a more serious note I want to point out that it was good to listen to the hon member. In a time when there are assaults, and in specific situations also in the marriage, it is very good to listen to the positive side of the matter. He says that a happy marriage makes a happy society. In other words, a happy marriage is based on healthy love. I just want to place his contribution in perspective and ensure that Hansard is not listening to me, but to him. Those things which form the foundation of a happy society should be noised abroad. I want to thank him for his contribution.

In his usual calm manner the hon member for Bishop Lavis went to the heart of the matter, and I can hardly improve upon that. Similarly, the hon member for North Eastern Cape told us in his calm contribution how hard the committee worked and how well they understood the matter. I accept and endorse it all.

I just want to make this important point. We must not lose sight of the fact that this legislation is a compromise. The fact remains that the compromise is that on the one hand we have a changing society in which violence is totally unacceptable, also in the marriage. Increasingly people are asking for protection for the victim of violence.

It makes no difference where it is. For that reason it is totally unacceptable that a marriage certificate is a licence for a husband to perpetrate violence. It is simply not acceptable in the times in which we are living. That is one side of the matter.

On the other hand it can lead—as the committee pointed out—to increasing complaints, fictitious complaints or a large variety of misunderstandings and poor charges. I hope that the hon members will forgive me if I tell a story in a lighter vein.

One day I was walking in the veld with a good friend. We had become friends in a matter of days. His name is Tamboer and this is a true story. The hon members know what kind of work I do and what my responsibilities are. I then asked him: “Tamboer, what are you in for?” He said: “Oubie, for rape.” I said: “Tamboer, good heavens. You must be more gentle when it comes to women.” He said: “Oubie, the problem is not with me, but with the magistrate. He knows nothing at all about courting.” [Interjections.] This story illustrates what can happen in practice. There should be a distinction between fictitious complaints and what really happened.

I think that the committee decided correctly, viz that when a person is convicted of assault, a magistrate must consider whether it goes hand in hand with sexual intercourse in which case it must be an aggravating circumstance. The committee considered it to be a duty of the person imposing punishment. I feel that it is a solution which we will have to test in practice at this stage in order to ascertain how it will function. In the meantime Parliament has made public its feeling of protection towards the wife, but on the other hand we do not want to give vicarious authority to unnecessary charges or serve as a hindrance in a sound marriage relationship.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to say that it is a pleasure to be here today. It is always pleasant to speak in this House and to conduct constructive discussions about matters that are important to us.

I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who serve on the Joint Committee on Education for their contribution in making the amending Bill in its present form possible. I am particularly pleased that we were able to find an appropriate formulation for clause 4 which amends section 34 of the principal Act.

I want to indicate briefly what we are dealing with in this Bill. This Bill amends the Education and Training Act, 1979 (Act No 90 of 1979), in the first place so as to insert a definition of “subsidy” in order to provide that assistance to a State-aided school need not be only in the form of money, but may also include school furniture, equipment, stores, stationery and other assistance in kind. In the second place the Bill is aimed at providing that the department may organise its activities, or any part thereof, in areas, as well as in regions and inspection circuits.

In the third place the Bill is aimed at bringing the Act into line with the transfer of the responsibility for the rendering of school health services from the Department of National Health and Population Development to the provinces.

In the fourth place the Director-General of Education and Training is authorised, upon the recommendation of the controlling body of a public school and after investigation, to refuse any person admission as a pupil to the school in question if the presence of such person at the school will be detrimental to the interests of the school or the provision of education.

Mr Chairman, the first three matters I have just mentioned viz the insertion of a definition of “subsidy”, the institution of areas and the adaptation of the Act in correspondence with the arrangement which already exists with reference to the transfer of the responsibility for school health services, are not contentious measures and therefore should not experience any opposition.

The definition of “subsidy” is necessary in order to make it clear beyond any doubt that the department can also provide furniture and other assistance in kind. The ordinary meaning of the word “subsidy” implies assistance that can be measured only in monetary terms.

The amendment with regard to the establishment of areas reflects the present organisation of the department which has been changed geographically to make provision for the demarcation of regions into areas for which regional offices have been established.

The third matter that has reference to the rendering of school health services is merely a consequential adjustment. It results from the transfer of the responsibility for the rendering of school health services to the province, which took place on 1 April 1988.

†With regard to the last matter, that is to say the refusal of admission to a school, this measure is solely intended to protect the vast majority of pupils who do want to study against the small minority of intimidators and perpetrators of violence whose sinister motives have nothing to do with the promotion of education whatsoever.

It is the intention to state without doubt that the department possesses the power to refuse undesirable persons admission to public schools. The fact that the communities afflicted by these persons have now had more than enough of lawlessness, violence and intimidation appears from many press reports in the department’s possession. I want to quote a few extracts to prove this statement.

I quote from Business Day of 18 January 1989:

This is Business Day talking—

I quote from the Sowetan of 19 January 1989:

In the Sowetan of 20 January 1989 I read the following—

Parents and pupils describe these pupils as thugs who were bent on disrupting normal schooling.

I quote also from City Press of 2 January 1989, the following:

I believe the necessity for the measure contained in clause 4 is clear from what I have just quoted and I trust, therefore, that hon members will support it.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to express my opinion on this legislation.

Because schools in the Black community have become an exceptionally defenceless habitat in the past year as a result of the revolutionary onslaught, it has become necessary to place some protective measures on the Statute Book.

In particular I want to speak about clause 4 of the Bill, in which the Director-General is granted specific powers to deal with such a situation. As the hon the Deputy Minister has just said, these things are not being included in the legislation against the will of the parents. It is necessary because children who disrupt school activities have been referred to in newspapers as “thugs” on a number of occasions. The Afrikaans term would be “boewe” or “skurke”. According to an article in Business Day the parents refer to such children as “rotten potatoes”. In many cases the parents are referring to their own children. That shows us that parents in our communities are tired of the situation in Black and Coloured schools. We want to work together to change that situation.

What we must not lose sight of, however, is that legislation of this nature deals with an abnormal situation. For this reason it is absolutely essential to be cautious when placing such legislation on the Statute Book. It was for this reason that the LP component of the joint committee immediately and unequivocally expressed an adverse standpoint on the granting of unlimited powers to the Director-General in respect of the admission of pupils to schools. Somewhere something had to be included to prevent prejudice. We know how unsettled the political situation is. It can easily happen that such powers end up in the wrong people’s hands. It would therefore have been very dangerous if we had granted this power to the Director-General unconditionally.

The dissatisfaction on the part of pupils and teachers in Black schools is justifiable to an extent. I have sympathy with them. We have a flawed education system in Coloured and Black schools. The fact cannot be argued away. Consequently we must allow sufficient channels for the expression of grievances. The hon the Deputy Minister would also have felt aggrieved if he had been in our shoes. We must therefore prevent this legislation granting unlimited powers which will try to suppress justified grievances and dissatisfactions. Further, I should like to place on record that I will gladly take part in the orderly improvement and continuation of education.

The political situation demands much more of me, however. I must also do my part when it comes to grievances of the community in respect of disparities which at present stand in the way of a peaceful South Africa. For this reason the NP must not feel irritated if I sometimes differ with them. The LP did not commit itself to simply being a rubber stamp. We want to be involved. We want to be recognised in all positive changes in the country, but then changes cannot merely be the implementation of NP policy. [Interjections.]

Changes in the sphere of education and in politics in general should be carried out with the approval of, and to the satisfaction of, all population groups. Only then will they be just changes. The answer does not lie in forcing political solutions down the throats of the various population groups and then expecting all grievances to disappear. The NP must learn to listen more sensitively to the requests of other population groups in the country. If they succeed, I can guarantee that we shall be moving towards a satisfied South Africa.

I gladly support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate after listening to such a speech as the one the hon member for Berg River has just made. His speech was thorough, informative and well-prepared. I foresee that he may be a future Minister of Education in this House. [Interjections.] I shall talk him into such a post. I want to congratulate the hon member on his chairmanship of the house committee, and I want to assure the LP that I will support him as a member of this committee. He is a new star appearing on the horizon. [Interjections.] The hon member does not offer the House facts which he has dug out of a dustbin. He offers this House watertight arguments. Because of this it is a pleasure to speak after him. In the same breath I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister for what they have done for this committee by taking us on that tour to Black schools. We found it very informative. We could have had a far more pleasant chat here this afternoon, but I now come to the legislation. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Oh, Sir, let them carry on.

Order! The hon member must continue. He must not incite hon members again. [Interjections.]

As the hon the Deputy Minister rightly said, this is legislation about which one cannot argue much, although clause 4 makes one feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, I want to refer the hon the Deputy Minister to clause 1. He was right when he said that a subsidy usually meant money for us, but now it will be provided in the form of books, furniture, etc. The House wants to warn the hon the Deputy Minister that they must not turn Black schools into dumping-grounds for those things by dumping old books from White and Coloured schools there. This House is going to keep a very close watch on what is meant by the word “subsidy”.

In terms of clause 2 activities can be divided into areas and regions. This is going to be a very good thing, but I want to return to my “affirmative action”. I want the hon the Deputy Minister to promote some of our advanced Black officials to man those regions, and not to find an old decrepit White official to appoint in those regions. That is what I should like to ask about clause 2.

[Inaudible.]

Keep quiet, please. We are discussing important matters here. [Interjections.] For this reason I am asking the hon the Deputy Minister to commit himself to this, because I found out on that tour that there are Black officials who are entitled to a promotion to take charge in such regions.

I am dealing with clauses 3 and 5 together because they both refer to health services here. In this legislation health services are being removed from the Department of National Health and placed in the hands of the provinces concerned. I should like the Minister to see to it that the provinces have the facilities, but again it depends on finances. Sufficient funds must be made available for the provinces to provide these schools with effective services.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Oh, shame, Sir. Just leave him.

Clause 4, the hot potato, deals with the admission of a pupil to a school. I should like to suggest to this House this afternoon that we should consider legislation of our own for Coloured schools in this respect.

The department of—excuse the term—black education comes along and says that they are one step ahead of us. They are ahead because according to the hon the Deputy Minister and the previous speaker they know that an undesirable element is entering the schools and that we must fight against this element.

The joint committees were told that a pupil could enter a school with two firearms these days and that an old man such as the hon member for Haarlem could be in standard six at the age of 25. What for? That person’s motive is to confuse those children. That is why we have come up with this clause in order to deal with this type of pupil. I want to request the hon the Minister to send the quotes from those newspapers to every hon member of this House. The scales have fallen from my eyes as far as the situation in Black education is concerned. [Interjections.]

I must say in the same breath, however, that there are politicians here this afternoon who want to exploit this matter for their own gain. I went to listen to hon members of the PFP in the House of Assembly. What are they saying there? They do not have any knowledge of Black education, but now they want to incite people through the media by saying that the Government wants to clamp down on those people. If we read that clause correctly, we see that that thug, together with his parents, will be offered the opportunity to put his case. If we do not include this clause, then the activist, who is trained to stir up dissension, will still have the opportunity to infiltrate into such a school, which will result in the future of a whole generation being adversely affected.

I want to give this House the assurance that the department, particularly under the guidance of its present director, who is an outstanding educationist, will see to it that incorrect things— which some politicians want to embody in this clause—will not happen. [Interjections.] In this way we will ensure normal education.

In conclusion I refer to clause 5, in terms of which the Director-General, in consultation with the provincial secretary, may cause health services to be rendered at public schools and State-aided schools and hostels attached to such schools. This is an important point. We must be honest with ourselves. Black schools which have always been neglected can now be assisted, and I foresee that the results of the pupils in Black schools will eventually improve.

Mr Chairman, it is important for me to declare the LP’s support for this legislation. I want to endorse the congratulations and thanks conveyed to the department for the informative and important tour we were able to undertake to the Natal region of that department. I want to emphasise that it was not only what we saw that was important, but also the spirit which prevailed there. I think the department should be complimented on the attitude prevailing in its institutions. In many respects it serves as an example to us, and I believe that such a tour to our institutions would also be of great benefit.

The hon the Minister has come up with legislation that can be regarded as part of the process of change. It is change in the sense that the hon the Minister has actually brought the legislation into line with things that have already changed in his department, and he is doing so in clause 1.

In terms of clause 5 the legislation is also being brought into line in that the province is being held responsible. As far as clause 1 is concerned, it surprised me during the past week and over the weekend to read consistently about the complaints in White education about the portion that parent have to contribute. However, in our own community there is a large contribution to our education, in spite of large State subsidies. Subsidies that might perhaps seem strange in White education today are already part and parcel of Black education and of the responsibility of the Black and Coloured communities. In the past everything in White schools was subsidised— telephone calls are an example. It would be nice to be the headmaster of a school where the telephone account is paid. Parents have for years been making contributions in respect of the standards and needs of schools. White education must take into account that the Coloured community is still subsidising schools.

I want to deal with another important point which the hon member raised, and that is that I hope the Commission for Administration, which does not really set a good example when it comes to change, will in fact ensure that Black teachers are appointed if decentralisation takes place. I am advocating this because it is important for the Black community to obtain greater responsibility in respect of the change in South Africa. Education is an emotional issue. It is not something that is divorced from politics; it functions within the political sphere of dialogue. This is why I believe that many of the department’s problems could be solved if the community itself were involved in education. Control and administration is of the utmost importance, and I believe that what is being done here in the field of education ties in with the improvement of South African education. I believe that this legislation is also a precursor to the upgrading of Black education and the introduction of the 10-year plan.

Clause 4 is really emotional and political in nature. It is a clause which the joint committee worked hard on. We rewrote the clause to decrease the power of the Director-General. The fact that “council, committee, board or other body” has been inserted, is again largely part of the politics of negotiation. I am glad that the department accepted it in this context, because one cannot separate education from politics in the present-day South African situation. It would serve no purpose to ask why there are thugs, to reprimand the thugs. This is not the only solution, because the South African educational system is unsatisfactory. The educational system is emotional and political in nature and we therefore cannot allow this to go unnoticed. I agree that there should be discipline in the education of our children. A climate must be created, something which is not the sole responsibility of the teachers or the children; it is also a climate generated by politics. Therefore we, the department, the community, the teachers and the children must develop that mutual confidence that what is being done is correct. This confidence is lacking in our educational system and in the South African educational milieu because the system is always being questioned. The quality of education is being questioned.

Parental choice, an important aspect of this matter, is receiving recognition in clause 4 of this legislation. Parental rights were affirmed in the report of the De Lange Commission. Nevertheless, the Government removed that right, which it is recognising here, from education. The same right that is here being incorporated in the legislation, the Government has removed from the sphere of education. Parental choice is not always the choice of prime importance in education. If parental choice were being implemented today, one would find a greater freedom of choice with regard to where one’s children could go to school and with regard to what could be achieved in the sphere of education. I believe that at these times, when we are dealing with a changing South Africa because the winds of change are blowing, this department should also pre-empt these changes in South Africa. I believe that in these challenging times education can be a decisive factor in allowing our communities to find common ground.

Education has consistently been politicised. But we have a chance here today. If we want to re-examine how we could allow the communities to find common ground, we should start with education.

Furthermore I want to advocate that the department be a forerunner in the process of reconciliation in South Africa. It is important that we, Parliament or the State, who are accountable when it comes to education, should also be responsible for the standard of education. The truth is that many political problems in education are being dealt with. I think this is good legislation because education itself is also being held responsible. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Firstly I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the openness which prevails in Black education. He keeps Parliament informed of developments by means of visits and circulars. We often receive information in our pigeon-holes on events in Black schools, and this gives us an insight into what is really happening in Black schools. When the hon the Minister takes us on a tour, whether it is in the Northern Transvaal or in some region in Natal, we can get a close-up view of these schools. We are very impressed with what we have seen.

However, I want to agree with one of the previous speakers when he said that whereas the hon the Minister said he would provide assistance in kind, this should not include items they are being fobbed off with. They should certainly not be the left-over items of the other population groups. They should treat these schools with dignity. Therefore I welcome the first clause which provides that subsidies will not only be in the form of cash contributions, but also in kind, in the form of furniture and stationery, school-books, etc. I welcome this step.

