Mr Speaker, the financial year now drawing to a close has been characterised by a continued sound financial performance of the Post Office and the strengthening of its capital structure; the completion of the De Villiers investigation and the acceptance in principle of the recommendations; and significant progress with the implementation of the recommendations.

FINANCE

Financial year 1988-89

The favourable trend in the finances of the Post Office which became evident last year has continued during the current financial year, thanks to the upturn in the economy, sustained growth in telecommunications services and traffic, the application of strict financial discipline and effective management.

Expenditure

Total expenditure is estimated at R6 422 million, which is R267,8 million or 4,35% higher than originally budgeted for.

Operating expenditure is expected to amount to R4 350 million, which is R247,6 million higher than the original estimate of R4 102,4 million. The additional expenditure arises mainly as a result of the 15% salary increase granted to Post Office officials, higher interest on investments in the Post Office Savings Bank and increased expenditure on international commitments.

Notwithstanding the lower rand exchange rate and the purchase of additional telecommunications and computer equipment, capital expenditure was restricted to R1 628 million. This is only R33 million higher than the original appropriation of R1 595 million.

Expenditure on other appropriations was curtailed by R82,2 million which enabled us to limit the amount appropriated in the Additional Estimates to R198,4 million.

Revenue

During the debate on the Additional Appropriation I indicated that higher revenue was expected this year than originally estimated. I am pleased to inform hon members that due to the growth in especially telephone services and telephone traffic, an increase in revenue of R462,2 million is expected this year. This is 9,9% higher than the budgeted amount of R4 677,4 million. It is estimated that 270 000 additional telephone services, including extensions, call offices and miscellaneous services will be provided during this financial year. This will bring the total number of telephones to about 4,7 million. Telephone traffic is also showing satisfactory growth.

Operating results

In view of these results an operating surplus of R538,6 million is expected, compared to the original estimate of R241,8 million. The operating surplus will be used to partially finance capital expenditure. In the past the contribution from the operating surplus has been insufficient to maintain a sound capital structure. Thanks to the improvement in the Post Office’s financial performance during the past two financial years the capital structure could be strengthened.

Financing

Loan funds amounted to R499,1 million in 1987-88. For the current financial year, loans of R480,2 million were originally budgeted for, but as a result of the improved operating results, it is now estimated that loan funds will be limited to R353,3 million. Of this amount, R143 million will be used for the redemption of existing loans, and R50 million for the outflow of Savings Bank funds. Loans of only R161,3 million will be taken up to finance capital expenditure. This will improve the ratio of debt to own capital from 1,21 in 1987-88 to 1,06 in the current financial year. This is indeed an exceptional achievement in a financial year during which tariffs were kept at the same levels.

Financial year 1989-90

Expenditure

Operating expenditure for 1989-90 is estimated at R 5 155 million which is R805 million higher than in 1988-89. The increase results mainly from the 15% salary increase which will be applicable for a full twelve months, the effect that the estimated rate of inflation will have on our operations, the expected lower rand exchange rate, growth in services and traffic, and higher interest payments on Savings Bank and loan funds.

Capital expenditure during 1989-90 has been curtailed to R1 450 million. This is R178 million lower than the current year’s expenditure of R1 628 million and entails a reduction in rand terms of 11% and in real terms of 22%.

*Revenue

If tariffs were to be kept at the same level during 1989-90, an estimated operating deficit of R26,4 million would be incurred. The financing of such a deficit from loans would be an unsound policy and would weaken the Post Office’s debt ratio and capital structure.

Despite cost and price increases we have succeeded in keeping inland Post Office tariffs constant since 1 July 1987. In order to maintain and improve the sound financial position that has been attained through purposeful and active efforts over the past few years, the Post Office is committed to rationalising its tariff structure in a responsible manner and to making it cost-related as far as is practicable. In addition the further strengthening of the capital structure and the necessity to improve the debt ratio, require moderate tariff adjustments with effect from 1 April 1989.

The envisaged adjustments will increase Post Office revenue by approximately R221,8 million, or 4,1% in 1989-90. With the recommended tariff adjustments, an operating surplus of R195,4 million is expected. The tariff adjustments are purposely being kept low to minimise their effect on the rate of inflation. At the same time the tariffs of the unprofitable services are selected to make them more cost-related so as to reduce crosssubsidisation. The effect on the consumer price index is estimated to be only 0,07%. Despite the proposed tariff adjustments, the loss on the unprofitable services is estimated to be R379 million in 1989-90, which will still have to be subsidised from the revenue of the profitable telephone service.

I wish to mention that since 1 April 1985 and including the adjustment presently proposed, Post Office tariffs will increase by less than half the consumer price index. Full details of the tariff adjustments will be published in the Government Gazette shortly.

I am pleased to inform hon members that the tariffs for telephone calls as well as telex calls, which yield approximately 60% of the Post Office’s revenue, are not being increased.

A number of the most important adjustments are the following: The rental for ordinary exchange connections is being increased by R3, from R15 to R18 per month. [Interjections.] The cost to provide this service is calculated at R30 per month. Rental for party-line service is being increased by R3, from R16 to R19, per month. They tell me the cost of rendering this service is R88 per month.

The installation fee for telephone services is being increased from R125 to R140. [Interjections.] However, the concessionary tariff of R25 for social pensioners remains unchanged. In this instance the calculated installation cost is R223.

The telegram tariff is being increased from R2,50 to R3,50 per telegram which is still much lower than the actual cost of R5,63. [Interjections.]

The tariff for ordinary letters is being increased from 16 cents to 18 cents. [Interjections.] The handling and transportation cost of a letter is presently calculated at 28 cents. This means that ordinary letters will still be subsidised by 10 cents per letter.

The tariff for a parcel of for example 1 kg will increase from R1,65 to R1,90.

Despite the adjustment of postal tariffs the postal service will still be operated at a loss of R214 million in 1989-90.

The demand for telex and teletex services has recently decreased considerably due to the increasing use of facsimile. In order to stimulate the use of these services, rental is being decreased by between R30 and R75 per month. In addition the proposed linking of personal computers should provide a further stimulus.

The cost of Post Office services for the average user increases only marginally. I should like to mention an example. A person who rents a telephone, mails 10 letters and sends one parcel of one kilogram per month, would pay R3,45 per month more for these services.

Phasing-in of the timing of local calls

As envisaged in my budget speech last year, the phasing-in of the metering of local telephone calls is being contemplated from April this year. Clients will be informed beforehand by means of pamphlets, brochures and media releases of the date on which the system will be introduced in their area.

The main purpose of the metering of local calls is not to gain additional revenue but to eliminate anomalies in the tariff structure and thus generate revenue in a more equitable manner. This should also result in the telephone network being utilised more effectively.

Clients need not be affected adversely by the new metering method if calls made during office hours are kept short and to the point, whilst social and other calls of longer duration are reserved for after hours when cheaper tariffs apply.

†Motorphone service

I should like to mention that the motorphone service which is presently available in the PWV area only is still gaining popularity. The existing capacity of 3 000 subscribers is being fully utilised, but will be expanded to 5 000 subscribers towards July this year.

Market research has shown that there is a lively demand for the motorphone service in the Durban. Pinetown, Pietermaritzburg and Cape Peninsula areas. The provision of the service in these areas could also be profitable, as is the case in the PWV area. I am pleased to announce that the motorphone service is to be extended to these areas in Natal and the Western Cape. Surveying will start shortly and the services should be introduced towards the end of 1990.

It is quite possible that the motorphone service will later also be introduced on the entire route between Johannesburg and Durban.

De Villiers investigation

I am pleased to inform hon members that the investigation by Dr Wim de Villiers concerning the strategy, policy, control structure and opganisation of Posts and Telecommunications has recently been completed. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon Minister is delivering his Budget speech. I call upon hon members to show respect while the hon the Minister is speaking. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you. Mr Speaker.

†The Government has accepted the recommendations in principle, and it affords me pleasure to lay upon the Table this afternoon Dr De Villiers’ summarised report.

I should like to express my personal as well as the Government’s sincere appreciation to Dr De Villiers. This report is the result of approximately two and a half years’ intensive study conducted with the support of departmental task groups and experts from the private sector. It also contains pioneering recommendations on privatisation and regulation in their wider context. The comprehensive nature of the transformation process and the new grounds which will be covered, naturally require a pragmatic approach. The Government’s approval in principle allows for further adjustments where necessary.

Demand for telephone services

I mentioned last year that the backlog in the provision of telephone services to all sectors of the population decreased considerably during the past decade. The number of telephones per 100 dwellings increased as follows from 1978 to 1986 for the various population groups:

The higher telephone density, together with the downturn in the economy, resulted in the annual growth in demand for telephone services decreasing from 10,8% for the period 1978 to 1982 to 5,1% for 1982 to 1988.

Furthermore, the growth in traffic resulting from automation and direct international dialling, has decreased since the early eighties. By 1985, 94% of all telephone connections were automated whilst most overseas countries could already be dialled directly by 1982.

These factors led to a decrease in the average annual growth of telephone traffic. Where the annual growth was 18,6% from 1971 to 1977 it decreased to 4,2% from 1984 to 1988. These trends coupled with the current economic prospects led Dr De Villiers to conclude that a realistic growth rate up to 1995 for both telephone services and telephone traffic would be 5%.

The demand pattern for telephone services indicates that the percentage of subscribers with small telephone accounts will probably increase in future. The investigation showed that 48,5% of all telephone subscribers contribute only 9,3% to telephone revenue. Due to the small number of calls made, the average monthly account of this group covers only two thirds of the actual cost related monthly rental. This means substantial cross-subsidisation by subscribers with higher call rates.

The distorting effect of low rental and high call-unit cost has the inherent problem of stimulating the demand for services. This in turn gives rise to ineffective employment of scarce capital. It is important that the demand for services should be determined by normal market forces and we are therefore committed to the phasing-out of cross-subsidisation over a period.

Under-utilized capacity and high capital investment levels

Since Posts and Telecommunications planned for appreciably higher growth rates than were realised, a considerable percentage of installed capacity is presently under-utilised. During the past five years large amounts were invested in the digitalisation of the network and this, together with the higher growth rates used for planning, resulted in high levels of capital investment. In rand terms nearly 2,7 times as much capital was invested between 1983 and 1987 as in the previous five year period (R5 339 million against R1 995 million). From 1983 to 1987, 1,23 million additional subscriber ports, ie the equipment in a telephone exchange to which a subscriber line can be connected, were installed, of which only 53% were utilised at the end of that period.

Curtailment of capital expenditure

My top management and I took note of the abovementioned findings at an early stage of the investigation and immediately started to actively curtail capital programmes with effect from the 1987-88 financial year. The reduction is evident from the fact that despite escalating prices the capital estimate for the next financial year is 14,6% lower in rand terms than for 1986-87. In real terms this represents a curtailment of 39,3%.

Adjustment of planning methods and objectives

Apart from the curtailment of capital investment, good progress has also been made with the implementation of other recommendations. The planning horizons of various types of projects have also been reviewed thoroughly. For example, in the past telephone exchanges were normally expanded to provide for spare capacity for five years. One of the advantages of electronic exchanges is their modular nature, allowing the manufacture and installation of equipment in easily transferable units. It was accordingly decided to install spare capacity of subscriber ports for only two years in future.

This characteristic of the new equipment will also be utilised to transfer subscriber ports from exchanges with excess capacity to exchanges where expansion is required. The first results of these steps are already reflected in this Budget. The current under-utilised capacity in telephone exchanges can in this way be eliminated within approximately three years.

Apart from the fact that the above-mentioned curtailments were necessitated by the excess capacity created, the high levels of capital expenditure, foreign exchange exposure and lower than expected growth in services and traffic also resulted in the systematic weakening of the capital structure up to the 1987-88 financial year. In order to improve this position without further increasing tariffs, it is necessary to adapt longterm planning objectives as follows: Deceleration of the phasing-out of non-digital exchanges and transmission circuits, which will mean that a fully digital network will possibly only be achieved by the year 2020; and also further adjustment by the deferment of the automation of manual exchanges in the remaining sparsely populated areas, at least until cheaper equipment becomes available, especially to reduce the cost of upgrading farm lines. In the meantime provision will only be made for exceptionally urgent projects.

New party-line system

In this connection I am pleased to inform hon members that a new party-line system which will ensure privacy of conversations, is already in an advanced stage of development. Compared to the present method of farm line conversion, this development by the Post Office’s laboratory can ultimately result in an estimated total saving of R200 to R300 million. It is expected that the new system will be ready for use within two years.

*Improvement of the Capital Structure

The steps I have mentioned, together with strict discipline regarding operating expenditure, have already had a positive effect on the capital structure of the Post Office. The further development of the new management and organisational dispensation should further improve the debt ratio within a few years. At the same time it should limit future tariff increases, a situation which will naturally be advantageous to the users of Post Office services.

Restructuring of Posts and Telecommunications

The Government has decided that the following steps are necessary as far as the future structuring of posts and telecommunications services in our country is concerned:

1. 1. Reorganisation of the Department to convert the existing functional management into an organisation based on business units. This will to a much greater extent than at present, place the department on a business footing, with return-on-capital and cost-related tariffs as norms.
2. 2. Division of the department, in view of the inherent differences, into a Telcom and a postal undertaking. The variations in capital and labour intensity very clearly illustrate these differences and the need for separation.
   The latest published figures show that telecommunications activities require fixed assets of R2,13 per R1 revenue, while postal and savings bank activities require only 48 cents. The opposite applies in the case of labour intensity where staff expenditure in respect of the postal and savings bank activities amounts to 81 cents per R1 revenue compared to only 30 cents for telecommunications.
   The conversion of the department’s internal organisation to create separate entities for postal and telecommunications services will be implemented with effect from 1 April this year. It is expected that total separation will be possible 12 months later.
3. 3. It is anticipated that legislation to provide for the creation of a profit-making and taxpaying Telcom Company will be submitted during the present session.
   It is essential that these steps be implemented as quickly as possible in order that both undertakings can operate according to private sector norms as separate businesses in the form of companies with their own management and accounting systems. At present revenue covers only about 80% of the expenditure involved in the provision of postal services. The cross-subsidisation of postal services by the telecommunications services will therefore have to be addressed.
   An efficiency study and reorganisation of the postal service are already being undertaken as a matter of extreme urgency. The cost and profit effectiveness of agency services is being investigated, while strategy studies of the postal service and of the Post Office Savings Bank are receiving attention with a view to making the Postal undertaking economically viable.
4. 4. The introduction of a two-tier board system for the control and management of the two undertakings. A supervisory board, which in accordance with the Companies Act will be the board of directors, and a management board are being envisaged.
5. 5. A number of recommendations to give effect to these umbrella principles have been accepted. The achievement of the following objectives is aimed at:
   • — restructuring and management according to sound business principles;
   • — the optimum utilisation of resources, especially capital equipment;
   • — toadapt the standard of services being rendered to the specific market requirements of the type of user and his ability to pay; and
   • — the gradual phasing-out of cross-subsidisation to regulate the demand for services by normal market forces.

It is the firm intention of my management and myself to implement these steps as soon as possible, thus making a significant contribution towards a better economic dispensation in our country. With the continued support of a motivated staff the new challenges can be tackled with confidence. I am convinced that there will be greater job satisfaction and benefits for everyone who is prepared to put his shoulder to the wheel.

CONCLUSION

As in any dynamic organisation the Post Office also continuously finds that managers come and go. At the end of this month we take leave of two Deputy Postmasters General—namely Mr Johan van Rensburg and Mr Robbie Raath who between them have rendered 94 years of faithful service. [Interjections.] On behalf of the Government and myself I wish to express my gratitude for the exceptional devotion with which they have served the department and their country for so many years.

As a result of the restructuring of the department which I referred to earlier, an additional post of Deputy Postmaster General has been created with effect from 1 April 1989. Three new Deputy Postmasters General have accordingly been appointed and they are Mesrs Wessel Oosthuysen, Willem van Rooyen and Pieter Jordaan. My heartiest congratulations once again to these three gentlemen.

In conclusion I wish to thank the Postmaster General and his senior management for their support throughout the past year and I wish the new top management success with the great challenges that lie ahead.

TABLING

Mr Speaker I now introduce the Post Office Appropriation Bill, 1989 and lay the following documents upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications for the financial year ending 31 March 1990 [RP 15—1989],
2. (2) Memorandum containing supplementary information regarding the purpose for which funds are to be appropriated in the Post Office Budget for 1989-90.
3. (3) Summarised report on the study by Dr W J de Villiers concerning the strategy, policy, control structure and organization of Posts and Telecommunications.

Bill, budget speech and papers tabled referred to Joint Committee on Transport and Communications in terms of Rule 163.

Mr Speaker, the CP has already pledged its support to this legislation. However, there were a few amendments which were referred back to the joint committee, which were dealt with there and regarding which we want to single out certain aspects. We are grateful that the hon the Minister reacted to the suggestion by the hon member for Brakpan regarding the amendment of clause 2(1) concerning the person who may be appointed, so that it now also provides that a person outside the Public Service may be appointed.

Next an amendment was proposed in clause 4(1) in which, according to the original Bill, the reporting organisation—after it has been declared a reporting organisation or has been compelled to report—must also report on money which it had at its disposal for the six-month period prior to its being so declared. This has, however, now been amended so that the period is three months.

I merely want it placed on record that in our opinion this is not retroactive legislation in the sense that someone is being found guilty of something he did six months ago, once the legislation has been put fully into operation. It may be argued that this would be the case for the first six months, but if we do not include this clause this legislation is meaningless. The moment the Registrar becomes suspicious of someone, and that person only has to report from that date, he could spend all the money he received prior to that date as he wished and not in accordance with the purpose for which it was given, and one would not be able to do anything about it.

At present he need only report on money he has received over a period of three months prior to his being declared a reporting organisation. This means that if there is not a timeous suspicion, this person actually escapes the operation of this legislation, because he need only report on the period of three months prior to his being compelled to report. Consequently if he had used money wrongly during the preceding year, he would get away with it; he need only report on the last three months and he can only be found guilty of an offence as regards the last three months.

We are consequently not in favour of this amendment. We think that the legislation would be more effective if the six month period were retained, so that there was at least a longer period the Registrar could follow up on to ascertain whether such an organisation in fact spent the money correctly. Consequently we feel that this shortcoming is merely contributing towards making the legislation more ineffective and we would have liked to see the original period retained.

Clause 9 has also been amended. The Registrar was to have submitted a report to the Minister which would have been tabled in Parliament. Now the procedure has been amended so that on conviction the court may actually direct that the money in respect of which the offence was committed should be returned to the source from which it came. The court may issue such an order, although it is not compelled to do so. However, we see in this the possibility that the court may issue an order here, after a person has been found guilty … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, so much has been said about this legislation. Initially when it was debated, I think, all the details were spelt out.

I rise here in support of the amendments, but let me say quite clearly that it is going to depend entirely on the application of this legislation. It is commonly known that similar legislation is in existence throughout the Western World, throughout the Western democracies. However, as I said earlier, the acceptance of the legislation depends on the application of the legislation. Now, I realize that it is very difficult when one drafts legislation, to satisfy all and sundry. It is almost impossible to satisfy the greater majority in Parliament, let alone satisfy all the people outside. With that kind of handicap, I appreciate that the legislator has many problems in drafting such legislation.

I want to say that this kind of legislation is long overdue. It should have been there a long time ago because funds have been misused. Then again, it is a question of the kind of image one projects with the application of legislation of this nature. Funds come to this country for a purpose for which all of us have sympathy but when that money is misused for, for instance, soccer clubs, we have problems.

There has to be control. I have absolutely no problems with the introduction of control measures but it is a question of how they are going to be applied. Is it going to be a witch-hunt? I do not want this legislation to be part of a witch-hunt, but it is, of course, in the hands of those who are going to apply it, in this case the Registrar. It could be misused.

All the committee members found it difficult to embody control in the legislation, because we appreciated the fact that if one were only dependent on the judiciary, it would be almost impossible to apply this legislation and most other legislation because of the volume of legislation that the judiciary is expected to handle. Therefore we moved down to a lower level by making use of the magistrates’ courts so that there would at least be a recourse to an independent body or person who would at least not be arbitrary in the application of the legislation.

Of course, one certainly cannot satisfy everybody in our unique situation. We must appreciate the fact that we have a history of dissatisfaction. We have a history in which the greater majority have always been dissatisfied with legislation because they were never part of the democratic processes of drafting legislation. Therefore there is going to be suspicion as far as the application of this legislation is concerned. There will be immediate suspicion when this legislation becomes law.

However, I can only appeal to those people to allow this legislation to serve its apprenticeship. As with all other legislation one will only see whether it is good or bad legislation when it is applied. While the legislator invariably tries to draft only good legislation, the only true test is time. Therefore time will tell whether or not this Parliament acted correctly with regard to this issue.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me back the minute which was accidentally taken away from me.

I shall deal only with the amendments relating to clause 9. I shall deal only with the amendments because I think that these are the only aspects that are relevant here today. In this clause the court is empowered to return the money to the foreign source from which it came, if there has been a conviction.

We question the wisdom of this amendment, since this foreign source could, for example, be a prohibited organisation. We cannot see how the money could be given back to such a prohibited organisation. We would welcome the insertion of the words “if it is not a prohibited organisation”, since in our opinion this would be safer and would give more guidance to the courts.

Mr Speaker, in reply to the argument of the hon member for Bethal, one should just emphasize that the legislation now before Parliament is surely not the only legislation aimed at the security in the country. Surely there are other ways to resolve the matters touched upon here. This legislation is aimed at the disclosure of funds received from abroad.

†Allow me several brief remarks in support of the amendments now before the House. No doubt the most important effect of the amendments is to allow the courts a more direct and substantial check on the activities of the Registrar. I support this principle.

Secondly, I would like to comment on the amendment to clause 4.

Originally the hon member for Sandton proposed that a reporting organisation should only be liable to report on moneys received after having been declared a reporting organisation. As it now stands, however, reporting organisations must also report on moneys received three months prior to having been declared a reporting organisation.

We all know that it is generally accepted that legislation should whenever possible shrink away from introducing retrospective effects. This is so because of the fear of injustice. True retrospectivity, however, deals with instances where rights are taken away or impaired or where an act is made a criminal offence with retrospective effect.

There are other examples, but clause 4 of this Bill is not an example of retrospectivity which should be avoided. No vested rights are infringed and no criminal offence is constituted. In fact, clause 4 merely states that moneys are to be reported on and then includes the moneys received three months prior to having been declared a reporting organisation.

In conclusion I would like to comment on the manner in which the Bill and the amendments thereto were handled by the committee. I believe that one of the cornerstones of a true democracy is the restraint imposed upon participants in the constitutional structure. More often than not, these restraints will be of a voluntary nature. This Bill and the amendments thereto are indeed results of exercises in restraint by all parties concerned. This Bill is indeed an invitation to Parliament to legislate for the well-being of society and the just government of men. I support the amendments.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the people who sent memoranda to the committee after the publication of the original Bill, in particular Assocom, the Association of Law Societies, the various embassies and the several church bodies that gave us the benefit of their thinking.

I would like to say that the amendments which are being brought about this afternoon are very largely the product of the thoughts contained in the various representations made by these bodies to their members of Parliament. I do not wish to repeat all the statements which were made in the Second Reading debate, but I would like to say that I support all the amendments which appear before us.

The first amendment was submitted by the hon the Minister in terms of which it enabled him, in appointing a person to be the Registrar, to appoint somebody outside of the public service. I think this is an important amendment when one thinks of the functions of a possible Registrar to be. It gives the hon the Minister the power to appoint a retired judge, a retired senior magistrate or for instance an accountant or an auditor, depending on who he felt at the time was the most qualified person to do this particular type of work.

The amendments to clause 4 are to be welcomed, in particular the reduction of the six month period of retrospectivity to three months. I think we must state very clearly that, as has been stated by previous speakers, all that is intended by this three month period is that people who are declared reporting organisations would have to disclose moneys received within a period of six or three months, in this case three months, prior to having been made a reporting organisation. Very clearly no criminal offence can be committed which would not be committed subsequent to being appointed a reporting organisation. In other words, no retrospective offences whatsoever are created in this Bill.

I also welcome the fact that if an organisation which is receiving moneys from abroad wished to change the purpose for which that money was to be used it was within the power of that organisation, in conjunction with the donor, to make a decision as to what should be done with moneys received. The second amendment to clause 4 and the amendment to clause 5 give effect to that thought and takes away from the Registrar or the hon the Minister the right to decide how money should be utilised.

In terms of this amendment it is now the right of the donee, together with the donor, to decide how moneys are to be used or what changed usage is to be brought to bear. His duty then is to inform the Registrar as to that new, changed purpose.

The amendments to clause 6 are important, particularly the amendment relating to the entering of premises and the demanding or seizure of papers or documents. This cannot be done merely on the whim of the Registrar or a Minister. The Registrar can only authorise the entering of premises after he has obtained a warrant from a magistrate and after he has satisfied that magistrate of the necessity for the obtaining of that warrant. I think this is a major improvement which has been built into the Bill.

The penalties have been reduced; the original 10 years’ imprisonment contemplated has been reduced to three years and this too places the importance of this matter in perspective.

The amendments to clause nine are also important. The original Bill made provision for the freezing of funds after prosecution at the behest of the Registrar after the latter had instituted a prosecution against a donee for any purpose under this Act. With the amendments that have been brought in funds can only be frozen now after a court has been convinced that that is the case. Naturally in bringing the matter to court the Registrar would have to contemplate the fact that the donee would also have the right to address the court. A major protection is thus built in in the form of introducing the power of the court rather than allowing an executive decision to be taken.

The final amendment which is important and which was accepted by the committee pertains to the situation once a donee has been convicted of an offence under this Bill. Let us understand that there are only two offences which this Bill creates, one being the failure to disclose and the other the offence of using the money for a purpose other than that for which it was donated.

Those are the only two offences which this legislation creates.

If a person is convicted in terms of this legislation the situation was that the money could be returned to the donor or that the Registrar in consultation with the hon the Minister could decide how to use the money. We have now deleted that right to the Registrar and the money must now go back to the donor or, if the court is satisfied that the foreign source cannot be located, then only to transfer the money to the Registrar who shall dispose of the money, always taking into account the original purpose for which it was donated. This too is a major improvement to the Bill.

What we end up with is a Bill which gives effect to the principle of disclosure of funding. I believe that this is a reasonable Bill. It is also important to note that the committee which gave birth to this Bill has not disbanded. This committee will meet again and after a period of time it will look at the Bill and the way in which this Bill has worked. If it sees that there have been difficulties, it will try to eliminate them. For example, some of the people who have sent representations have said they fear victimisation for their organisation in terms of this Bill and if it does occur—I doubt that it will—it is the right of the people who believe that their organisations or persons have been victimised to report that fact to this parliamentary committee. This committee will meet again and monitor the progress of the Bill and if we believe that victimisation has taken place we will certainly effect amendments.