The clause which actually arouses my interest is clause 4. Originally the Director-General was empowered to refuse a pupil admission to a school. However, the LP did not go along with this in the joint committee, because we felt that the parent should have a say. We cannot leave it to an official to refuse admission to pupils. The body appointed by the parents must have a say.

The management can now make recommendations to the Director-General after it has held discussions with the pupils and the parents. It is important that no departmental official should be present at these discussions. The parent and the child and the management committee discuss the matter without the interference of a departmental official. If a recommendation is made to the Director-General for a refusal of admission, the door is not yet closed. Before the Director-General takes a decision to exclude a specific pupil from the school, he will hold further discussions. If the pupil concerned is a minor, both the pupil and his parents will be given a hearing. This is the basis on which the Director-General will decide whether the admission of such a person would be detrimental to the pupils and to education. It is therefore only on these grounds that he can refuse a pupil admission to a school.

It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to heartily congratulate the hon the Minister and his Department of Education and Training on the excellent work which they are doing in difficult circumstances. It is encouraging to see that a general improvement has come about in the quality of education in the department since 1985, judging by the pass rate of matriculants. For example, in 1985 the pass rate was 47,56%— a low pass rate which could be largely attributed to the widespread class boycotts. After this the pass rate increased every year until it reached 52,12% in 1988. That does not include the national states.

The continued rise in the annual pass rate is significant for two reasons. On the one hand, it is significant because the per capita expenditure on Black education for the 1987-88 financial year was only R560 in comparison with the White figure of R2 722 for the same period. On the other hand, the pass rate is significant because the internal faction of the ANC, the National Education Crisis Committee, has made it their goal to overthrow the present system of government by encouraging internal revolution. For this purpose, people’s education has been introduced so that schools can be used as a platform to obtain people’s power.

Mr Chairman, this piece of legislation also authorises the Director-General, on the one hand, to stop the rise of people’s power in a responsible way and, on the other hand, to refuse a pupil admission to a school if it is his sole aim to disrupt the normal activities of the school. In this regard I support this amending Bill although I do so with certain reservations.

This amending Bill, and clause 4 in particular, would not be necessary if the Government did not adhere to a policy of Christian national apartheid education. It is this apartheid education policy that has turned pupils and students into so-called activists. They are actually rebelling against this system and are seeking a better dispensation for their people who are being harshly and unjustifiably discriminated against.

I want to briefly elucidate the difficult conditions under which the Black population has to attend school. According to the 1985 census, the income of the White population was R18 350 per capita per annum while that of the Black population was only R5 072. According to the Central Statistical Services, there were 4 674 565 Black pupils at school during 1985, and that does not include the national states. On the other hand, there were only 951 594 White pupils at school. In the financial year 1985-86, the unit expenditure per pupil for the Black population in the department of the hon the Deputy Minister was only R387,02, while it was R2 374 for the White population during the same period.

These statistics therefore reflect very clearly that the Government is allocating the greater portion of the education funds to that section of the privileged White population which is in a position to provide for a large part of its educational needs by itself, while the education of the majority of the oppressed Black population, where the need is the greatest, is, to a large extent, being neglected.

This is the apartheid education against which these Black pupils are rebelling and we now have to approve a piece of legislation which provides for action to be taken against such pupils while it is the system of apartheid education which is turning them into a so-called activists.

However, the hon the Deputy Minister could immediately defend himself by saying that the differences in the unit expenditure per pupil in Black and White education can be ascribed to the fact that the White teacher is better qualified and therefore earns a higher salary. Here I just want to mention that the inequality in the teacherpupil ratio in the two population groups must be looked at. The ratio for the White population group was 1:16 while the ratio in the Black population group was 1:40.

There is a Black school in my constituency called Nduli Primary School in the township of Nduli near Ceres. That community is peaceful and peace-loving and to my knowledge they have never taken part in boycotts. Clause 4 of this amending Bill which is under discussion here and which seeks to keep certain undesirable pupils out of school, is not necessary at that school or at many other schools in the rural areas. Nevertheless, such rural schools are the most neglected. The physical amenities at such schools, and in particular at the Nduli school, are extremely poor. I sent a letter to the Department of Education and Training in which I asked whether the syllabus of this school could not be progressively upgraded from Std 7 to Std 10. However, the department does not yet see its way clear to helping such people to upgrade their school or the many other schools in this category. For the moment many of the people only desire education up to Std 8, but that is not being granted them either. I am afraid that if they cannot be helped, pupils at those schools like Nduli in the rural areas will also opt for rebellion against the Government. These are activities which are in fact supposed to be curtailed by this amending Bill.

It is also ironic that there is a White school in my constituency which is rapidly becoming empty. That school was built to provide school facilities and hostel accommodation to approximately 100 pupils. At the moment, the school is being kept going artificially. Last year there were only approximately seven pupils at that school from that service area, while other pupils had to be brought in from neighbouring towns with the exclusive aim of keeping the school going artificially.

In conclusion I want to say something about the provision of education by the House of Representatives. It is apparent that following the class boycotts of 1984-85, our education system has again returned to normal.

Order! The House is discussing the Education and Training Amendment Bill and not education for Coloureds. The hon member must please adhere to that.

Very well, Sir.

However, the Government must also fulfil its obligations towards us precisely in order to help those of us in this House to ensure that the implementation of clause 4 of this amending Bill will not be necessary in our schools. In 1986, the Minister of National Education announced a ten-year plan in accordance with which a programme was envisaged whereby equality of education for all population groups could be achieved. Since the 1984-85 financial year up to and including the 1987-88 financial year, the unit expenditure per Black pupil has shown an increase of 92,04%. I want to take this opportunity to appeal to the Government to grant the same percentage increase over as short a period with regard to the provision of education in schools of the House of Representatives. I want to associate myself with the hon the Acting Minister of the Budget in asking the Minister of National Education to grant more funds in terms of his ten-year programme for schools under our Administration.

Mr Chairman, it is with some reservation that I rise today to speak in support of this amending legislation. Let us bear in mind our quest, according to the hon the Deputy Minister, of achieving rights for all individuals in South Africa. We are in pursuit of one nation, one South Africa, and equality for all South Africans. In the words of the hon member for Mamre, education can be the most binding factor to bring about national unity in South Africa.

It took the Joint Committee on Education a number of hours to go through this piece of legislation. A number of words have undergone certain changes in their political context, and I once again refer to the dictionary to remind and reassure myself of the meaning of the word “amendment”. It is “a change for the better, a word, paragraph or clause added to, or proposed to be added, to a bill or motion.” In this country we have separate departments providing separate education to the various ethnic groups on a racial basis … [Interjections.]

Order! I must remind the hon member that his time will have expired by the time he gets to the clauses. We are not discussing policy in general.

Mr Chairman, this is merely a preface.

Order! That may be so, but I do remind the hon member of the time limit. Should the hon member get as far as the clauses and his time has expired, I will have to call him to order. We are not discussing general education policy.

Mr Chairman, in the previous debate I spoke on amending education and I had difficulty in accepting what was being done. Therefore a question has come to me which I now wish to pose to this House. For how long can we continue to support legislation in the absence of Blacks inside the Parliamentary system? We are namely dealing with the education of bona fide citizens of this country. [Interjections.]

I recently visited Northern Natal and KwaZulu as a guest and as a member of the Joint Committee on Education. We visited a number of institutions from farm schools to universities. We saw what splendid work was being done to upgrade the standard of Black education in that region. We should compliment the hon the Minister and his department for what is being achieved there. However, I believe that is only the tip of the iceberg. What I saw in that region, I must concede, at last shows me that the Government and this department are seriously attempting to provide the necessary and vital education for the larger sector of our nation. However, the vast backlog and shortcomings which still exist, clearly indicate that a very long and expensive road Hes ahead. Through the years of prosperity the Government sadly neglected the vital question of addressing the shortcomings in Black education.

Having completed my preface, where I have tried to put Black education in its proper context, I shall now deal with the clauses of this Bill.

Clause 1 deals with subsidising the provision of books, furniture and education. Subsidising in all its forms, as provided to the many thousands of schools which, in terms of Black education are mainly State-aided, still provides very little outside the basic needs.

Far too many Black schools, especially in the rural areas, remain State aided institutions. I believe that a greater slice of the economic cake should be allocated to Black educational needs in South Africa. The conditions of some of these subsidised schools can in no way be compared to the standard of education provided for other population groups in South Africa. That is the why we get these thugs which we have to address in another clause of this legislation.

There are causes which must be addressed in the educational system to cut down the thuggery which is the result of these conditions which persist in some of our schools. I also wish to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why these subsidies are withheld from private schools where large numbers of Black pupils are receiving education?

Coming to clause 2, the whole question of the role of the Commission for Administration which plays such a large role, especially in the appointment and promotion of senior personnel in education, needs to be looked at very urgently. I wish to ask the hon the Deputy Minister here today how many Blacks serve or qualify to serve or are considered to be appointed on the Commission for Administration? Why are the most senior posts in the Department of Education and Training still held by Whites? Is it a fact that this department is a department for Black education run by Whites? For how long is this situation going to persist in South Africa?

The answer to a question at committee level that the average number of schools per inspector per circuit is in the region of 1:40 in most areas leaves a very big question mark in my mind. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for a very meaningful discussion of our legislation and for very good contributions made by everyone. I think that hon members’ contributions give a very clear indication of their interest in Black education, and of the fact that they have taken a great deal of trouble to make a study of the subject.

I should also like to thank hon members, particularly those who made kind remarks about our tour in Natal. I can assure them that I enjoyed the tour as much as they did and that I was in many respects pleasantly surprised—as they were too—at the high standard of work being furnished. I think hon members will agree with me— we have frequently discussed that with one another—that the dedication of our officials has really impressed us all.

I thank hon members for their remarks. I hope that in the foreseeable future we shall be in a position to undertake such a tour again, perhaps to another area, so that hon members can at least see that this is a general trend that we should like to show them.

Perhaps the hon the Minister could combine this with a cricket tour.

Yes, perhaps we could combine it with a cricket tour.

I think the hon member for Berg River made a very significant speech. What he says is true, i e that we are working in abnormal conditions and that we consequently have to deal very carefully with the Bill under discussion. The fact that we could arrive at an amendment to clause 4 is an indication that we understand the delicacy of the situation.

A short while ago in the other House I also said that we must realise that we were dealing with Black education. We must consult the community and hear what the parents have to say about their needs. As clause 4 now stands, it indicates that we understand the sensitivity of the situation.

The hon member also referred to the justified grievances that exist. We, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and I, have dedicated ourselves, during our period of virtually five years in this department, to listening to the problems experienced by parents, problems being experienced in education. It has consistently been our point of departure to attempt to eliminate justified grievances.

It is also important, however, to bear the following aspect in mind. If one looks at last year’s matric results, one sees that in 26 schools there was a pass rate of 90%, and that contains a message for me. The question is: If there was a pass rate of 100% in seven of the schools, why was this not the case in the other schools as well? Why was there a mere 38% pass rate in Soweto? It goes without saying that there is something wrong somewhere. If seven schools could achieve a 100% pass rate, surely there cannot be all that much wrong with the quality of the education we are furnishing. This Bill specifically aims at solving the problem. The hon member is right, however; we must be very careful when dealing with this.

The hon member mentioned another important matter. Perhaps this falls slightly outside the scope of the Bill, but I should like to take it further. He said that the NP would have to listen to people. I have no doubt that the future of our country will be determined by the extent to which we are prepared to communicate. Many of our people, however, think that communication is only a one-way street. Communication does not mean simply talking, but also listening. I therefore fully endorse what the hon member said. I want to give him the assurance that this Ministry wholeheartedly supports that standpoint. Even though there are those who hold it against us, on the road ahead we can meet the needs of our children in Black education if we are prepared to listen to what people have to tell us.

The hon member for Esselen Park referred to clause 1. He asked us please not to “dump” old items onto the State-aided schools. There are other hon members who also referred to this. I can only say that our department only supplies new books. We purchase directly from the publishers. This year the purchases ran into millions of rands. We believe in giving our pupils nothing but the best. That is our approach; we do not believe in dumping second-hand items on our pupils.

The hon member—and other hon members too—mentioned the upward mobility of Black people in our department. He asked whether we were prepared to commit ourselves to this. Let me remind hon members of this House that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and I said in this House—I think in reaction to a speech by the hon member for Ottery—that we firmly believed in the upward mobility of Black people in our department. We are working with Black teachers and children. We therefore said that that was our view, and what we say here, is being said every day in our department. If two people, one White and one Black, both show the same profile in our department, the Black man gets the post. [Interjections.] That is our point of departure, and hon members will recall that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said in this House that he foresaw that if he and I did our work well, we would one day be replaced by a Black Minister of Education. This is our standpoint on this issue, and I can assure hon members that we have committed ourselves to that. It is a cultural aspect in Black education, and we shall do everything in our power to promote the appointment of Black people. One of our major problems, in fact, is that many of our Black people do not apply for posts. Recently we have even resorted to encouraging people to apply for posts so that we could appoint them to those posts.

The hon member for Mamre also referred to the question of the upward mobility of Black people in our department, a question to which I have just replied. He also referred to community involvement. I think clause 4 specifically bears testimony to that. It bears testimony to the fact that in regard to this tremendously sensitive matter we also call upon the management committee to take the initiative, because one cannot educate children without the co-operation of their parents, and all the teachers sitting here—I can mention them by name—know this. It is simply not possible. That is why community involvement is so important. I do not doubt that our matric results improved last year as a result of greater community and parental involvement in education. That is why the training of our teachers is also one of our management programmes aimed at making contact and communicating with our parental community. I should therefore like to associate myself with what the hon member said. I think clause 4 is also indicative of the fact that we acknowledge the interests of the community, and here I am also referring to our efforts to give our children a normal education.

The fact that we involve the management committee of the school is also an indication of the seriousness with which we view the politics of negotiation in education. I have just said in the other House that if there is one department in which the doors are open for discussion, it is our department. Throughout the years we have always evidenced an openness as far as discussion and negotiation are concerned, because we know that we cannot succeed in this important task if mutual confidence is lacking, as the hon member for Mamre said.

The hon member also said that education was the forerunner in the process of reconciliation. I wholeheartedly agree with him. If we were to succeed in our approach aimed at providing the best possible education to our children, we would know that the future of South Africa was secure. The hon member is therefore right in saying that education is the forerunner in the process of reconciliation, and that is also how we are trying to approach this task.

We should also like to thank another hon member, for whom we have great appreciation and who, in our opinion, is well-versed in educational matters, the hon member for Grassy Park, for his kind remarks about the openness in the department. We shall continue along those lines, and we hope to be able to open our doors even more widely to hon members.

The hon member also referred to the items being fobbed off on people. I have already replied to that. We supply only the best, and therefore new materials, to our pupils. I think that clause 1 specifically aims at maintaining proper standards under the department’s control, and also ensuring that the quality of the products we furnish meets the requirements we have set.

The hon member also referred to parents who should have a say in education. I think that this legislation attests to that.

The hon member for Bokkeveld ranged a bit further afield, Mr Chairman, as you rightly remarked. I want to thank him for the kind remarks he made about the pass rate.

I do just want to make one comment about the per capita expenditure. There, of course, we have certain backlogs. I think that what is important is that in the past few years we have succeeded in reducing the White to Black per capita expenditure ratio from 7:1 to 4,6:1. Things are therefore improving, and we are very greatful for that fact.

I think there is one important fact one must bear in mind when speaking about this, and that is that 80% of an educational budget is spent on teachers’ salaries. There is parity as far as salaries are concerned. A Black teacher and a White teacher with the same qualifications get the same salary.

Why is there not one department?

There is one department laying down those norms, the Department of National Education.

It is important, however, in looking at our teachers’ qualifications, to note that in 1983 only 24% of our teachers had a matriculation certificate. [Interjections.]