We will understand that there will always be some who want no Bill at all. who do not wish to have a Bill which arrives at the disclosure of foreign funding. With those people I must agree to differ. I believe that the principle of disclosure in a democratic society can be defended on any platform. The principle of disclosure of funding is not a principle which offends against any of the tenets of what I believe in. In supporting these amendments I would once again like to thank the chairman of the committee and my fellow committee members for the consideration which they have given to the improvement of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, although the amendments before us today are an improvement on the Bill which was introduced during the session, they do not, however, change the essence of the Bill. In my opinion, it remains a crude attempt to tackle anti-apartheid organisations which are receiving foreign funds.

We must remember that the Government’s objective with this legislation has not changed in the slightest, despite a radically changed or amended Bill which is before us today. That objective, as it was spelt out in the original Bill last year, is to deny anti-apartheid organisations, or as the hon the Minister calls them, organisations with nonhumanitarian aims, access to foreign funds. That is the objective of the Government and I do not believe that the Government has moved away from that objective at all.

The amendment to clause 8 lowers the prison sentence for a person who is found guilty, from 10 to three years. The fine of R40 000 remains. My standpoint is that such fines should not exist, as I believe this legislation should not have been introduced in the first place. If this legislation were merely a financial measure, I should like to know why this Bill did not fall under the hon the Minister of Finance. Why did this Bill end up with the hon the Minister of Justice?

†In conclusion I want to say that the Government has not changed its intention, as spelt out in the original obnoxious Bill, to cut off all funding for what the Government calls “non-humanitarian purposes”. A lot depends on the hon the Minister and the Government’s intention and how it is applied in practice.

Hon members have said we will only be able to judge the Government’s intention by seeing how it applies this Bill in practice. I do not believe there is any need to wait because we have ample evidence of how this Government’s members and Ministers misuse the wide powers which are regularly given to them.

I believe this legislation will enable the Government to launch a witch-hunt amongst and against anti-apartheid organisations in this country that have purposes which the hon the Minister will describe as not being humanitarian. Maybe the hon the Minister could tell us whether financial aid to the families of detainees is humanitarian or political? Does the hon the Minister consider the financial aid given to detainees’ families to be for a humanitarian or a political purpose, in other words, one which he will try to act against or not? By now hon members should have had enough experience of this Government to know that when it is given too much power, as this Bill does, that power will be misused. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Claremont, who spoke before me, lacks knowledge on the piece of legislation before us at the moment. I think his intentions are very good, but he rather lacks knowledge in the sense that he is the only hon member who spoke here who did not also serve on the committee.

Consequently he is unfortunately unaware of the long hours hon members deliberated together on this piece of legislation. That is why he made these statements. If he had been in the committee and had gone along with us since last year, while we devoted approximately 12 months to this piece of legislation, he would have seen what mutual understanding there was between people to accommodate one another in respect of this piece of controversial legislation they had to deal with.

I In fact, I will go so far as to say that this Bill before Parliament today is a perfect example of how consensus can and will work if people are prepared to meet each other.

This is not a perfect Bill. There are most probably loopholes. The Bill contains clauses which do not satisfy everybody. The hon member for Bethal, for example, told us that he is not satisfied with certain clauses in the Bill. I think there are other people who are dissatisfied with other clauses. We will most probably have to amend these. The hon for Sandton said so. He said that we will most probably have to meet again. That is one of the reasons why the committee decided in principle last year that they would remain in existence and that they would continue to perform the role of a mechanism to monitor the questions which would most probably emerge in time to come.

*Mr Speaker, I should like to say the following. When we talk about the original period of six months, regarding which the hon member for Bethal voiced his dissatisfaction, it should be pointed out that other hon members wanted this period extended to two years. They wanted a period of two years to apply. In this entire piece of legislation what it therefore amounted to was that there were a number of divergent opinions, which of course gave rise to divergent amendments. Be that as it may, the final result of the entire effort is what hon members now have in front of them.

I should like to agree with the hon member for Toekomsrus, who said that legislation stands on two legs—the actual legislation and the way in which it is implemented. I think that is a very important statement. I told a variety of people who came to discuss the relevant measure with me that they must clearly understand that they must not conjure up spectres in advance, but must rather wait and see how the situation progresses and how it is handled.

This legislation is and will remain controversial. That is why, as the hon member for Sandton and the hon member for Sundays River said, we tried to accommodate both local and overseas objections.

In addition there are two matters I would very much like to emphasise for the record. This concerns the statutory amendments at present before us. The legislation under discussion is in no way an attempt to prevent money from entering the country; on the contrary, it will be welcomed if more money is brought into the country in order to stimulate our social programmes.

Next I should like to point out—the hon member for Sandton has already mentioned this—that the joint committee responsible for the legislation under discussion in fact decided not to dissolve, but to hear further evidence with a view to possible further amendments to the Bill under discussion, if necessary.

I think we tried to accommodate everyone. That is why I want to express my thanks and appreciation today to all hon members who served on this committee. I think they all worked extremely hard. I also want to say that the organisations that tried to influence us in this regard made extremely good contributions in some cases.

I have been asked what our position is and whether we have any problems with overseas embassies which also made enquiries in this regard. Today I want to state that members of the committee did not experience any problems in respect of overseas embassies or their officials who made enquiries in this regard, as long as the enquiries they made were positive with a view to making contributions and inputs in order to improve this legislation.

I think we have legislation in front of us which as far as possible seeks to satisfy everyone’s ideals or objectives. I think there are certain matters which will have to be addressed further in future, and we shall have to investigate this. I do not think this is perfect legislation, but I think it is the best we could submit. In my opinion this is at least what we need at this stage. It is possible that we shall have to discuss this again in future, and I think the committee did excellent work. I should like to thank them. That is why I am thanking members who served on the committee most sincerely today.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my appreciation and the appreciation of Parliament to the chairman of the committee, the hon member for Vasco, as well as to the hon members involved in it. This is indeed monumental legislation in the sense that soon, for the first time, Parliament will accept the principle of the disclosure of the receipt of money, although in such a way that funds which come into the country for legitimate purposes will not be inhibited. By “legitimate purposes” we mean upliftment programmes in the widest sense of the word, but also development in the widest sense of the word. That, then, is my reply to the hon member for Claremont.

No piece of legislation can in any way purport to be perfect—that includes this piece of legislation and the amendments. The aim is very clear, however, and that is that a workable mechanism is to be created for Parliament and outside bodies. What is more, the committee has committed itself to monitoring its operation. This is virtually the first time in a period of 20 years that I have experienced a committee of Parliament commit itself to ensuring that its legislation will work. Normally this is left to a Ministry in the Cabinet and a department. In this instance Parliament is committing itself to making its legislation work. I therefore welcome the fact that the hon member for Sandton said that this matter would be monitored.

I associate myself with the hon member for Bethal, who indicated that he was concerned about the fact that funds could flow back to an in illegal source. That is a matter that will have to be looked into in the future, and the committee has expressed its good faith to us.

I think the hon member for Toekomsrus also deserves everyone’s appreciation for having brought the matter back to the actual practical situation of how the application would take place. This is once again a parliamentary model. I am not so much referring to the application of this in the hands of the Government, as in the hands of those people who will look at it in an objective and non-political manner. I want to give the assurance that Parliament and the Government form a unit in this regard, and this ought to be a very good message to the outside world.

Question put to House of Assembly: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to (Van Eck, J, dissenting).

Question put to House of Representatives: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Mr Speaker, what we are dealing with here is the Liquor Act. Now I am not a person who consumes alcohol … [Interjections.] However, the CP now has the opportunity to imbibe, should we want to, because the results of the Helderkruin Primary School’s committee election have just been announced. Unfortunately the CP only had seven of its members elected as opposed to the NP’s one!

Order! Can the hon member tell me which clause he is referring to? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, this Act has already been debated fully and the CP’s standpoints have been stated.

As regards the amendment to clause 71 just want to say that the CP opposes the proposed amendment. We are doing this because the amendment will weaken the unrestricted functioning of the legislation due to the fact that the Chairmen of the various Ministers’ Councils will first have to be consulted.

Mr Speaker, allow me to inform the hon members that we went through this legislation thoroughly. We appreciate the letters we received from the public. We also appreciate the fact that the amendments which we moved, have been accepted. We have no objection to the legislation.

Mr Speaker, the three further amendments which have been agreed to by the joint committee have made an already thoroughly reasoned piece of legislation even more satisfactory. For the two amendments made to clause 26, and which have to do with club liquor licences, we are indebted to the organisation The Associated Clubs of South Africa which addressed well-motivated representations via the hon member for Sandton.

The amendments stress that the approach should be that clubs should be treated as a kind of second home for their members. A large degree of autonomy should consequently be granted to the club managements.

The amendment to clause 7 makes provision for the Minister to consult the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils of the various Houses of Parliament when the regional members of the Liquor Board are being designated. This amendment originated with the hon member for Nuweveld. I am aware that the hon member was not completely satisfied with the amendment after the joint committee had completed its task. He wants people in the community, to whom the application applies, to have a say in the granting of licences.

Clause 9 makes provision for people to be co-opted to aid the Liquor Board in the contemplation of a special occasion. Such people can be co-opted in a way that ought to satisfy the hon member for Nuweveld as well as his party.

People from the affected communities can be co-opted in this manner. I want to appeal to the Liquor Board to use this special stipulation in this way.

This is a sound piece of legislation and I hope that it will ensure the judicious, sensible and equitable distribution of liquor. I gladly support it.

Debate concluded.

Amendments put to House of Assembly.

Amendments agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments put to House of Representatives.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments put to House of Delegates.

Amendments agreed to.

Decision of Question on Second Reading

Questions put to House of Assembly: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Question put to House of Representatives: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

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

1. (1) its inability generally to ensure clean administration for the country—a promise which was made by Mr P W Botha upon his assumption of office and which has not been kept;
2. (2) its failure to take timeous or any corrective action to prevent corruption within its own ranks and in the broader administration of the country;
3. (3) its failure to take timeous action against the three members of Parliament who recently were allegedly guilty of unduly benefiting themselves or of corruption or in one case even of fraud;
4. (4) its failure timeously to create and/or put into operation mechanisms within the framework of the governing party and Parliament for suspending the members concerned from Parliament; and
5. (5) its failure to have legislation enacted in terms of which persons who are guilty of corruption and/or fraud and whose guilt has been proved in a competent court will be denied the benefits of the payment of a gratuity and a pension.

To begin with I want to refer to the standpoint which the hon the State President adopted in an interview with Die Burger of 4 March 1989. According to the article, the hon the State President said the following with reference to corruption:

That is not all he said.

With all due respect, this is quite a strange attitude, but also quite an ironic and a somewhat sanctimonious one for somebody who became head of State after he had forced his main opponent in the struggle for the Prime Ministership to resign as Minister and member of Parliament on the unsubstantiated evidence—that is what he was referring to now— of the Erasmus Commission. The court later found this man totally innocent. At that stage the issue was not even one of corruption, as it is in this draft resolution today.

However, the fact is—it cannot be argued away— that South Africa is, at present, experiencing the greatest wave of corruption in our entire political history under this Government. In any other Western democratic country—there can be no doubt about this—any honest government would have resigned long ago. It is merely political arrogance and nothing else which allows this Government to continue governing.

Let us look at this Government’s track record of alleged incidences of corruption. In the past there was the Fanie Botha scandal. There have been allegations and more allegations which to this day have not been investigated with regard to the so-called Lockheed bribery, not to mention the Salem affair and matters which may be involved there. [Interjections.] With regard to the track record of the Government, I want to mention the following cases in order to place them on record.

What about Derby-Lewis?

In the first place, there is the Palazzolo-De Pontes affair. Secondly, there is the election fraud of the former NP member of Parliament for Hillbrow. Thirdly there is the alleged self-favouring and/or irregular financial activities of the previous Minister of Manpower and of Public Works. Fourthly, there are also the serious findings of the James Commission with regard to Mr Rajbansi who was no less a person than a member of the Cabinet of the hon the State President.

Fifthly, there is the case of the alleged corrupt and self-favouring activities of senior and other officials of the Department of Education and Training as a result of which nine officials were suspended recently at one go. Then it is also said that this is merely the tip of the iceberg.

In the sixth instance, there is the case of the activities of the Jalc and Themba companies in the Transkei, which involved prominent public figures and. according to allegations made in today’s Cape Times also the Department of Foreign Affairs. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs must reply to the questions asked in this edition of the Cape Times. He must answer the question as to whether Mr Chris van Rensburg is being paid directly or indirectly by the Department of Foreign Affairs or by the State.

To these can be added the findings of the Van Reenen and Alexander Commissions on corrupt activities in the Transkei, the Boshoff Commission on KwaNdebele and the recent appointment of the Van den Heever Commission, as well as the recent James Commission. In a short period of just over a few months, this gives us a total of six commissions of inquiry into corruption in South Africa or across the border. This is the track record that the NP is dealing with and that is without mentioning the Vermaas-Eurobank scandal about which the Financial Mail of 27 January 1989 wrote the following, and I quote briefly:

I noticed that the new chief leader of the NP, who, with all due respect, is at present still politically emasculated, said on occasion that he would strive for clean administration of the country. In his capacity as new chief leader—I am asking him this with all due respect—he must make it clear today to the country, his own party and Parliament which Cabinet colleagues the Financial Mail of 27 January 1989 was referring to. At the same time I am asking him to clarify what was said on 28 February by means of an interpellation debate in this House with regard to Mr Vermaas and his activities. The CP as Official Opposition also has a right to know whether Mr Vermaas has connections with the so-called corridors of power.

In this debate of 28 February, specific persons were referred to. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this; it is the task, duty and responsibility of that hon Minister as chief leader of the NP, the Government of the Republic of South Africa, to give a reply regarding those hon Ministers whose names were mentioned in that debate. He must say whether they were involved in the Vermaas affair, and if so, to what extent. Were they directly or indirectly involved? Are they guilty or innocent?

I just want to enumerate the names that were mentioned in the debate. Reference was made to the hon the Ministers of Defence, of Foreign Affairs, of Finance and of Economic Affairs and Technology. These hon Ministers may be completely innocent, but their names were pertinently mentioned and they now have an opportunity to reply in this debate, either personally or through the hon the Minister of National Education, the new chief leader of the NP. They owe that to the nation and the country at large.

No country in the world, least of all our own mother country, can afford to be governed by a government which either remains silent on these matters or gives an indirect reply so that no one can understand what the reply means. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon the Minister of National Education directly for these answers because there is talk that Mr Vermaas has been operating this scheme of illegal deposit receiving for the past 20 years.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Losberg is dealing with material which may be relevant in civil cases which are at present still being tried and also possibly in criminal cases. I therefore suggest that for the sake of caution and fairness towards Mr Vermaas as well, because he has not yet been found guilty—the hon Ministers have by no means been found guilty in this regard—the the hon member should rather take care to honour the sub judice rule in case people outside Parliament are adversely affected.

Mr Speaker, I take note of that and I shall leave the matter there.

Order! Could the hon the Minister just tell me with regard to the civil proceedings, whether the cases have already been placed on the roll for trial or not?

Mr Speaker, I am almost sure that certain liquidation procedures are still pending, but there is an application which will be heard on 14 March and which deals with the answering of questions with regard to liquidation procedures, and that is in addition to the criminal case.

Order! The hon member said he would not pursue that point. He may therefore proceed.

I now want to address the central issues in the so-called Palazzolo-De Pontes affair. The name of a company is mentioned. It is a French name, Papillon Internationale, which, translated, means “international butterfly”. This international butterfly now has the tendency to sit on people’s shoulders. It sits on people’s shoulders innocently or not so innocently, and brings messages.

According to paragraph 87 of the report of the Harms Commission, this butterfly sat on the shoulder of the NP and this international butterfly, this international company, donated R42 000 to the NP of East London City. We have just disposed of a Bill in the Chamber of Parliament— it must still be signed, but it has been disposed of as far as Parliament is concerned—with regard to the disclosure of foreign funds. I am asking the hon chief leader of the NP in the Cape whether he is also going to declare this R42 000 which was donated to the NP by an international company.

Why did Mr De Pontes consider it necessary to undertake to pay back this R42 000? That question has not yet been answered by the Harms Commission. Has it already been paid back? Is the NP undertaking to pay it back? Does the NP admit that it used money from a foreign company to fund an election campaign? [Interjections.]

The secretary of the NP in the Cape and the hon member for East London North then went so far as to try to elicit sympathy for Mr De Pontes by means of an article in the Weekly Mail of 20 January 1989.

This butterfly also sat on the shoulder of the Department of Home Affairs, which according to paragraph 56 refused a visa to Mr Palazzolo in the light of his criminal record, but then, according to paragraph 165, went ahead and granted the same Mr Palazzolo a permanent residence permit— this is most peculiar—after a personal submission had been addressed to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, according to paragraph 56 of the commission’s report.

However, this butterfly also sat on the shoulders of the former Deputy Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Finance. I want to remind hon members that during the interpellation debate with regard to the question as to who had made the affidavit, the hon the Minister of Finance said that Palazzolo had done so, but that is not the crux of the matter. We allege that the affidavit was made by Mr De Pontes, and that question is still outstanding and has not yet been answered.

I want to conclude—I no longer have much time at my disposal—by saying that according to paragraph 53, the representative of our embassy in Berne was informed by Mr De Pontes that Mr Palazzolo had been found guilty of illegal financial transactions with regard to drugs in the USA. Yet the embassy in Berne did not place Mr Palazzolo’s name on the restricted persons’ list with regard to immigrants. According to paragraph 61 of the report, a cheque was signed by Mr Palazzolo for the sum of 26 2000 dollars and delivered to the Viennese embassy with regard to a loan, the origin and nature of which are not yet known.

André, do you hear that?

A further question which requires clarification is the following: How did it come about that Mr Palazzolo had R10 million brought into the country without any kind of authorisation from the authorities?

Mr Speaker, I had expected that the hon the member for Losberg, in proposing this motion, would pay considerable attention to all the items of corruption that have been exposed fairly recently, and he did precisely that. He could have gone further but it is a ferociously long list of corruption that has been the responsibility of this Government, from the time that the the hon the State President first became Prime Minister, and when he promised us clean administration. What interested me was the response of the NP, and particularly the hon the Minister of Justice, in some of the things that were said. It became quiet clear from the point of order that was taken by the hon the Minister of Justice, that it is not really the intention of the NP in this debate to answer questions that were posed to them on the Vermaas issue. I hope that they will prove me wrong.

I have on a number of occasions in the past spoken about corruption and I want to start by talking about corruption of the system. When I have done with that, I want to make a suggestion as to what one can do to make sure that corruption is properly exposed. By proper exposure we can prevent it in the future. One of the troubles we have at the moment is that corruption which existed in the past was not brought to light and from that has grown greater and greater corruption up until today.

I want to talk in particular of corruption of the system as perpetrated by the hon the State President and the Government of this country. In this regard it might interest hon members if I quote to them from A History of the Modern World by Paul Johnson, which reads as follows about the USSR:

I submit that this regime that we have in South Africa today is no exception. He says:

Further, he goes on to say:

Sounds familiar, does it not?

I actually think that the present situation that has been reached with regard to the office of the hon the State President is completely untenable. I was reminded of it as recently as today when we sat in the Joint Meeting with the hon the Acting State President sitting in the presidential box and the hon the Leader of the NP sitting in a subservient seat. It is untenable. It appears that a man who has suffered a stroke is determined to cling to the powerful position that he himself has created. Let me again produce some similarities with the Russian system where for years we had very elderly leaders of the system.

Suddenly, however, a vital, new, young man, Gorbachev, was put into the top position—and what a change has come over the USSR!

Order! Will the hon member just enlighten me as to what relevance that has to the motion before the House?

Basically we are suggesting that corruption in fact has more chance to exist in an autocratic, secret type of system and we are trying to bring to light the exposure that is necessary in order to stop corruption.

Order! The hon the State President’s illness is not part of the motion before the House. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I was talking about Russia and saying that Gorbachev was put into the top position. What a change has come over the USSR since that day! At long last people are talking to each other and real progress is being achieved in international relationships. I believe we need a younger, more intelligent and energetic leader in this country today.

Order! The hon member is discussing another motion that he may have in mind but which is not before the House. The hon member will come back to the motion before the House or resume his seat.

On the present, specific corruption issue raised by the hon the State President in a statement printed over the weekend, we should record that he has said three things. The first thing he said was that commissions were being turned into inquisitions; the second thing he said was that Ministers had not been spared, and, thirdly, he said that this would have to stop.

Now, what we have to query is what he means by this. Where then is the commitment to clean administration when the hon the State President attacks a commission chaired by a judge of the Supreme Court? We have, unfortunately, had precious little in the way of open hearings and it is sad indeed that when an efficient one is operating so effectively, the highest authority in the land should be making this sort of statement.

The contrast between what is happening in the instance of the Harms Commission and what is happening in the case of former Minister Pietie du Plessis is indeed notable and I believe that this House deserves an answer as to the situation regarding ex-Minister Du Plessis. The Harms Commission has published its findings. It has published the evidence in front of us. The big contrast is that nothing has been published about the ex-Minister of Manpower other than the fact that he has resigned. When, I must ask the hon the Acting State President, are we to be informed as to what he did that caused his resignation? [Interjections.] When are we going to be informed as to whether what he did is going to lead to criminal charges being laid? I can well understand that this is embarrassing and difficult for the hon the State President and for former Minister Du Plessis’s Cabinet colleagues but in the interests of clean administration I believe that the facts have to emerge and I hope that they will emerge during this debate. In the time remaining to me I want to make a positive recommendation that, if acted upon, will I believe bring about a much cleaner administration and, if not acted upon, will raise a question mark on the commitment of Government to that clean administration.

Corruption is, of course, not peculiar to South Africa. It happens in all other Governments throughout the world. What is increasingly peculiar to South Africa is that the proper machinery does not exist for investigating and rooting out corruption in Government bodies. I want to recommend that we should have an ombudsman created by an Act of Parliament with very wide powers, as exists in many other countries. Canada has not only a Federal Ombudsman but has ombudsmen also in the individual provinces that go to make up the Canadian political entity. It so happens that I have with me the 1987 Annual Report of the Ombudsman for British Columbia to the Legislative Assembly.

What a coincidence!

I beg your pardon? [Interjections.] He does not understand what is going on.

It is interesting to note that he has no fewer than 40 staff under his control—compare that with our Advocate General—and that in the two years from January 1986 to 31 December 1987, the Ombudsman dealt with no fewer than 12 406 complaints. Of these, 95% were from an aggrieved party.

The annual report, which is 85 pages long, deals with many complaints and the solutions. [Interjections] One thing is undoubted—this force must be a very real brake on corruption activities in British Columbia.

The Act which creates that position of Ombudsman is also in the report and I want to read one of two of the sections. Firstly, section 2 reads:

1. (1) The Lieutenant Governor shall, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, appoint as an officer of the Legislature an Ombudsman to exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to him under this Act.
2. (2) The Legislative Assembly shall not recommend a person to be appointed Ombudsman unless a special committee of the Legislative Assembly has unanimously recommended to the Legislative Assembly that the person be appointed.

How important that is! In other words, if we were to appoint an Ombudsman from this Parliament, I submit that he should have the approval of every party in this House, as expressed in a special joint committee.

Secondly, as regards the term of office, the Act goes on to say:

1. (1) The Ombudsman shall be appointed for a term of 6 years and may be reappointed in the manner provided in section 2 for further 6 year terms.

As regards remuneration:

That illustrates the importance which the British Columbians attach to this job.

The Ombudsman has many powers, but the Act goes on to say:

1. (a) a decision or recommendation made;
2. (b) an act done or omitted; or
3. (c) a procedure used by an authority that aggrieves or may aggrieve a person.

I think that that is most important indeed. I furthermore believe that if we were to have such an officer, we would indeed have a brake on corruption.

I also have with me the Official Information Act (1982) of New Zealand. You will note. Sir, that we in these benches have constantly stressed that corruption becomes more easily perpetrated in a climate of secrecy. I think that the Salem affair which the hon member for Losberg referred to was a classic example of this. Because of this type of problem the New Zealand Government passed an Act—I again believe that a similar Act could be of great advantage to South Africa—and I want to quote the purposes thereof. They are:

1. (a) To increase progressively the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand in order—
   1. (i) To enable their more effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policies; and
   2. (ii) To promote the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials—

And thereby to enhance respect for the law and to promote the good government of New Zealand:

1. (b) To provide for proper access by each person to official information relating to that person.

The accountability of Ministers is brought before the New Zealand Government by this Act. I think that that is important, because we in these benches have been saying that, not for any personal reasons but because of the principle of accountability by Ministers, no fewer than two Ministers of this Cabinet should resign. It is pleasing to note that in some countries they actually attempt to bring this about through an Act of Parliament.

The Ombudsman comes into this because in section 35 of that same Act. we read:

Part 3 deals with the publication of and access to certain documents and information and Part 4 deals with the right of access to personal information.

I am absolutely convinced that if we in this Parliament were to pass similar Acts, we would be taking a giant step forward in preventing corruption within our South African society. Unfortunately the hon the Minister of National Education is no longer in the House, but I want to say that if—perhaps I should say when—he becomes the State President he will have to do more than just stand on the steps of Parliament and commit himself to a clean administration. He will have to put more teeth into his statement and create the machinery for properly preventing corruption.

As a start to this I believe that an all-party committee of this Parliament to investigate steps taken in other countries with particular reference to the office of an ombudsman should be proceeded with as a matter of urgency. This commission could than lay before the next Parliament a draft Bill which would, one would hope, be accepted by this Parliament and which would prevent and at least help control the enormous corruption persisting in our Government in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, as an illustration of the Government’s persistently decisive action aimed at implementing its policy of combating maladministration in this country. I should like to inform the House this afternoon about the Government’s decisions concerning the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Department of Education and Training, the so-called Van den Heever Commission, which is being tabled here and has been made available to hon members. I want to apologise for the fact that it is only available in Afrikaans at the moment, but because the urgency of the matter was our prime consideration, we have distributed the document in this fashion. It has already been tabled.

The Government expresses its appreciation to the commission for the comprehensive piece of work it has done in this first report. The commission’s report and the Government’s decisions concerning that report are in pursuance of the action I have taken as Minister since 1987 in dealing with irregularities in the Department of Education and Training. These cases, as hon members know, were initially investigated by the Advocate-General, and in another case also by the investigating officer, Mr Sarel du Plessis, and corrective steps were taken with regard to management, administration and control. The Government confirms that it is relentlessly continuing to identify all irregularities, to take decisive action and to institute preventive measures, tighten up such measures and extend them in an effort to stamp out all maladministration.

The steps I am now announcing are further concrete proof of the Government’s determination to do this. I should like to inform the House of the most important findings of the report, briefly summarised, and the Government’s decisions on the basis of those findings.

Firstly, for a whole series of reasons, which I have fully summed up in my press release but do not want to repeat here now owing to the limited time available to me, the report found that the acquisition of the Ivis computer-supported educational system was irregular.

The Government’s decisions are, firstly, that the Government will submit the recommendations in connection with improved procedures, made in chapter 6 of the report, to the Commission for Administration and the State Tender Board for consideration with a view to implementing them, and with the specific instruction that the existing systems and procedures for the purchasing of computer-supported educational systems be urgently reviewed and that a report be submitted to the Government at the earliest opportunity.

Secondly the Government has decided, in particular, to instruct the Commission for Administration and the State Tender Board to give urgent attention to the obvious flaw in regard to workable procedures for decision-making in regard to instructions for the furnishing of what I would call intellectual products for which the normal tender system is unsuitable, as the commission also found, for example educational software and the design of educational programmes.

In this regard the Government accepts the commission’s recommendation that in all cases the Commission for Administration should be informed in writing, at an early stage, and involved whenever departments hold important discussions or consider negotiations in connection with computer systems, and that a specific provision in this connection be incorporated in the General Directives of the State Tender Board.

Thirdly the Government has instructed the Committee of Education Ministers to give renewed attention to co-ordination in computer-supported education amongst all departments of education. On the strength of the HSRC’s 1983 report, as early as 1984 the Government took certain relevant decisions which are also mentioned in the press release.

The second finding of the commission concerns the evaluation of the purchased Ivis system. The commission has found that it is probable that the developed educational technology could be of some use, if it proved to be cost-effective and the necessary circumspection was involved in acquiring it.

The commission expressed no opinion about the quality of the relevant courseware created by the Learn Tech Company and also found that during the two and a half years since it was put into operation, little has been achieved with the Ivis system.

As a result the Government has decided to accept the recommendation that the cost-effectiveness of interactive video be determined, on the basis of all the relevant factors, in comparison with those of less ambitious computer systems. The determination of the cost-effectiveness will be done as soon as the HSRC’s final relevant evaluation report is received.

Secondly, in the light of the commission’s report and after the lengthy period of expectation pending the various investigations, I have decided to request the HSRC to evaluate the present position with regard to the implementation of the department’s policy on computer-supported education and to advise me, in the interests of effective education, about its prompt and purposeful perpetuation.

With regard to the existing advisory bodies on computer-supported educational purchases, the commission found that the department’s Management Advisory Committee on Computerisation and the Data Systems Directorate of the Commission for Administration had not carried out an in-depth investigation into the Ivis project. The aforementioned directorate does not function efficiently in regard to educational matters.

What a success story!

The commission’s relevant recommendations, comprehensively spelt out in chapter 6, are being referred to these two bodies by the Government for consideration and implementation. [Interjections.]

In connection with the former Director-General, Dr A B Fourie, the commission’s findings extend very much further than those of the then Advocate-General. The commission came to the conclusion that Dr Fourie was aware of his son’s interest in Learn Tech, that his motive in acquiring the system was not solely altruistic, that he allowed the normal tender procedure to be deviated from, that his conduct throughout was irregular and autocratic and that his son’s involvement was withheld from the Minister. So much for the findings of the commission. [Interjections.]

The Government’s decision is, firstly, that since Dr Fourie has already retired, departmental action against him in terms of the Public Service Act is not possible. In the light of the seriousness of the commission’s findings, it has been decided to refer the matter to the Attorney-General for possible further action.

Secondly the Government has decided that the Commission for Administration and the Treasury should be asked to expedite the investigation which, on my request as Minister, has already been instituted into the possibility of tightening up existing provisions concerning the involvement of officials in contracts between departments and family members of officials, and also to give consideration to an ethical code for officials in this regard.

In regard to the Acting Director-General, Dr Meiring, the commission found no evidence of his having been aware of Dr Fourie’s son’s involvement in Learn Tech or of he himself having derived any personal gain or possibly deriving any personal gain from Learn Tech’s prosperity. The commission is agreed, however, that Dr Meiring was, in fact, aware that the department’s relationship with Learn Tech was not a regular one. It was also found that his conduct throughout had been irregular and autocratic and that some aspects of his evidence before the Advocate-General did not tie in with what he said before the commission. In regard to his evidence before the joint committee, it was found that he had made various statements which were untrue.

In this regard the Government has decided to appoint Dr J B Z Louw, Deputy Director-General in the Department of National Education, as Director-General of the Department of Education and Training with effect from 6 March 1989, and that Dr Meiring therefore ceases to act as Director-General. It has been decided to transfer Dr Meiring from the department and to place him in a suitably graded post elsewhere in the Public Service. In the light of the commission’s findings concerning Dr Meiring, steps will be taken against him in terms of the Public Service Act.

In conclusion I want to point out that the Government has also taken note of the fact that Mr Jaap Strydom, Deputy Director-General in the department, is on sick leave at the moment. His request to retire on grounds of ill health will be considered after the final report of the commission of inquiry has been received.

The inquiry, findings and the Government’s decision are a further strong contribution in the Government’s determined struggle to maintain clean administration and to take action against government maladministration. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, inevitably we have still not had an opportunity to study the first report of the Van den Heever Commission because we have not received it yet. [Interjections.] It is actually a pity that we did not debate it with the hon the Minister. Nevertheless, even when one merely listens to the matters the hon the Minister has just broached here, it is clear that what we have to contend with is an extremely disturbing affair.

But of course! [Interjections.]

That is true, especially when one keeps in mind that the hon the Minister wanted to drop the matter in the first place, and that later there was a report by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, after which this hon Minister decided to refer the matter to the Commission for Administration. Later, when it was pointed out to him that this had been a mistake, the hon the State President stepped in and appointed this commission. That is what we are objecting to. [Interjections.] This is not positive, concerted action against corruption! [Interjections.] Far from it!

It is belated action! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, then there is a very interesting section which reads that interests must be made known when an official or a relative of an official is involved in the matter. I wonder if the Cabinet should not also take into account that in this connection cognisance should be taken when a Minister’s son is involved in a contract, as was the case with the son of former Minister Pietie Du Plessis.

When we argue about a matter of this nature, we must try to establish for ourselves in the first place exactly what corruption means. In this connection I requested that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as the hon the Minister of Defence among others be present for this debate. We did hear from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He showed us the courtesy of informing us that he could not be here. We accept that. Nevertheless I am going to refer to him. We did not hear from the hon the Minister of Defence at all.

That is typical of Magnus! [Interjections.]

Corruption is not defined as such in the Act. In Murray’s Concise Oxford Dictionary it is described as “rotten; deprived; influenced by bribery”. In the New English Dictionary of Murray, numerous definitions—up to nine definitions—of the meaning of “corruption” are given on page 1023. The fourth meaning is “to destroy or pervert the integrity or fidelity of a person in his discharge of duty; to induce to act dishonestly or unfaithfully; to make venal; to bribe”. Interestingly enough, it seams to me that the next definition applies to the NP Government. It reads: “to become corrupt or putrid or to go bad; to undergo decomposition; to putrify; to rot; to decay”. [Interjections.] In my opinion that is the position in which the Government finds itself is today. [Interjections.]

Furthermore it is a question of consideration. When one receives any consideration because of any course of action one is involved in, this comes into question. This applies to everyone in the public eye, but especially to the Government itself. With reference to this consideration I quote from Hunt—page 224 of the 1971 edition— as follows:

In this connection it is interesting also to refer to a Free State court finding in which the following was said:

Consequently there is an enormous grey area in this connection, which all of us should consider. In this connection, therefore, it is a pity that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not here, because he is the one I heard saying early one Saturday morning that people had said he was a scoundrel. I did not hear anyone say that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was a scoundrel. Nevertheless he said he wanted an opportunity to put his case. Here is an opportunity. Here is the opportunity Dr Connie Mulder was not granted to put his case. [Interjections.] Here is an opportunity. Where is he? [Interjections.]

We are all in agreement that when one is in the public eye, and what is more, when one is in the Cabinet, one’s behaviour, when one’s personal life and conduct should be impeccable and above suspicion. If one has to make a mistake, let it rather be on the safe side.

Broadly speaking, therefore, we can say that whenever an office-bearer derives illegal benefit by virtue of his office, corruption has taken place. Hon cabinet members must tell us categorically where they stand with regard to the following scenarios—the building of a swimming pool at the home of the hon the Minister of Defence, whereas it appears in the budget as an expense with regard to a shooting range … [Interjections.]

Secondly there is the obtaining of an option on a property by a company in which the son of a Minister has an interest, and the leasing of this property to a department of which his father is the Minister. This took place without tender, and apparently without making the interest known.

Thirdly we want to know whether a Minister may vote on his Vote in such a case, when a contract exists in terms of which the Department of Public Works pays an enormous rental to a company in which his son has the greatest interest, and in which he probably has an interest himself.

We also want to know where they stand with reference to the use of a military helicopter on ministerial hunting trips.

I also want to refer to the interesting visit to Mozambique by six members of Parliament and six members of the President’s Council in a SA Defence Force aircraft. We did not go along. It was only the Government. [Interjections.] They were members of the Government and of the President’s Council. The same thing happened with reference to the invitation to hunting farms. We also wonder about the donation of a large amount of money to a party, such as in the De Pontes case to which my hon colleague referred.

I think the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a Shakespearian student, because his style is much like that of Brutus and Mark Antony. [Interjections.] Perhaps he should go and read Polonius’ advice in Hamlet once again:

Who are his friends? The former Minister of Manpower, the chairman of Club 22—who nominated the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs for State President.

The CP is a blight on hon Ministers of Manpower. [Interjections.] We took care of Mr Fanie Botha and Mr Pietie du Plessis, and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs must be careful that he does not become the Minister of Manpower permanently. [Interjections.]

At that time we said that when the NP ship sank, Mr Fanie Botha would be known as the man who had shot the biggest hole in the hull from the inside. It now appears that Mr Du Plessis is the largest hole in the hull of that ship.

We warned the Government against both these hon members. The hon the State President hastened to Louis Trichardt to come out in support of Mr Fanie Botha. It was all in vain. We proposed last year that Mr Pietie du Plessis’s salary be reduced to only R1 per year. [Interjections.] We warned the Government against that hon Minister’s superficiality, but our advice was disregarded, regardless of the interests of the country.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a friend of Mr Louis Nel. He too left Parliament under a cloud. We know that he is also an acquaintance of Mr Albert Vermaas. [Interjections.]

This brings me to another piece of advice from Polonius:

Perhaps we could add the following: “Do not be entertained by each unfledged newly-hatched comrade." This could put one in a position of indebtedness with regard to such a person.

Let us take a look at the whole question of corruption. The grey area. It was because of this indebtedness that Mr Vermaas had the confidence to telephone the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on a Sunday to ask him to arrange an interview with the hon the Minister of Finance so that Mr Vermaas could be helped out of a difficult situation. We have heard the explanation of the hon the Minister of Finance with regard to this matter. He saw Mr Vermaas upon the request of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom Mr Vermaas had the confidence to bother on a Sunday to deal with a personal matter for him. and this confidence is the result of the fact that the hon the Minister had hunted on Mr Vermaas’ farm previously. [Interjections.] That same night two senior officials of the Reserve Bank …

Which two? [Interjections.]

… very well, I shall settle for one. One official had to go. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Finance is sighing, but the point is that Mr Vermaas—the person who needed a favour—did not go to them. According to evidence which was made available to us, and which was not published in the hon the Minister’s newspapers, they went to him instead. One should not allow people in the public eye to end up in a position of indebtedness towards ordinary people. [Interjections.]

What is the solution then? The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to a solution. As far as we are concerned, the USA’s system of advise and consent is dreadful. We cannot condone what has just happened to Mr Tower in this connection.

That is what you are doing here this afternoon!

The hon member does not know what he is talking about! [Interjections.] Oh, do keep quiet!

The creation of the post of Advocate-General has definitely filled an important vacuum. We concede that, but it is clear that it is still not an effective deterrent. To me it seems that there are two methods of action, supplementary to one another, which may be effective. These are disclosure and regulation. At this point we could perhaps take a look at the American system. There the tax returns of members of the Congress are public documents; the estate of the president and the vice-president are placed under the care of trustees for the duration of their term of office and a certain period afterwards; donations to political parties which exceed certain fixed amounts can lead to imprisonment; and public companies have to show donations to political parties in their accounts and balance sheets. On the other hand regulation by inspectors, for example, could lead to further corruption. Had there been a system of disclosure, we would not have had the cases of Fanie Botha and Pietie du Plessis. It is in the interest of sound administration, in the interest of the country and the dignity of Parliament and the Cabinet, that the adder of corruption, wherever it may be, must be destroyed. Not only that, but it must be done timeously and effectively, before the media disgorge these alarming embarrassments over the breakfast tables, over the eaters or in the lounges of our homes in bloodthirsty fashion.

Mr Speaker, I believe it is the duty of every member of this House to fight and expose corruption in the administration of government, especially when hon members of this House and, more importantly, Ministers become involved or associated with acts of corruption. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to immoral and corrupt behaviour by people involved in government, not only because we have been put here to ensure good and honest administration but also because the conduct of the likes of De Pontes, De Beer, Du Plessis and others reflects on the integrity of the very institution of Parliament. [Interjections.] I have recently been accused by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs of making insinuations and allegations about his involvement in irregularities relating to his friend, Vermaas. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that I made no insinuation. I did make allegations but I alleged no more than could be supported by undisputed evidence led before the Harms Commission, evidence which I quoted in detail here in Parliament and the truth of which he has not denied.

The hon the Minister accuses me of attempting to degrade his department and of presenting him as a scoundrel. I want to assure him that my intention was exactly the opposite. We on this side of the House will do everything that we can to ensure that we have Government departments and Ministers who are beyond suspicion.

It is clearly not in the interests of South Africa to have a Minister of Foreign Affairs who is not trusted by the rest of the world. If, therefore, evidence has been led before the Harms Commission and reported in the Press which suggests that there are links between a scoundrel like Vermaas and our Department of Foreign Affairs, Defence or any other department, top officials of those departments or the Ministers, then I believe it is the duty of that Minister to address this evidence and explain to Parliament and to the public exactly how he or his department are linked or not linked to this man.

In this way he can clear his good name and ensure continued respect for his department. If on the other hand he is not able to explain his role or involvement or is not prepared to do he must not blame hon members of this House who see it as our duty to continue demanding explanations to evidence which points to links and involvement with Vermaas.

It is for this reason that I welcome the statement made by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in which he has said that he will state his case before the Harms Commission. I think it is important that the suspicions raised by the evidence already led should be cleared up as soon as possible and I would like to know from the hon the Minister when he will be giving his evidence and submitting himself to the scrutiny of the commission.

My, but you are arrogant!

Corruption in Government departments involving hon members of Parliament and by people who are well connected in the corridors of power has become so commonplace that it could almost be described as boring. It has occurred so often over the past few years that it can almost be described as boring, were it not for the far-reaching consequences of these immoral and unscrupulous activities. Our erstwhile colleague De Pontes—what an honourable member he turned out to be! He sat in this House and was generally recognised as a rising star in the NP caucus—chairman of the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry—while for the past three years while he sat here, he was knowingly criminally involved in the affairs of Palazzolo, a convicted bigtime drug trafficker, the most despicable type of criminal. Throughout his dealings with Palazzolo, De Pontes used his position as a member of Parliament to promote his criminal purposes.

Where is he now?

That is what I would like to know. [Interjections.] I will get to that. Throughout his dealings he used his position as a member of Parliament to promote his criminal purposes and in the process dragged a number of easily influenced Government officials into the mess. De Pontes appears to have been motivated by nothing more than greed and he operated in the belief that Government departments and contacts in high places could be freely used to promote his nefarious design. The Harms Commission report teems with the names of hon Ministers to whom De Pontes made representations on behalf of Palazzolo.

And successfully!

To the credit of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, he would not be drawn into the De Pontes-Palazzolo intrigue and he stuck to his departments recommendation that Palazzolo be refused entry to South Africa despite De Pontes having made personal representations to the hon the Minister on a number of occasions. I give credit where credit is due.

Apart from the various criminal activities of De Pontes there are, however, a number of aspects of this saga which should be of concern to the Government and which certainly are of concern to us on this side of the House. Firstly, I would like to pose the question: what made Palazzolo choose South Africa? Remember that the initial approach came from Palazzolo. What made him choose South Africa as a hideaway to escape the consequences of his crimes? Has our country sunk so low that we are now in the same league as the less desirable South American states offering havens to the scum of the earth? I do not believe that we are and commend our hon Minister of Home Affairs for refusing entry to Palazzolo. Nevertheless, it would seem that the polecat tag which attaches to South Africa because of apartheid leads people to believe that if we have not morality in our constitutional and political affairs we probably lack morality in other areas as well. The sanction busting schemes which South Africans engage in are in essence government approved crime. Whether we approve or not many of our trading partners have passed laws in terms of which trading with South Africa and sanction busting are crimes in those countries.

It is therefore unfortunate that our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs has to make the admission that he was involved in joint strategies with a man like Vermaas to circumvent international sanctions. Again, whether we like it or not, this means that this hon Minister has openly admitted that he was planning to break the laws of one or more of our trading partners, planning to commit crime.

The actions of De Pontes also raise the question of why he assumed that he would be able to bring a convicted drug dealer to South Africa not via the back door, but through the official channels and by making representations to Ministers and processing the application through Government departments. Has the level of corruption and immorality within the NP caucus risen to such a level that De Pontes assumed that official channels could be used and that ministerial favours would enable him to import this drug trafficker into our country? [Interjections.] Did De Pontes believe that Palazzolo’s millions would be an inducement to money-hungry …

Order! If an hon member refers to corruption and immorality in a party caucus, whichever party it may be, he is thereby referring to hon members of this House. The hon member is not entitled to do so, and he must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir. [Interjections.]

The real question which has to be answered, however, is this: Why are we experiencing this spate of corruption and intrigue? What has happened to morality, not only in Government, but also in our wider society? Is it simply a consequence of 40 years of NP rule? Is it simply a manifestation of absolute power corrupting absolutely? I do not believe it is quite as simple as that. It is, I believe, a symptom and manifestation of a sickness which pervades our entire society, a sickness which, I believe, stems from a fundamental lack of morality in the very fabric of the Government of this country and its race policy. [Interjections.]

One cannot use contrived and dishonest constitutional mechanisms to hold on to political power, one cannot sustain government through patronage and one cannot spend 40 years preaching division, encouraging racial intolerance and polarising society and expect that society to remain morally healthy. In short, immoral government and immoral policies must inevitably lead to immoral society.

There are one or two other questions I would like to pose. I would first like to ask, now that we have received the Harms Commission’s report on the so-called Palazzolo-De Pontes saga, when De Pontes is going to be prosecuted. I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Justice about their recommendations of prosecution and how far these investigations have proceeded. There are rumours doing the rounds that De Pontes may somehow escape prosecution because of the multitude of things he may expose and the people he may drag into this affair with him. I would like the hon the Minister of Justice to assure us that De Pontes will be brought before our courts with the least possible waste of time, and that a proper investigation will be conducted into this aspect.

Finally, I would like to refer to what the hon the Minister of Education and Training had to say. I think we are all appreciative of the fact that the conduct of the past Director-General is being referred to the Attorney-General. Obviously this is what should be done, as is the action being taken against the current Acting Director-General, but the hon the Minister cannot avoid responsibility for this. He must not expect praise from this side of the House for actions of this sort when the buck stops with him.

This entire Government must realise that when it comes to matters of corruption and immorality the buck stops with Government. They have to see to it that their house is in order, and they cannot point fingers at officials who act under their direction.

Mr Speaker, I do not have much time available to me, because I had to ask a colleague for some of his time, and I am therefore only taking the floor to place one or two matters in perspective, one being that I myself requested leave to give evidence before the Harms Commission. Those arrangements will be made as soon as it is convenient for both the commission and for me. That is the first point I want to make clear.

I was not being provocative when I said that I invited colleagues in Parliament to do precisely the same thing if they had any information about irregularities, because if we really do have any respect for the commission, I think that is the way to do things. I think that is the way to do things, and I ask hon members to follow my example.

From what I can gather—this is what is held against one in the media these days—when one has a friend and then dares to acknowledge that he was your friend, particularly after allegations have been made that he has transgressed, it is held against one. There is one thing I want to be quite frank about to my colleagues in Parliament. If hon members do not have a child, a brother, a brother-in-law, an uncle or a friend who has ever been guilty of any irregularities or has failed in life, they are fortunate. I am not in that position. I am not. I had a friend who is in prison today, and that same man was also the friend of some hon members sitting here.

He still remains a friend.

He still remains my friend. If I get the opportunity, I shall visit him in prison, thinking to myself that in my lifetime I have also been guilty of many sins for which God has not punished me. I shall pray for grace. With regard to my relationship with Mr Albert Vermaas: For a period of 111/2 years Mr Albert Vermaas—hon members can say what they like—acted in such a way as to gain a wide circle of friends for himself in the Pretoria area. He made regular contributions to his church. His church council held him in high esteem, as did the University of Pretoria which accepted a donation of R0,25 million from him, and only after the donation had been accepted, and certain alleged irregularities had come to light, did the University of Pretoria return that donation.

Mr Vermaas did not only go on hunting expeditions with me. I wonder whether hon members know how many times in my life I have been able to indulge in recreational activities with him— over a period of 12 years no more than six or seven times, and at times not for two years at a stretch. Why must one be crucified in this fashion? If I have done anything wrong—hon members must trust the commission—this will come to light.

I am saying here today that Mr Vermaas had a very wide circle of friends in Pretoria, but the moment published reports linked his name to alleged irregularities, those friends disappeared. They were too ashamed and afraid to acknowledge that friendship. About all the large sums he donated to charitable institutions and old-age homes over the years not a word is said or, to put it differently, no one is saying a word about that. I do not give any guarantee—if I have a friend— that that friend’s business interests will be managed properly, any more than I expect a friend of mine to give any guarantee that I will not commit any transgressions. All I want to say here today is that until the irregularities came to light, there was no one in this House who thought about Mr Vermaas in the light in which he is now being depicted. Hon members know that to be the truth.

Take the Palazzolo affair. I am asked by the Cape NP to hold a meeting in East London during the 1987 election. I get there, and my private secretary says that I do not want a party or reception after the meeting because I am too tired and have to return to my hotel owing to the fact that I have to speak at another venue the next morning. We arrive there and well-meaning colleagues in the party ask me whether, after the meeting, I do not want to spend a little time with the organisers at a reception. I go there with two security policemen and two members of my staff, remain for approximately an hour and go back to my hotel. Subsequently I am told that that person is my friend. I am asking hon members here—they are also politicians—whether that is fair? Is that really fair treatment?

Take the Jalc issue. Because it is being investigated at present by the commission, I do not want to discuss the merits of the case at the moment. My department did not allocate a single project to that organisation. Not a single project. Those are the facts.

So what is this discussion all about? I reiterate: Yes, I do have friends who have transgressed, and I have certain friends who may perhaps transgress in future, and I pray to God that I shall not do so myself.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs really has my sympathy. I hope that he will not be judged in future by the company he keeps.

I want to ask the hon the Minister something and I also want to put this question to other hon Ministers. I know that this is an exceptional case to which is being referred. I shall not argue with him about it any further because I think that he is right in much of what he said. It happens that somebody starts doing hon Ministers favours, that somebody starts asking hon Ministers to go hunting with him. I am not referring to a friendship of 12 or 13 years—that is a different matter— but about these new friends, or are they all friends from long ago? It happens that hon Ministers are invited to visit these game farms.

I want to ask whether the hon the Minister of Law and Order visited Mr Vermaas’s game farm because the story is doing the rounds and we do not want these stories in circulation. Can he say that this is not true?

I do not know him at all.

I am not saying that the hon the Minister knows him. I am asking whether he visited the farm. I am pleased if he did not do so. [Interjections.] I am trying to help the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] I am trying to give him the opportunity to wipe those things which are being said from the slate. They are being said. I am pleased that he has told us that this is not so. [Interjections.] I have said this now and I have done so in front of the hon the Minister. I do not spread stories behind somebody else’s back. If I want to say something, I will tell him straight and we will thrash it out. [Interjections.]

I ask hon Ministers why people come to them and want to do them favours. What is the reason for this? Why do they place themselves in a position where it may be said that that hon Minister has compromised himself in regard to somebody? [Interjections.] If they land in that position, they must realise that they are being approached precisely because people want to be done favours later. Hon Ministers cannot afford this.

Are we not permitted to have friends?

Hon members are permitted to have friends—everyone is allowed to have friends …

Do you hunt?

I do many things. [Interjections.] Hon members need not worry their heads about that. That hon Minister and I have also been friends for years. [Interjections.] He was not accused of being a friend of mine. [Interjections.] I am also sorry that he sometimes lands in situations but I have had such friends too.

Hon Ministers should ask themselves why these people, these strangers, want to do them favours. They do this because it is known that many people say: “Before I put a request to a public servant. I first have to take him out for a meal.” [Interjections.] It is true that there are many people who think that a meal will earn them a favour from a public servant. That is wrong and I want to ask that we discontinue that thing. We used to say earlier: “One can bribe anybody in Africa with a bottle of brandy or whatever.” Do not let us have the situation in our public life in which people think they can obtain favours from anybody by taking him out to lunch for instance. This often happens in the business world.

I do not want to go as far as Dr Veldhuisen went the other day in a leading article in Die Transvaler when he also analysed this thing about where corruption arises and said that we should beware that it did not start in our homes, we should beware not to bribe our children with an ice cream to do things after such a child had refused.

If one then said one would give him an ice cream, one started these things. [Interjections.]

Hon members are laughing about this. The fact is that we are all concerned about the corruption which exists in this country. [Interjections.] We are all concerned about it. Corruption is a form of bribery. Where does it come from? Let us go to the root of this evil and not start reproaching one another here today about where it comes from. Does the trouble not lie in the process of upbringing? Should we not start there in preventing our people from becoming corrupt?