Order! Why is the hon member for Haarlem asking a question while he is still seated? That is not the right thing to do. If the hon member wants to put a question, he must draw my attention so that I can ask the hon the Minister whether or not he wants to reply to it. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the point I want to make is that that 24% increased to virtually 60% last year. Consequently, within the space of five years our teachers’ qualifications have dramatically improved, which means, in turn, that they are going to receive better salaries and are consequently going to exert a strong influence on the per capita expenditure.

The hon member referred to the fact that we should not neglect the schools in the rural areas. There is order in those schools and the people there work hard. I agree with the hon member. He referred to the Nduli school, and I want to tell him that I have already given instructions that all the circumstances relating to that school be investigated. As far as the accommodation is concerned, I am awaiting a reply from the department, and I can assure him that if it is at all possible, I would very much like to try to give them some assistance.

†The hon member for Ottery also made mention of the absence of Blacks when we discuss education in this place. I think I have already commented on that aspect. I wish to thank him for his friendly remarks on our achievements in Natal. I was also very glad that he could come with us on that tour.

The hon member asks for a larger slice of the cake for Black education. I just want to point out that if there is one champion for finance for Black education, it is the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. I have seen him perform and I know what effort he puts in to achieve this, and I can assure the hon member that we are trying our best to improve the financing of Black education.

The hon member also referred to the upward mobility of Blacks in the department. I have reacted to that already.

*The hon member also referred to the Whites in Black education. Ultimately, of course, we want this department to be run by Black people. I must mention, however, that there are many White teachers and officials who, with great dedication and a great deal of knowledge, are making a very valuable contribution to Black education. We must not simply dismiss that. I can, however, wholeheartedly endorse the hon member’s general trend of thought.

I thank all hon members for their very kind support. We appreciate it, because without their support we could not meet this important challenge.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, as Minister of the Budget, it is my duty to see to it that programmes aimed at satisfying the identified needs of our community are adequately financed. However, we are all aware of the fact that the total demands of all communities in South Africa, which is very much a developing country, always exceed the resources available to the Exchequer. Parliament, of which this House is an integral part, has the difficult and often thankless task of balancing public expectations with hard fiscal reality. That reality starts and ends with the macro-economic whole within which the hon the Minister of Finance must secure revenue and borrow to pay for the Administration of both general and own affairs.

It has been, Mr Chairman, and it must always be the practice of this Ministers’ Council and myself as Minister of the Budget to design an annual financial package which fits into the fiscal realities of South Africa. In essence we do everything in our power to stay within the limits set in the main estimates. Mr Chairman, I would like to point out that since the inception of the tricameral system in 1984, our requests for additional funds have been very modest and testify to sound financial management. Since the 1985-86 financial year, which was the first comparable full financial year this Administration was in operation, the requests for additional funds per financial year have been as follows:

Taking into account, Mr Chairman, double digit inflation during the entire period, the uncharted waters which our Administration has had to navigate and new services implemented by departments these increases speak of sound and responsible financial management and I am grateful to my colleagues and the officials of the Administration for their support in achieving this goal. Actually, our performance, as far as the hon the Minister of Finance is concerned, was even better because a substantial portion of the annual augmentation was financed by applying balances available in our own revenue account.

Whilst on the subject of unspent balances, I am mindful of criticism which has from time to time been voiced in this House. Hon members must know that neither I as Minister of the Budget, nor the Ministers’ Council nor the Administration are clairvoyants who can with absolute accuracy determine, more than a year in advance, what the exact extent of the needs for a specific financial year will be. Sometimes we underestimate but can always rely on a sympathetic hearing from the hon the Minister of Finance when we seek additional Exchequer allocations.

However, we also overestimate in places—unintentionally I can assure the House, but it does happen—and, where fortuitous unspent balances accumulate over the years in this fashion, the hon the Minister of Finance may, in all fairness, look to us to apply at least part of such available balances towards meeting cost overruns elsewhere in our budget. It is quite unacceptable for a department which, late in a financial year, can see an unspent balance looming, artificially to accelerate spending simply so as to avoid surrendering unspent funds to our own Treasury. Our administration has never been guilty of such fiscal sleight of hand and this has contributed in no small measure to the sympathetic view which the hon the Minister of Finance takes when considering our requests for Exchequer funding. I take it the House would not have it any other way.

I turn now to the additional estimate for the 1988-89 financial year. According to the Appropriation Bill now before the House, an additional amount of R34,349 million is required by the administration to meet estimated expenditure until the end of the current financial year, 1988-89. These additional funds are to be voted as follows:

To finance the proposed additional expenditure a financing package was tailored with the co-operation of the hon the Minister of Finance and his department which entails the following:

This is an increase of only 4,1% over the Main Estimates or slightly less than last year’s percentage increase. I believe this is entirely acceptable.

My hon colleagues are available to amplify, if necessary, the reasons for the additional funds requested and furnished in the explanatory memorandum before the House. I would, however, like to highlight a few specific items in this budget.

Hon members will observe from the explanatory memorandum that a substantial part, R350 000, of the additional funds destined for Vote 1: “Budgetary and Auxiliary Services” is to cover the estimated cost of the James Commission of Enquiry.

I think it is necessary to sketch for the House the Treasury instructions applicable to commissions of enquiry. According to Treasury instruction No T9 such expenditure, with the exception of the salaries of full-time State employees, shall be for the account of the controlling department. The controlling department is defined in Treasury instruction No. T2 as being the department or administration responsible for arranging the appointment of the commission.

Hon members know that it was in response to pressure from this House and the specific request of the hon the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that the hon the State President appointed the James Commission of Enquiry. Let there be no doubt, therefore, that these costs are rightfully for the account of this administration.

Details are as follows:

It must be stressed that these are maximum figures. It is entirely possible that the final account could be considerably lower but we must be prepared.

Hon members are probably aware of criticism levelled at the decision of the Director-General, at the commencement of the commission’s hearings, to request the State Attorney, Durban, to engage legal representation to protect the interests of the administration. It is relevant to note that the original source of this criticism was the then Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whose own interests, it soon became clear in the course of the commission’s hearings, were decidedly at variance with those of the administration.

With the wisdom of hindsight it may be asked whether, in view of the evidence which emerged showing that irregularities were largely concentrated in a well-defined area, the administration could not at some stage have dispensed with or attenuated the services of legal representatives. This was not a viable proposition at the time, I am satisfied, Mr Chairman.

Hardly a day went by without startling revelations by, or in the presence of, the high-powered council representing a variety of bodies and witnesses. To have denuded the administration of expert legal support at the hearings was considered by the Director-General to be entirely too risky and my fellow hon Ministers, with the exception of the then Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, agreed with this view and still do.

I may add that as a sequel to the James Commission report a number of Supreme Court actions are current, in prospect of all of which the administration will of necessity be incurring further legal costs.

Of course it is a great shame that the administration should have to spend public money on this service. Of course we could have spent it better on other things but hon members should seek an explanation not from me, as Minister of the Budget, or criticise the administration. They should look elsewhere to lay the blame for this shameful turn of events.

Another matter which-flows from the James Commission is the system for the procurement of text and library books for schools which was justifiably severely criticised. I would like to ease the minds of those concerned about this matter by assuring hon members that the administration, in collaboration with officials of the Department of Finance’s procurement administration and the State Tender Board, has virtually finalised a new procedure. This procedure will satisfy the requirements of fair competition and immunity to rigging of contracts.

I also want to take the opportunity to assure this House that however difficult the circumstances may be—as was evident in recent months—this Ministers’ Council and the administration are committed to render an optimal service to our community. Affordability is the only limit.

I want to take this opportunity to extend on my behalf as well as that of the Ministers’ Council our appreciation to the Director-General, the Chief Director and the directors in Budgetary and Auxiliary Services for their willing support and understanding in the discharging of our duties as the Ministery of the Budget.

I now lay upon the Table:

1. 1. Estimate of Additional Expenditure for the Financial Year ending 31 March 1989 (R.P. 11—1989).
2. 2. Explanatory Memorandum on the Estimate of Additional Expenditure for the Financial Year ending 31 March 1989, Votes 1 to 5 of the Administration: House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to say that I am not a fundi on financial matters, but unfortunately it has fallen to my lot to enter this debate. With the proliferation of the needs of the Indian community, R34 million may not have been enough. However I am certain, as the hon the Minister of the Budget has stated, that financial constraints have led to this position being brought about. I am also not unmindful that there have been times when money has been unspent and this is not the best of situations. Having perused the Bill, I am happy that the Department of Education has been given a fairly good slice, and above all, the Department of Health and Welfare received its slice as well.

I do hope that when the Main Budget comes up, we will have something more. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to voice some comment, although I believe it is not right that we should overspend on our Budget— I am a proponent of that—in this case I think the hon the Minister has justified his expenditure. However, I feel that the hon the Minister has not done a good job. He has not spent enough in comparison with the overspending in the other two administrations. We feel that we have underspent. I am saying this in fairness because I feel that we must also take the opportunity, like the other administrations when they overspend when the money is needed. We know the shortfalls in our Budget, not only as far as housing and other departments are concerned, but surely we could make use of more money for the benefit of our old-age pensioners. If we have the right to overspend at times, then subject to Treasury regulations the hon the Minister should have gone a little further and spent a little more money than a mere R34 million.

Are you criticizing your own Minister?

I am not criticizing the hon the Minister, I am asking him why he did not overspend. I am not criticizing the hon the Minister. I said he has done a good job by keeping within the limits set by the Treasury rules.

The hon the Minister has explained the expenditure of R350 000 as far as the James Commission is concerned, and as we all know, I think it was money well spent although it came from the coffers of our own administration. I felt that this money should actually have come from the Department of Justice, but the hon the Minister has given his explanation as to why this money had to be expended from the Administration of the House of Delegates.

With regard to what the hon member for Springfield said concerning my criticising my own Minister, I must say that I do not want to criticize him, but I feel that on Vote 2—Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, he has not given us a proper explanation why they did not continue completing the structure of the dental faculty at the University of Durban-Westville. In the Explanatory Memorandum the hon the Minister gives as a reason that there were some problems as far as administration is concerned. This is a problem that we have not only in regard to these particular works, but overall. We find that completion of most of our projects, either minor or major projects, is very much delayed because we do not have the proper administration to have them completed. I feel that the hon the Minister should do something more drastic than to have saved this money in this way. We should now establish at root level why this money was not expended. Where does the fault lie? We must get proper administrators. There are private consultants. We are talking about privatisation and deregulation. However, certain of these consultants should have been taken from the private sector if we do not have personnel in our own administration or if the personnel in the old administration is overworked.

Very little can be said about the overspending on Vote 3, because it was an additional amount that had to be paid to Sanitas Medical Aid Scheme. Why are there two different medical aid schemes? Why is there a different medical aid scheme for the people involved with the House of Delegates and other public servants?

We have two different norms or standards and two different medical schemes. The R10 million for health services was well spent. During question time I want to come back to this, because I want to ask the hon the Minister certain questions regarding the R6 million to which the Treasury agreed for spending on increased pension allowances. I think this does not stretch far enough, because there is still great disparity between the pension allowances for Whites and those for non-Whites. I think the hon the Minister should do something in this regard.

I have very little problem with the Estimates before us and with these few words I support them.

Mr Chairman, I cannot agree with the hon member for Allandale, nor with the hon member for Laudium, who is just leaving the Chamber. I would like to take issue with my friend, the hon the Minister of the Budget, this afternoon. He said this afternoon, and I quote:

I want to tell the hon the Minister that it is his duty to ensure—and I trust that he is listening to me …

I am listening. I am all ears.

I believe that it is his duty to ensure that a disadvantaged community—as the Indian community is and always has been—is more than adequately provided for in this forum through his Budget Estimates.

I would like to give an example of this. This is an example which was touched upon very briefly by the hon member for Laudium when he spoke about the disparity which still exists in the pension pay-outs made to the different groups. I think the hon the Minister is aware that my colleague, the hon member for Yeoville, indicated to a Joint Sitting of Parliament the other day that all that is required to bring about parity in the social payments that are made to the different sections of our community is an adjustment of 2%. If we take that example, this hon Minister could in fact have provided for that additional 2% if he had the welfare of our pensioners at heart. However, quite obviously, that has eluded him.

Secondly, I would like to take issue with the hon the Minister when he says that he would like to point out that since the inception of the tricameral system in 1984 our requests for additional funds have been very modest and testify to sound financial management. On the contrary, I would say to him, with great respect, that whilst he has been trying to practice sound financial management in his administration, he has sold out the community.

We have previously in this Chamber pointed out more than adequately that even according to the 4:2:1 ratio upon which this House is constitutionally based, this Administration has constantly been shortchanged. Obviously the hon the Minister has not taken that into account. He continues to say that the cost of a substantial portion of the annual augmentation is being financed by applying balances available in our own revenue account, and that these were made available for the current Estimates. I would like to ask the hon the Minister why there were balances in our account when in fact ours is a disadvantaged community, and when in fact we should spend all of the inadequate funds which have been provided for our Administration. In this regard I am reminded that not in any year since we have been here has this Administration been able to spend the amount of money that we have apportioned for housing development. That is where the credit balances accrue. I would like to ask the hon the Minister why this state of affairs still obtains at the present time.

They are too busy looking for positions.

An amount of R1 000 has been provided for in his estimates for the Departments of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I do not have to repeat this argument, but we are only providing R1 000 for each of these several ministries, while the Housing Development Board has funds for the Department of Housing. However, what about the Departments of Local Government and Agriculture?

I know that the Department of Local Government really is a non-department. It has no work to do. In terms of the Constitution I believe it should not even exist as an appendage to this House. I certainly believe that a lot more could have been provided in terms of agricultural needs.

I agree with the hon the Minister that an increase of 4,1% over the main estimates is reasonable and acceptable and there is no question about that. However, in these estimates an amount of R350 000 has been provided for the funding of the James Commission. This is the first time in this debate I shall agree with the hon the Minister. Every penny that was spent by this Administration was worth it. The only question that I would ask of the hon the Minister is whether he is absolutely sure that this is the total amount that will be needed by his Administration to defray the cost of the James Commission.

Except for the fact that thanks to Solidarity the culprit still continues to earn a salary.

It is entirely so that the culprit does, in fact, still earn a salary and that he is still called an hon member of this House. We know who was responsible for that.

On page six of the hon the Minister’s speech which I have in my hand, he says the following in regard to the James Commission:

With respect, perhaps what he meant to say was that denying the Administration adequate representation was too risky. I believe the hon the Minister never intended to denude the Administration. He is smiling at me, so I accept that.

Hon members will recall that I took up very strongly in this House the question of the allocation of school books to various booksellers, the irregularities that have been occasioned by that practice and the recommendations in that regard emanating from the James Commission. The hon the Minister said this afternoon that a new procedure would be established in collaboration with the officials of the Department of Finance’s Administration and the State Tender Board. This seems to be at variance with what has been reported in the media and I would like to quote from an article that appeared in the Sunday Times Extra of 19 February 1989 in which a spokesman of the Department of Education, Mr Shri Maharaj, said the following:

He goes on to say the following:

At first sight it would appear that this contradicts what the hon the Minister told us this afternoon. In fact, it contradicts the commitment made to me and other hon members of this House by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture just ten days ago when he gave us the assurance that the guidelines of the State Tender Board would be followed. By that I was led to believe that we would follow the normally accepted procedure laid down by the State Tender Board for the allocation of these contracts.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon whether, in fact, this is so and whether, in fact, the future allocation of books will be done on the open market without any secrecy and by means of the State Tender Board’s guidelines. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, additional appropriation is a customary requirement in budgeting. I therefore do not foresee any difficulty in supporting this Bill. However, it worries me whether the expenditure which is now being voted for is necessary and secondly, whether it would be expended as it is envisaged in these requirements.