It is easy. We make a big thing of it. We say there has been a wonderful breakthrough; we are going to see Pres Mobuto Sese Seko. This is a breakthrough, but who is he? The richest man in Africa who became rich out of the poorest people. Is it really a breakthrough to have him as a friend? Is it really a breakthrough if he visits South Africa? Is he corrupt or not? Let us hear this. Is it really an exceptional achievement to get that man of the people, who is recognised by the world as being corrupt, in South Africa? Let us go and investigate where the corruption comes from.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid that I am pleased about the steps which he has taken. I am sorry, however, that he always takes steps in reaction to facts which have become known … [Interjections.] … and no preventive measures were taken.

[Inaudible.]

That is true. I accept that the hon the Minister investigates this, but it arises in his department because preventive measures are not taken.

It has just been said that there should be better conditions of tender and better application of them. If that is the case, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he was not aware of this in his department. I quote from page 97 of the recently received “Eerste Verslag van die Kommissie van Ondersoek na Aangeleenthede rakende die Departement van Onderwys en Opleiding”:

Therefore there were documents which warned against the purchase of these things. Was the hon the Minister’s attention not drawn to them? [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon the Minister that commissions are appointed after the Sunday Times or Sunday Star has revealed things. A committee was appointed in this House to request that an inquiry be instituted into people’s pensions and gratuities. Only after the CP came up with this and initially requested this in their draft resolution, did the Government react. Then it began stirring its lazy bones. [Interjections.] Beforehand nothing happens. The Government acts in reaction to things which the Press or the Official Opposition brings to its attention. In which of these cases did the Government take the initiative? [Interjections.] Could we be given a single case in which the Government took the initiative? [Interjections.] The commissions which were appointed were appointed as a reaction to events.

How does it happen that outside people discover these things? How does it happen that the Sunday Star exposes the stories of Palazzolo and all those people whereas hon Ministers in the departments dealing with these matters do not discover them?

That hon Minister of Home Affairs did actually discover that such a person could not be granted admission. Despite the fact that he was personally approached by that MP in this regard, the hon the Minister persisted in his refusal because the man had a criminal record. We find eventually, however, that he is in South Africa where he has bought a farm and a house and is farming here. How did he creep in by the back door?

We saw the De Pontes story in the newspaper of February of last year. It was public knowledge by then but the NP did not take steps against De Pontes. Even at the congress in October the hon Cape leader of the NP said that De Pontes had retired at his own request until matters were cleared up. These things had been known for eight months, however, and the story circulated.

Was no investigation made by the State to ensure that that man—he was the chairman of a Parliamentary committee—had a clean record? [Interjections.]

These are the things which we want to discuss with the Government. We want to help. If we can help, the Government must tell us how we can help to institute a clean administration because it is in everyone’s interest. [Interjections.] Let us begin where a beginning must be made. If it is at schools, let us help the hon the Minister and support him so that this can get going.

We do not want to live in a corrupt country. Nobody wants to be part of a people or nation which is corrupt. Let us try to do things in the right way.

I want to mention something else which gives rise to corruption and that is the idea which is beginning to take root among the population that laws are not enforced. I spoke about this the other day and I shall not repeat it. That is one of the causes of corruption. If a person has laws and they are not enforced, it leads to corruption. Hon members can take the decision and adopt the stance they wish to adopt. I do not mind whether they want to keep laws on the Statute Book or repeal them but for goodness’ sake they should not keep them there and not enforce them.

The hon member for Groote Schuur could not omit blaming apartheid again for all the corruption. One really wonders whether there was apartheid in Zaire. Everything has to be connected with a system—surely that cannot hold water! There are other things which are the cause of this; it is not only the consequence of the policy which was applied.

We want to request the Government to be like Caesar’s wife because hon Ministers must be above reproach. We know this demands a great deal of them, we know it demands great sacrifice because they cannot go about with everybody or be his friend. They have to lead a life which is actually unnatural because they cannot hold the type of parties which other hon members can possibly hold because people expect their lives to be beyond reproach. We appreciate the sacrifices which they make in this regard. As Gen Hertzog said, if somebody holds those positions, his life is no longer his own and he is no longer in control of his own life; the people lay claim to his life. The people want to have irreproachable Ministers.

Even if we differ politically, we say to hon members that we want to see that those of them who are sitting there are above reproach and that no finger can be pointed at them.

The hon members have the opportunity to scotch these rumours. If any of the hon Ministers were not present on such occasions, they must rise and say that they were not there. It is not good that stories are peddled around the streets which harm an entire Parliament, an entire government and also us as parliamentarians together with them. We appeal to those hon members to act and let us eradicate this thing.

Mr Speaker, I have very little time because I forfeited some of my time to my colleague. I shall therefore come straight to the point.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am sorry to have to raise a point of order at this stage but the speakers’ list that has been circulated for this debate indicates quite clearly that the next speaker should be a speaker from the NRP. [Interjections ] We in these benches have from time to time sought to change speaking orders and have been singularly unsuccessful in this regard because we are informed that under the rules of the new system, once the speakers’ list has been drawn up that remains the list. I would remind you. Sir, that on one occasion we wished to bring the hon member for Houghton into a debate at a later stage and we were not allowed to do so. Therefore may I ask why the hon the Minister of Finance is coming in at this stage.

Order! I have never refused a request from any Whip in this regard because I always accept that the Whips talk to one another, reach consensus and then approach the Chair. I then accept the advice of that particular Whip as such. I have done that and that is my decision in regard to the change in the list of speakers. The time agreed upon has not been changed but the order of the speakers has been changed. I am quite happy with the situation as it was put to me by the responsible Whip.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: You have said, Sir, that this situation was cleared by the Whips, but it was not. This has been done without us. I wish to ask whether in fact this is an extra speaker or whether it is …

Order! The hon member can get clarity on this issue from the other Whips in this House. I am not prepared to have a Whips’ meeting during the debate. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I think that today the hon member for Bethal put a rod in pickle for himself with which we are frequently going to punish him in future. The hon member asked whether it was a breakthrough to hold discussions with Pres Mobutu Sese Seko. He is therefore applying a value-judgment. When we develop relations in Africa in the future, must we get a curriculum vitae, a security clearance and a commercial clearance? What judgment is one applying? If he is going to look at the systems of government of certain countries in Africa, I wonder whether, according to his criteria, South Africa will be allowed to have a single relationship with an African country. [Interjections.] Is that what would lie in store for us if the CP were to come into power? [Interjections.] Before it is a breakthrough to start a relationship with a country, one must know that it is lily-white. What kind of alternative government is that?

Like Eugene Terre’Blanche.

I want to ask the hon member a second question. He says that we always act reactively. I want to tell him frankly that as a lawyer he should know that one frequently does a person a greater injustice by involving him when he is innocent than if one allows that allegation to continue for a while until one is sure that he is guilty. Could the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid have taken action against a certain official before he had received that ruling? My submission is that in all fairness he could not take action against people before he had absolutely irrefutable proof. [Interjections.] If the CP comes into power, we must realise that all we need do is spread a rumour. This will start a witch-hunt and people and officials will be attacked left, right and centre. If I were an official of the State today and I listened to the CP through the mouths of the hon member for Losberg and the hon member for Brakpan, I would feel that everyone is surely not corrupt. I feel that an absolute injustice is being done to the officials of the country …[Interjections] … because the hon member for Losberg said today that this was only the tip of the iceberg. What is that other than an insinuation that there are still dozens of officials who are corrupt and must simply be exposed? [Interjections.] That is the implication of his statement. I refuse to accept that. In my department, together with the Director-General and the hon the Minister my colleague …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon Chief Whip of the NP say with reference to the hon member for Losberg that he is a scandal-monger?

Order! Did an hon member say that?

Yes, Sir, and I withdraw it.

The hon member for Overvaal could have a little more respect for the clock. I am already in injury time. [Interjections.]

The only point I want to make is that the officials in the Department of Finance work with billions of rands every day of their lives. Each and every one of them could be under the most dreadful suspicion. Today I want to state unequivocally that if we consider what happened in the Directorate of the Department of Inland Revenue last year, we find that only six of those thousands of people were really guilty of seizing opportunities that came their way. The hon member for Groote Schuur said: “What has happened to morality?”

†I do not know what his religion is but my religion tells me that man is innately inadequate and cruel.

*Man is inherently sinful. That is the essential character of man. One can do what one likes, but this cannot be totally prevented. Since we were given the Ten Commandments, millions of laws have been drafted to get people to comply with this and until we reach the Great Beyond we will not succeed in doing so. All we can do in this world is to take the necessary preventive measures, as far as we possibly can. and to have the necessary control measures. We are not talking about ordinary people when it comes to corruption and maladministration. We are talking about people who premeditatedly mislead the people around them.

I want to tell the hon member for Groote Schuur that I hope the Cape Times publishes my reaction to those disgraceful remarks which that newspaper published as quotes of his. I want to know from him whether he requests a curriculum vitae from every voter who comes to see him. [Interjections.] Does he apply any criteria before he sees someone? [Interjections.] Why does he expect me to do so? [Interjections.] Why is he asking that of me?

Jan van Eck’s voters never come to see him! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, people who come to the office of the Minister of Finance do so for one of two reasons. They are either in big trouble and they are entitled to come to him because he is a public, elected functionary, or they have some or other business interest which falls within his wide field of responsibility. Who else must they talk to? Who else must they go and talk to? And me, Sir? Who else must I talk to? What people do I talk to? My circle of personal friends is visibly getting smaller by the day. I only speak officially, and somewhere along the way someone crosses my path who is not quite kosher.

You still have 61 friends left!

The simple truth is this. In the world in which we live the State, for its part, can do what it likes; we cannot eliminate this. As regards this silly story he told here again today about Pallazollo and the hon the Deputy Minister and I, I want to tell the hon member for Losberg that he must please go and talk to his colleague the hon member for Bethal. I gave him all the facts. And if he still has problems he can come to my office.

I read that letter of the hon the Deputy Minister!

That poor hon member does not understand my Hansard. He does not understand any of my other statements either. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to finish my speech, if I still have time left. The Whips must please give me an indication. [Interjections.]

I have here in my hand a copy of the Treasury prescriptions. The financial regulations are also in here. I want to suggest that after we have adopted the procedures we should refer this book to the hon member for Vasco’s Joint Committee on Finance. If, in all these cases of corruption and in all these cases of maladministration, the relevant officials had simply followed the instructions in this book they would not have found themselves in trouble. In the second place, if all the businessmen who were involved had realised in time that an offence was being committed, these things could also have been prevented. However, as I have said, this is not always possible. I want to ask that we adopt the parliamentary procedure and refer these instructions and financial regulations to the Joint Committee on Finance. At the same time I want to ask that we also refer the tender regulations to the same joint committee.

I myself, and all the people who assist me, have a completely open mind. If the relevant joint committee of this Parliament can come up with better regulations, we shall gladly implement them. There is, however, one important matter which people must remember, and that is that auditing in the State is not done in a random way. In the State the primary objective of auditing is to determine whether, in the first place, the regulations and instructions have been complied with properly, and after that the figures are checked. In this regard the figures therefore come second. When the regulations have therefore been complied with there will be no contraventions. It is therefore not correct simply to allege that the auditing function of the State must take place in the same way as the auditing function outside. It cannot work that way.

Unfortunately I do not have time to do what I would have liked to have done. I have here a fine document which I received from the Auditor-General. I should very much like to make it available in order to indicate what this Government has done during the past three, four or five years to improve the quality of auditing in South Africa with a view to preventing contraventions of this kind, in order to improve control, in order to improve reporting and in order to upgrade the quality of management. Personally I am asking that the internal auditing function in departments should come into its own. I am asking that the investigation which the commission is undertaking at the moment should come into its own so that the financial management function in every department will also come into its own. I want us to upgrade that post, so that he will not only be concerned with the exercising of financial control, but will also be a financial adviser to his Director-General and his Minister.

Mr Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the established fact that corruption is one of the malpractices in society which the public in any democracy is least prepared to accept. Therefor, any government which disregards this fact and which is seen to be soft on corruption does so at its own peril and will inevitably pay the price.

Therefore, one cannot get away from the fact that recent reports of corruption in Government circles have shaken the South African public to the roots. I must admit, too, that I feel that certain aspects of the motion before this House are relevant. I refer in particular to the emphasis upon timeous action for it is in this context that I feel that the Government can be justifiably criticised. The manner in which accusations against the former Director-General of Education and Training was initially handled can only be described as unimpressive. However, I am pleased to note that tough measures are now being taken against other officials of the same department whose actions have been questionable.

I also welcome the steps announced by the hon the Minister in this regard this afternoon. One appreciates that he has a complex portfolio and one which makes it difficult to supervise adequately.

Again, the former Minister of Manpower’s involvement in certain property deals, I want to point out, came to light approximately one year ago when this, to my mind, should have warranted immediate and timeous investigation. The fact that this gentleman continued to hold office while the warning lights were flashing can only be described as a matter of public concern.

The same can be said too of the antics of the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates who should have been removed from the Cabinet at the first signs of indiscretion which were repeatedly circulating some 12 to 15 months ago.

My time allocation does not permit me to elaborate further on individual cases but it is clear that Cabinet Ministers are in a vulnerable position and they must ensure that they are not unwittingly compromised by accepting hospitality from those with evil intent. However, the one point that has emerged from present investigations into corruption is the need for greater administrative control. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of Finance is trying to evade the real issue by saying for instance that we are maligning the Public Service and asking us how we expect members of the Public Service to feel after listening to my hon colleague for Losberg today. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Works tried the same thing the other day with my hon colleague for Barberton.

The CP said has nothing against the Public Service except what was said on this matter by the investigating officers and a police officer who holds the high rank of Major …

He did not say it!

… as reported in The Citizen. The hon the Minister must then say that The Citizen did not say it.

He did not say it!

Then the hon the Minister must go and tell them, but it was quoted in the Sunday Times as follows:

This is quoted from the report in the Sunday Times of 26 February 1989. [Interjections.]

There is no need for the hon the Minister of Law and Order to shout at me now, because he does not even have the courage to return my telephone calls. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid is concerned, I want the say the following. On 29 March 1989 that hon gentleman issued a statement arising from the Advocate-General’s report, in which he said that he had noted that the Advocate-General had not found that any contravention or irregular action had taken place, and he elaborated on this. At the end of the statement he said:

During the discussion of the Vote on 4 May 1988, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens took the matter further, and, during the discussion on the First Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, the hon the Minister argued in favour of referring the matter to the Commission for Administration. In that debate my hon colleague for Barberton responded to the hon the Minister and said that the hon the Minister had himself responded to the Advocate-General’s report. My hon colleague then discussed it. He also quoted what the hon the Minister had said with regard to the Advocate-General. My hon colleague for Barberton quoted the following from Hansard, 13 June 1988, col 13742:

The Advocate-General also found in the light of the information—as my colleague read—that the Director-General, Dr Fourie, had shown extremely poor judgement in allowing the Ivis system to be purchased from Learntech.

The hon the Minister already knew this on 13 June 1988 when he was still parrying the question by arguing in favour of the Commission for Administration. Only on 14 June 1988, on the day after that debate, did the Minister announce that the Director-General was going to take an early pension and that a judicial commission of inquiry was to be appointed. These are the facts of the matter. I take it there will be a debate on this report and that it will be taken further, since it was held back until we were sitting in this House today before it was tabled.

During the last debate, to which the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works took exception, my hon colleague gave the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid certain advice. Nothing said by the hon the Minister to us today has convinced us that that advice was incorrect. I should like to suggest that the hon the Minister follow that advice as soon as possible.

We in South Africa have seen three people who stood as NP candidates and became members of the House of Assembly resigning in the course of a week; De Beer because of corruption concerning votes and Du Plessis because of allegations of corruption. The third one, De Pontes, resigned because of what the Harms Commission’s report called intrigues, abuse of power, abuse of influence and actual, staightforward criminal contraventions, on page 1, paragraph 3.

The Citizen referred to “the tip of the iceberg” as far as corruption in the department of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid was concerned. [Interjections.] Although the hon the Minister of Law and Order now claims that it was not said, I think it is probably only the tip of the iceberg. [Interjections.] I do not think there is anything in this debate which should be a laughing matter to the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

He just giggles like that!

I am laughing at you!

The Sunday Times of 26 February reports as follows:

What does the hon the Minister say now? The report continues:

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Works attacked my hon colleague and I have already referred to that. With apologies to Shakespeare, I think we can say today:

Corruption and rumours of corruption cast a long shadow over South Africa, over the Government, over officialdom, over Parliament itself and over the individuals who hold the high offices of the representatives of the people. Members of the public cannot be blamed if they view the representatives of the people with cynicism and see the whole bunch as people who enrich themselves at the cost of the State and the taxpayers. Therefore, however unpleasant we may find this debate, it is our duty as members of Parliament to deal with matters which would otherwise have remained untouched and covered up because we have to be the watchdog over what the Romans called the res publicae. I have no doubt about that. We all grew up with the principle that a man’s “yes” is his “yes” and his “no" is his “no", that a man honours his word and “a man’s word is his bond”. Many of us will remember the words of the late Mr John Vorster, namely:

Standing out above all these statements is the State President’s commitment to a clean administration—his words on the steps of the Senate. Of all South Africa’s political leaders he was the only one who specifically made such commitments in public. What do we have now, ten years later? The foul odour of not merely one rat but of scores if not hundreds of rats. The worst part of this unfortunate situation is the slow reaction of the Government in each case.

As the hon member for Brakpan said, rumours have already been circulating for at least two years about the activities of the immediate exMinister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs and his son and business friends relating to, amongst other things, land controlled by the hon the Minister. The hon the State President and the Government must have heard them already too. Have they not heard them?

The investigation into De Beer’s activities has started, thanks to the PFP’s nagging.

They taught him the tricks.

The hon the State President was informed about De Pontes as early as February 1988. The hon the State President knew about it, and the Government must have known about it. As I have already said and explained, the tardiness of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid sticks out like a sore thumb.

It would not help if the leader of the NP and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid were to speak out against corruption after ten years of P W Botha administration and the undertaking and commitment on the steps of the Senate. It would not help if they said now that they were going to act against it.

†It does not help the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare to say now that the Government will root it out. It is written on the walls that the NP Government is soft on corruption. [Interjections.]

*Now I want to tell hon members and the hon leader of the NP across the floor of the House that we will go from platform to platform to announce this to the people of South Africa. It will not help any more. We have a saying in my family which goes: After a while excuses do not help any more.

What are the precedents for this Government? I should be grateful if the hon the Acting State President and the hon leader of the NP would now listen to what their precedents are.

They do not listen to each other any more.

Mr P W Botha and his Cabinet have created a precedent that a Minister is responsible for his department and, if irregularities occur, the Minister must go. I think that was on 7 November 1978. I think one can take the precedent further and say that the hon the State President is responsible if one of his Ministers is guilty of irregularities and he then has to decide what to do. Richard Nixon had to go, Willi Brandt had to go, MacMillan was cast out. A Swiss minister—I understand it was a woman whose husband was connected with Palazzolo’s money laundering—had to go. Mrs Thatcher’s Minister of Defence had to go after the Falklands war. South Africa is tired of corruption. South Africa is tired of many other things but most of all South Africa is tired of the NP Government, and that Government will also go.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Soutpansberg said the NP was soft on corruption. The matters that are being discussed here today were brought to this place by the Government. [Interjections.] It was a commission appointed by the hon the State President as far as the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and others were concerned. It is his initiative which is clearly apparent here today, that of a man to whom not only corruption but also maladministration is unacceptable. In other words what he proposes to punish is maladministration, because he can pass judgment in that regard. What he intends to deal with is unethical conduct which is not punishable in a court. What he is sanctioning here today is the rejection of unethical conduct and maladministration, neither of which is a crime.

A reference was made to the Attorney-General. In other words, the motion which is aimed here at corruption in particular deals with that single aspect, namely corruption, but this Government is going further and is first dealing with unethical conduct where what was done in a specific way was not done according to specific norms, moral laws and in particular the norms of administration. In respect of maladministration in particular its judgment is very definitely one of rejection.

The point therefore is that the hon members opposite, by confusing the issue, spoke across the board of unethical conduct and maladministration as though it were corruption, while the facts are that this Government has addressed these two spheres in no uncertain terms. Some time ago the hon the Minister suspended no fewer than nine officials. This is a demonstration of strong action in respect of suspected maladministration and/or unethical conduct.

The question is: What are we doing about prevention? The hon the Minister of Finance covered the whole field of the audit. There was a time—it was between 1978 and 1981—when we debated in this House the whole issue of the necessity for secret action. No less a person than the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central gave this his blessing. He said (Hansard, House of Assembly, vol 72, col 3226):

What account is this? He says this in the Vote on the Secret Services Account Bill. Why was he satisfied? He was satisfied because measures had been introduced to ensure that in spite of the secrecy the correct procedure was followed.

The present leader of the PFP, the hon member Dr De Beer, also supported it. He said (Hansard, House of Assembly, vol 72, col 3139):

He supports it …

Are you comparing that to Vermaas and De Pontes? [Interjections.]

… provided specific rules are complied with. [Interjections.]

This Committee is therefore committing itself anew, through the hon the Minister of Finance, to make sure that strong preventive measures exist and that the prescribed rules in respect of departmental administration and audit are complied with. That is our commitment.

When these do occur, how do we act? In respect of the entire Harms matter for example the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—he has not yet been contradicted on this point—exerted pressure on the Transkeian government to appoint the Van Reenen and Alexander Commissions. After these two commissions were in progress in May last year a rumour reached me in approximately August that we had an interest in those two commissions. I then delegated Adv Khan to attend the proceedings of those commissions.

He reported back and said that we did in fact have an interest in them. I in turn reported to the State President, and he appointed the Harms Commission after the matter had been discussed in the Cabinet and without any of the hon members even lifting a finger in this connection. [Interjections.] That hon member can laugh as much as he likes, but these are the facts. This entire series of actions was initiated by the Government.

Too late.

With that we are saying that maladministration and corruption is unacceptable to us. We shall not only introduce the necessary preventive measures, but shall also act in a punitive and remedial way wherever and whenever this is indicated.

The hon member for Soutpansberg can at most speak of delayed action. It is easy for the opposition to refer to delayed action, but the fact of the matter is that the Government causes things to happen. According to its norms the hon member for Soutpansberg should be the last person to talk about delayed action. [Interjections.]

Another fact is that in respect of remedial action I hold discussions with the Attorneys-General on co-ordination and administration with a view to dealing with these matters more quickly and more effectively. We are going to augment their staff on a country-wide basis. I have received a statement of their needs, and we are going to augment their staff. In respect of another matter a special task force has already been established. In other words, we are determined. I shall ask my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, to give the Attorneys-General further auxiliary assistance in specific cases so that we can deal with these matters quickly and effectively.

He does not have the staff.

What has emerged recently? What has emerged is that our ordinary commission procedure is very suitable for bringing facts to the Government because it is a Government commission, not an opposition commission. The Government does this conventionally and submits them to Parliament without turning a hair so that it can be discussed by Parliament. What has emerged? Commissions can operate quickly and effectively, as in the case of the Harms Commission. It enables us, in respect of the Attorney-General, to put forward a proposal empirically to the effect that in the same way we empower him to undertake investigations quickly and effectively. We suggest that he ask other departments to assist him, on a country-wide basis, in doing so. It is therefore not necessary to give him a staff of about 40 or 50 people. The entire Public Service is going to be at his disposal and under his instructions.

The fox in the hen house.

The Advocate-General is an official of this Parliament. He is an appointment made by this Parliament. His reports are debated here. The opposition can ask for the records. When State or national security is affected, the opposition may ask for the records to be discussed by a joint committee or a House committee. The hon member for Barberton has been a chairman of such a committee on which judgment was passed on certain sensitive matters that could or could not be published. No cover-up whatsoever is tolerated by us.

At this state I say that we must lay down a few guiding principles for ourselves in respect of our commission procedures and our procedures concerning the Advocate-General, and these are that while we shall not tolerate any cover-ups, it is just as bad to hang an innocent person. I do not want to take a South African example, but I do want to take an example I came across in Australia.

Of Dr Connie Mulder.

A person there was found to be completely innocent, but he nevertheless resigned from his positions in government circles and the business world “because he was a victim of an overkill on the part of journalism”. This can happen, but one can also be destroyed by the opposition without being guilty. That is why we must plead for equilibrium in this situation.

There was a very interesting undertone from the hon member for Bethal which I liked. Let us do this together “because South Africa is not up for grabs” we once said. Definitely. If that is true then it must also be true that we will not condemn persons, find men guilty and cast them into oblivion before a court has done so. And least of all should this be done before a commission has produced its findings. I am not criticising any of the decisions. You know what respect I have for the Chair, Sir. The fact remains, however, that while we have taken all the steps—and we have done this before we were convinced that it had to be done—we reiterate that fairness must be an integral part of our parliamentary debates in respect of those matters which are still the subject of commission inquiries. When a commission has not yet reported we must give it an opportunity to bring out that report. No one can argue with me about this. No one can differ with me. If we want to turn this corruption debate into a débacle, we must create in South Africa the kind of syndrome found under McCarthyism in America when they killed the struggle against Communism by looking for Communists behind every bush. [Interjections.]

In terms of the Public Service Act our public servants have comprehensive powers enabling them to look after their own people and I am aware that they do this every day. I do not like these references to our officials who can be taken out to dinner. I want to study the Hansards, but I feel inclined to reject this. It did not sound good to me. I want to see what the hon member said. It is completely inappropriate to suggest that they can be bought with a dinner or a bottle of wine, while out of these thousands of officials there are only a small number who have abused the situation. What is more, they have not yet been found guilty.

Similarly it is completely inappropriate to suggest that an hon Minister can be bribed with a hunting safari. I must reject that. I have been a hunter all my life. I have never felt that I have been bribed. I have never ever felt used. I have never felt I must ask a person precisely what his intentions are. The semblance of the evil must be avoided, that I readily concede. The hon member for Soutpansberg and I have been on a couple of hunting trips together, and his company had no effect on me. On the contrary, I like him. The fact remains that he must be careful not to deteriorate into a syndrome where we are so contaminated by association that we cannot breath as ordinary people.

I want to conclude with the motion. I want to say that a large part of this motion of the hon member for Losberg rests on the perception that he discovered the situation. But the hon member must be very careful. He was corrected two or three times by his own members, and also by the hon member for Groote Schuur, on his facts when he attacked the Minister of Home Affairs. Specifically he said that Home Affairs had given Palazzolo permanent residence.

Paragraph 165!

Paragraphs 56 and 58 say the opposite. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister was praised by those members.

The hon member makes me think—I want to conclude—that his interpretation of the Rule of Law is the same as that of Murphy’s: “If the facts are against you, twist the law. If the law is against you twist the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, yell like mad and bring a motion!” [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I move as …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The speakers’ list with which you and the other hon Whips were presented clearly indicates that the NP was to have three speakers plus the hon the Minister. We now are apparently having four speakers plus the hon the Minister, which means that without consultation another person has been put into this debate. May I inquire whether in future we in the opposition parties will also be allowed to insert additional people in debates, provided we stick within the time allowed?

I have had a look at the specific Rule during the debate—Rule 89.

The Rule provides:

I am inclined to interpret this Rule as follows: If I am informed by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that the time allowed is 150 minutes, as in this case, and that the parties have agreed amongst themselves as to the time allocation for a specific party, and if Whips of the various parties wish to change their speakers or the order of their speakers during the debate, I am inclined to assist them, as long as they keep to the maximum time to which they agreed amongst themselves.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your ruling.

That is how I see the Rule and that is to my mind in the spirit of the debate, as a Whip may feel inclined to have another member address the House following the development of the debate. If the hon Whips do not agree, they are welcome to call in at my office so that we may meet to discuss this particular issue.

I am now quite prepared to add the few minutes spent on giving this ruling to the hon the Acting State President’s speaking time.

*The hon the Acting State President may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) expresses its condemnation of all persons who, in public life, in the Public Service and in the business world, contravene accepted ethical, moral and criminal law standards, codes and measures;
2. (2) thanks the Government for the strong attitude adopted by it in this regard and for what it has done and is still doing to prevent such contraventions;
3. (3) approves and supports the manner in which the Government, where contraventions nevertheless allegedly occur, introduces and applies the correct instruments and procedures so that the allegations may be investigated and offenders may be disciplined; and
4. (4) appeals to the Government to continue seeing to it that preventive, investigatory and disciplinary procedures are applied irrespective of persons.”.

Once again this is coming after the event.

I just want to tell the hon member for Losberg that I did not interrupt him and that I hope he will extend me the same courtesy.

One often listens to debates in this House which are not so pleasant, but today’s was one of the most distasteful debates to which I have ever listened in my long public life. It is true that it is the inherent and natural responsibility of Parliament, and also of the House of Assembly as a component of Parliament, to devote its attention to malpractices, irregularities and instances of maladministration whenever these arise. That is why it is also Parliament’s right to conduct today’s debate. However. I want to tell the hon member for Losberg that I do not know of anyone whose life, personal and otherwise, is so blameless that he has the right to sanctimoniously charge, convict and impose punishment. [Interjections.] If the hon member agrees, we may continue the debate.

No one is denying the fact, however, that there are certain people who contravene the moral codes, ethical norms and legal rules. No one is saying that such acts or omissions should go unpunished. However, certain mechanisms, institutions and processes exist by means of which attention has been paid to these acts or deviations in an orderly manner and on a rational basis. The hon the Minister of Justice has referred to this.

I want to stress one point this afternoon. Despite all our actions, preventative measures, investigation and even punishment, there are still some people who are committing offences. Do not attempt to convince us in this House that this is the rule. It is not the rule. I want to state in all fairness that there are overwhelmingly more honest and dedicated citizens, public servants and political office-bearers than dishonest and undedicated ones, and that all of these people may expect protection from the community they serve—in fact, I want to state that they may demand it—against being arbitrarily defamed, condemned and crucified. Every one of us sitting in this House knows how vulnerable public figures are and we know how defenceless they often are against accusations which are often unfounded. My advice to everyone would be—I do not wish to exclude anyone—that we should not act in such a way that those people who are best suited to public office—this also includes membership of Parliament—will in due course no longer be prepared to make themselves available for election to these offices.

I do not wish to speak ad hominem today. I do not even wish to refer to the position of the father of two hon members who are here today.

If you had made that speech in 1978, it would have been different.

I think we would be doing them a disservice. [Interjections.]

I want to ask that we should be prepared to make sure that someone is guilty, that he has in fact committed an offence, in which case we must, in my view, take firm action, but even then those values which the hon members propagate require that the one who has failed along the way, should still be treated with sympathy and respect.

Without exception!

My colleagues have referred in detail to the steps which the Government is taking to prevent the evil of malpractices and, where it is not possible to prevent it—there are such cases—to reduce it to a minimum and, wherever necessary, to take corrective steps.

In my opening address I referred to the Government’s commitment to clean administration. The statement I made then, was received with a measure of cynicism in certain quarters. That standpoint and commitment can never mean that malpractices will not take place, but it does imply that the Government must take steps to eliminate them as far as possible, and if this is not possible, to punish them.

It is, in fact, true that effective government must of necessity be founded on honesty, integrity and efficiency. In our vigilance against malpractices, we in this House must guard against over-doing this to such an extent that it has a demoralising effect on those officials who have to serve us from day to day. We must guard against attempting to make a rule of an exception to the detriment of the country’s efficient administration and management. The fact that instances occur in which people occupying public offices as well as people in their personal lives and capacities do, in fact, act less ethically than they should, or make themselves guilty of some or other punishable offence, does not detract from our commitment to clean administration.

The fact that there will always be people who break the law—the legal practitioners in the House will understand this—and often go unpunished, has never constituted an argument that there should be no law or legal system. Likewise, it is not the point of departure to adopt a standpoint that the law is an ineffective instrument in preventing, determining or punishing crimes and misdemeanours.

As a social instrument—our legal system is such an instrument—the law is and ought to be continually subjected to an evolutionary process in order to adapt to society’s need for legal remedies. legally sanctioned opportunities and legal protection. That to which the hon the Minister of Justice also referred, forms part of the specific process of subjecting that system and the law itself to this.

As with any individual, the dealings of the Government institutions and people functioning in them must be bound to the same moral and legally permissible provisions. When they are not, they ought, as with any other individual and in the best legal tradition, to be determined beyond reasonable doubt and to be occasioned by the appropriate punitive and remedial action.

I want to ask whether hon members can name any instance in which this did not happen to the people to whom they referred. Those hon members of Parliament who have committed either ethical or other transgressions, are no longer members of this Parliament. In the final analysis, surely this is the test as to whether or not we have succeeded. This ought to apply without fear or favour, and it has applied without fear or favour. We have had evidence of this in recent times.

†It can be expected of a government that commits itself to clean administration to avail itself of all the instruments created and sanctioned by law to attain this goal to free society and the public sector from malpractices, corruption, fraud and other contraventions.

However, it cannot be expected of such a government to change the hearts and minds of people who have little or no regard for the sanctity of the law, the interests of the community, the rights of others and the sanctity of institutions such as Parliament in which we serve. It similarly cannot guarantee under any circumstances that no-one in high office will not succumb to greed and abuse positions of authority for personal gain. The responsibility I submit of government in this regard is to see to it that the law echoes society’s perceptions of right and wrong. The responsibility of government is to be vigilant to protect society’s interests in accordance with the law. The responsibility of various branches of government is to prevent, to discover and, if need be, to punish transgressions of the law regardless of the identity and status of the perpetrators thereof.

This Government’s commitment to this goal in practical terms has been adequately proved by my colleagues who have spoken in this debate. This commitment is not given the lie to by instances of corruption and other practices of a questionable nature or morality. If this were the case then by the same token one could argue that there is no law since what we describe as the law is often contravened by many people in our country and in the world.

The Government’s efforts in its quest for clean administration are often frustrated, are often perceived to be inadequate because conduct which seems morally reprehensible is not always punishable by law. Also, Sir, no civilised legal system can punish on the grounds of suspicions alone. It can only punish on tried and tested facts.

Since evil men are often ingenious, by definition insensitive to public opinion and morally bankrupt, occasions sometimes arise in which one is faced with the dilemma that existing law and law-enforcement agencies are inadequate and also inadequately equipped to cope with what is perceived by us as reprehensible conduct on the part of specific people. When this happens—this is important, too—Parliament must provide the legal remedy and the means effectively to combat that which we all profess to abhor. Therefore, this debate is important because, if through this debate, we could succeed in attaining a higher level of morality and ethical codes in this country, I believe we should welcome this debate.

My colleagues have indicated to what extent the Government has been and still is prepared to accept its responsibility in this regard.

*What we must be careful to ensure, however, is that we do not by way of our statements, by way of innuendo or otherwise, undermine one of the most fundamental principles of our law. This is that no …

Every man is entitled to a free trial—not detention without trial!

Mr Speaker, …

Do not take any notice of him!

Order!

This is that no one is guilty of a crime until he or she has been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a competent court. Nevertheless, there are always those who see an opportunity to make a political gain if the Government’s attempts to curb corruption and other malpractices do not succeed. There are even those who wish to see political gain whenever circumstances develop that cannot be obviated by the existing legal rules.

†I should like to suggest that it would be prudent for them to bear in mind that the South African society and South Africa’s image are the victims of this type of thing. Instead of ridiculing and criticising the Government they will be well-advised to assist the Government in its efforts to rid society of the menace of corruption and malpractices. They will also be well-advised to refrain from disseminating unfounded rumours which serve only to undermine confidence in our collective ability to manage the public affairs of our country in a fashion which will do us proud.

*Finally, I should just like to say this. We may well derive personal pleasure from the embarrassment of a government—including that of our own Government—whenever instances of transgressions arise, and we must therefore take the necessary steps to identify them. I nevertheless wish to conclude with this one thought, namely that some decisive decisions lie ahead for this country in many areas of our national life. [Interjections.]

Order!

These include the financial-economic, the social and the constitutional fields. I want to request that we apply our energy in this House to devoting attention to this as well, and that we should not misuse debates like this one to evade our responsibilities in this regard. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, with all due respect I want to say that the hon the Acting State President contributed absolutely nothing to the essence of the debate on this motion by making a number of generalisations, most of which I cannot disagree with.

He did not answer any questions either. [Interjections.]

While the debate was in progress, I became aware of the following corrupt act as well. On 1 March 1989 Die Burger— not the Patriot; Die Burger—said that the National Intelligence Service had admitted that they had used the name of the HSRC without permission in order to conduct certain public surveys. [Interjections.] Here we have another case of a corrupt act, and I wonder if we are now going to have another commission of inquiry in this regard.

But we must first make it public! [Interjections.]

Now you are talking nonsense. You did not make it public! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, let me say this publicly in this House. I have a great deal of respect for the hon the Minister of Justice. Nevertheless, and I say this with all due respect, he told two flagrant untruths here today. Allow me to quote what he said.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: …

Order! The hon member is not entitled to say that. He must withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. The hon the Minister of Justice adopted two standpoints here today which were not true. I should like to draw his attention to them. It is not correct that he took the initiative with regard to this debate today. The CP’s draft resolution—he can consult the Order Papers—was on the Order Paper first. Only after that did the hon the Acting State President come forward with this ad hoc committee which he is appointing. [Interjections.]

Secondly, despite the respect that I have for the hon the Minister of Justice, he also failed to refer to what is stated in paragraph 165 of the report of the Harms Commission. It is stated clearly there that the Department of Home Affairs granted a permanent residence permit to Palazzolo. He did not mention that.

Has he ever read the report?

He omitted to tell the House that.

With regard to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I do not have any problems with the fact that someone has friends who step over the line or who make mistakes. However, I should like to ask him to look at what the court rulings are in that regard. When one is in a position of authority, and one has friends for whom one does favours so that they benefit over other people from them, we have a case of corruption. [Interjections.] With all due respect to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I am asking him whether he would grant an interview to anyone whom he did not know, on a Sunday, such as the one he granted to Vermaas.

Yes!

Fine! The hon the Minister’s answer to that is yes. [Interjections.] In that case I now want to tell the hon the Minister that we do not have a problem with the fact that a person has friends. We do, however, have a problem with the fact that at present—the hon the Minister cannot deny this—there are six commissions of inquiry into corruption in South Africa.

I want to repeat to the hon the Minister of Finance what I have told him three times in the past. What is more, I have consulted his Hansard. He is a far more senior hon member than I am. Nevertheless, I want to say that what he said with regard to the affidavit on Palazzolo is not consistent with the facts. What are the facts?

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon the Minister must now give me a chance. He has had his turn to speak. [Interjections.] In paragraph 88, the Harms Commission … [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may feel free to make a derogatory hand gesture like that in my direction. Nevertheless, what I am telling him is true. He can read paragraph 88 of the commission’s report. It states clearly that the former Deputy Minister of Finance reprimanded Mr De Pontes. In what regard did he reprimand him? Not with regard to an affidavit which Mr Palazzolo made, but with regard to an affidavit which De Pontes himself made.

During the relevant interpellation here in the House, the hon the Minister repeatedly referred to an affidavit which Mr Palazzolo had made. He therefore omitted to inform the House that …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

Order!

No, I do not have time now to answer questions. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must please resume his seat. [Interjections.] He is still neglecting to tell the House that Mr De Pontes gave incorrect information in an affidavit. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I cannot refer to each hon member individually. Nevertheless, I should like to put the following question to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Did he say on one occasion that if people levelled so many accusations at him, he would have to step down from office—he would have to resign or consider resigning? Did he not say that?

No!

Fine! We accept that he did not say that. [Interjections.] However, I can inform him that there is information which does, in fact, indicate this. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that this debate deals with the fact that the Government is being charged with tolerating corrupt activities over a long period before taking action.

I also want to come back to what the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said. Today, he presented us with this report by Mr Justice Van den Heever. With all due respect I now want to ask him whether he knows that by means of the report which he presented to us here, he also abused his position as Minister. He was well acquainted with the contents of that report, while we were not and could therefore not prepare our replies to him.

That is the point!

Moreover, the hon the Minister knew that. This is a typical form of the misuse of political power, when a person is a Minister and receives a report before it has been made available to the opposition parties. In this way the opposition parties are denied the opportunity of replying to it. [Interjections ] In my opinion this is a public shame, not only in our political life here in Parliament, but also for our people outside Parliament. As a young colleague of his, he is setting a very poor example for me here. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

Draft resolution and amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! Before the House commences its proceedings, allow me to welcome the hon the Minister of the Budget back in the House after a long period of absence.

Mr Chairman, in the past the previous Minister of Transport, Mr Schoeman, used to come into this House and tell hon members a joke and while they were laughing would come along with his party’s policy. The present Minister tried this type of thing last Friday, but it was a failure from the word go.

The hon the Minister created the impression that I was lying to this Parliament. I want to recall the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central’s proposal that the hon the Minister resign. I will say why. Firstly, the hon the Minister is incapable of replying to debates. The only type of debate the hon the Minister can reply to is a debate with a lot of acknowledgements in it. I do not owe that hon Minister any “thank you”. Whatever that hon Minister does is done for the country. I do not owe him any “thank you”.

The hon the Minister also came along and said there was no apartheid on the main-line trains. That was a lie to Parliament and to the country.

Order! The hon member may not make such a statement.

Then I would say the hon the Minister misled Parliament …

Order! The hon member must first withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Minister told the country and Parliament an untruth. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must also withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Minister then misled Parliament and the country by saying that there is no apartheid on long-distance trains, and his department confirmed it. A few minutes before coming to the Chamber on Friday I made a booking. I was then booked on the so-called international section. That international section is supposed to be for everybody. However, the coaches are divided into a first-class section and a second-class section, which is used for everybody, but the Whites are booked in the front section, the White section. Therefore, the hon the Minister must not mislead this House. If the hon the Minister cannot give an explanation as to why he did that and why he misled the House, we should ask him to resign or to get out!

Hear, hear!

We cannot put up with liars here, Sir. It is just as bad as corruption. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw the word “liar", Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

We cannot put up with people who mislead the House …

Order!

I said “mislead”, Sir.

Order! Very well, the hon member may proceed.

We cannot put up with people who mislead the House deliberately, knowing what they are saying is not a fact. Therefore, the hon the Minister must just get out. We do not need people of that nature, Sir, who would come here smiling about the untruth that was told.

Order! The hon member used the word “mislead” quite a few times, which I allowed. However, I think the hon member is now going too far. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, as a person who is affected by that hon Minister’s apartheid laws there is no other way of expressing myself and there is no other platform other than this one that I can use in order to give expression to the dissatisfaction that we find with that hon Minister and his department.

They are going to become a public company, but from the word “go” they have already started off wrong. They have already started off wrong. They must not think that I can be fooled because the colour of my skin is different! They should not think that, because I am the one who has to suffer. It is I and other people of colour who have to suffer, who have to undergo the laws that they have created. Unfortunately during Friday’s Extended Public Committee on Transport and Communications some hon members found it amusing and others called that I should be ordered to leave the Chamber. [Interjections.] To those hon members I would say before doing anything, shouting or laughing at any hon Minister, first listen to what he says. [Interjections.] Do not just do things openly in order to please a Minister. I am not here to please Ministers. I am here to fight for the rights of the people who have been deprived all these years in South Africa and they are people of colour—not the Whites. [Interjections.]

I would like to proceed. A lot was said by the hon member for Parktown as far as disparity is concerned. A lot was said by that hon member. We have been shouting about it here year in and year out. However, the impression was created on Friday that it was the first time that it was brought up. Last year we harped on it. However, the hon the Minister failed to reply to it. He failed to reply to it. His silence meant that he accepted that there is still discrimination. Had he replied, it would have been a different matter altogether, but he did not. He only chooses to reply when he is praised in a debate. I am not prepared to sing hymns of praise, Sir. I am not prepared to do that unless the SATS totally rids itself of apartheid.

The hon the Minister also came here last year and said that there were not enough funds to implement parity throughout his department. Yet, last Friday the hon the Minister said again that there still was disparity, but his Budget does not show any such difference. That means that the House was taken for a ride again. The hon the Minister must think before saying anything. He must not think that because my skin is brown I am stupid. I am not, and I do not think the other hon members are stupid either.

Another hon member in the other House, the hon member for Kempton Park, also said that we must not think that the SATS was there to provide handouts. She must get her facts straight. We were not granted the opportunity to be employed by the SATS, receiving fantastic salaries while not doing any work. That is what handouts are. What we have been doing is sweating, slaving, doing the work, but we have not been receiving the money. We have been discriminated against. We were not receiving handouts.

I think that the communities who are not White are too proud to sit and accept handouts as the Whites have been doing. The White who is not able to make a success in the SATS is not fit to be called White, because he was given the opportunity through legislation. It was put into his hand. All he had to do was to close his hand and he could not even do that. He could not do even that because he was spoon-fed all the way, through legislation passed by the NP Government. I am not here to protect the NP Government.

The hon member for Carletonville is a bit confused too. [Interjections.]

*There is an old Afrikaans saying to the effect that the apple does not fall far from the tree. We are the tree and he is the apple. He must just decide how far from us he fell. [Interjections. ] All the examples of discrimination in the SATS which he mentioned, are matters we have been raising for years now. He must just decide which side he is on. He must decide whether it is the apple which fell far from the tree or whether it is the one which did not fall that far from the tree. However, it still remains the apple from this tree, namely this House. [Interjections.]

†The hon the Minister got up there and attacked the CP on what they were doing. He can attack them—that is his political battle. My battle is with the NP, who hold the power and the discriminatory laws in their hands. Those things are not in the hands of the CP.

*I have nothing to do with the CP. I do not like their policy.

†I do not agree with their policy, but I am not going to fight them until they have the power in their hands. [Interjections.] The powerful people at the moment are the NP and I will fight them to the bitter end for the right of my community as well as the communities who are not represented in this Chamber. I will fight for their rights until they are treated as equals in this country and until they are not discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.

In our party we have a song that says:

My skin colour is my downfall in this country. Let us look at the board which has been appointed. The colour of my skin does not allow me to take part in it. Nonetheless, I have been contributing towards the revenue of this country in the form of taxes, and through my taxes I have been contributing towards the upkeep of the SATS. Yet we are discriminated against and we are pushed aside, and just because we have the wrong colour skin.

In that very House there are people whose skins are much darker and they are accepted. There is no problem with them. They are welcomed with open arms. It is only when one is classified as a Coloured by the Government through the Population Registration Act that one is shunted around and pushed away. Then one is not accepted because one is not wanted.

We can go on and on in this vein as far as that hon Minister’s department is concerned. We can go on enumerating the hon the Minister’s failures. He failed in doing good in all the transport sectors. All we have to do is to look at the losses suffered by the railway services. One can look at the mess in the road system where that hon Minister is involved. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister comes here and tries to paint a nice picture of his department, but his department is not like that at all. He is the head of that department and he will have to take the punishment dished out to him until his department has put everything right.

The hon the Deputy Minister had the nerve to get up in that Chamber and tell me that I was not correct in what I was saying. The SAA is deteriorating. He is not going to tell me it is not so. When we used the SAA on Friday we had exactly the same problem. Even when one arrives there and one is a person of colour the attitude of those ground hostesses who book one’s seat is discriminatory. Even in the way they look at one the discrimination is visible. That is something which does not come from within them only; it filters down from the higher ranks of the department of that hon Minister. For all I care that hon Minister can go. He can get out of Parliament. We do not need people like him here. We cannot have them here. The same applies to the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

*The hon the Deputy Minister can look askance at me. However, I say …

Order! It is not “you” and “your”, but the hon the Deputy Minister.

The hon the Deputy Minister can look askance at me. [Interjections.] That is the problem. One can rant and rave. However, he can do as he likes, because he has the power in his hands and he is discriminating against me. You can discriminate against me. You can decide whether or not I can travel in a carriage. I want you to reprimand your department … [Interjections.]

Order! Let us please say “the hon the Minister”.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman. The hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister must reprimand their department about the incorrect information they gave the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in the House of Assembly, namely that there is no apartheid.

This morning I waited for the train at Laingsburg station. I had travelled there by car to see that train and to prove that there is discrimination. It is there, as large as life.

†However, the hon the Minister had the audacity to get up and say that there is no apartheid and that if I know of any, I should bring it to his attention. The hon the Minister should reprimand his department for lying. This will not end here. I will continue saying this and I will hold it against the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister should be bringing people closer to each other, but after his speech on Friday there was more hatred within me because of him being White and because of him having the power and wanting to decide for me and wanting to tell me where I should go and where I should not go.

I want to see the end of apartheid on longdistance train journeys. Before the hon the Minister leaves this House I want him to explain why he said that. Why did his department mislead him? The hon the Minister must tell us and he must not come here with nice stories to make the House laugh again. He must not do that.

Order! The hon member should rather not use the word “lies”.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry but this time I did not use that word.

Order! I thank the hon member. The hon member may continue.

Before the end of this debate we want to know why he did this and why there is still apartheid on those trains. The hon the Minister will force us to go and take over those trains and then he may have me arrested. That is what the NP Government is doing all the time. They use pieces of legislation to protect themselves.

”However, when the CP latches on to an idea and starts to run away with it, the NP wants us to hammer them. No, we cannot hammer the CP. The CP is simply implementing the NP’s policy. That is all they are doing. [Interjections.] Now the NP must admit that they were wrong and they must abolish the Act. However, they are not prepared to do that. [Interjections.] They are afraid that the colour of their skin will change if they sit next to me. Then there will be no white left and their culture will disappear. Then their respect will disappear. [Interjections.] It is the same old story. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wonder whether it would not be fitting, in response to the attitude of and the manner in which the hon member for Klipspruit West expressed himself, to ask the majority party to reject this appropriation? Let us reject it. [Interjections.] That is the situation in which we are at the moment. [Interjections.] No, not “no man". [Interjections.] The hon member attacked us in his speech and said that hon members were laughing. We do not have to make the fact that hon members laughed, part of the whole account of his dissatisfaction.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I did not say in my speech that hon opposition members had laughed. I was referring to hon members of that sitting.

Mr Chairman, I can also not understand why there is such a radical difference between the speech of that hon member and the speech which the chairman of the joint committee made in the House. Somewhere there is something wrong, because the chairman of that joint committee made a balanced speech which did not nearly correspond to the tone of the speech made by the hon member for Klipspruit West. In response to the speech of the hon member I now want to ask the governing party to be man enough to say that we reject the Bill! I put that to hon members. He wants the hon the Minister’s head. Let us go further …

[Inaudible.]

Now he is making a speech! It seems to me that I have enticed the hon member out of his hiding place.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, your buses break down beside the road!

Order! The hon Whip and the hon member for Mid Karoo must put their questions in the correct manner.

I hope the hon member for Mid Karoo will also have an opportunity, otherwise his name will appear in The Guinness Book of Records because he has not had anything to say in Parliament during the past five years.

I repeat that an election must be held if the LP feels that that is the state of affairs. Let us hold an election!

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must restrain himself.

The closer to home, the more uncomfortable they become!

Now that I am calling for an election, they have a lot to say. I am sure the hon member for Northern Cape would not dare to participate in an election now and he is not the only one here. There are more of them. I am not mincing words and I am not going to speak about this further; let us reject the appropriation!

Mr Chairman, it surprises me that the hon member for Bishop Lavis is now asking us to reject the Bill. I think the hon member for Bishop Lavis made a fantastic speech in the House last week about the people of Bishop Lavis and particularly those who are commuters. If we rejected this Bill, that speech by the hon member for Bishop Lavis would not be worth anything.

I want to ask the hon member for Bishop Lavis to tell us today what his opinion is about the expenditure and capital works of the SATS. However, the hon member for Bishop Lavis runs down the hon member for Klipspruit West who encountered discrimination on the SATS’s trains this very morning. I think the hon member for Bishop Lavis is quite well aware of the discrimination which still exists. Therefore I do not expect the hon member for Bishop Lavis to attack the hon member for Klipspruit West.

Order! We are discussing the Schedules. Would the hon member please stick to the subject and refer to the facts.

Sir, I shall return to the Schedules under discussion. With regard to the capital budget, I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the target date is for the finalisation of the quadrupling of the Maitland-Hazendal line. Furthermore, I also want to know what the target date is for the completion of the quadrupling of the line between Nyanga and Bonteheuwel.

On p 3, under item 29 I should like to know from the hon the Minister what the target date is for the completion of the new goods depot and automatic sorting system and satellite depots at Bellville. I see the high mast lighting has been completed. The hon the Minister must please also tell us more about the improvement of suburban transport facilities in the Western Cape.

Item 34 on p 3 deals with water-borne sewerage at Noupoort. I should like to know what the current position is there.