One could approach the Additional Appropriation in one of two ways—a negative or a positive way. At the same time, one must appreciate that no Minister can budget in exact detail for an expenditure for a certain year. Although I may not entirely agree with certain expenditures, I have to agree that most of them are necessary. I would therefore like to make certain recommendations to the hon the Minister. I want to ask him whether he can see his way clear in the services as far as Vote 4—“Health Services and Welfare” is concerned to budget more adequately because of the alarming number of welfare grants that are being cancelled and suspended at the moment. It is such an alarming case. The whole House of Delegates is being brought to shame, as one sees when one goes to the welfare department in the surrounding areas of Chatsworth and other rural areas.

I thought the hon the Minister could ask for a bit more than he has asked for here so that the department would not have to curtail certain grants and pensions in order to meet within the confines of that Budget. However, that being so, I would like to advise the hon the Minister also to look at other aspects in the Department of Health Services and Welfare, namely the number of clerks that are being employed in the department on a temporary basis. Illis has been drummed in year in and year out, but it still prevails in the Department of Health Services and Welfare in the provinces.

I do not think it is fair that we employ clerks on a temporary basis for too long. I would concede that for a certain project one might have temporary clerks, but to have them on a temporary basis for years is not fair to them since certain privileges are being lost because of their employment as temporary clerks. I would like to ask the hon the Minister to look into this field adequately and bring some peace to these clerks who are employed on a temporary basis.

Finally, I must mention that I have great admiration for the Director-General of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. With this kind of gentleman I feel the department will have a hawk’s eye on all aspects of the running of the House of Delegates. I want to congratulate him for what he has done during the past year that he has been in this department. May he continue to show up even more of these anomalies that existed and henceforth ensure that there will be no more anomalies in this department.

Mr Chairman, I note with some concern that there is no additional money allocated for tertiary education. As a matter of fact the budget has been reduced by R2,1 million, and I would like to comment on tertiary education administered by the House of Delegates.

More and more concern is being voiced on the need for technical education in the country. I can see South Africa moving towards being an industrialised nation in the years to come; an industrialised nation which will cater for the domestic needs as well as for the export markets. The emphasis should shift from gold as the mainstay of the economy to agriculture and industry. There is great potential for industrial development in South Africa. If the Chinese could establish industries in Transkei and use the South African raw materials, what are we doing?

I would like to exhort the hon the Minister to look into this matter. Why should the House of Delegates not play an initiating role in establishing think-tanks to predict the industrial growth of South Africa—not only for the industrial growth, but also for peace and harmony and good relationships among the people?

I think we should predict and adapt for the 21st century and in this instance the House of Delegates could play a very vital role.

If they get their act together!

I would even go so far as to suggest that we should establish a chair for an educational faculty at the University of Durban Westville where they could court and initiate certain reforms in education for South Africa so that it is not along ethnic, but along multiracial lines.

I think it is time we in the House of Delegates made the input rather than merely playing an administrative role. We will also play a vital role in developing the future of this country.

Dr John van Zyl, director of the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba’s educational policy, went on an extended tour of the USA and Australia but I believe that when he came back, he said that in spite of the segregations in America after the High Court judgement ruling in 1954, education cannot be separate and equal at the same time. Since then they have desegregated schools. They have multiracial schools with Negro’s and Whites together but they had to go a very long way to live up to the expectations. How many more problems will we create in South Africa, being ethnically orientated?

We have not even embarked on a multiracial educational system. It is therefore time that we made a move to open tertiary education as a starting point for all racial groups so that there will be harmony, peace and good relationships in the future of this country. At the same time there will be competition and hope for better quality and standards. We cannot afford at this juncture to be operating on ethnic lines because the standards will definitely not live up to expectations and we will have to rely on overseas imports all the time.

At the moment we also have imported migrant labour to this country to bring in the skilled labour forces which are required. We can develop the potential in the country. I think therefore that we should give it some very serious attention and I will again emphasise it and ask the hon the Minster to look into this matter and set aside additional funds for a chair at the University of Durban-Westville, where they could initiate this move towards uplifting and bringing about reform in education in this country.

Mr Chairman, first of all I must take this opportunity of complimenting my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, for presenting a modest Additional Estimate under the circumstances. The activities of the Department of Education and Culture, if I may refer to that, are financed through four main programmes, namely the administration of education, tertiary education, cultural programmes and, as I mentioned, administration.

Before I go into any detail, however, I just want to say that the Allocations Committee, as mentioned earlier by hon members, is definitely being looked at very seriously, and the suggestions made by the James Commission are certainly going to be put into operation. I am not deviating from what I said earlier on.

I think hon members will be extremely happy to see that system in operation here. When one talks about this system, it is compared with the old system that has been in operation for the last few years and which we found to be totally inadequate and unacceptable.

Corrupt.

Corrupt is a better word.

I am not saying that, but the hon Mr Justice James has said so, so it is accepted.

I also wish to say to the hon member for Mere-bank that he has mentioned the matter of non-racial education; education not based on ethnicity. I want to tell him as well as the hon member for Springfield that I never heard them talk about nonracial education when they had the opportunity in the House of Assembly. They only choose to talk about that here …

We did not have the time.

I am merely saying that they only take the opportunity … [Interjection.] I am sorry, Sir, I have limited time.

I specifically mentioned that.

Order! The hon the Minister must proceed.

This is the smallest department that is trying to do its very best within certain limitations, and the hon member must appreciate that we have been the first to initiate other groups coming into our schools. Which other group has done that? Take the Assembly, or, for that matter, Black education. [Interjections.] Have they done that? I am certain the answer is in the negative. Please, therefore bear this in mind when uttering criticisms.

Coming back to education, I just wish to mention that of the four programmes that I mentioned earlier, under the programme: Administration, additional funds are required mainly as a result of the 45% increase in the State’s contribution to the Sanitas medical scheme—which was mentioned by my hon colleague—with effect from 1 April 1988. Under the second programme, Education, the expenditure on housing subsidies will increase by a subsidy of 16,78% as the result of an increase in the interest rates levied by financial institutions. The report goes on:

Under programme 3—“Tertiary education”— the hon member for Merebank queried this allocation—I want to say that the fund requirement shows an overall decrease mainly because the payment of interest and redemption was confined to only one new loan which was approved for the M L Sultan Technikon’s capital development program, instead of the five loans for which provision was originally made. In addition the delay in the finalisation of this new loan has resulted in the payment of interest and redemption for a period of 6 months only, whereas provision was made for the full financial year. Here I do want to say that mention was made of the fact that one cannot forecast how much one would require. I think it is in keeping with that fact. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to offer my congratulations to my colleague the hon the Minister for a well-thought-out speech which he delivered earlier.

I want to confine myself to two aspects in this presentation by my hon colleague. The one aspect is Vote 2—“Local Government, Housing and Agriculture”, which was touched upon by the hon member for Springfield. The other aspect, which appears on page 5, regards the legal costs pertaining to the James Commission.

As far as the costs pertaining to the James Commission are concerned I feel that the money was well spent, as the hon member for Springfield has said. I also feel the money had to be spent and there was a need to spend that money. However, that money would have been well spent if the whole exercise of the James Commission conveys a message to all of us here and all of those who will succeed us in the future. No matter what happens, no matter how a person conducts himself or herself in public, whether such a person is a member of Parliament, an official or a Minister, there will always be a day on which to account for not treading the straight and narrow path. Therefore, if we say that the money was well spent we must also take a lesson from the spending of that money and see to it that we avoid a path which will occasion a James Commission in the future.

[Inaudible.]

I am not suggesting anything, but I am saying that we must learn a lesson. We must not spend the money and forget about it. The money was spent and it was well spent, but it holds a lesson for each and everybody.

Particularly for those in the Ministers’ Council.

Particularly for hon members of Parliament, because members of Parliament are also accountable to the electorate and to the public. Not only hon members of the Ministers’ Council but all hon members of Parliament have a responsibility to …

Manipulation takes place within in the Ministers’ Council!

Yes, but I do not want to engage in a debate with the hon member. I want to say now that even though we requested a nominal amount of R1 000 for the Vote Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, I do share the concern about this most important Vote of all—if one wants to place an importance on Votes. Here we have a Vote concerning housing.

I want to speak only on the aspect of housing. The topic of agriculture I will leave to my colleague the hon the Minister of Agriculture. I just want to say a few things on Vote 2 as it pertains to housing.

There are many reasons why the money for this particular Vote has not been expended to the satisfaction of the Ministers’ Council. I want to make it very clear to hon members that the fact that a nominal amount is mentioned here and the fact that we are not asking for additional funds do not reflect on the inability of the Ministers’ Council or the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who is also the hon the acting Minister of Housing.

We—that is myself and the hon the acting Minister of Housing—have inherited problems. Firstly, this budget and the expenditure thereof was not entirely of our making. We inherited it from the former Minister of Housing. It is to my mind regrettable that only the nominal amount that we have here has been budgeted for.

Apart from the fact that we have inherited this problem we have other associated problems that inhibit our efforts to expend these moneys adequately. One of these is that in many instances we are entirely dependent on the local authorities for the expenditure of moneys for housing. It is the local authorities who act as agents for us and who have to provide the housing in the areas of their jurisdiction.

We therefore find ourselves in a position where local authorities do not perform their functions adequately. They delay the applications and if and when applications for housing funds are made to our administration they are not properly motivated. We do not have the plans and other documents which comply with the requirements. These applications then have to be referred back to them. I know of an instance where our housing board approved of housing in 1986 but we are still waiting for the local authorities to make the necessary application for these funds and to provide the documentation.

The blame should therefore not be laid at the door of the Ministers’ Council, at the door of my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget or at the door of the hon the Acting Minister of Housing. There is this definite problem which has to be resolved in that the local authorities have to be persuaded to hasten the processing of applications.

There is another problem associated with this. Lately the local authorities have been imposing high costs of land servicing on us. In addition to this we are faced with the present high cost of building. We have a financial ceiling in that we may not provide houses that cost in excess of R30 000. In many instances it is difficult to provide services on the land, eg in many cases additional foundations have to be provided. This increases the cost of these houses. We then have the problem of the affordability of these homes.

The higher the cost of houses the more rent the people have to pay. So this question of the high standard of services that the local authorities impose on us is another matter of concern. The hon member for Allandale might be interested to learn that one of the local authorities which have imposed these high standards on us is the local authority he comes from. The Dunveria development has been delayed to some extent for the reason that a high standard of services was imposed on us. That matter is now receiving attention.

Your department is procrastinating.

I do not agree that my department is procrastinating. My department is doing everything possible. However, the provision of housing is a two-way game. It is not only the department. I admit there may be instances where the department does, because of the overload some departments have in the House of Delegates, suffer some delays. The blame for the delays cannot entirely be laid at the door of the Administration: House of Delegates. The local authorities have to take some of the blame. I believe that if both the local authorities and the administration conduct their affairs with a measure of urgency, we will be able to overcome the backlog in the provision of housing.

We then have the question of land shortages. Associated with that we have the high cost of land. Unfortunately a clause in the Group Areas Amendment Bill, which would have had a freezing effect on the cost of land that has been identified for housing, is in this Bill, which we find totally unacceptable. It would, however, have kept the cost of land down. Then there is the question of land usage and the Group Areas Act proclamations. In an instance in my constituency an enquiry with regard to the provision of land for housing was done in 1984. Four years have now gone by and we have not yet received the result of the enquiry. Therefore, the land which has been made available to us during the last four years cannot be used for the simple reason that we as an administration may not expend money in an area which has not been proclaimed for Indian occupation. That is another aspect of the delay we are faced with.

In the proposal which we are discussing here, we also have item 3 on Education and Culture. Recently a Minister of the KwaZulu government launched an attack on us and criticized our administration for not allowing Black students at our schools. However, I gave a statement to a reporter who rang me up to find out what my reaction in this regard is. I told him that I would like to invite the Minister who criticized us to visit me in my constituency and I will be able to show him how we in fact share our schools, not only with members of the Black community, but also with Coloured pupils.

I know in Ladysmith we have a high school and the Coloured community has no high school, but all the Coloured children attend our high school. In Colenso there are no schools for the Coloured community, but if anyone were to come with me—and I attend assemblies of many schools— they would be able to see that Coloured and Black children attend our schools. Of course the media does not publish such information, because it is not sensational and it is pro-tricameral Parliament. I have invited one journalist in particular to come with me to Mooi River, where I have arranged for housing to be shared with the Coloured community. However, when we share our facilities, which are provided for in this Budget, with other communities, it is not newsworthy. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their contribution to the debate on the Additional Appropriation Bill. I think what needs to be re-emphasised is that the figures presented in the Budget are additional to the Estimates as approved in the previous year. Common sense dictates that good and orderly accounts should be maintained so that one does not overspend beyond the bounds of necessity or underspend so that one deprives the community of what we are expected to give them in the way of services.

Referring to the hon member for Laudium, I believe that to overspend and then to loose credibility is not a fair suggestion. We need not overspend and then find ourselves in difficulty. It is not good administration to spend beyond the means of what is advisable. The present state of the economy does not permit unwise expenditure or expenditure which is not absolutely essential. In regard to that, the hon the Minister of Finance has given us guidelines and parameters within which each Administration has to spend the funds which are made available to it. Therefore I believe that the officials of my ministry have tried to the best of their abilities to keep expenditure within limits.

Hon members made certain points and instead of referring to each hon member, I believe I should be giving a general reply to the points raised.

Firstly, in relation to the James Commission, I want to explain, for the information of hon members—and if they already know this I want to reiterate it—what my administration did in relation to the James Commission expenditure. The former hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council insisted that Ministers who testified before the Commission should do so at the expense of the State. We, the Ministers, felt that the State must not bear the expense of Ministers. The Ministers, as individuals, had to bear their expenses.

However, we had to protect the Administration and the officials who had to appear before the commission and therefore the expenditure of R350 000 is the maximum at this stage. Possibly the amount may be lowered. Therefore the R350 000 mentioned by hon members has been money well spent.

The James Commission must be seen as a deterrent, not only for hon members of Parliament or hon Ministers, but also for the general public who indulge in corrupting the powers that be for their own benefit.

A clear example is the Checkers deal where professional members of the community are so critical of the tricameral system and are so disparaging in their description of this House that they accuse us of participating in a system that they are against.

At tea-time in the kitchens of hospitals the doctors criticise the health and welfare services that we render. Yet Dr P N Govender, a vibrant man, participated in the Checkers deal behind closed doors. These are the people that need to be exposed, and the James Commission was the ideal place where they could be exposed for their activities behind the scenes.

It was very easy to discover to whom the third voice on the tape belonged. The investigations of the James Commission were held in camera and behind closed doors, but afterwards the witnesses let the cat out of the bag and we now know that it was Dr P N Govender. He is highly critical of the tricameral system but he wanted to share in the spoils of the House of Delegates, as it were. I am making this point because I believe that even the public at large must not be making overtures to hon Ministers or officials of the Administration.

Or even the wives of hon Ministers.

I am glad the hon member mentioned wives because very recently wives of hon members of Parliament were actively canvassing support for certain people.

We have had problems in relation to our oral and dental hospital attached to the Durban-Westville University. We have had problems because the Department of National Health and Population Development says that we do not meet the norms.

At the moment discussions are being held between that ministry and the Administration: House of Delegates. We have had private consultations with them. There are certain norms that have to be adhered to but they are not unsurmountable. Our Administration is looking at them together with the Director-General of the Department of National Health and Population Development, Dr Slabbert. We have a meeting set for 1 March 1989 about the norms and we are hopeful that the matter will be resolved amicably.

The hon member for Bayview spoke about the temporary clerks in the Administration. Hon members will recall that the employment of the unemployed on a casual basis was the result of the Department of Manpower giving us funds to employ these people in the various offices that we control.

In my opinion, temporary employment is better than doing nothing forever. This indeed has some benefit for those who are unemployed. What normally happens is that if we find that those who are employed on a temporary basis adapt themselves to our situation, they are taken on on a permanent basis.

However, many of these temporary clerks or others are perhaps in some cases educationally unqualified to be given permanent employment, but we are always watching the situation. Whenever there is a need for extra hands in the work situation, we employ them.

As far as the issue of school booksellers is concerned, I want to say on behalf of the Ministers’ Council and on behalf of the Administration that there will never again be an allocations committee like the one that was constituted in the past. The newspaper article which the hon member for Springfield referred to is not correct. It is incorrect. Coming from the public relations officer as it does, I can appreciate that it may still be in the pipeline, but it is not the ultimate decision. We are going to work according to the norms of the State Tender Board. We are having a committee set up and rules are being framed in conjunction with the State Tender Board as to what is adaptable in our situation. There will not be any deviation from the State Tender Board’s requirements. However, we have certain peculiar circumstances to which we will have to adapt ourselves, but generally we subscribe to the principles of the State Tender Board.

I want to refer to overspending in relation to the amount of R1 000 under Vote 2—“Local Government, Housing and Agriculture”. Had it not been there, I doubt very much whether the hon member for Springfield would have debated the issue. Because of the amount of R1 000 on the estimates, we are now debating this. I just want to say that the hon the Deputy Minister has made the point that under Vote 2—“Local Government, Housing and Agriculture” we have sufficient funds, particularly with regard to the Housing Development Fund. What invariably happens is that when local authorities are requested to make applications for funds, they delay their applications. As a result of this, the funds are still not expended when it comes to the end of the financial year. They therefore still have to remain within our surplus. I think that is a fair explanation.

Mr Chairman …

I do not have time to answer questions. Perhaps the hon member will have an opportunity to raise his point during question time.

I just want to refer briefly to Vote 5—“Improvement of conditions of service”. The substantial increase in this Vote is due to revised dispensation for CS educators with effect from 1 December 1988 and the general salary increase of 15% for public servants and CS educators with effect from 1 January 1989.

Membership of the PSMAA, the Public Service Medical Aid Association, is open to all officials of State departments. To transfer from Sanitas to PSMAA will take a little time, but I do believe that the time has arrived for us to phase out Sanitas and get our contributors onto the PSMAA. One cannot immediately dispense with Sanitas.

I also want to refer to Vote 5—“Improvement of conditions of service” which was raised by the hon member for Merebank. The augmentation of subsidies to State-aided institutions looks like this: The University of Durban-Westville, R121 000; the M L Sultan Technikon, R41 000; and welfare organisations, R445 000. This gives a total of R607 000.

There is therefore no neglect on the part of the administration in relation to the subsidies or the augmentation of subsidies to State-aided institutions.

I want to say once again that when we look at the main estimates for the coming year, 1989-1990, cognisance will be taken of what we are asking in this Additional Appropriation so that we could perhaps forecast for 1989-1990 and take into consideration the points which have been made here.

I agree that insofar as the House of Delegates is concerned, insofar as the Indian community is concerned, like the other communities of colour, ours is an historical backlog in relation to many of the amenities and facilities which are needed.

We are in what is normally described as a valley or a V-shape situation. We have to reach the levels, but in reaching the levels we have also got to look at the requirements of the Black community. The greatest need is that of the Black community and we need to make our own contribution, in addition to that of the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives, towards the improvement of the quality of life of our fellow Black citizens.

Despite all this I believe that we in the House of Delegates and our administration need to apply our minds towards the rectification of the discrepancies in relation to social welfare, pensions and so forth.

Mr Chairman, I once again thank all hon members for their contributions.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Schedule put:

Mr Chairman, I am given to understand that the large-scale unemployment of teachers and the reason for placing teachers on temporary staff, is due to a lack of funds. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether this is true. If not, when will temporary teachers be accorded a permanent post?

Mr Chairman, if it is question time, then I think that the relevant hon Minister should be answering the questions.

Mr Chairman, I want to say at the outset that the hon member for Merebank knows that we have not completed appointing all teachers yet. We still have some teachers on hand and they will be appointed as soon as the vacancies occur. That is because some new schools are going to open very soon and we have them in mind.

As far as the temporary teachers are concerned, I want to assure every hon member in this House that we are appointing all those teachers who are required by the needs of the department on a permanent basis, and that the number of substantive posts for permanent appointments are limited.

If I may just elaborate on that, we have approximately 12 000 teachers, and according to the number of pupils in the schools, the number of substantive posts is substantially lower than 13 000. We must therefore be very circumspect in appointing people on a permanent basis. The appointment is made on the basis of the needs and requirements of the department. The process thus far has not been completed, and I can assure hon members that the department is still looking at the position of teachers and is still making appointments on a permanent basis.

I think I have answered that question. If there are any other questions my colleague will be able to answer them.

Order! I want to point out to hon members that the idea here is that hon members may question the Ministers’ Council on the different votes. Since I only have two names on the list, I called upon those two hon members to speak, but I think that since this is the first opportunity in this House, I should like to give hon members the opportunity to ask any questions if they wish to do so.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture did mention that teachers will be appointed to permanent posts. How permanently are these teachers going to be appointed when, early last week, the hon Minister stated that a teacher’s services can be terminated if they are not required?

Mr Chairman, I would like to put a question to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. His reply in this House and that of the hon the Minister of the Budget was that a tender system was being looked into for the allocation of books. I should like to pose this question: Is the tender system that applicable to the White division of education as well as Coloured Education, available to Indian booksellers and for that reason …

Order! I want to draw the attention of the hon member to the fact that the questions must be relevant to the Vote in question, and the increase that is being sought. In short: Why is the hon the Minister asking us to appropriate more money? If hon members have any questions falling within that category, they are entitled to ask those questions.

Mr Chairman, I should like the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to answer this question. As regards teachers from a particular province who are trained in our institutions in Durban, is the hon the Minister applying his mind to seeing to it that those teachers are appointed in that particular province where they come from? Is my question out of order, Mr Chairman?

Order! The hon member may carry on; I am listening.

The reason is that they go to Durban at considerable expense to be trained, and when they are posted, they are posted to other provinces.

The second question is this: Teachers trained in institutions other than Indian institutions have not been given posts in Indian schools. Why not?

Order! Is the hon member trying to ask the hon the Minister why he wants more money, and why he is not prepared to cater for such teachers?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order! Then the question is relevant.

Mr Chairman, as far as appointments to permanent posts are concerned, I have already answered that, but as regards the hon member for Tongaat, I am not sure whether he understands what needs and requirements really mean. I want to elaborate on one point, so that this may be brought home to him. I said that my department appoints teachers on the basis of the department’s needs. For example, if a teacher has a subject and he is not fully qualified to teach that subject, be it science or the humanities, then we make do with such a teacher if we do not have a fully-qualified teacher. Compare a teacher who has, for example, science subjects such as biology, mathematics, physical science, with a person who has only biology and may be able to teach up to std 8 only.

When I say “needs” I mean that we will take that teacher who is fully qualified with three subjects and sciences, rather than the fellow who can only go up to standard 8. Those are the needs of the Department. I hope I have qualified carefully.

I fully understand the hon member for Rylands’s question, I want to remind him that I have often said in this House that two years ago we had reached a position where we had more teachers than we required. We also gave the reasons therefor and we said that family planning had caught up with the Indian community so fast that we—I am referring to my Department—were caught out in our planning because for the number of teachers that qualified, we found that there were not enough pupils. As far as pupils in the schools were concerned, the growth dropped. Therefore we had more teachers than were required. However, when we appealed to our counterparts they were very willing and felt able to assist us to take these teachers on a temporary basis. When they were faced with the reality, that was not the position. Our Coloured counterparts did assist us to some extent, but the people at the Department responsible for Black education, who had been very willing to take our teachers in the first place, came back to me and said that they were sorry but they could not do it. Although there are unqualified teachers in their Department, those people have years of service. They said that the problem would be that we would have been appointing qualified Indian teachers to displace unqualified Black teachers. We were then left with extra teachers on hand and we had to employ them although we did not have substantive posts for them. That should answer the question of the hon member for Merebank: We did not have enough substantive posts and that is why we are still having problems appointing all 12 000 qualified teachers in permanent positions. At the moment we still have extra teachers, but I can assure hon members that we will be able to appoint them within the next few months because we will be opening new schools.

Order! I just want to direct hon members’ attention to the Estimate of Additional Expenditure, where there is a column in which increases are reflected. Questions should be relevant to the reasons for those increases. We have come to the end of this debate.

Debate concluded.

Votes and Schedule agreed to.

Second Reading debate

Mr Chairman, I believe hon members have been sufficiently informed of the additional requirements. I would therefore appreciate less contribution to the Second Reading debate.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

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

The thrust of the draft resolution is that the proposed devolution of power to local affairs committees and management committees is in our opinion an entrenchment of apartheid and that it must not be proceeded with. Every adult must be accorded representation on the local authority of the area in which he resides.

May I just interrupt myself at this stage to welcome the hon the Acting State President to this Chamber. It is the first time that he appears in the Chamber in this capacity. I know that he has come to reply to this debate in his position as Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning but nevertheless I would like to welcome him to this House in his position as Acting State President. I would also like to take the opportunity this afternoon to acknowledge that, despite the differences that we may have had on some political issues, I would be the first to admit that that hon gentleman has been in the forefront of the reformist movement in this country. I want to acknowledge that.

Of course I may have differed with him on the question of the pace of reform in this country. Of course I may have differed with him on some of the contents of reform in this country. Nevertheless, one cannot deny that that hon Minister has done a great deal for reform in this country. If I may say so, one of the first steps that he took was to appoint me to the President’s Council! [Interjections.]

I was told that the hon the Minister was available to discuss my motion this afternoon. I would really have appreciated—seeing that the hon the Minister is available—the opportunity of debating my draft resolution regarding the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. However, I was told that that was not to be. I am sorry about that because I think we all agree that that particular Act is destined for the scrapheap where it rightly belongs. I believe that that particular Act has been the cause of severe race relations problems in this country at the present time. Nevertheless, I am grateful that the hon the Minister is here, bearing in mind the heavy workload that he has.

More than 300 years ago there arose a cry which led not only to the French Revolution but also to the American Revolution and which ultimately brought freedom from the colonial yoke to oppressed nations throughout the world. That cry is as relevant today as it was then and it is certainly very relevant to the draft resolution before the House this afternoon. That cry was that taxation without representation is tyranny.

When one looks at our present situation one must acknowledge that it is as a result of the reformist measures of the hon the Minister that we sit here today. Although we have grave difficulties with the fact that our Black countrymen are not accommodated in the same way, the fact remains that the community from which I come certainly has representation at a national level.

The contradiction becomes apparent when we consider this against the background of that which is taking place at a local level. The hon the Minister would be the first to admit that it is at that level that the ordinary man in the street has to deal with authority concerning his day to day existence. We find by and large that at that level members of the Indian and the Coloured communities have representation on what is called local affairs committees and on what is called management systems.

This House has taken several decisions in regard to local affairs systems. It has been said that it is an outmoded system, that it does not provide effective representation on the bodies that count, that it is toothless and that it is merely advisory in function.

The demand has been for direct representation— that is, direct representation on all local authorities in which people find themselves. This demand, I believe, is well summed up by the report of the Association of Local Affairs Committees. I have before me a report that was published in The Sunday Tribune dated 29 March 1987, which highlighted this problem as follows:

The president of the Natal Local Affairs Committees, Mr Hassim Cassim, has this to say about it, and I quote from the same report:

As I have said earlier on, I believe that in a sense that encapsulates the argument that the hon the Minister wishes to lead before this House this afternoon. One may well ask why we say that the LAC system entrenches apartheid. In our view a definition of apartheid is the attempt at social and political engineering that is aimed ultimately at keeping people apart.

It has failed and for many reasons. It has failed to my mind primarily because of the empowerment that has come to all of us who have been denied the franchise at local level, particularly because of the economic factors. One cannot deny that Black communities in particular have been economically empowered. This is one significant reason why this whole outmoded system of apartheid has failed. No less a person than the hon the State President has actually acknowledged that, when he said that it needs to be replaced with something else. The reality of the South African situation is an empowerment, but I draw the distinction between empowerment and domination. If one looks at the local affairs systems, what do we have? We have domination. We have domination over people who are ratepayers. They have absolutely no say in any matter related to their welfare, simply because they are not represented on the councils that count.

What has been the result of the non-representation of the majority of our people on all local authorities? It is very clear to see. One has Boksburg, which is a dirty word today not only nationally but also internationally. I was told that large industries which are located in Boksburg and do substantial business overseas had to change their postal addresses overnight so as to indicate that they are not really connected with Boksburg, that was making headlines.

What does Boksburg do? It merely applies the laws we have on the Statute Book. The simple point I want to make is that if Black, Indian or Coloured communities were represented on such councils as the city council of Boksburg, they in their wisdom would never decide to give full implementation to the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. They would have realised that we are going through a process of reform, and, this being such a sensitive issue, they would have decided not to go ahead with that implementation.

Another consequence of this is the stupid paybeaches scheme that is now being proposed in Durban, where the public amenity of Durban, the beach, which is there for all to enjoy, will now be denied to the vast majority of the people of Durban, simply because some White local authority on which there is no Black representation takes it upon itself to decide that henceforth people who wish to use the beaches of Durban must pay. I know that the hon the Minister is concerned about this, as indeed he should be, and I am sure that he has the full facts, but what I want to say to him this afternoon is that this is a direct consequence of keeping people out of local authorities in which the decisions are taken. The issue is being debated at the present time. No final decision has been taken in that regard, but I believe it is a matter which will be debated. The whole point is this: Why should such a decision be taken?

Another issue that comes to mind is the one we debated in this Chamber, namely the question of the Victoria Street market. All of this leads me to believe that if we wish to have a peaceful resolution to our problems in this country, and if we need peace and stability, we must start looking very seriously at local authority structures. I believe that the only way out is in fact to give people direct representation on all local authorities.

The hon the Minister is aware of the fact that several years ago, as a compromise, some people even put forward a suggestion that representatives of the chairmen of local affairs committees should in fact sit on these local authorities. Even that compromise was never accepted. It all brings me back to the argument that it is the view of the people I represent, the Indian community in particular, that at local authority level we need direct representation and that an end must be put to the LAC system immediately.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to rise to speak soon after the mover of the motion, the hon member for Springfield. The motion was put forward in view of the fact that the experiment of local affairs committees and their counterparts elsewhere, management committees, has now celebrated its twenty-first birthday.

I remember that when these moves were first initiated in Durban the late Mr Percy Fowle, who pioneered the experiment, indicated in his inaugural address that local affairs committees or management committees were merely the introduction of the Indian community—he was then addressing the Indian community—to local government and that after the initial tutelage there would be a further move to give the Indian community their rightful position, namely participation in local government as we understand it.

I personally—that goes for you too, Mr Chairman—first entered the local affairs committee in Durban way back in 1968. Nothing has changed in regard to the growth of this body. It has not evolved over these years to satisfy the promises which were initially made when we were asked to participate in this system.

What has, in fact, happened? Over the years it has not attracted the kind of people with the necessary experience who could serve the Indian community as their representatives in municipal government. The kind of people that have come forward are well-meaning persons, but the support for participation has been restricted to a section of the community.

Having listened to spokesmen for the Government, including the hon the Acting State President and the hon leader of the NP, who said that in 1989 we intend to chart a new course to address outstanding problems with a view to finding answers, I believe that local government certainly affords all of us a wonderful opportunity to avoid duplication and to remove frustration from the hearts and minds of those people who want to participate in and contribute to the larger process of reform in its widest sense. If people can come together and share responsibilities at the level of local government, it represents a first step in the direction of addressing and overcoming a problem on which all of us in South Africa— Black, Coloured, White and Indian—have to work together.

I have said before and I want to say it again today, that I would be prepared to stand up on any platform to reassure the White component in order to allay their fears and in order to entice them to come forward and participate in a new experiment to have a lower representation in a multiracial council for a while, so that we shall be able to demonstrate to all who participate in a municipality that we are not there to dominate, that our needs are no different from the needs of other communities living within a municipal area and that on the basis of our experience we shall also contribute to achieving the one goal of making it possible for every home-owner in a municipality to contribute the lowest amount in rates for the maximum benefit.