In regard to item 119 on p 7 “Uitenhage: Mechanical workshops on new site" I should also like to know what the target date for completion is. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank the hon the Minister for the housing he has provided. [Interjections.] I am speaking on behalf of my people. [Interjections ]

Order! The hon member for Matroosfontein should not get so excited. It is not necessary. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon the Minister for the housing provided for railway workers at Klawer. The hon members who talk in this way about the families of railway workers are living in municipal houses. My people live in shacks, and the hon the Minister has provided funds to enable the people in Klawer who once lived in shacks to live in proper houses now. [Interjections.] I also want to thank him for taking steps to make it possible for the people in Vredendal to buy departmental houses. A considerable number of people have already bought some of those houses, and at Vredenburg, where I live, houses are currently being built for employees of the SATS. [Interjections.] We are speaking here on behalf of the people whom we represent, and it is therefore a great privilege for me to be able to thank the hon the Minister. I ask him to look into the question of the people still living in the railway camp at Klawer so that we can also remove them from the undesirable conditions in which they find themselves and place them in proper houses.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister how far the electrification of the railway line between Springfontein and East London has progressed. I understand that it was put into operation last year.

With regard to rolling-stock and buildings I want to know whether the SATS have any rollingstock, buildings, or land in the BSL countries. As far as I know there is a railway line between Bloemfontein and Maseru which is currently used only for the transportation of goods.

I also want to know from the hon the Minister whether an investigation has been undertaken into, or a study made of, the Highlands Water Scheme in order to determine whether that railway line will meet future needs.

I also want to know whether the SATS is providing Mozambique with any assistance for the improvement of the harbour at Maputo and whether any technicians and other officials of the SATS are working there.

Last year I inquired about trucks being leased to the neighbouring states. I want to know whether any of these trucks are being used in Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. This is very important as far as I am, because I remember it being reported on TV that cold-storage facilities at Maputo harbour had been improved for the fruit industry. If any expenditure has been incurred by the SATS in this regard, I should like to know about it.

It would appear that the privatisation of the SATS has caught the imagination of many people. For the hon the Minister’s information I want to say that I remember that two and a half years ago a well-known person in Bloemfontein decided to sell the locomotive which stood right in front of the station. It seems to me he stole a march on the SATS. He sold the locomotive for R11 000 to a citizen of Lesotho. He is currently serving a ten-year prison term for this, five years of which have been suspended. It was a shock for us all. He created the impression that he intended constructing a railway line from Bloemfontein to Lesotho. [Interjections.]

I also want to know from the hon the Minister whether there is still rolling-stock or trucks belonging to the SATS in use in Zimbabwe. Since South West Africa is to become independent soon, I also want to ask whether there are any buildings, land or rolling-stock there which belong to the SATS. If not, I have no more to say on the matter. If so, I want to know how this is going to affect the SATS’s services there.

Mr Chairman, I think we should revert to the debate which we have to conduct here this afternoon. I think the hon the Minister will agree with me that we have to introduce better transport services and facilities for our people in this debate.

We are on the threshold of a great curtailment of people’s transport from place to place. I want to concentrate on the Western Cape and the Boland region in particular.

It might be your last chance!

Yes, even if it is my last chance, I shall at least be leaving something good behind! [Interjections.]

SATS introduced a bus service for our people from Cape Town to Oudtshoorn and curtailed the train service on the Garden Route. I want to point out to the hon the Minister that 70% of people who use this service are Coloured people. We think that this bus service is so overloaded that our people are not accorded the human dignity on the buses which they should have. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and his department to conduct a thorough investigation into this. The ordinary farm worker who wants to take the SATS bus to town for shopping or to spend a weekend there has no shelter during the winter months.

There is no shelter for people and during the winter months one has to seek shelter under a tree. There is actually a signboard which indicates that it is a bus stop but there is no shelter for the poor passengers. [Interjections.] This is a slight improvement. Consequently I want to request the hon the Minister that his department do something in this regard so that people waiting for a bus may retain their human dignity. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, would hon members on the northwestern side please stop their noise. [Interjections.] It is my people’s custom to return to their place of birth in the Boland twice a year. One of those times is during the Easter weekend. Many of them work in Cape Town. Since train services were curtailed, these people have had to travel to their home towns by bus. I want to tell the hon the Minister a story about an incident which occurred during the Easter weekend last year. No driver was available for a bus. A bus driver was summoned from Mitchell’s Plain to Bellville and, when he arrived there, he descended from the bus and refused to drive any further. There was a delay of one and a half hours. I want to request the department to work according to a schedule and, if it is unable to provide a suitable service at peak hours, when there are many people who wish to make use of the service, it should contact the private sector by telephone to obtain one or two buses so that the transportation of passengers can proceed smoothly.

In this regard I want to refer to a transport company, Munnik Transport. The owner of this transport company is a dedicated person. He conveys passengers from bus stops and takes them as close as possible to their destinations. Surely that is the type of five-star service which we should like. The request I want to make of the hon the Minister and his department is that they allow passengers to feel dignified.

The next point to which I want to refer is that of the trains which run from Cape Town to Wellington and which are used by workers. On a few previous occasions questions were put as to whether this train service could not be extended because there were stations between Wellington and Worcester where people could not catch a bus. They asked whether such a train service could not depart from Worcester in the morning to take people to work and take them back again at night. I am thinking of towns like Hermon, Gouda, Tulbagh, Wolseley and Worcester in this regard.

I now want to refer to privatisation. Even if the hon the Minister gives us a third-class train, we shall all board it. [Interjections.] Now there are three third-class carriages which are full whereas two second-class and two first-class carriages are empty. I hope hon members will not think I am trying to be disparaging but I should like this age-old problem to be solved now so that passengers may be treated with dignity.

I am pleased that the hon member for Klipspruit West boarded a train. I did so too. It is upsetting to see how women have to stand on the trains for kilometres on end with babies in their arms. Trains are overloaded. The same applies to buses. I feel that an extension of this transport service will be profitable and that the hon the Minister cannot say that there is a shortage because it can be supplemented.

In conclusion I want to refer to what an hon member from the Free State said in a previous debate in connection with waiting rooms. I find it a pity that Whites do not use a waiting room for even five minutes in a period of 24 hours. It is left locked. Is it not possible that waiting rooms also be thrown open, as is the case at airports, and that a signboard be attached to the door saying that one may use the waiting room if one can behave? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to question the hon the Minister regarding Rietpoel station. Last year I wrote him a letter in which I told him that he had closed Rietpoel station and that the White officials had moved out of the houses in which they had resided. I requested that he kindly sell these houses to the Coloured employees who live there. The hon the Minister’s excuse was that the people had to drive right through the grounds of the Riviersonderend Corporation to get there. I followed up on the matter and wrote to the manager of the Riviersonderend Corporation. He informed me that they had no objection to the Coloured people driving through to their homes. In the light of the abovementioned facts I want to request that the hon the Minister sell these houses to the workers.

The second matter which I want to discuss with the hon the Minister, is the matter of transport. In 1984 I wrote to the road transportation board and informed them that the hon the Minister had placed a bus on a service route to Struisbaai as well as to Waenhuiskrans and back without permission. The hon the Minister continued and the road transportation board did nothing about it. Due to the fact that the hon the Minister now wishes to privatise, he has discovered that the service route is not so profitable. The local contractor who used to drive that route, has stopped the service. The hon the Minister has also stopped the service. Now I ask the hon the Minister whose responsibility it is to transport these people. The people sit alongside the road and there is no transport service between Struisbaai and Bredasdorp and Waenhuiskrans and Bredasdorp.

I also questioned the hon the Minister regarding transport from Bredasdorp to Rietpoel, Napier station and Caledon. I have a contractor who applied for the service route and his application was refused by the road transportation board. Now I want to know what the hon the Minister is going to do about it. He must keep in mind that the community has been totally isolated. It is the only mode of transport to the hospital, doctors and also the magistrate’s office.

The Whites have vehicles with which they can drive to the various towns, but the bus service was the only means of transport for my people. The other day I asked the hon the Minister for funds for the upgrading of the sports fields in Klipdale. I hope that he will tell me today that he is going to upgrade the sports fields or give a few thousand rands to the community so that the sports complex there can be repaired. All the people who live there, work for the hon the Minister and the divisional council does not want to accept the responsibility for it. They say that it is not their responsibility. The hon the Minister wrote to me and told me that he was going to get in touch with the divisional council. I should like to know how the matter has progressed.

I wish to speak about the matter of the pension scheme. I request the hon the Minister to launch an investigation into the benefits which those employees who retired ten years ago are receiving, and the pension which the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is paying today, as well as the benefits given by the hon the Minister. If he makes a comparison, the hon the Minister will see how sadly his are lacking. I also want to talk to the hon the Minister about housing. I have already thanked him for the housing and I hope and trust that …

Order! Which item or service is the hon member speaking about now? The hon member must speak according to the Schedules. He is really far off the mark now.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Will the hon member for Matroosfontein repeat what he has just said?

I said the “deputy ayatollah”.

Order! No, here are no ayatollahs in the House. [Interjections.] The hon member may continue.

My last question is that I wish to know what additional service facilities the hon the Minister is going to bring about with regard to Paardeneiland.

Mr Chairman, it will be a pleasure for me to reply to the questions that have been put to me here. I shall also attempt to elucidate certain matters here and there. The hon member for Klipspruit West should withdraw quite a number of the things he said. They do not create a good impression. [Interjections.] They do not create a good impression, since what they boil down do is the fact that the hon member makes senseless allegations which he does not substantiate. Surely that is worthless. After all, we are here to reason and to argue with one another. During the past two years in which I have been Minister of Transport Affairs, I have said that this undertaking must become a non-discriminatory undertaking. I call upon all hon members as witnesses. In the first instance, I announced that discrimination was to be removed from suburban trains. I began here in the Western Cape, and people in this House took my hand and congratulated me. [Interjections.] Yes, responsible people from that party congratulated me.

Boeremense.

Big people shook my hand. [Interjections.] I went further, however. I did this throughout the entire country. I had discriminatory signs removed from suburban trains and elsewhere. I want to say today, to the credit of all those people who make use of trains, that there is a better attitude prevailing among our passengers at present. [Interjections.] I am greatly appreciative of this. I went further, and had those same discriminatory signs removed from main-line trains. I gave that instruction to the management. [Interjections.] If the hon member wishes to assert today that he has seen main-line trains with discriminatory signs on them, then the management has not carried out my instructions. However, I did not hear him allege that.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister does not listen. I said there was still discrimination on the trains. Now, however, the hon the Minister is coming forward with a cheap trick and saying …

Order! The hon member has just qualified it by saying that he had said there was discrimination on the trains. The hon the Minister must now reply to that.

That hon member, whose colour differs from mine, and I may travel together to any destination on any train of the SATS.

No, that is not true.

Yes, it is the gospel truth. If the two of us were to decide today to travel together by train, the hon member could make the booking and the two of us could then travel together on it.

I did that on Friday, and it is still the same. I did it on Friday! [Interjections.]

I think …

That is the problem—you think I smell burning wood! [Interjections.]

… we have come a tremendously long way in this process. [Interjections.] I say we have made tremendous progress in this regard. [Interjections.] Yes. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am replying at the moment. The hon member is very nervous. I shall tell you why he is nervous. [Interjections.] I have met some of his voters. That hon member has a constituency with fine people …

… who do not like tollgates! [Interjections.]

They do not like toll-gates, but they come and argue with me in a decent manner.

What have you achieved? Nothing! [Interjections.]

Order! Let us cease the use of the word “you”. We are all hon members in this House; whether one is a Minister or not. We do not say “you". [Interjections.] Order! I have just spoken, not that hon member. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that the style of debating he has used here today, will get one nowhere in politics. If the hon member continues in this manner, he will compel me to ignore him and not to reply to him at all. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has been doing that for years! [Interjections.]

I shall go further than that. When those voters of his come and visit me again, I shall inform them as to why I will not answer him.

Do it! They have had it with you! [Interjections.]

Order! That hon member had the opportunity … [Interjections.]

That is cheap blackmail … [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] That hon member must not do that. The hon member for Klipspruit West must come back. The hon the Minister has listened to everything the hon members have said, and I think hon members should now give the hon the Minister an opportunity to make his reply. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may continue.

That hon member also referred to the airways. I just want to tell hon members something now. Nowhere in the world will one find an airline whose every flight is precisely on time. It is unfair to expect that. The hon member should just go and compare SAA to any other airline in the world. I invite the hon member to do that. I shall give him the figures and then he may compare SAA to any other airline in the world and he will see that SAA is one of the best carriers in the world.

As far as discrimination is concerned, the hon member knows that we have appointed air hostesses from, all the population groups. We have appointed the first Indian pilot. That application was considered on merit, like that of anyone else, and that man obtained his job on merit. I do not want to conduct an argument with the hon member now; that is not necessary. He and I are friends. [Interjections.] The two of us are not cross with one another outside the House. He accompanied me on a tour and there was no tension between us. [Interjections.] I want to invite the hon member … [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon members for Matroosfontein and Klipspruit West continue in this manner, I shall be compelled to take drastic steps, because they are not affording the hon the Minister an opportunity to make his reply. The Second Reading debate is still to come and the hon member for Matroosfontein may request a turn to speak then and say what he wants to say. I ask the hon members to refrain from that behaviour now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

That hon member may feel free to do that. He has been in my office on a previous occasion and he may feel free to come again if there are any matters that are troubling him.

As far as discrimination is concerned, I have already said that I have issued instructions that discrimination is to be removed from the SATS. [Interjections.] The hon member may come and discuss this with me and he may mention specific examples. Then we can work on it and by so doing reach a better understanding. That is how we accomplish things in this country; not by shouting at one another, not by disparaging one another, not by swearing at one another and not by accusing one another. Then we are co-operating.

The hon member referred to the disparity that still exists, and that is no secret. I have said that here, and I think I also said it on Friday in the large Chamber. There is still disparity on two levels, namely medical services, or Transmed, and travel privileges. The fact is, that in certain categories we have already achieved parity in that regard as well. There are certain areas in which parity has not yet been achieved, but in which higher contributions from the members and greater expenditure by the SATS will naturally be called for. However, this is being arranged in co-operation with the trade unions. After all, the trade unions are the organisations that represent the people. In co-operation with them we are systematically phasing out those things as well.

I repeat my invitation to that hon member. We need not say unpleasant things to one another. He may feel free to come and discuss this sort of thing in my office.

The hon member for Vredendal referred to a number of items in the brown book. He referred to item no 11 and asked me to give him the target dates. Item no 11 has to do with the quadrupling of the Maitland Hazendal Line and the target date in that regard is April 1992.

Order! Will the hon the Minister kindly speak into the microphone for the benefit of Hansard? A request has been made in this regard.

Sorry, Sir.

The target date in respect of item no 12—the quadrupling of the Nyanga-Bonteheuwel Line— is April 1990. Item no 29—the Bellville Automatic Sorting System—has already been put into commission and we are now putting some finishing touches to it. Item no 32—suburban facilities—has already been completed, and there is only some finishing work in progress. Item no 34—Noupoort’s water-borne sewerage—will be completed in 1989-90. In so far as item no 19— mechanical workshops at Uitenhage—is concerned, stage 1 has already been completed. A completion date for stage 2 has not yet been set. There is something of a delay at the moment.

I thank the hon member for having drawn the attention of this House to the question of housing, which has improved. I thank the hon member for his participation.

The hon member for Esselen Park asked me to conduct a thorough investigation into a certain bus service. If I heard him correctly, it was from Cape Town to Oudtshoorn. He asked for a thorough investigation into this and I shall issue an instruction for it to be carried out. I shall keep the hon member informed personally in that regard. The hon member made a plea with regard to something which is also important to me, namely the dignified treatment of people, or clients. We have now made a statutory company of the SATS and we have said that the reason for this is that we want to function as a business undertaking in competition with others in the private sector. The hon member referred to a certain bus service, which he mentioned as an example of one which treats people well. It is to the benefit of the South African economy and in the interests of rendering better services that we are converting the SATS into a service company which will compete with the private sector. Those matters to which hon members referred which are not yet up to standard, will then be rectified; alternatively the company will lose its business.

It is very important that we have deregulated the transport market. It is true that the SATS now employ fewer people but owing to the fact that the market has been deregulated, some 300 000 people in the taxi industry alone have, directly and indirectly, received extra work. In other words, we are on the right track and the dignified treatment of passengers to which the hon member referred, will also benefit from this.

As far as waiting rooms are concerned, the policy is that one may make use of the waiting-room facilities if one obtains admission by means of one’s ticket. Hon members will well understand that those waiting-room facilities would deteriorate to such an extent that they would be no good to anyone if no control were to be exercised over them. That control must be extended further and use more extensive must be made of it.

The hon member for Opkoms asked a question with regard to the electrification of the service between Springfontein and East London. This has already been completed and is in operation.

The SATS have no property in the BSL countries or Mozambique. There is, in fact, a fruit store in Maputo, but it was built there by the citrus industry itself. Railway trucks are still being rented in these countries at a reasonable rental. It is actually a considerable business for us.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, we have already handed over all property in South West Africa, as well as certain rolling stock, to the South West African administration.

As far as the Highlands Project is concerned, we are attempting to involve our rail facilities in this as far as possible so that the transportation may take place on a commercial basis.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the incident in Bloemfontein, I wish to know whether the SATS is prepared to sell me a locomotive at R11 000?

Mr Chairman, the hon member is referring to a transaction of R11 000 of which I am not aware. However, if the hon member will provide me with the details in this regard, I shall certainly furnish him with a reply.

The hon member raised a few interesting matters in the Joint Meeting, and I want to refer to them. He asked what advantages these new commuter trains offered. These train sets are manufactured from stainless steel and have certain safety advantages. In other words, if an accident were to take place, the passengers would be better protected. Fire-absorbing material has also been used in the interior for the safety of the passengers.

The hon member also asked how many Coloureds had already been trained as stokers and whether they were of a satisfactory standard. There are already 41 Coloured stokers in the employ of the SATS and I can assure the hon member that their work is of a good standard. We are satisfied with their work.

In my view the hon member for Bishop Lavis raised a point of procedure here in saying that one ought to reject the appropriation and hold an election if there was so much dissatisfaction. The election is probably not too far away. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I cannot say. I have no problems with that. Whenever it comes, I shall tackle it. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Genadendal referred to certain bus services which, according to him, had practically disappeared. I should like to have more details from him. He will understand that it is not possible for me to furnish information immediately with regard to specific smaller services, but he is welcome to give me more details. With regard to the houses at Rietpoel station. I just want to say that we shall investigate the matter and that I shall inform the hon member about it.

The hon member also referred to the bus service between Cape Town and Bredasdorp via Caledon and Napier. The service has not been discontinued. It still exists. However, it was partially curtailed with effect from 13 December 1987 in order to comply with traffic requirements. The hon member will understand that from time to time support for a service decreases to such an extent that it is not worth the trouble of rendering such an extensive service, and it is then necessary to rationalise it.

The hon member also questioned me about certain sporting facilities which fall under the divisional council of Bredasdorp and Swellendam. The SATS have negotiated with that divisional council and have made it known that we are prepared to make a contribution because there are approximately 40 employees of ours living in that particular place. The divisional council informed us in February that they did not have the funds to do the work there. Consequently, I suggest that the hon member take up the matter with the divisional council once again, because if the divisional council undertakes this and makes its contribution, the SATS will most definitely make a pro rata contribution because some of our employees are also affected. I think the hon member should take it further in this manner.

Mr Chairman, with reference to his statement that there is no discrimination on the trains, and particularly not on the main routes, may I ask the hon the Minister how it is that I always end up on a train on which all the passengers in the coaches in front of the dining-car are always Whites and everyone in the coaches behind it are always Coloured people? I frequently travel from Cape Town to Beaufort West and back. How do the railways of the hon the Minister succeed in always booking the Coloured people into coaches behind the dining-car? Do I have a particular number, or how does it work? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has asked his question. He must not discuss it now.

Mr Chairman, I determine policy and my instructions are that no discrimination must take place, but that people must travel where they wish. However, people have their own preferences and one cannot deny that. People want to travel with other people or with their own people. One may not place any restrictions on those preferences.

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

No, Sir, I have just said what the policy is.

Debate concluded.

Schedules agreed to.

Second Reading debate

Mr Chairman, allow me a moment to congratulate our two colleagues, the hon members for Toekomsrus and Mamre, on their appointment as Deputy Ministers. I want to wish them every success in their new duties. We hope that they will fulfil these duties with love, humility and dignity.

We have reached the end of a very interesting debate. This debate reached climaxes and there were also occasional emotional moments. I want to assure the hon the Minister that the criticism of the House is of a constructive nature to keep him and his department on their toes at all times for the sake of taxpayers and SATS clients.

We are not here to score points off one another or to try to make a name for ourselves. I think that the hon the Minister should accept the criticism of his party which was expressed by the hon member for Klipspruit West and not try to intimidate him by announcing all kinds of things to his voters.

SATS is the aorta, in other words the main artery, of the South African economy. If SATS is managed badly, the country will be hampered economically at all levels. Many of the inhabitants of our country, like farmers and the business community—especially in outlying areas of South Africa, depend on this organisation. That is why I want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to discontinue the transport services which were furnished by SATS over the years and on which these people are completely dependent but to continue them.

Arising from the incident which was raised in Parliament, and as the air has not been completely cleared, I want to ask whether the hon the Minister can tell South Africa who the person is who entered the country illegally by air. Was it established how he set foot here as safety measures are being applied more strictly? Does he belong to any radical organisation and has he been arrested or is the investigation still in progress? I am obviously referring to the so-called Derby-Lewis debacle.

We know that every amendment possible has been introduced in the legislation to clamp down on discrimination in SATS. We of the LP appreciate this. The various divisional offices and White senior personnel are not carrying out instructions properly and as desired, however. To be honest and sincere at ministerial level is not good enough. Officials are muddying the water which the hon the Minister is attempting to purify.

I want to give a few examples of this briefly. On 1 December 1975 the post grade of ticket collector on trains became operative. After a three-week course in Johannesburg, the so-called Coloured ticket corps assumed this responsibility. They have carried out their task excellently up to the present. Recognition or parity of salaries has not been achieved yet, however. This has been conveyed to me by hundreds of Coloured workers. According to my information there is no new grade designation. The uniform is still brown too and nobody knows under what grading he falls.

The grade of ticket collector on trains lapsed in May 1987. From information I have received approximately 100 men who have been carrying out this work for the past 12 years have now been declared unfit by means of a classification test. The object of this test is to take the person into consideration for promotion. According to my sources a ticket examiner, collector or controller does precisely the same work whereas the wage gap between White and non-White amounts to almost R700. How can one explain this in the name of parity? Hon members know that, if a White and a person of colour commit offences, the same fine is imposed upon them but, when it comes to remuneration, the one receives a heavier pay packet than the other.

A further problem is that people are trained for a job, pass the exam and then have to do a different type of work. The same rule applies to these people. I received a deputation in my office this morning and I have two thick memorandums on the subject which I shall submit to the hon the Minister. The hon member for Klipspruit West is right in speaking of policy which is not carried out. I cannot understand why the Official Opposition wants to whitewash NP policy. These workers feel that they are not given a fair chance and cannot receive all the benefits. An example of this is medical aid schemes, especially as regards doctors and hospitalisation. Limits are placed on these people and they feel that they are stepchildren as regards medical services.

A further problem is that a personnel of approximately 120 have to share a dining room on the Cape Town station which is actually intended for 30 people.

I have two memorandums which, as I have already said, I want to submit to the hon the Minister. I also want to take this opportunity to say that the hon the Minister has furnished reasonably good replies recently. There are a few questions, however, which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. I hope that the hon the Minister will really reply to them in writing as he promised.

As SATS is in a transitional phase now in striving for greater market-related profitability, I request that very careful and diplomatic action be taken because there are many stumbling blocks on the road ahead. These stumbling blocks demand organisational abilities of the general management, personnel and other parties involved.

In conclusion I want to thank the general management and senior personnel for their good and faithful service, for their door which is always open to us and for their willingness to listen to our problems. I want to wish SATS personnel and their families everything of the best and God’s richest blessings in the years ahead because without them this powerful organisation cannot survive.

Mr Chairman, this is probably the last occasion on which we shall be able to discuss the SATS’ budget. I am not shy of expressing my thanks, and I want to point out that the SATS were of great assistance to me in both my written and verbal negotiations with them.

One aspect which I shall not forget is the aspect of salary adjustments. Certain workers at the airports received repayments of up to RIO 000 because they had been paid too little. This is not something that one noises abroad, however; it is a matter that one discusses in the office of the Minister concerned.

I hope and trust that in the new year that lies ahead for the SATS, we shall receive the same service as previously. I hope that now that the SATS is a company, they will not tell us they are going to act strictly according to company rules, but that the spirit of co-operation we have experienced during the past few months will continue.

There are two or three more aspects which I should like to draw to the hon the Minister’s attention. We have asked the hon the Minister in the past why the same work is given different names when the people who do that work do not belong to the same race.

†If a person is a shunter, why should he be a marshall if he is of a different colour? A ticketexaminer is a ticket-examiner; an inspector is an inspector, regardless of colour. Why are there different names for the same jobs?

I think that as the hon the Minister stated earlier that he was trying to eliminate discrimination, it should be eliminated throughout, irrespective of the job a person is doing and that the job should carry the same name.

*The other point that was raised—I must support the hon member for Wuppertal—is the fact that when it comes to punitive measures, I think that some people are punished to such an extent that they have nothing left afterwards. Some of them have lost their homes. The fact is that they have been demoted by that one degree to being labourers. Consequently many of them have had to sell their homes simply because they have been punished. Their whole salary package has changed. I think it is time the hon the Minister investigated this matter and definitely considered that punitive measure.

I want to refer to another point made by the hon member of the governing party, the hon member for Wuppertal. He said he did not know why this Official Opposition …

The majority party!

The majority party—I thank the hon member for Toekomsrus. He said he did not know why this Official Opposition was condoning the policy of the NP. None of us rose here and condoned the NP, and we can count the thanks that came from that side of the House. One must bring that party back on course and tell them that they have an opportunity here. The time has come for us to cease the hypocrisy. We shout and fight against apartheid on the one hand, but on the other we simply carry on.

Over the months and years we have begun to pick up the perks. I want to congratulate the hon member for Toekomsrus. He has just been appointed as a Deputy Minister—still in the extension of apartheid. One cannot get away from that. He is a Deputy Minister in the House of Representatives.

The hypocrisy must come to an end now. We must not permit people to say one thing on the platform and then something else when we come here.

Order! According to our book, the word “hypocrisy” is not permitted. The hon member must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw the word.

He does not understand what he said. [Interjections.]

Sir, may I tackle the hon the Minister as well? I am sorry that I did not ask the hon the Minister during a previous debate to ensure—I may be out of order, but I do not think so, because this is part of it—that the upgrading of our stations is not neglected. We have already received letters saying that a certain station was going to be upgraded. The letters are there, but the work has not yet been done.

There are bridges and subways that still need a lot of attention. The lighting in the subways has to be seen to constantly, because it is during peak hour that people are robbed and all kinds of assaults and so on take place, in the subways in particular.