That philosophy runs through the minds of all people, whether they are Coloured, Indian, Black or White. We would then be able to make the optimum use of the funds that are generated by the payment of rates and taxes to local authorities.

Mr Chairman, two months ago when the rains caused an enormous amount of damage in the Chatsworth area, to cite only one area, the MPs of that area and the local affairs committee met in Chatsworth and after that in the city hall, with a view to looking at some of the problems in that area that have remained unresolved since the days when you and I were members of the local affairs committee. Streams that posed no threat during the construction and planning of that township suddenly became rivers.

When the floods came, enormous damage was caused to homes which were built alongside these unsuspected waterways. Even at this point in time nobody has assumed responsibility for the damage sustained by these home owners.

I know an area in question where people had come from the city of Durban and they were allocated vacant stands on which they built their homes. They did not know the history of this stream. To them it meant nothing, but in the last flood, damage amounting to thousands of rands was done to many, many homes. The question now is: Who pays for the restoration of their homes and gardens to the condition they were in before the floods came? It would appear now that if any money is made available by the local authority, it will have to come out of ratepayers’ pockets again.

The stormwater drainage was found to be inadequate, with the result that the drainage system has also contributed to the damages sustained by houses all over that area. When I was there with the chairman of the Local Affairs Committees, I said to him: “How do we satisfy these people? Can we give them an honest answer as to who is responsible for restoring their homes and repairing the damage that has been done?”

A reservoir which was built caused water to cascade down and homes and lives were threatened. Even at this point in time the damage is a sight to be seen. Anyone who visits these areas will note that adequate repairs have still not been completed. All I am saying is that we were taken out of the cities and put into these areas. Any repairs to or extensions of sewerage schemes or drainage have to be carried out at today’s cost. This capital cost represents a lot of money and that money has to come from the local people.

Anything that we left behind in the city of Durban was built 30 to 40 years ago. To replace that in the areas in which we live is a very costly financial burden on the community. That is the reason why I would like to see a new examination of our participation and the participation of the South African community as a whole in local government. I want us to examine and arrive at some kind of a compromise which brings us around the table. If there are going to be compromises, we will contribute to those compromises so long as we sit around the horseshoe as ratepayers of a city. We must examine our problems with a view to finding answers that will be acceptable to all the people.

I believe that this move which has been mooted to increase the powers of the local affairs committees, is a dangerous one. It could very well militate against the reform process itself, because unsuspecting people could very well commit themselves for that matter to incur expenses without the ability to repay loans. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it has been the Government’s view and also I think the current Government’s thinking that management committees and local affairs committees should become ethnic local authorities.

Since the time of its inception in 1968—as was rightly pointed out by the previous speaker— local affairs committees and management committees are now celebrating their 21st anniversary. In other words, they have prematurely come of age.

Let us look at these management committees and local affairs committees from the point of view of the community’s concern. Admittedly, the Government has argued from their point of view that some sort of municipal representation should have been given to those who lacked municipal representation. The submissions that were made by the communities of colour were that this was an ideology of the Government.

As I have pointed out, the Government’s thinking was eventually to leave these local affairs committees and management committees to local authorities based on ethnicity. There was to be Coloured local affairs, Indian local affairs, Black local affairs and White local affairs.

Parliament is also structured on that basis. There are three Ministers of Local Government in the three Houses—in the House of Assembly, in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates.

Then one has a general affairs Minister who is none other than the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Then we also have administrators who act as administrative functionaries in-between. Somewhere along the road the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning with his high-powered team—and hon members know he has got the highest powered team as far as expertise is concerned—discovered that there was an anomaly in the departments of South Africa as far the Constitution is concerned, and that is that one cannot hand over power to a Minister in the own affairs department until one has changed the law.

I think—I speak under correction and the hon the Minister may correct me—that an ordinance was pushed through in 1986 empowering the Administrator so that the hon Ministers would have power to administer own affairs as far as local government was concerned.

My question is this. Why was it an ordinance? Why did it not go through the respective Houses of Parliament? Was the reason that it would have been shot down in the respective Houses, or was it that it could easily go through the provincial administrations because we do not have a direct input there?

I am only asking this question because it worries us as to why Parliament was bypassed—Parliament being the highest legislative body in the country—and this went through as an ordinance. Looking back at the history of local affairs and management committees, these were in the first instance, and are up to this moment in time, only advisory bodies and the hon the Minister knows that this caused a lot of friction because the local bodies were just consulted, but the full authority was given to, as we would call it, the parent authority.

The parent authority ultimately had to take the final decision. No matter what the local affairs committees discussed or decided, no matter what decisions they took, the final decision was taken by an all-White town council or an all-White local authority. This brought about a conflict situation; a situation which brought conflict between community and local affairs, local affairs and the local White authority.

To solve their problems interim measures were introduced whereby the local authorities were asked to consult the management committees or the local affairs committees on matters pertaining or relating to the affairs of the particular communities concerned.

Even that proved to be unsatisfactory because the question arose as to what communication was. How does one communicate? Does one communicate by telephone? Does one communicate verbally or does one communicate by virtue of an adopted resolution? Plans, designed to bring about consensus, also brought about conflict.

Another step was reached where they said that they would now talk about a devolution of power. A lot of arguments took place as to whether the devolution of power should be on a vertical basis or a diminutive basis, and on a technicality it was decided how this should be achieved.

It is now 21 years later, and no one has come to the right decision because the communities are saying that the principle should be one of direct representation on the local authority. This simply means the right to vote and to be voted for.

I realise that the hon member for Glenview has suggested for the sake of forward movement that on an interim basis he is willing to defend this publicly, even if it meant a few members on—I am not quoting him verbatim—a multiracial council. He has even suggested that. However, while I respect him for the view that he has submitted, for the purposes of progress we have a problem. If one takes the example of the Cape Town City Council, they did have that type of representation where people of Colour were serving on a 40-member council. Nothing concrete took place. With all due respect to the hon member for Glenview—I accept his bona fides in making that suggestion—I think that the day of cosmetic and token representation is now over. The community has reached the stage nowadays in which one no longer has people who think in the old terms. The days of moderates are passing. We now have younger people, and the legislation specifies very clearly that any person over the age of 18 can exercise his municipal vote. Token representation is not what the people are looking for. I re-emphasise that what the people are looking for is the right to vote and to be voted for.

There are municipalities that speak a liberal and progressive language, but they are the main culprits; they are the cause of conflict between the communities of colour and the authorities concerned. I could put forward as an example the municipality to which I belong. I reiterate that I am in favour of direct representation; I say this lest I am misunderstood. However, here I blame the Nationalist Government for the problems that we have in this country and they are taking advantage of this.

I wish to make it very clear, lest I am misunderstood, that local affairs and management committees want devolution of power. I recognise the representation made by the hon member for Glenview. He says: Let us get out of this rut and at least have a compromise for the sake of progress. However, I reiterate that we have problems because we havfe had token representation. We have had six members on a 40-member council which leaves one with 34 votes to six.

Let us get back to our own town council, that of the City of Cape Town. It is almost all progressive-minded White councillors. However, ever since the local affairs committees were instituted, we have had nothing but conflict, conflict, conflict. Pretoria did not tell them that they should plant trees in the White areas and leave the areas for people of Colour alone. What did they do, however? Drive anywhere in suburbia, Mr Chairman—Constantia, Bishopscourt, Claremont or Mowbray. We call it “over-the-line”. It is nicely tarred, there are lovely pavements, trees and street lighting. However, just this side of the railway line you know it is an Indian, Coloured or Black area. Pretoria never told them to do that. However, they are the ones who speak a progressive language, act liberally and thank God that the Nationalists won.

What I am trying to point out is the following. Take the Durban City Council. Up till today they are discussing segregated beaches, and wherever one goes there is this conflict situation.

Some people use the laws of the land to their own advantage and to keep their own communities well off. That is why people of colour and people in the local affairs management committees and the powers that be have used this conflict to say that if one has powers, one will get everything. I want to ask the hon the Minister not to use that argument. I did not say that he has ever done it, but somewhere along the road people have been told that if they have power they will get everything. They will get nothing! For the past 21 years these areas have been just dormitory towns.

Why not introduce into local affairs a system like the one we have here in Parliament. In Parliament we serve on Joint Committees. We asked if we could serve on committees such as that on local government level and it was refused. We asked whether our chairman would be allowed to vote in such committees and that was refused. It shows that the city council sometimes correctly blames Pretoria because the law as it stands today determines that one cannot have a multiracial city council. It is as simple as that and they are playing one off against the other. Many of us have served in the co-ordinating councils. Before the hon the Minister hits back, I know that he will say that I, as the member for Rylands, served on that. The hon member for Stanger also served on it. The hon the Minister says that we served on it. We served on it for the simple purpose of seeing to it that something good is done for our communities. We admit that we served on it, but one reaches a point of frustration. One reaches a point at which one asks where one is going.

The time has come for the hon the Minister to take a bold stand. The hon the Minister in his capacity as the Acting State President stated that the Government is not tied to certain policies and philosophies. We admire him for that and we congratulate him on that. It is now 1989. Are we still going to toy around with these ethnic local authorities? Take for instance Cravenby Estate. There are barely 3 000 people living there, can it be viable? Let us argue that from a viability point of view, and according to the various Acts brought forward by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. At the moment our hon Minister of Local Government and Agriculture is the local government authority on that area. It is a ridiculous situation. They do not have money; they have nothing. TJie RSC is their functioning agency, but who knows who is the real local authority. I am not a lawyer and I do not know what they call it, but I think the “legal status” is the Minister. The one Minister is the legal authority for the Cravenby Management Committee. Maybe, if we start investigating, we will find others throughout South Africa in the same difficult situation. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that the time has come to get together and reason together. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the thrust of the motion moved by the hon member for Springfield is that the proposed devolution of power to the local affairs committees and management committees amounts to an entrenchment of apartheid and accordingly must not be proceeded with. I have the proposed devolution of powers here—I will come to this later—but, as the hon member for Rylands has quite rightly said, whilst reform is taking place at the first tier of government and there is a measure of reform at the second tier of government, the most important tier of government is local government, where government is as close as it can be to the people. This tier of government serves the needs of the people very intimately and not as we do in Parliament at first tier government. This is the anomaly that we are faced with today. Whilst progress has been made—we now have joint debates in Parliament and members of colour are serving on provincial councils—we are standing still at local government level. We are where we were 20 years ago. No hon member of this House will support this untenable situation or allow it to prevail for any length of time.

The path of reform should perhaps have started at the local government level, but we started at the first tier of government. However, that does not mean to say that we have no reason to expedite that which we need to do at the local government level.

Many local authorities have propounded their own system of local government where they have felt that they would be able to accommodate people of colour. I remember that Estcourt suggested a form of shared local authority but this did not meet with the hon the Minister’s approval. There was Stanger, too, which I believe devised their own system.

That is one way of going about it. Why do we not allow the people to find each other at local level? Why do we not say to them that it is fine if they want to share in their areas and if they are prepared to allow ward representation for their people where they can get together and find one another?

That may then well be the example for the Boksburgs and the Kraaifonteins of our country if we allow somebody to make a start somewhere and somehow. I therefore feel that we should make it possible for people to make a start and set an example to others.

With regard to free settlement areas I honestly feel that they are a step towards the ultimate repeal of the Group Areas Act. I think the hon the Minister perhaps feels that he cannot repeal this Act in one fell swoop. He wants to go gable as the Zulus say. Why does he not go gahle with the local governments if he so wishes?

I know that the hon the Minister has problems. I realise his problems because I come from the “verkrampte” north of Natal and I know the feelings of the people at local government level in that “verkrampte” area. I know just how they feel about sharing with other people. I know because when I go to the library there they tell me that they will not serve me. They tell me that I must first go to the town clerk and get permission from him to subscribe to the library. They tell my people in Ladysmith that they cannot borrow a book from that library because it is a pure lily-white library and reserved for the exclusive use of the White people of Ladysmith because they are the only ones who read books. They tell my people to go to the library in their own area and if the books they want are not available there they must send a note and they will then get it for them. These are the types of people who live in the “verkrampte” north of Natal.

It is the legislation of this country that allows them to impose this type of indignity on others. It is legislation like the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act that allows this.

The question of finding one another at local government level will create more and more friction. We have had this for the past 20 years. Like the hon member for Glenview and others I come from the local affairs committees. I was there when Mr Percy Fowle first expounded this.

What progress have we made? We have made no progress at all. The people are still frustrated. For how long this frustration will be allowed to continue I do not know. I agree with the hon member for Glenview who said that a start must be made.

Why do we not consider perhaps an executive authority at local government level where representatives of all the communities will be able to get together to oversee the affairs of a town? Take Ladysmith for example. Here we have Steadville, Limit Hill, Leonards Township and the town. Why can a representative from each area not be appointed in a statutory organisation or why can statutory provision not be made where representatives from these four areas may serve on an executive to oversee the running of the town collectively, to see to the fair generation and apportionment of the funds of the area?

That may be a step in the right direction. That kind of devolution might gain some measure of support from the people who are battling under the system, which is outdated and needs to be taken by the scruff of its neck and thrown out of the window. The sooner it is done, the better it will be.

Let us take some of the powers that have been offered to be devolved. Some of these powers to my mind are not powers at all because they are all subject to control by the local authority. Take for example, and I quote:

Then there is:

facilities within the area of the committee concerned at the tariffs fixed by the council.

These are powers which to my mind are of no value at all. The council controls everything and these people are mere lackeys of the council. I quote further:

I do not know which local affairs committee would ever worry about establishing dipping tanks in their areas. There are no animals that we can dip, but that is a power that we are being offered. I quote further:

That is a power. I do not know which local affairs committee will ever assume that power. I quote further:

There is something strange mentioned here, namely that they can establish brickworks outside their area of jurisdiction. I quote further:

Where is the wherewithal to come from to establish these powers? Therefore, whoever thought of the extention of 106 powers did not, to my mind, apply his mind properly because it is just the numbers game that was played here. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I also want to welcome the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the hon the Acting State President, in this Chamber for the first time.

I want to begin by stating certain terms which were uttered by none other than the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. That is: It is not desirable that anyone should be forced into a situation to administer their own poverty. If a statement of that nature comes from the head of the State, that in itself gives us absolute guidance as to the honesty and intentions of a person who holds high office, and also, in concurrence with my colleague, the hon member for Springfield, when he stated that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was the architect of, and was very much responsible for, reform in South Africa together with our presence here today.

The hon member for Springfield spoke about the local government responsibilities of this House. There are three Houses with three different ministries handling local government. However, I want to say that we are in a period of transition and it must be recorded that during this period of transition the main pillar in South Africa in relation to local government is, and should be, the co-ordinating council.

History was made in the sphere of local government with the establishment of the co-ordinating council, for one reason, namely that all of us in South Africa are looking in a new direction, towards the oneness of all South Africans, irrespective of colour, caste or creed. The co-ordinating council is based on that principle, and it consists of men of all shades from South Africa participating and finding ways and means to resolve a problem with which we have been confronted for many years, close to a quarter of a century.

The other issue which is topical at the moment at local government level is the various factors with regard to the redistribution of power from general affairs to own affairs. My colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, also spoke about the delegation and devolution of power this afternoon. Again, in this period of transition no-one has accepted anything willy-nilly. We are participating in all the structures in order to find a solution. What is more, in our own capacities we are mindful of the historical background of the frustration of the community as a whole with regard to local government. We are in consultation with all parties concerned, parties such as the Natal Association of Local Affairs Committees, Tamcom, the Transvaal Association of Local and Management Committees, together with Assomac, to reach consensus on issues on which no one has the right, irrespective of their position, to take unilateral decisions. This is absolutely topical. What is more, there has never been such interest in this field, from a wide-ranging area, as there is at the moment. I want to assure the hon member for Springfield that notwithstanding his comments, there are activities in the process of negotiation in order to find solutions.

The other aspect is that when we talk about the devolution or delegation of power, it naturally means additional work. I might also mention that there is at the moment a question of parity regarding council and management committees in local affairs. There is a cry for parity. Here the question of workload also enters. When it comes to workload, which has become questionable and debatable …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

No, it is not ethical for me to take the question. I am aware of the fact that the question of parity is being discussed at the moment. For the information of hon members there has been no acceptance of these factors. Hon members—especially those that the hon member for Glenview mentioned, who have participated for the past 21 years—are aware of the fact that various factors are important in that regard.

What did we get in those 21 years?

Those factors are parity and the various implications mentioned by hon members who are participating. All people certainly do not find the present local affairs and management committee system to be workable and this can never be reformed. It must be abolished in its entirety and in its place a democratic, non-racial municipal franchise with complete equality for all citizens, regardless of colour, sex or creed, must be introduced.

What we are suggesting here has been a demand of our people even before 1924 when Natal abolished the municipal franchise, until then enjoyed by Indian males at a time when the Transvaal and the Free State allowed only White males to vote. After the advent of the present Government in 1948 the municipal vote enjoyed by both the Indian and Coloured male and female in the Cape was abolished.

I want to state that our main aim on the co-ordinating council for local government is to achieve direct representation. The system can only be made workable by abolishing the management and local affairs committee system which, may I say, have overstayed their welcome.

We must realise that staying with the present system while deciding on how to make a bad system less bad, is not going to assist us in achieving reform or tangible representation at local government level. While we are involved in this House as a result of our decision to participate in the process of reforming South Africa, any further separate institution of ethnic composition must never be supported as that will make for weak structures and will provide ready ammunition for the forces against us.

The danger of the present system as far as local authorities are concerned is that the situation will be created where local affairs and management committees will be asked to take more powers until they function on their own as autonomous local authorities, although in terms of the relevant Acts, ordinances and regulations, autonomous local authorities can only be established with the consent and by petition of the respective representatives and the communities concerned. Thus autonomy cannot be forced onto any local affairs or management committee.

Future change in the government structure must ensure viability and involvement of all sections of the population. Any further separation will entrench hatred, fear and instability in the economy, as in the case of Boksburg that was mentioned by other hon members, and continued unrest and violence. Our opponents will thus believe that violence is the only means of change.

The greatest concern of the Indian community in this regard is the possible group theory. The present local government structures, by virtue of the very controversial group areas legislation, are structured in such a way that they are not democratically beneficial to the non-White communities. We should not be addressing separate local authorities together with the devolution and delegation of power, as central business districts and industrial areas are in the heart of the city core and any changes without taking these issues into account will certainly not succeed in the creation of new local authorities, because of the doubts with regard to their viability. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the burden of the motion is that we do not want local affairs committees, consultative committees or management committees to continue any longer and they should not be given power. The frustration of the people at not having municipal representation cannot possibly be met by giving an additional 106,126 or 550 items of empowerment to these useless committees. These were introduced originally as advisory committees and that is all they are.

As the hon member for Rylands correctly pointed out, it is representation upon the municipal councils which exercise authority over the people that is wanted.

There can be no compromise on that. How can there be a compromise when the entire system of separate local bodies is based upon the hated, evil and obnoxious group areas?

The hon the Acting State President did not repudiate this. As a matter of fact, in his excellent speech made after the speech by his colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, he seemed to support what his colleague had said, namely that we must move away from racism. A continuation of these local affairs committees, based as they are upon racistic group areas, is entrenching racism. It is the racism and apartheid which we abhor and which has brought so much shame upon this country. It is the racism enshrined in group areas and the lack of municipal representation which has made it possible for the barbaric acts of certain local authorities to cut off water supplies to human beings. Can there be any greater degree of barbarism than that? I am sure that the hon the Minister will join with us in condemning that disgusting act by those two local authorities which would deprive people of water.

However, what is it that made it possible for them to do that? It is the fact that those victims are not represented on the local authorities concerned. It is because of the ill effects of the Group Areas Act upon which separation of local authorities is based. What will we have if these local bodies are to be ossified into racially exclusive local authorities? One would have the rather bizarre situation in Benoni—and I have mentioned it before in this House—where there would be four local authorities—one for Indians, one for Coloureds, one for Blacks and one for Whites. Similarly, in other areas there will be a quadruplication, or at the least a triplication of local authorities at all administrative and official levels. Can this country afford that kind of terrible waste?

Everyone will acknowledge that South Africa is not a rich country. It is only the White population of this country who have been rich hitherto. The majority of the people in this country are not rich. The per capita income may be the highest in Africa, but the per capita income pales into insignificance when compared to the other 10 industrialised countries of the world. South Africa is the tenth most highly industrialised country in the world. Our per capita income ought to be consonant with the other industrialised countries. We cannot afford this waste of triplication and quadruplication of racially organised local authorities.

We have this rather bizarre situation in Durban. When it rains heavily, the water running from my back garden flows into a White area onto my White neighbour’s property. Because my White neighbour is a nice, decent, friendly chap, he has not taken me to court over that. However, the point is that my property is on the boundary of the Indian and the White areas. We share the same sewerage system. We share the same electricity system. We share the same water supply system. Why is there an own affair to differentiate my neighbour from me? It is ridiculous to call these things own affairs! Even the rubbish removal is shared. It is done by the same local authority. The same sun shines upon us. The same rains fall upon our roofs. That man is as much a human being as I am. Why then should there be this compulsory, legalised separation of individuals?

If one takes the whole of Durban, one will find that Durban will then be divided into three separate local authorities. The so-called Coloured local authority will constitute parts of Greenwood Park, parts of Red Hill, parts of Merebank and parts of Sydenham, each one separated by several kilometres. I suppose they will have corridors connecting them!

The so-called Indian local authorities would be Chatsworth on the one side, Phoenix on the other side and various other segments in between. That makes absolute nonsense of any kind of town planning whereas the fundamental of a proper local government should be a proper system of town planning.

Why is there this clamour in rejection of the toothlessness of the local bodies? It is because the people are so bitter and frustrated, that they do not want power in the management committees. They are frustrated at not having representation upon the proper local authority.

I do not want to use the expression “parent local authority” because the Cape Town City Council did not give birth to the Rylands Local Affairs Committee. The Durban City Council did not give birth to the Northern Durban Local Affairs Committee. These were created by the various administrations at the request of the Nationalist Government.

The only sensible thing would be for the money which would otherwise be wasted on creating additional local authorities—and that would run into hundreds of million rand—to be spent on the necessities of life. We are told that it is not possible to provide adequate schools for Blacks, for Coloureds and for Indians because there is a shortage of funds. We are told that it is not possible to catch up with the housing backlog because of a shortage of funds. We are told that it is not possible to provide adequate hospitalisation and decent health services because there is a shortage of funds.

Everyone knows the disgraceful situation which exists in Phoenix where one has a large population which has no hospital. We are told that it is because of a shortage of funds. Yet this Government seems to think that for the perpetuation of apartheid, for the entrenchment of the racism inherent in apartheid it can find the funds. I would say that it is the grossest form of mismanagement of the economy of this country. When people are crying out for necessities they are being given structures which are hateful and hurtful.

We are told that we must get away from hurtful racial discrimination. What can be more hurtful than a person who is an adult and pays rates to a municipality being told that he cannot have a voice in that municipality. He cannot participate in the election of councillors to the municipality. He cannot offer himself for election to sit around the horse shoe of that municipal council. That is hurtful; that is hateful.

I do not believe that violence is a solution for any kind of political grievance but unfortunately the longer this Government goes on perpetuating racial discrimination—and the denial of proper municipal franchise is a perpetuation of racial discrimination because it is based purely on race and colour—people will be getting more and more frustrated.

We are not just being referred to as “Uncle Toms” anymore. We are being referred to as collaborators. What did they do in France under the Nazi occupation? They first called a person a collaborator and then they took violent action against those persons. We are being referred to as collaborators and that is done with design in order to make us bear some of the hatred which the people feel against the policies of apartheid.

The motion is that the proposed devolution of powers to local affairs committees is an entrenchment of apartheid and must not be proceeded with. I implore the hon the Minister to take heed. This might have been an option 21 years ago. The hon the Minister may have considered this five years ago.

Now, however, at the present time, particularly after what the hon the Minister himself said at a joint sitting, this is not an option. He must not undo the good work which he himself has done by proceeding in this manner which—I repeat— smacks only of a racist policy.

I know that the hon the Minister himself is not a racist, but one does not have to be a racist to pursue a policy which is racist. I want to repeat, in order to have absolute clarity: Any policy which is based on separation of people according to race, is racist.

Mr Chairman, I also welcome the hon the Acting State President to this House, more so because, as mentioned by the previous speaker, the hon the Minister has been the architect of some of the reform initiatives taken in bringing about better understanding at local level.

I think this is a very appropriate time for the hon the Minister to be in this House, as said by the previous hon member, in that some of our colleagues were at an extended committee meeting in Pietermaritzburg when there was to be an amendment to an ordinance in terms of which the right of appeal to the Administrator by local affairs committees was to be taken away. I want to repeat what I said there, namely, that the impression created today is that yesterday in South Africa everything became equal, but even the little hope we had in appealing to the Administrator in regard to what local authorities were doing, was to be taken away from the non-White communities. In addition, the impression is created that there is no problem between local affairs committees and local authorities as regards our asking for devolution of power in the form mentioned by many hon members of this House.

I also posed another question: Are we ready to devolve power to local authorities when there are such vast differences in the functioning, feelings and attitudes of Black communities, including the Coloureds and Indians? Even the interim measures which were unacceptable to local authorities, as the hon the Minister knows, passed through the Co-ordinating Council—11 or 12 of them. Many of them did not even want the chairmen of management committees to have voting powers and to have them on standing committees.

What is feared here is that some local authorities, in the style of Boksburg, may take advantage of the proposals regarding devolution of power, as gazetted in May 1988, and will force those measures onto local affairs committees. We will not only have chaos; we will have disaster. In view of what happened in Boksburg and other city areas, as long as the group areas and other discriminatory legislation exists here it will be suicide for non-White communities to support devolution of power to the existing local government system. I am not saying that devolution of power is not a good thing; devolution of power to local authorities when everything is equal is a different issue, because that means devolution of power from central government to a lower level of government. This happens in other countries where laws do not make one different. That is a good thing, namely devolution to lower tiers of government. However, that is not true in the case of the style of government we have here, because of the differences between communities owing to group areas and other legislation.

Therefore, to support the Boksburg style of government is no good for reform in this country, not only as far as stability is concerned. It would do more harm to this country, and to what the hon the Minister himself has taken the initiative to bring about in this country, namely a situation where it would be accepted by the outside world. It will also be an economic disaster. What happened in Boksburg is that there was a boycott, and now the White community and the councillors are begging people to come back, because there is widespread unemployment in the town. It is not realised that this type of measure does not do this country any good.

Thus no-one would be against devolution of power to local authorities if everything was equal in South Africa, with a government which recognised everyone as equals and as South Africans, but this is not the case when the non-White communities are discriminated against. Separate structures in South Africa are not the answer.

They keep the differences and widen the gap further. The future will be disastrous. It could have existed 20 years ago. I have said it before and I want to say it again today in this House: This is the last batch of moderates who will take part in institutions of this type to be confronted and belittled as collaborators and stooges of the Government.

May I repeat that many of us have been in local government systems and have taken part in this institution to make changes because we have felt that was the only option left to us. The other option which is often mentioned in this House is that of confrontation and it brings no answer. The participation in these structures must not be seen as an acceptance of the system. Many hon members have served in institutions. Two of them have served as presidents of the Association of Management Committees and they have done honourable work. However, nothing has so far come about that has given us the assurance that everyone here is prepared to accept each other and that the type of devolution which is envisaged would be able to bring answers to South Africa. In fact, it would bring more frustration and more differences among ourselves.

I repeat what was said here by the hon leader of Solidarity, the hon member for Glenview. The late Mr Percy Faull—whom I also met during my time in the local affairs committee and who was the architect of the local affairs committee system in Natal—never had the intention that this system was to be a permanent feature. Two weeks before he passed away, when he met us, he said that he never envisaged this to be a permanent feature but a process in which education would take place so that non-White communities can take their rightful place in Government. Today it has become a permanent feature and to make it more permanent it has become a local authority body. It has helped to highlight the differences in participation and the experience and needs of the communities it represents.

When I was a Minister I supported the RSCs against many who opposed it, not as a final solution but as a means of getting more attention and funds for the poorer communities in poor areas. If I recollect correctly the hon the Minister said then that it was not the final solution. He accepted that. The RSCs, and even this Parliament itself, are not the final solutions as even our hon the State President said. Therefore, why are so many half measures introduced?

We implore the hon the Acting State President, who is also the hon Minister concerned, to now make a final decision. He may have to do what a former President of France, Gen De Gaulle, did. He devolved action and moved it to a lower level by appointing the mayors who took the instructions from Government to make changes. Government must be strong and it must be seen to be strong.

He suspended the Constitution.

Maybe the Constitution prevents it, but the initiative must be taken for changes to be equal so that we will be able to defend and live in this country and make changes for prosperity and economic growth.

Nobody wants to be an alien in his own country. Over the past four years everyone in this House has said that we want to play a part in South Africa. We want to defend it, vote and participate in in a system through which we would be able to make this country a prosperous one.

In conclusion I want to point out that direct representation is the only answer, not for stability and for one nation, but for the economic growth of this country and for it to be peaceful and not only to serve itself but also the rest of Southern Africa. So much has been said about this already, therefore I support the fact that we should have no further interim and small measures which form no real basis for change in this country.

Mr Chairman, I stand here disturbed because in spite of the House presumably supporting this draft resolution it would be a hollow victory as the Government has no intention of sharing power among ratepayers at a local level. The Government’s plans to extend power—and I emphasise power as it appears in tills draft resolution—to racially structured advisory bodies on local authority levels is a contradiction I have yet to comprehend.

What power is envisaged? On what basis will local affairs committees and management committees be sharing power which is in any case in the hands of the Whites? From where is the so-called power to be devolved? Is it an attempt to make existing residential areas for Indians, Coloureds, Blacks and Whites self-ruled enclaves?

An example of the latter-day concept of power devolution has been Britain, where an attempt to give a measure of home rule to Scotland and Wales began about ten years ago. There the growth and success of the Scottish National Party with an ever-increasing representation in Westminster convinced most people that without devolution not only the political parties but the whole structure of Britain and Northern Ireland would be threatened. A proposal for Scottish home rule was modest. Scotland would have an assembly with legislative powers in several fields whilst Wales would have an assembly with basic administrative authority.

My perception—I emphasise not what I recommend but what I perceive—is that a similar plan for the different race groups is emerging here. It does not involve the primary level of government but the level of local government authorities. Areas like Phoenix and Chatsworth would seem to be viable counties for self-rule by the predominantly Indian residents.

That is nonsense!

This is my perception of what the Government intends to do. [Interjections.] It is my perception—I emphasise that.

While such autonomy may not be workable in areas like Cato Manor, Springfield and Reservoir Hills, functions as opposed to powers—hon members must understand that there is a difference between functions and powers—would be redelegated to the local affairs committees and management committees.

If the hon the Minister disputes this perception I would like him to tell the House simply and unequivocally how he defines the concept of the devolution of power and what meaning it would have for citizens, whether they be tenants or ratepayers in a local authority.

The evidence of public support for an equal say in government without distinctions based on race or territory has already quelled any doubts about what type of representation the people want. Why is the Government therefore obstructing a measure towards this goal? It must be obvious that the Government’s designs to impose rules would not succeed because the aggrieved parties in Parliament, namely the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives would inevitably reject such plans by the Government.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that if he wishes to placate the hon members opposed to a racial differentiation in the management and the control of the residential areas he should hold a referendum among the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians before establishing some form of so-called devolution of power. I could even go so far as to predict the outcome of such a public test.

The full extent of the envisaged power sharing can be appreciated because at this level the formidable councillors can get on with the responsibilities of creating, accounting and planning while moving with a measure of impartiality from one political master to another.