Mr Chairman, my party was just now accused of practising double standards and getting perks. I ask the hon member why he is back as Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. He is back because of perks and nothing else. Listening to the hon member’s first speech to the hon the Minister a few minutes ago, one got the impression that he was preaching NP politics in this House. He is implying that this House must reject the Bill while the other two Houses must not reject the Bill. They must go ahead with it to the elections for 1992. That is his strategy. Indirectly, that is what he was saying. I cannot help it if the hon member took away all my excitement. Please make him sit down. He was saying that we should have an election in 1992 for the Houses of Assembly and Delegates and that we go for election now. He is only preaching what the NP wants.

That is all that he was doing. I think that said more than enough. On Friday, during the proceedings of the Extended Public Committee, opposition parties attacked the hon the Minister. They crucified the hon the Minister and asked him to resign, Sir. They asked him to resign. [Interjections.] However, in a cool and calm voice the hon the Minister replied: “My party will tell me when I must resign.” Because I came here today as a person of colour, the hon the Minister threatens that he will no longer reply to my speeches.

*Once again this shows the hon the Minister’s mentality of domination.

†There is no way one can get away from it. The hon the Minister threatens me that he will go to my constituency and tell the voters. Did he say that to the CP? Did he say that to the PFP? No, he would not say it to them, because they are White. It is again my colour that is being questioned.

*As a result of my colour the following is said: “Because you are non-White I am going to treat you in this way”. That is not acceptable.

†The hon the Minister may say that we must not fight about our differences; we must talk about it, but we have been talking about it for four years.

*My throat is dry from talking. We cannot merely talk and talk about something. At some stage or another we shall have to do something about it.

†The hon the Minister referred to the right of admission. That is what he told us here. He referred to the right of admission for the White section on that train. The signboard is gone, but there is a right of admission. The hon the Minister says he must protect other people’s rights. That is not an argument he can use here, Sir. That is no argument. If I had not booked for that train on Friday morning, I would not have been able to make that journey. They told me: “Your section is booked up.” [Interjections.] There is no justification for having two first classes and two second classes. There is no way one can do it. There is no way the hon the Minister can come and protect himself here and say that he made an announcement that apartheid must go.

*The hon the Minister can take the signboards away, but apartheid is alive, very much alive, in the SATS. [Interjections.]

†If the hon the Minister were to put himself in our shoes for 10 minutes, he would see what hell we had gone through in our lives due to discrimination. The hon the Minister said I would have to withdraw a lot of words. I will not have to withdraw too many words; I have used one word continuously. However, if the hon the Minister had undergone the same discriminatory laws we underwent, he would see why we have to react in such a way, why we have to shout about certain things and why we even at times have to use harsh language to convey the message to the hon the Minister. I am glad he listened to it. I am glad he did. Now he can realise how we feel and how we are humiliated in that we have been pushed out of a White section because right of admission is reserved. [Interjections.] That is not the way apartheid should be destroyed in the SATS. If I book first class, I must get first class.

*If I have to share a compartment with a White person, that is how it must be. [Interjections.] If I must be with a Black person or an Indian, that is how it must be. That is the only way in which we are going to understand one another’s problems in this country. We must start talking to one another about solutions for the country.

†If we do not do that—if we are still protecting the colour of our skins—we have had it. Then South Africa is doomed to failure. The hon the Minister must just satisfy himself that if one wants to book first class it should be first class. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have reached the end of the debate on the appropriation legislation, which will probably be the end of this kind of debate. We will talk about transport again, but then it will be on a transport vote and not on legislation.

I want to tell the hon member for Klipspruit West that I preferred the way in which he has just spoken to me, because he argued with me. [Interejctions.] Yes, he argued with me.

The hon member must admit that as far as discrimination is concerned he is forcing an open door. I announced in the Main Chamber what we had achieved in this two year period. Through co-operation we achieved a great deal. I want to tell the hon member again that this is certainly not a threat. I did not say I would do so either, but I want to reiterate that if the hon member had spoken to me a while ago the way he has just spoken to me we would have understood one another.

I do want to tell him that he will remember that I finished off the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis over there. Apart from attacking him I said that I would not react further. I also said that to him. It is a fact that in this position we must protect everyone’s human dignity to the best of our ability, and I am committed to that.

I should like to add my congratulations to those of the hon member for Wuppertal, who congratulated the hon member for Mamre and the hon the Leader of the House. I have already done so in my personal capacity and I should like to do so again in this debate. I wish them everything of the best in the very important work entrusted to them.

The hon member asked me to continue with services. Yes, we shall do so as far as is humanly possible. The hon member said that this was now an open market undertaking and we were now involved in the competitive market. The hon member again spoke about services for which one had to be compensated; it must be profitable otherwise one cannot continue with it. I also instructed management not to discontinue services without talking to the representatives of the people—these hon members and us—so that we can know about each other before the time. They will continue to do so.

The hon member asked me whether I would give particulars of the incident at Jan Smuts Airport when the Black man almost ended up under an aircraft. I just happen to have the particulars here and I should like to give them to hon members for their information.

This incident took place on 14 January 1989. This person lives in Birchleigh, Kempton Park, and works for Heunis Contractors. He climbed through the fence at Jan Smuts Airport from the Kempton Park side. He explained that he was on his way to Bonaero Park when he found himself in front of the aircraft. The gentlemen explained that he had had quite a bit to drink the previous evening and was still not completed sober the next morning. He also explained that he had had no other motive except to take a short cut. The said gentlemen appeared in the Kempton Park magistrates court on 16 January 1989 after which the case was postponed to 30 January, and then to 28 February.

I also thank the hon member for the positive words he addressed to management. I am convinced that they are doing their very best and will continue to do so in future.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis asked us not to neglect repair work. He spoke specifically about overhead bridges and subways. I thank him for again bringing this matter to our attention. These are the matters we must look at all the time. We are a business organisation. We want these services to remain of a high standard.

The hon member also referred to the different grades. I listened, and other hon members, such as the hon member for Wuppertal, also referred to this. There may be a misunderstanding in this regard. I should like to react to this after hon members have given me full particulars regarding the actual problems in this regard. Perhaps it is an administrative problem which we must iron out together and perhaps certain things are being read into this which do not appear there or should not appear there.

In conclusion I merely want to say thank you. We have reached the end of a phase which has lasted for many years. Many Afrikaners, Coloureds and many poor people got somewhere in life through the SATS. We are therefore entering a new era and this undertaking of ours is well equipped to do so. There is a well developed infrastructure and in 1989-90 approximately 588 million passengers will be transported. A total of 176 million tons of goods will be transported by rail and 98 million harbour tons will be discharged and shipped. In addition 5,5 million passengers will be transported by air. That is what we expect this year.

Along with the employees’ dependants and the pensioners of the SATS there are approximately a million people dependent on the SATS for their livelihood. This constitutes approximately 3% of the total population which is dependent on a single organisation. If one takes this into account, as well as the fact that the people of the SATS live on the salaries they earn, we are also spending R2 900 million on local commodities, steel, food, beverages, fuel and electricity. If one adds together this revenue and the amount we pump into the economy, the hon members can see that in actual fact the SATS serves the South African economy extremely well.

The SATS has served this country well for three quarters of a century or more. With the new dispensation and free competition lying ahead of us I think that the SATS will serve the country even better than it has up to now.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I request that the House adjourn for a short while until the hon member for Cavendish is present.

Order! For the sake of good order I request the Whips to see to it that hon members who have given notice of motion and are supposed to be here, are in the Chamber. We shall have to suspend business until 16h00.

Business suspended at 15h50 and resumed at 15h58.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, permit me at the outset to welcome the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development to this Chamber this afternoon when we debate this important issue of the rising costs of medical services. His department is a very important department because it deals, as it were, with the health of every person in the country.

Modern civilization with all its conquests of nature has miserably failed to confer permanent and lasting health on civilized man. On the contrary, the incidence of disease is appallingly great. In the past two years there has been a tremendous clamour of sectional interest in the field of health services in South Africa. It would therefore be very welcome to me, and I am quite certain hon members in all the Houses of our Parliament will agree, if consideration were now to be given, not to this or that sectional interest, but to the people of South Africa as a whole.

Most South Africans have come to the conclusion that money ought not to be permitted to stand in the way of obtaining an efficient health service. It is true that medical aid schemes provide a general practitioner service and cater for something like 72% of Whites and 8% of Blacks in White-designated South Africa, according to 1985 statistics. The rest of the population have to pay whenever they desire the services of a doctor.

It is cardinal to proper health organisation that a person ought not to be financially deterred from seeking medical assistance at the earliest possible stage. Hon members know from experience that very many people have suffered unnecessarily because the family has not had the financial resources to call in skilled people. These specialist services, therefore, will not only be available at the hospitals, but will be there to back up the general practitioner should he need them.

The practical difficulties of implementing all these principles and services are very great. When we approach this problem we must make up our minds that we are not going to permit any sectional or vested interests to stand in the way of providing this very valuable service for the people of South Africa. I have no doubt whatsoever that the hon the Minister will agree in this respect. It is disgusting that only wealthy people can afford to be sick and can afford much-needed operations. The result would be more disease and deaths among those in the community who are unable to seek timely medical assistance as they cannot afford it.

People who are financially well-off can afford it. Those on the lowest financial rung could turn to the State hospitals. What about the middle class, however, with an average income? They are faced with a serious problem. The price of medicine is high, and people who have to take lifesaving medicine regularly, would experience difficulty in buying these medicines. Consequently the medical aid member’s share of the payment increases.

Nowadays one frequently hears as a topic of conversations that the price of medicine is astronomical or that the price of medicine is ridiculous and that one cannot afford it. I will now endeavour to deal with some of the reasons for the spiralling costs of medical services.

One of the reasons is the high cost of the medical scheme itself. The population of South Africa is 30 million, and it has some 240 medical aid schemes. America, on the other hand, with a population ten times that of South Africa, has— if my figures are correct—four medical aid schemes. Every medical scheme incurs administrative and management costs. Naturally the administrative costs are taken into account in calculating contributions of members. If there were fewer medical aid schemes there would be fewer administrative officers and this would cut down considerably on the stupendous salary bill. Then the schemes would not have to charge members such high contributions.

It is also as a result of the high cost of medicine that medical aid schemes have limited allowances for members. If it were otherwise, they could allow members to obtain medicine up to a maximum of R2 000 instead of R1 000 per annum.

The chairman of the Representative Association of Medical Schemes, Mr Jan Fernhout, said in March 1988 that there was deep concern about the rising cost of the schemes. The Institute of Race Relations Survey of 1987-88, states the following on p 793:

According to the agreement between the Medical Association of South Africa and the Representative Association of Medical Schemes, doctors’ guaranteed minimum benefits would be no less than 70%, while 30% of the fees would be paid by members. In reaction to this a Cape doctor has warned that the average family could end up paying an additional R50 to R100 per month in medical bills if the new agreement between doctors and medical aid administrators is implemented.

A national consumer body, the Housewives League, has reacted with shock. “The cost of medical treatment is reaching crisis proportions”, Mrs Joy Hurwitz, Vice-chairwoman of the Housewives League, said in a report in the 23 November 1988 edition of the Cape Times.

The National Medical Plan has negotiated a 10% discount from pharmacies for its members. One of the most important principles on which medical schemes are based is the provision of medical services to members and their dependants at a reduced tariff, and on the other hand, compensation to the suppliers of services by means of guaranteed payments of their accounts.

It must be noted that the manufacturers put up their prices frequently. I am told that some medicines go up in price every week. This in turn results in price increases by the retailers. Therefore some of the blame has to be placed on the drug manufacturers. We concede that the manufacturers—the manufacturing firms—have to make a profit. However, it could so reduce its price to the wholesaler that in this way a reduction could be made all the way to the consumer. In other words, all levels, starting from the manufacturer, should work on a smaller percentage of profit. As it is, the consumer price is miles above that of the manufacturer.

Another reason for the high cost of medicine is the Government tender system. Take for example the drug Allopurmol. In 1987 the Government paid R3,35 for 30 tablets. Pharmacists had to pay R20,00 for the same quantity of Allopurmol. This tremendous difference in price confirms that there is something wrong somewhere along the line. If the pharmacy group tenders for the same quantity of drugs as the State, the price should be the same. But that is not so. It was provenbyanexercisecarriedoutby the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association of South Africa concludes that the South African market failed to significantly reduce the health bill. This situation is further complicated by the higher proportion of tender business vis-a-vis the private sector market. There is a vast difference between the manufacturer’s price and that which the patient pays in the market place. According to reports pharmacies were trying their best to reduce medicine prices which were incredibly expensive. However, they were unable to compete because manufacturers had three watertight selling areas, namely the State, dispensing doctors and private hospitals.

The question is: Who is responsible for the high price of medicine? The Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa accuses the Government of being responsible for the high price of medicine. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development rejected the allegation and in turn levelled the accusation at the society that it wanted “protected free enterprise”. The hon the Minister should recall that he challenged the society to tell the public why its members were objecting to a pharmacy in Pretoria that had dropped its prices by 25%. Another pharmacy in Durban had been able to offer 12% discount without affecting its profits.

The society’s point of view is that the high price paid by the consumer was a result of the present inequitable pricing structure. We should like to know the reasons for this anomaly. This is substantiated by the report that the Boland Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa, Mr Kevin, said that in certain instances private pharmacies paid ten times more than the State paid for the same product. If this is a fact, it is obvious that the consumer is being mercilessly exploited because the pharmacies still sell their medicine at a considerable marginal profit.

The Administrator of the Cape, Mr Gene Louw, said:

Mr Gene Louw gave an example of a product sold by a manufacturer for R8,25 which cost a private person R20,20, but which was sold to the State forR9,61.

There is no doubt that the escalating medical costs have become so radical that the public will not be able to afford them. The hon the Minister is no doubt aware that medical costs are already exorbitant and that a crisis situation is looming. It is therefore imperative that he take measures to get pharmacies to scale down the prices to the consumer, starting with the prices of the manufacturer. Dr Snyckers, President of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association of South Africa, conceded freely that the public sector’s lower prices were not entirely justified by the bulk in which it bought. The Browne Commission found that on average the price to the public sector was 45% of the normal price to ordinary members of the public.

Pharmaceutical product prices have gone up more than the inflation rate only in the past couple of years, largely because of the imported component and the fall of the rand. Another reason for the high cost of medicine is that most important ingredients are imported. I wish to suggest that investigations should be carried out into the possibility of producing the active ingredients—or at least some of them—locally, rather than importing them. The rand has dropped in value in relation to foreign currency and investments for local manufacture should be considered a long-term project.

Be that as it may, the house is on fire now, as it were. Our purpose will be to keep prices reasonable. The people who object most violently to the exorbitant prices of medical care are the mass of the working people.

We recently heard the shocking news that the State had increased its hospital tariffs tremendously. One wonders where all this is leading to when even the State, which is also a supplier of services, increases prices aS drastically as in this case. The display of such an attitude towards the lot of our aged and needy is indeed distressing. I urge that adjustments be made to their fees to lessen the blow. Pensioners who do not pay the compulsory sum of R2 in cash at the time of their visit will be charged R22,50 on account. [Interjections.] All patients who, irrespective of the category in which they fall, seek treatment after hours and over weekends will be charged R22,50. This fact is confirmed in a report of the Instituut vir Eietydse Geskiedenis at the University of the Orange Free State, dated 10 January 1988. The report reads as follows:

There is strong consensus that South Africa’s health services can be radically improved only by establishing a single national health structure. The present segregation of health services results in the wasteful duplication of resources, which this country can ill afford. In South Africa we have a fragmented system of health services with ten homeland health departments, three own affairs departments, one general affairs department, state, provincial and local authority services which are racially divided and separate public and private health sectors.

Another important factor is that in most Western countries the percentage of gross national product (GNP) allocated to health has progressively increased whereas in South Africa the increase has been negligible. It would appear that between 1976 and 1984 it ranged from 4,5% to 5,2% of the GNP, according to the publication Critical Health.

In 1983 the USA spent 11% of the GNP on health care compared to 5,3% in 1960. By the year 2000 it is expected that the percentage spent on health care will rise to 15% of the GNP. This aspect deserves serious consideration with a view to improving health care in the future.

While the profession backs privatisation, the public has grave misgivings about it. Their concern is understandable. Under the free-trade system pharmacies could charge whatever they liked. At present only the bread and fuel prices are fixed. I am not advocating the nationalisation of medical services. Of course, when nationalised there would not be the need for three different firms to produce the same tablet with the same ingredients but with different prices, as is the case with, for example, Bactrim, Septran and Purbac. What I suggest is a system of partnership between the State and the private sector.

The costs present a complicated problem. If the problem cannot easily be dealt with by the State, we must certainly not expect the private sector to do so. I think the doctors, the pharmacists, the department and the private sector, as well as the nurses and all those involved, should work together as a team in order to accomplish this. If a complete joint effort is not made now, we are simply not going to succeed in combating the high cost of medical services.

I am confident that the interest groups intimately involved in this matter will accord the hon the Minister the necessary cooperation. I do not think that anyone needs to suffer any serious harm in this process. If they cooperate and matters are planned and implemented in a judicious way it is possible to acquire medicine at reasonable costs.

A solution will have to be found by considering all these factors. However, this does not relieve the doctor of his responsibility of, firstly, persuading the public to introduce a sense of responsibility in their lifestyles and promoting primary health care as far as possible; secondly not overprescribing costly medicines; thirdly, not overserving patients; and lastly, not requesting unnecessary expensive special investigations where the diagnosis may be apparent through good clinical evaluations or examinations.

We will be living in a fool’s paradise today unless we take stock of the phenomenal increase in medical costs and then make concerted efforts to arrest this rise in costs. A start must be made on an economic transformation of the South African health care system by the Government. This is imperative. The Government should take the lead in trying out a whole range of new ways to control health costs. I have already mentioned some ways in the course of my speech. Besides that there has to be a drastic revision of the Medical Aid Schemes Act. I wish to suggest a medical cost containment board to monitor health care costs and to figure out how to cut costs. Such a board, with independent health professionals, would serve as a watchdog and try to keep prices down. As already mentioned, there is a considerable body of informed opinion in South Africa which feels that the State could and should maintain medical services at reasonable cost. Hon members will agree that the Government must embark upon a realistic approach in regard to medical services. We believe it will lift the shadow from millions of homes as it will relieve suffering. It will be a great contribution towards the well-being of the common people of South Africa. For that reason and others I have mentioned, I hope hon members will give the motion the support it deserves. I also hope our genial hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare, with his calling uppermost in his mind, will give this matter the serious consideration it deserves.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I will support my colleague, the hon member for Cavendish, if all that he said happens to be the truth. I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question. With regard to the prices—as we have just heard, the Government gets medicines at very low prices because of the tender system— why cannot the pharmacist get medicine at the same price that the Government does? If one takes into account the prices that we pay the pharmacist for any medicine and the price he pays for it, as well as the different price the Government pays for it, a vast difference is apparent.

Talking of health services, I do not know what kind of health services are being given to people living in Crossroads and squatter camps in Lenasia. Those people have no homes. Some of the squatter camps have no health services whatsoever. There, of course—as anyone will tell you— diseases breed. In those circumstances, if a child gets sick the parents have to take the child to hospital, and to a doctor if it is not an emergency.

If it is in the evening or late at night, the price charged by a doctor goes up to R35 as far as I know. Clinics are definitely closed at night. If people get a prescription and go to an emergency chemist, they have to pay exorbitant prices. Why is it that we always look after the rich man, and nowadays even after the middleman, but not the very poor? It is those people we have to look after.

I telephoned a chemist and a doctor this morning and wanted to know certain things. Let us take the example of Feldene, the capsule I spoke of. The manufacturer’s price is R28 for 30, the wholesaler sells it at R60 and the chemist in turn sells it at R94 for 30. It is fantastic business! I bought the very same medicine overseas, the same name, quantity, etc. I bought it in Saudi Arabia, because of my illness. I did not have it and they gave it to me over the counter without a prescription, at 20 riyals, a riyal being equal to more or less 60 cents. Compare that with what we pay here: R94 for 30 capsules.

Against R13 overseas.

R12, or whatever it is. The exchange rate is 60 cents to a riyal, and it was 20 riyals.

I have more statistics here. Sixty 150g Zantac tablets retail at R210 across the country. The chemist makes 50% profit on this. I was told this by a chemist this morning. Then there is Misarol, which cannot even be obtained from a chemist. One has to get it somewhere else. Why is it that chemists pay a high price while the Government gets it at a very low price? The medicine I mentioned, Feldene, is bought at R62 by the chemist while the Government buys it at R20. Look at the difference in price. Of course, the consumer has to pay for the high prices and profits.

As I said, the poor people who live in the shanty towns, have no medical facilities or running water. I took our hon Minister of Local Government and Agriculture there by car, without a lot of fancy people around to show who he is. I took him right into the squatter camps.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare was there also.

I took him right into the squatter camps to prove how those people live. What happens to these people? When they want water, they have to go to the nearest township, and we know for a fact that certain people sell them the water. There are no toilets. Somehow or other sickness must breed in these places. What should these poor people do? Whose responsibility is it? I believe the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare should see to these things, establish clinics there and, of course, dispense medicine at a very cheap rate.

The Government does subsidise that tender business of theirs. Somewhere in this business the Government is subsidising somebody. I would like to know who it is and how much profit is going into whose pockets, because medicine is definitely being subsidised to a certain extent.

On the other hand, doctors get medicine that is manufactured at a very low price, but the chemists do not get it from the manufacturer at all. They have to get it through wholesalers. Yet one will find that because of some kind of agreement between doctors and chemists, most doctors will not give one medicine when one visits them. In the event of an emergency they might give one an injection or tablets but normally they give a prescription. Although those same doctors get the medicine at a very low price and can supply it when one visits them, they will not do it. There must be some kind of agreement between the chemists and the doctors.

We know for a fact that doctors do not sell any pharmaceutical products, cameras or films. Yet they have to make their money and they succeed in doing so. Do they get kickbacks from chemists? I am just asking the question, because it comes to mind that it is similar to the petrol stations where one sells petrol at a profit. The more one sells, the bigger the kickback one gets. Is the pharmaceutical business similar to the petrol business in that one gets a kickback if one sells more products of the suppliers? I am thinking out loud and I am sure the hon the Minister will be able to tell us something in regard to the medicine business.

I only found out this morning that a 20g tube of Zovirax cream, 25 Zovirax tablets and 10 Nizoril tablets cost R600 over the counter. Can hon members imagine that? If this is not a rip-off I do not know what a rip-off is. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the motion of the hon member for Cavendish has a lot of merit and therefore it has my wholehearted support. The high cost of medicine and the medical care in South Africa is reaching such a saturation point that the State must now play a very important role in bringing normality to this country.

Notwithstanding the normality in this country there are various other aspects that also have to be taken into account. The funds of the medical aid schemes are becoming depleted. The contributions of employees to medical aid funds are steadily increasing and as a result the State-controlled hospitals are bursting at the seams in their endeavour to treat the large number of patients. What is more, it is absolutely alarming to see how much the price of medicine has gone up in the last few years.

The cost to the private patient is astronomical. This cannot go on. The more the price of medicine goes up, the higher the medical aid fees are put up. Eventually nobody will be able to afford medical aid. Eventually they will all become a burden to the State and where does the State then go? As far as I can see, the State is already in limbo with regard to providing adequate medical services that are so necessary for the underprivileged in our country.

The situation is a consequence of the unstable economy of this country. This is largely due to sanctions imposed by overseas countries on the importation of medicine and medical equipment to South Africa. Trade sanctions are equally to blame for the high cost of medicine and medical equipment in South Africa. This is largely due to the South African Government’s policy internally.

It is because of the Government’s policy of separation, separate development and separate housing for the various race groups that this situation has arisen. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to take stock of the present situation and to remedy the anomaly that exists in our country. The Government must in the first place bring stability in the economy so that certain types of medicine and medical equipment are obtainable at a very reasonable cost. Also, the “randage” could improve if the economy of the country improves.

What does one do to improve the economy? Again, it is the policy of the Government that has to change. It is all very well for the Government to say that this is a heterogenous society and, as such, that different amenities have to be provided for different groups. Personally, I think we are all human beings. I do not think this is necessary.

We are humans and we should all be treated as such. One administration and one health administration would solve the high cost of medicine in this country.

Let me cite some of the ways in which the Government can take stock of the present situation and reduce the high cost of medicine. The hon member for Cavendish pointed out that a board should be constituted to control the cost of medicine. I will go a little further. Whilst I would recommend a committee to be set up to investigate and report on easing the cost of medicine, we should also use the services of the Consumer Council in South Africa. I think they could make a valuable input in bringing about normality in the price of medicine in South Africa.

On the other hand, the Government should consider removing the 12% GST on medical equipment and medicine.

Hear, hear!

That is a cardinal point.

No GST!

Well, if there is no GST, the population of South Africa will grow up to be healthy people. That is what we need. Why should there be import duty on medicine as well? The elimination of import duty on medicine will also ease the high cost of medicine and improve the health and welfare of the South African population.

Medicine is not a luxury item and no-one can avoid being ill. Medicine and medical treatment should be the State’s responsibility. The State should take stock of the situation in the country right now. There is a cry from all medical quarters and all people in South Africa that the costs are too prohibitive for one to go to a doctor when one is ill.

There should be no substitutes for medicine. I am told that expensive medicine is now being substituted by low cost medicine at provincial hospitals. This in turn … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot but agree with the hon member for Bayview when he says that GST and import duty should forthwith be removed from medicine.

The hon member went on to make the point that in some of our provincial hospitals substitutes are being used rather than, in his words, “the real thing”. I am not quite sure what the situation really is but I am aware that some of our hospitals—in fact some of our doctors—prescribe what is called “generic medicine”. That is, to put it very simply, a kind of pirate medicine which is produced on which there is no patent, or medicines on which patents have lapsed. The whole idea behind generic medicine as I understand it, is to reduce the cost. Therefore I would think that the use of generic medicine is a good thing.

Coming to the motion before the House, I think that it is a good motion. It is interesting from very many angles. It shows that the hon member for Cavendish is concerned about his people and about people who suffer because of the high cost of medical services which are available in this country. It is also interesting from the point of view that when one reads this motion, the hon member does not put forward a specific recommendation which this House could make to the hon the Minister to follow through.

It interested me that the hon member did not say anything specific about the cartels in the provision of medical services in this country, and indeed there are many such cartels; the cartels which provide the actual services in the sense of providing the clinics; the cartels which provide the medicines; the cartels which dispense those medicines to the public at large. I would have thought that he would have made that the thrust of his motion.