This Government did not get seriously worried about local spending until the economy deteriorated, whilst spending at grassroot levels continued to rise.

Therefore one can understand the Government’s dilemma. Controls between the Government and town halls have become more and more complicated and the ways of getting around them more ingenious. Some years ago the Government appointed a Browne Commission to look into local authority efficiency. They made some modest recommendations about improving the local authority fiscus. However, I would imagine they are a great deal better managed, apart from Boksburg and such places in the neo-racist outbacks, than the central Government.

The other disturbing feature is that if the Government intends sharing power with people of colour by means of devolution of functions, is the Government then shifting the burden of central taxes to local rates? The reason for that is the Government’s claim when justifying an additional appropriation, namely that its financial assistance is below the inflation rate. Therefore, how does a local authority make do with its spending programme? I see a sharing of responsibilities, but I do not perceive power-sharing for Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. I am convinced that not only the present system of controlling and financing local government spending, but also of defining some 106 functions for local affairs and management committees, is not only cynical but a negation of democracy.

I have been told earlier that certain CP-controlled local authorities in the Transvaal have taken harsh action against Indian management committees. They have cut their parity allowances by two thirds, leaving them with just one third of their allowance. They did this obviously because they do not want Indians, in line with their policies, probably because they do not see Indians as their equals. Some of the towns affected are Klerksdorp, Lichtenburg, Britz, Balfour and several others. It seems that the CP is bent on destroying structures created by the Government, on which they have some say. My appeal to the Government is to allow sanity to prevail and to bring normality to the situation. The only way to do it is to bring about non-racial local authorities.

Mr Chairman, I would first and foremost like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed in welcoming the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in his capacity as the hon the Acting State President. I am talking to him from a different bench, for a change, on the subject matter. Talking about different benches, the previous speaker spoke differently because he is speaking from a different bench. It seems to me that the new role has given him a different status. I am a little more optimistic than he is. He sounded a little negative earlier when he asked whether there is any point in having this debate as it will be a hollow debate. If it was so hollow I do not think we should have had this debate.

It is a hollow fig tree.

A hollow fig tree for that matter. I believe that when considering the recent comments attributed to the hon the Acting State President and the hon new leader of the NP, there is a ray of hope. It may be just a glimmer, but there is a ray of hope. I would like to build on this ray of hope in the hope that for the sake of South Africa the right things will be done by right-minded people. We need to be united—in the first instance—in this House. If we are united in this House, I believe optimism will permeate everything. We need to address the Government on issues on which they are wrong. We do not agree with the matters which they enshrine, some of the statutes, etc. However, to take the Government on and to make it change, we need to be united in this House first.

Talking about unity, I mentioned it to someone the other day, but I did not quite finish what I was saying. I want to clear the air once and for all. When I referred to the office allowances which are made available to independents, I was not referring to any particular independent hon member. There are those people who might be independent hon members of this House, whose purpose for remaining independent might be totally political, and not for monetary gains. I want to clear that misunderstanding. I was referring to certain opportunists. Those whom the hat may fit, will feel that it fits nicely and tightly.

Coming back to the motion before us, I would like to say that it is also a manifestation of unity in this House, although I might have liked to see it worded somewhat different. The motion conveys a certain feeling by saying that the delegation of power “must not be proceeded with”. This is not sufficient. I believe that we should ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that the delegation of power be halted immediately and furthermore that the enabling legislation be repealed and that we start on a de novo basis, so that we can begin with negotiations without having any perception that the Government is being prescriptive.

Talking about perceptions, I would like to quote an address made the other day at the annual meeting at the Natal Association of Local Affairs Committees. The person who made the address is also the president of the national ad hoc committee. He says, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, I believe that we need to change that type of thinking. If people are under the impression that they are being forced to accept these types of measures to their detriment, we have no chance of success. I am talking about what emanates from a moderate voice. I appeal to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to do what I suggest, namely to stop the enabling legislation immediately. I agree with the hon leader of my party that instability at local government level will obviously permeate to a greater extent at the higher level.

I also want to suggest that the hon member for Rylands should try to understand my leader. He did not suggest the ratio of 6:40.

I never said that.

Mr Chairman, in citing the example, the impression was created that he accepted tokenism. I have no quarrels with what the hon member said, but I just want to say that what my hon leader suggested was a compromise. The compromise should be such that we can allay the fears of the Whites, the haves, at this stage, because the have-nots are putting pressure on the haves, with justification and legitimacy. That is the fear we have to allay. In that particular regard, whilst I acknowledge that in South Africa we have had for many years the concept of group identity, I believe in the concept that there should be a one-man-one-vote system. I believe in the concept that every person within a local authority area must be on a common voters’ roll. However, before we get there, if we have to acknowledge that groups do exist, why should the group become an autonomous local authority?

That group should be permitted to serve jointly in one local authority. That will be a progressive starting point. I think my hon leader tried to indicate that as a compromise he will endeavour to go back to the people and suggest that in order to allay fears, we should work on that particular basis.

The Free Settlement Areas Bill formed part of the trilogy of legislation which had such adverse effects and was the only one of the three that was positive to some extent. This is now law. This Bill went to the President’s Council. I do not want to trace the background of this particular Bill but I want to appeal to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to have a look at this particular Bill again and to amend it.

But you supported it.

I said we would look at this. There are certain amendments I would suggest. As it stands, a local authority has the right to go around asking for a total local authority area to become a free settlement area. I am not interested in just making free settlement areas of group areas. If we have to have free settlement areas, the whole local authority area must become a free settlement area, because we have the infrastructure there. It is not just a matter of delegating powers to ethnic groups. If a whole local authority area became a free settlement area and if every aspect of local government in that entire area, was in terms of that free settlement area, that would be sound progress.

I am prepared to make my whole town a free settlement area and in doing that we would create a common voters’ roll. If the local government in a free settlement area appeared to be advisory, one could effectively use section 17B of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act to make that a local authority. If one would therefore apply section 17B when an entire local authority area became a free settlement area, one would be able to establish a non-racial local authority which would promote the interests of reform and the interests of this country.

Mr Chairman, I rise, firstly, to thank hon members for their complimentary remarks in the introductory stage of this motion.

I would like to say to hon members that reform has a meaning. Sometimes I get the impression that we do not understand the meaning of reform. By its very nature and description reform implies a process. I could lecture hon members for a long time on reform and the price that people pay for it.

It is not only the hon member for Reservoir Hills that has been called a collaborator. I have also been called that. We are discussing sensitive and difficult issues, because wherever one finds different races, ethnic groups and class distinctions, one is dealing with a most emotional facet of life. That is not because we want it so, but because it is so. Therefore I would want us to understand that the divisions in this country are not only between the different racial and ethnic groups, but are sometimes more deeply accentuated within the same race or ethnic group.

I do not say this with satisfaction but I do not need to tell hon members in this House what the deep divisions in their own communities are. That is not because of a statutory definition or because of Government action. Notwithstanding, it is not less real. Nevertheless it is no less real or emotional. Hon members know what I am talking about in this House. That applies to other groups as well. The divisions between Black communities are often deeper than the divisions between Whites and Blacks. I need not persuade hon members of that. They will know that.

Many of the older hon members come from a particular province. Must I remind them of clashes in those areas, past and present? I am not getting any satisfaction out of that, but it would be naive and in fact dangerous to ignore that. Of course it is true that any process of change or reform is dangerous. It leads to instability in many cases, because one has resistance from those who give and the expectations of those who receive are always higher than the means to satisfy them. Is that not true? I would therefore like to suggest that unless we understand the delicate balance in the process of reform, reform can be completely counter-productive.

I have read the motion of the hon member. It is very interesting and I think other hon members must look at it. It says that in the opinion of the House, the proposed devolution of power to local affairs committees and management committees amounts to the entrenchment of apartheid. In this motion the hon member is only dealing with the institutions for the Coloured and Indian communities. He does not refer in his motion to local authorities for the Black community. That omission also has a meaning. I can only presume that by his exclusion of Black local authorities he is satisfied that powers are to be devolved upon them.

But they are not advisory committees any more!

I am coming to that point as well. If that reply is to be the gist of the argument, I would like to take it a bit further. Then the hon member’s objection is not against the institution, but the fact that they are not advisory committees. It will be the easiest thing to convert them into decision-making bodies.

In six different pieces?

In six different pieces, because we are now talking about the principle that the hon member has enunciated. The hon member did not think when he made that interjection. He said he had no objection to the Black ones.

No, I did not say that!

Oh yes, the hon member said that the reason why they were excluded was because they were not advisory committees.

We cannot decide for them!

You see, sir, I thought this was a general affair. I thought local government for Black people was a general affair. The hon member must not try that sort of thing with me. The fact is that the hon member for Springfield, by excluding Black local government, is defeating his own argument.

The second point I would like to make in this regard is that the ad hoc committee for management committees and liaison committees had repeatedly asked for the powers. They had done so repeatedly at their conferences. I am just trying to state what the facts are. I am not now discussing the merits of the case. I am just telling the hon House that the ad hoc committee had on consecutive occasions asked for powers for liaison committees and for management committees.

I would like to take it a bit further. I would presume that the hon member for Springfield would want the same policy that he enunciates in this motion for local government also to apply to all levels of government.

Yes, of course!

Of course! Thank you very much. The hon member is helping me. He says: “Yes, of course!” Then I have a question for the hon member; a serious one. Is it not the policy of the party to which the hon member belongs that there must be protection for groups and minorities?

Not based on race!

I am not talking about race at the moment. I am talking about the protection of minorities, and those minorities can be based on race. It has to do with the hon member’s definition of the word ‘imply’.

What does that have to do with the motion?

Why does the hon member not give me a chance and I will come to that point.

If one is to protect minorities in terms of their rights—also their political rights—one first has to define the group or the minority that you want to protect. Secondly one will have to define the institution and the rights which are to be protected. Is that then an entrenchment of apartheid?

Jews are a minority!

Sir, …

I do not understand that logic!

Naturally the hon member will not understand. I did not expect him to understand.

I would like to take it further because I would like to deal with the substance of the South African society. There are none of us in this House, if we had to remake or recreate South Africa, who would put so many different races, groups, ethnic groups and people within the borders of the same country. The composition of our population in itself has the highest conflict potential ever.

We must admit to ourselves that no country under comparable circumstances of this nature has ever succeeded in maintaining a democracy— not any kind of democracy. I say we have made major progress, also in local government. If we would just see the opportunities.

The hon member for Moorcross says that we are not sharing power at local government level.

That is not correct. The RSC is the best form of power-sharing in local government. Let me say this today. I believe major elements of that system could eventually be used in further development on other levels of government.

I have said this before, and I should like to say it to hon members again, and particularly to the hon member for Springfield. If apartheid means domination of one group over another—including White domination over others—as a final philosophy, I reject it. If it means the exclusion of one community from political decision-making, I reject it. I have done so before, and I am doing so again this afternoon. If it means injustice and inequality of opportunities, I reject it. If it was so in the past, it has got to change, for all of us. If it means racial discrimination and encroachment on human dignity, it has got to change. However, I should like to say this to all hon members: Constitutions are bom first, and then written.

One has to change; people—all people—have to change. Hon members know what I am talking about when I say that our biggest problem in this country is a development problem. Hon members—especially the hon member for Reservoir Hills, since he is a student—know that democracy based on the individual has only attained a popular base in the highest industrialised Western countries of the world, with the one exception of Japan. It has to be afforded.

Development also relates to people. Participation in government is a process of training and being trained, a process of exposure and adaptation. I take the point made by the hon member for Rylands, but the time he is talking about, with six councillors on the City Council of Cape Town, did occur. They were token representatives; it was when the Indians and the Coloured people served on that council, in wards. And by his own evidence this afternoon, they attained nothing.

I want to give the hon member the assurance that I will not be party to the perpetration of anything that I am persuaded is discriminatory, unjust and unfair. On the other hand, it would be wrong to discard institutions because we think they are inadequate or inefficient unless we can agree as to what the answer or the alternative is.

What is wrong with direct representation?

We have just heard from the hon member for Rylands, who said there was direct representation on the Cape Town City Council.

That was 35 years ago.

But the principle remains the same.

He also said he wants that.

No, he said he did not want a total of six out of 40.

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

No, I just want to make my speech! What is our ideal for this country? What is the ideal we all have for this country? We want a democratic country, and we all agree that we cannot just transplant First World democracies to this soil, because of the reasons I have enunciated, as well as other reasons which I have not referred to today.

We want a nonracist society, but this is not a nonracial society. No Government action can ever make this country nonracial, that will be a nonentity because the country is multiracial and multi-ethnic. What we could hope to achieve if we all apply our minds to it—whether that be at local government level or whatever level—is not to discriminate against any particular group or race.

What is discrimination?

It is to define people in groups for the reason that the one is favoured at the expense of another.

Are Indian ratepayers not discriminated against as opposed to Whites by not being allowed to serve in local authorities?

Will the hon member please listen to me? I am trying to say that we are dealing with processes. We have already succeeded at local government level. How far that will lead us, only time will tell. However, we brought all communities into local government through the RSCs. I believe that the experience we can, in fact, gain in those institutions might lead us—I emphasise the word “might”—to change the basic structure of local authorities, because they are set as conditions for local authorities. It must also be financially viable and if it is not possible for it to be viable other ways and means would have to be devised for those authorities to take part in local government. Therefore, I share the view of hon members that they have to participate in these institutions.

Let me say further the co-ordinating council is a very important council. The hon member for Rylands and other hon members will remember it. It is still a very important council. We have taken important decisions on that council and I would say one of the most basic problems we deal with is the issue of economic viability of local government. The question was raised by the hon member and I myself have said that we cannot expect of any group to be prepared to administer its own poverty. Therefore, there must be a financial base to local government. To that end the Co-ordinating Council took the following decisions. I would like hon members to be informed of these decisions:

That is the basis of the problem. It has been argued that the basis of the problem is that the areas of jurisdiction of the local affairs committees are the dormitory towns with no basic infrastructure for income. I think that is wrong. I am continuing to quote:

This implies that it will be done on a predetermined basis. It goes on:

I will have to conclude now because my time is limited.

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

I only have two minutes at my disposal, but I will answer the hon member’s question.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Minister for affording me the opportunity of asking a question. I would like to ask him just one question, and that is: What, in his opinion, is the status of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture of this House in this House vis a vis the co-ordinating council and the ad hoc committees?

The reply is a simple one. This is a legislative institution while the other one is an advisory institution. That is the answer to the hon member’s question.

What if the hon the Minister decides otherwise?

No, let me explain this. I am hoping that from this investigation certain results will follow that will enable us, firstly, to decide as to where and which local authorities are economically viable in terms of resources. Those that are so viable can be established but it will also identify the issue as to whether there should be a transfer of income or not. I think that will indicate that there are areas where no own local authorities, as it were, could be viable, and come forward with proposals as to how one deals with that.

In conclusion, I would like to refer to free settlement areas. There is nothing in the Free Settlement Areas Act that precludes a whole town from being so declared. Once it is so declared, there is nothing in the Act that precludes the establishment of municipalities in that area. [Interjections.] In all fairness, I am arguing what the possibilities of the Act are, and that is a possibility.

But can an LAC ask for it? It has to be the local authority.

No, in terms of the Act an LAC is a local authority. The hon member knows that. The only point I am trying to make is that the free settlement area—and I want to conclude with this—is a start to establish the validity of the argument about free association. If that argument is valid, the investigations intended by the Free Settlement Board will produce to all hon members the evidence as to what the quantum is in terms of numbers of people who want to associate freely. However, it will not only be that. Once they are established, a further point will be the following: Will people not want to associate freely but also to exercise freely their political rights within those areas?

I say that if there is validity in the argument this exercise will indicate the extent of it. I say that it is an important step in the further development of new concepts of local government. I say further that there is therefore not a static approach to participation in local government. We live in a dynamic society. The institution that serves it must be equally dynamic. We have a chance with that Act. Let us see what it produces and then we can come back and discuss it again.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.