The time available to the PFP in this House is very short—we are few in number and everybody wants to play the game according to the rules—so I must get on with the contribution.

It has been apparent, as the hon member indicated, that all has not been well in a very vital strand of the country’s fabric for some time now—the provision of health services. It does disturb me that the Government’s policy appears to be complete privatisation of these services and a direct consequence has been that for the majority of South Africa’s population, sickness has literally become a luxury they simply cannot afford.

Nobody in this House can deny that medicines and drugs are costing more and more. The hon member for Lenasia Central has said that. Nobody can deny that doctors’ fees are soaring and that accounts from private hospitals sometimes read like telephone accounts. We cannot deny that medical aid societies are terminally ill.

Whilst the country’s medical system is collapsing, all the participants are blaming one another. The chemists are blaming doctors for prescribing medicines which are not needed, doctors are blaming patients for running to them too often for simple ailments and so forth.

What is the reaction of the Government to this? I am also surprised that neither the hon member for Cavendish nor the hon member for Bayview have alluded to this. As I understand the situation, the reaction of the Government has in fact been to call in a doctor, Dr Wim de Villiers—the former chairman of Gencor, I think it was—who has been called in to examine the health and hospital services in this country.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister, who is with us this afternoon, what has happened to that report. As I understand the position, Dr De Villiers was given his brief at some time in the latter part of 1987. It is now March 1989, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister what, in fact, has happened to the report. Will we be getting a report in that regard, and does he have any prior knowledge as to what the possible recommendations could be?

I want to say in regard to that investigation that perhaps one of the first things the hon gentleman should do is to examine the Government’s insistence that health is an own affair. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in supporting the motion moved by the hon member for Cavendish, I wish to compliment him on the in-depth study he has made for this presentation on a subject which is of great concern to all of us.

It is common knowledge that the cost of medical care has escalated sharply over the past few years. We have seen a rise in fees of private practices, a rise in medical aid charges and subscriptions as well as a rise in private hospital charges. It is obvious that the cost of medical care to the middle and lower-income patient is out of their reach. There is a call for an alternative, less costly form of delivery of health care, but also for a change in society’s attitude as to what constitutes good medical care.

As far as private hospitals are concerned my department registers 17 private hospitals with a total bed capacity of 934, while there are about five in the planning stage. Although my department inspects and regulates these institutions, their actual tariffs are subject to free market forces. I would, however, expect their fees to be reasonable and within reach of their clientele. My appeal is for these private hospitals to join the Association of Private Hospitals and apply for the uniform code of ethical practice.

The present State-private sector breakdown as far as the make-up of health services is concerned, is such that 50% of the population requires a full state subsidy and 18% are catered for by the private sector. Of this number, 70% of Whites, 26% of Coloured, 29% of Indians and only 4% of Blacks are members of medical aid societies. The entrepreneurs should have a role to play in encouraging and experimenting with alternative health-care delivery systems such as health maintenance organisations and other methods of combating medical costs as developed in the USA and other overseas countries.

The disproportionate allocation of hospital beds favours those that require them to a lesser extent. The average number of beds per 1 000 of the population in 1983-84 was 6,05 beds for Whites and 3,4 for Blacks. It is therefore essential to share available beds in all hospitals.

The Department of Health and Welfare of the House of Delegates has taken steps to co-ordinate the various authorities, such as the TPA, the NPA and the House of Representatives, to rationalise services and thereby reduce the overall health care cost. We are also providing curative health services in the sphere of primary care at the minimal charge of R2,00, as well as free treatment for those who qualify. Psychiatric services are free, as are dental services to school children. In addition, the emphasis is on an extensive preventative dentistry programme.

At the district surgeons in Chatsworth and Verulam a total of 33 000 patients per annum are treated free of charge. Under no circumstances will our department’s clinics turn away patients who cannot afford treatment. Privatisation, with its greater emphasis on individual responsibility for health care financing, does not mean that the State sheds its overall financial obligation for health care to those who need it—the indigent, the unemployed, the chronically ill, the terminally ill as well as the permanently disabled, the elderly and the victims of catastrophic events, epidemics and malnutrition or the victims of civic unrest and terrorism.

The intention of my department is to decrease hospitalisation and institutionalisation of patients, which is a tremendous drain on any healthcare delivery system. The present average cost is approximately R100 per patient per day.

Most of these conditions are preventable at the primary care level and therefore our policy, in keeping with the national health care facilities plan and the new dispensation, will concentrate on levels one, two and three—level one being provision of basic requirements like water, sanitation and housing; level two, health education; and level three, primary health care. My belief is that by concentrating on these levels many preventable conditions could be treated cost-effectively and this would ultimately cut down on hospitalisation with its consequent greater cost to the individual and the State.

It is an accepted fact that the disproportionate cost incurred in curative care as compared to preventative and promotive medicine only serves to aggravate the former. As an example, in the period 1971-1984 there was an increase of only 19% in the Budget of the Department of National Health and Population Development for preventative and promotive care, compared with a 50% increase in respect of provision for curative care in this period.

To reduce the cost of medical care in the long term, my Department has a ten-year plan for primary health care consisting of community health centres and peripheral clinics, for it is at this level that the need is greater and this is where cost-effective care can be delivered efficiently. It is therefore incumbent upon the State to realise that the general moratorium on the creation of posts is detrimental to the health of the nation and that it will ultimately have economic implications. Hence my appeal is that cognisance be taken of the most appropriate type of care relevant to the population group and that the moratorium on posts for implementation of levels one, two and three of the national health facilities plan be lifted.

Undoubtedly the cost of medication is a major factor contributing to the problem. The Cabinet has assigned Dr Wim de Villiers to investigate the high cost of medicine. His report is expected during the first half of the year. Notwithstanding this report immediate steps can be taken. The cost of prescriptions to date dispensed by private retail pharmacists averages R65 per prescription as compared to R15 when dispensed by State pharmacists. My Department has identified the fact that by having State pharmacists and not retail pharmacists dispense district surgeons’ prescriptions in Natal, a saving of approximately R1,4 million per annum can be effected. This saving takes into account the appointment of additional pharmacists. Therefore—here I refer to my previous appeal in connection with the moratorium—my Department will not be irresponsible by requesting the creation of a nonessential post, but will rather request the creation of posts that will improve health services cost-effectively at the primary health care level.

Mr Chairman, you will forgive me if I do not respond to the speech of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, because I gained the impression that he was delivering his health budget speech. It was a little bit outside the scope of this motion.

Medical treatment is not a privilege. It is a fundamental basic right and to alleviate the problems may I recommend that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development perhaps seriously consider embodying certain sections of the Freedom Charter, which would alleviate this problem, into the health plan. I specifically want to quote where it states:

If we embody the Freedom Charter in our whole Constitution, perhaps we will not have this problem of high costs of medical services and medicine. Illnesses do not come in racial doses. Illnesses affect everybody, whether one comes from the higher-income or the lower-income group.

However, we have the strange anomaly in this country where we have different health departments. This aggravates the costs of medicines and of various institutions.

The hon member for Cavendish who moved the draft resolution in this House also mentioned medical aid schemes. We have several fly-by-night medical aid schemes in South Africa. I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether an investigation into these schemes has been undertaken or whether an investigation is under way and what precautionary measures we are taking to avoid such schemes.

My colleague, the hon member for Lenasia East, referred to the squatter problem. The squatters in Lenasia and the Lenasia South East areas number in the region of 18 000. They had been given an effective service by the late Dr Asvat who was unfortunately murdered recently, as we all know.

The hon the Minister is also aware that with the recent publicity given to the Aids syndrome we are continuously using disposable syringes. The World Medical Organisation has reported recently that these syringes are polluting the various oceans, particularly in the USA. We also need to talk about the International Red Cross which is calling for the lowering of medical costs and medicines.

I would also like to talk to the hon the Minister about pathology—perhaps it is not the most opportune moment at present—and in particular about the biomicroscope slides which are used in the laboratories. They consist of certain cells which are taken from the internal sections of the human body. I would have liked to talk about the money that is spent on this in state-owned hospitals and hospitals that are governed by the provincial authorities. However, I realise that this is not the appropriate time for this topic. I may raise it in the discussion on the hon the Minister’s Vote.

A report in the Natal Post dated 14 March 1989 quotes the Health Workers’ Organisation as saying that health care is a necessity. It says that the new fee increases should be scrapped and that the fee structure should be revised in consultation with the people to meet the needs of the poorer communities. It goes on to say that the HWO demanded that:

I am pleased that the hon member for Bayview mentioned that the GST should be scrapped. We are also in a dilemma in that we expect the GST to be increased from 12% to 15%. If this should happen, it would further increase the cost of medicine.

Finally, in summing up, may I appeal to the hon the Minister not to allow any further cost increases on vitamins or revitalisation pills because certain hon members in this House definitely need them. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in the very short period of time allocated to me it is my intention to highlight several anomalous situations that prevail in respect of health services rendered to the millions of the inhabitants of this country.

First and foremost, to quote the previous speaker, the hon member for Lenasia Central, disease and sickness recognise no designation or dividing line between classes or races. A closer examination or analysis of medical services rendered will reveal that by far the majority of those patients are from the lower-income group and the poverty-stricken group.

The reasons for that are quite obvious. They are, for example, the lack of proper intake of food, the lack of properly hygienic conditions, squatter camp residence and so forth. These things aggravate the situation among the low-income groups. However, be that as it may, the most important functional principle of the Department of Health Service and Welfare is the restraint of endemic diseases and the adoption of preventative measures to impede outbreaks of epidemic diseases. What is the Department of Health Services and Welfare doing to restrain and to contain endemic diseases in particular? The Government, in its eagerness to privatize, is gradually sidestepping major issues that ought to be the responsibility of the Government. I challenge the Government to privatize the Police Force and take the bold step of privatizing the army—we will save billions of rand! The lion’s share of the country’s budget goes to the Defence Force. I dare the Government to privatize that! Certainly the health problems of the population of the country are of primary importance.

I do not want what I say to overlap with what was said by previous speakers, but I fully agree with the motion and subsequent speakers that the Government has great responsibilities in this regard. When the Pharmaceutical Society made representations to the Government to restrict urban medical practitioners from dispensing medicine, the Government readily acceded to that. This resulted in a closed-shop situation whereby pharmacists, according to evidence led before this House this afternoon, are actually bleeding people to death because they are protected by the laws of this country which prevent general practitioners from dispensing medicines to their patients, as they had done in the past— and very cheaply at that.

One argument the hon the Minister has put forward concerns a lack of funds for State control of State dispensation of medicines. Who is to blame for that? The people of South Africa did not ask for four departments of health in this country. Who doubled, triplicated and quadrupled the medical service departments in the country? It is unnecessary expenditure for one nation. We are one South African nation with four different departments of health. I can safely say that the savings effected by the scrapping of all the subsidiary departments based on ethnicity, will suffice at least to subsidise the Government dispensation of medicine. It will be enough to subsidise that even if we accept the argument that the production cost of medicines is too high. What other argument does he put forward? The unnecessary creation of different departments of health, based on ethnicity, is the main reason for people not being able to afford medical treatment.

The poor section, which cannot even afford its daily bread, does not possess any mysterious formula to create money. The community has no means of even raising loans. They are being penalised unreasonably. If this trend of passing the buck is allowed … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I suppose the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, being a medical man, could render free service to hon members of this House, except for the fact that he is a gynaecologist. However, perhaps some persons may qualify for assistance.

There was a medical doctor who, if somebody went to him with an ingrowing toe-nail, performed an appendectomy. If somebody went to him with a headache, he performed a tonsillectomy. Of course, some persons might have had a lobotomy performed by that particular person, but unfortunately they disguise that very nicely.

What are we talking about today? We are talking about the high cost of medical services, but nobody has given the hon the Minister anything to reply to. Nobody has said that the only way to reduce the high cost of medical services is to have a national health scheme, as they have in the United Kingdom and in Holland. That is the only answer—a proper national health scheme. A contributory or a non-contributory health scheme, as they have in civilised countries, is the only way. Until we have that, there will be this kind of difficulty.

I know that many medical practitioners use potent expensive medicines when there is no necessity for doing that. I know what I am talking about. I have been connected with a small hospital myself for a long time, far longer than some hon members have been alive. We know that good doctors will prescribe an aspirin or a Disprin for most illnesses. One doctor explained it to me thus. He said: “Nature is millions of years old. Nature is far wiser than all the medical doctors put together. All doctors should do is to help nature to effect the cure. Where too potent a medicine is used, it cuts across the capacity of the human body to deal with the situation.”

We must also realise that we are a small country with, until recently, a relatively small population taking drugs and medicines. As most hon members know, I recently spent nearly two months in India. Medicines cost about one-eighth of the price they cost in South Africa. However, because of the vast population, the end product could cost even less per unit. Because of our smaller population which makes use of the drugs, the unit cost is higher. The answer then is to increase the economic standard of the entire population so that the per capita income is increased and more people can use necessary medicines. The unit cost will then be cheaper.

We also have to bear in mind that many of these drug companies do spend tens of millions of dollars or tens of millions of pounds on research and they have to recoup the outlay. I can take the example of a drug called Rifampicine which is used in the treatment of tuberculosis, and which is terribly expensive. I happen to be connected with organisations involved in anti*TB work, and some of us wondered whether we could not bypass the situation and have those drugs produced at a lower price. But that turned out to be impossible, because if we did that, that company would make it impossible for us to import their drugs in future and that would have had a harmful effect on the total population of this country. So we have to bear that in mind as well.

What we in this country have to do is to see to it that there are more medical practitioners. We do not have an adequate number of doctors or adequate dispensaries. We should certainly not give in to the campaign by the pharmacists who want to curtail the dispensing of medicine by private practitioners. When private practitioners dispense medicines they do so on the most economical basis to the patient, whereas a pharmacist, for the act of removing a label … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be in this House this afternoon. I would like to compliment the hon member for Cavendish on his most erudite introduction to this private member’s motion.

Before I go on I would like to congratulate the hon member for Moorcross on being elected the leader of his party. I also wish to congratulate any other leaders that have been elected that I do not know of at the present moment. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon member for Springfield or the hon member for Reservoir Hills is the leader of the PFP in this House, but if any one of them is the leader, I congratulate him too.

We are just like PW and FW!

I want to come to the most important matter that the hon member for Cavendish put to this House today. I would like to thank him because in my opinion this is one of the most important issues that we can discuss at the present point in time.

As the hon member for Bayview said we first have to look at the total economical situation in South Africa. In relation to our GNP total we are twenty-first in the world, but when we analyse our GNP per capita, we are fiftieth in the world. It all boils down to money.

In the 1985-86 financial year we spent 4,8% of our GNP on health services in South Africa. That was only in the RSA, but if we include the TBVC countries and the self-governing states—that means the total South Africa—the percentage of our GNP that was spent on health services was 5,24%. The World Health Organisation recommends that countries should spend more than 5% by the year 2000. We have already spent 5,24% in the whole of Southern Africa.

It is perhaps more important to consider the fact that the public sector contributes 61,5% towards health services in South Africa, while the private sector contributes 38,5%. I want to say for the benefit of the hon member for Reservoir Hills that in England the private sector contributes only 8% towards health services. In the USA the figure is 56%. I now want to make it quite clear that Mrs Thatcher’s government has just started a tremendous investigation into their health services. They want to have more competition amongst hospitals and a greater private sector initiative.

Let us look at how the money is being spent and how the medical aid schemes are being used. In 1987 medical aid schemes paid out 16,3% to general practitioners, 17,7% to medical specialists, 11,7% to dentists and 21,2% for hospitalisation. I totally agree with the hon member’s recommendation that all private hospitals should enter one organisation so that they have one ethical committee looking after them. It is important to notice that medical aid schemes paid out 26,9% for pharmaceuticals. They paid out 6,2% for things like spectacles and orthopaedic appliances. There is therefore no doubt that the pharmaceuticals were the greatest part of the expense paid for by medical aid schemes. Hon members, especially the hon member for Cavendish, alluded to this.

Way back in 1985 I asked the South African Pharmaceutical Association to investigate the high cost of medicine. I received their report in November 1986. As a result of this report we asked Dr Wim de Villiers to investigate the whole situation, because they came up with very interesting figures. According to them the cost of medicine per item increased by 10,2% in 1982. In 1986 it increased by 30,16%. In 1982 the inflation rate was 13,8%, and in 1986 it was 18,7%.

They also came up with a number of issues which are of importance in the high cost in medicine. As far as customs and excise and import duty are concerned, the 10% surcharge is undoubtedly an important factor. However, an important aspect is transfer pricing. This is an area which Dr Wim de Villiers is investigating at present. It was mentioned by the hon member for Bayview and the hon member for Cavendish that there should be an investigation into this 10% surcharge.

Hon members spoke about the chain from the manufacturer to the retailer and the consumer. The hon member for Cavendish and the hon member for Lenasia East mentioned this. As a matter of fact, all hon members mentioned that. According to The Star of 5 December 1988 there is an average mark-up of 97% among chemists. This study was done by the International Marketing Survey. The fact of the matter is that in South Africa the National Drug Therapeutic Index, which is a private company, analysed the whole chain in the retail mark-up of ethical drugs over a 12 month period from June 1987 to June 1988. I will give hon members the figures in millions.

The total ethical market at manufacturers’ selling price, was R675,9 million. That was the manufacturers’ selling price. The wholesale selling price—which includes a 21% mark-up— amounted to R819,3 million. The chemists have a 50% mark-up and the amount was R409,6 million. Then there is a 10% mark-up on broken bulk—in other words, if a chemist opens the package and dispenses it—and this costs the South African consumer R98,3 million. The dispensing fee of the chemist costs the consumer R121.05 million. Photostating of copies costs the consumer R7,9 million.

In other words, the total mark-up by the chemists costs the consumer R636,9 million per year. The production cost of the same medicine was R675,9 million. Hon members will note that the mark-up of the chemists and the manufacturers is almost the same amount. It is important to mention GST. The hon member for Cavendish, the hon member for Lenasia East, the hon member for Lenasia Central, the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Bayview mentioned this. The GST on medicine was R174 million that year.

I made representations to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, on this. However, we would rather subsidise those individuals who cannot pay. I will come back to that, because I think that user subsidisation is much better in this respect. I must therefore warn hon members that I do think that we will have value added tax on medicine in future. Not surprisingly, the final price that the consumer had to pay was R1 631 million, after it started at R675.9 million.

There is no doubt that there is a tremendous mark-up by the retail chemist. The question put to me in letters is whether the retail chemist really wants to buy at a lower price, because his profit will be less. I can tell hon members that I have the highest regard for the community chemist and I would like to make it known in this House this afternoon that there are chemists in South Africa who are worried about the high cost of medicine. During March and towards the beginning of April a group of chemists all over South Africa will provide prescription drugs to the consumer at between 20% and 25% less than the price is at present. I am most grateful to be able to announce this because the group involved will announce it within the next couple of weeks. This is the kind of professional behaviour which I think will make us all proud, when chemists come and do this themselves.

My department has had numerous discussions with manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, and it has been agreed that one exit price based on quantity should apply for all the end suppliers, exactly as was advocated by the South African Pharmaceutical Association.

The question therefore arises as to why the Pharmaceutical Association went to all the trouble of placing advertisements when at that stage we had already negotiated a better deal for them. The good news is the fact that so many retail chemists in South Africa said: “So far and no further. We are not going to let our society dictate to us. We are going to take matters into our own hands and we are going to supply the consumer with medicines at between 20% and 25% less.* I think that is a tremendous advance and I would like to say that I am most grateful for that.

Many hon members said that health care is a necessity. As a matter of fact it is not a luxury to anyone—I agree entirely. In South Africa we also treat patients free of charge, for instance in the Transvaal when their income is below R2 500 per annum, or when anybody in South Africa on medical aid has found that they have so many expenses that they cannot afford it anymore. They can then be reclassified as hospital patients by any medical superintendent. For that reason nobody in South Africa should go without good medical care. My hon colleague expanded on that and I would like to thank him.

There are also certain diseases, of which he mentioned some, which are treated free of charge regardless of the income of the patient. They are cystic fibrosis, brittle bone disease and other infectious diseases for which the medicine is also free of charge.

Another important point which I would like to make and which I think is of great importance to what has been said here, is what the situation is as far as our medical aid schemes in South Africa are concerned. The hon member for Cavendish said that we have 240 medical aid schemes and that there are only four in the USA. I would, however, like to tell him that there were more than 800 medical aid schemes in America at the last count because every Blue Cross and every Blue Shield in any city is an independent organisation. So there are not only four.

We in South Africa also have a council established by Act of Parliament to look after medical aid schemes in South Africa. I am very worried about the fact that we have had one medical aid scheme in South Africa that went bankrupt. The registrar of that particular body has strict orders to examine all the audited figures of these medical aid societies with a view to avoiding any further bankruptcies.

I know of accusations that have been made over a long period to the effect that the Medical Schemes Act of 1967 is too rigid. One of the examples frequently mentioned is that the Act does not permit insurance companies to perform the functions of medical schemes.

During a discussion I held with all interested parties in April 1986, ample opportunity was created for proposals to be submitted on amendments to the legislation whereby inter alia further developments in the field of insurance for medical expenses could be addressed. What is interesting, however, is that little response has been elicited by this request. I reiterated that request earlier this year because we would like to expand the possibilities as far as medical insurance is concerned. However it should comply with the following requirements: There must be a prescribed minimum of benefits. It is not acceptable to insure for catastrophic medical eventualities only while other medical expenses perhaps devolve on the State. I do not think that is the right policy. Continuity of insurance must also be guaranteed. Insurance may not be suspended merely because the insured has a high claims profile. Insurance must be continued after retirement and should also apply to widowers and dependants of deceased members.

The interchangeability among insurance schemes must be continued and, finally, there may be room for insurance in respect of contingencies and for reinsurance, provided it is offered over and above the minimum benefits referred to above.

It is true that certain diseases occur more frequently among the poor but I would like to tell the hon member for Camperdown that as far as Natal is concerned we have at this stage almost eradicated cholera. We have eradicated diphtheria, smallpox and poliomyelitis in this country and we therefore have a proud record. As far as measles is concerned we still have to educate our public to come forward and be inoculated.

What I think is important for the hon member for Camperdown to understand is that rich people also get certain diseases, for instance coronary occlusions, diabetes and gout. I think that is what the hon member meant when he said that we should not make certain tablets too strong, and that certain rejuvenating tablets should be subsidized in Parliament. I think that that is what the hon member meant.

At this point, however, I should like to refer to another important aspect that was mentioned. I think it would be interesting for hon members to know that during the last ten years three medical aid schemes increased their rates to their members by 20,5%, 20,4% and 26% respectively. As hon members know, the average consumer price index rise during that period was 14,47%.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare mentioned the number of beds available—he was referring mainly to Natal—and he also mentioned the number of beds which he had instituted in private hospitals, something which I am most grateful for. The number of beds we have is of great importance.

In the five minutes remaining to me I should like to say to the hon member for Cavendish that I really enjoyed his speech introducing this debate. I wish to make it clear that the tender system is not the only, nor even an important, factor in the cost of medicine, because those that tender, tender at a profit. They make a profit out of the tender. The issue is the volume. We told the pharmaceutical society also to buy in large quantities and we are going to see that happening.

I believe I have covered the other aspects. I agree wholeheartedly with primary health care. I agree that there should be no costly medicine, that there should be no over-servicing and that unnecessary special investigations should be done away with.

The hon member for Lenasia East referred to the tender system in squatter camps. We are using community health nurses, but it is true that we need fresh water and sanitation.

I have given hon members some of the reasons for the high price of Feldene. There is no possible kick-back for a doctor sending patients to the chemist, because it is completely unethical and he would be brought before the South African Medical and Dental Council for unethical behaviour. No doctor can do that.

It is true that our State-controlled hospitals are bursting at the seams, but as hon members know, we are going to build a new teaching hospital in Durban, which will, I believe, alleviate the situation to a large degree. This is my answer to the hon member for Bayview. Other hon members I have already mentioned.

I want to remind the hon member for Springfield that generic substitutes are less expensive, but we should rather think about therapeutic equivalent substitutes. In other words, the generic equivalent should also be a therapeutic equivalent. That is the important thing. The Medicine Control Council will bring out a list of therapeutic equivalent medicines.

I have already thanked the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for his wonderful contribution and also for the fact that he told us that in Natal R1,4 million was saved by using district surgeons for prescriptions.

Regarding the hon member for Lenasia Central, I doubt whether the exchequer will have the money to institute a national health scheme. As a matter of fact, I am very sorry to say that I do not think they will have the economic capability. We have frequent discussions with the International Red Cross and I am looking forward to the points that he is going to make as far as pathologists are concerned.

Regarding the hon member for Camperdown, I believe we have to say that privatisation is not the panacea for health. We will never achieve 100% privatisation in South Africa, not in my lifetime, not in the lifetime of hon members, and I am sure, not in the lifetime of my grandchildren, if I should have any.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to me as a gynaecologist and obstetrician. I would like to tell the hon member that if it were not for an obstetrician, he would not have been born. I think that is a good note on which to end and I thank all hon members for their contributions.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank all hon members for participating in this extremely important debate. They will all agree with me that some interesting thoughts have emerged on the subject and I am sure there has been some food for thought for all of us. I am encouraged by the fact that there is unanimity regarding the fact that the price of medicine is high. I am also encouraged that all participating hon members felt that positive measures should be considered to keep the price of medicine down.

It has been heartening to hear that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development indicated that pharmacists will effect a reduction of some 20% to 25% in the price of medicine—I suppose that is prescribed medicine—very soon. While this is welcomed by all of us, I want to make an appeal on behalf of the people of this country that it should not stop at that. From my many discussions with the people involved in the medical field I feel there is room now for the many changes that are taking place in this fast-developing country. I feel there is a definite need for an overhaul of our health services system.

I am not suggesting the nationalisation of the health services. I know for instance that in Great Britain— the champion of the nationalisation of health services—the general service is not at all satisfactory, except for the private hospitals and certain other top hospitals where the service is highly efficient. I think this will serve as a deterrent to many other countries. There are many other setbacks as well where nationalisation is concerned. The hon the Minister referred to these.

With regard to medical aid schemes I still feel that this matter can be looked into and that certain positive and desirable adjustments can be made. Whilst rendering a service their costs must not become counterproductive to this service. Hon members and the hon the Minister know that many doctors are already contracted out of these schemes. This tendency will increase in the future and I think that the medical aid schemes must take note of this.

The question of privatisation was raised. I feel that in this developing country, whilst the professionals may want to advocate it enthusiastically, the State must look … [Time expired.] Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.